plainbibletruth:
Mohamed’s Capture of Mecca

Mohamed took over Mecca by USE OF force. He was NOT invited by its inhabitants to come and rule over them; neither was he elected through any PEACEFUL means to become their leader. THIS IS THE FACT OF HISTORY.

when your Christian terrorist leaders enslaved Africa and Asia, were they invited or elected or selected to colonize Africa?. You are becoming ridiculous every second.

Anyways, muhammad (saw) was the messanger SENT BY GOD to restore monotheism brought by Abraham to Mecca. So therefore, monotheism MUST be enforced in Mecca.



[

b]This is how it came about[/b]: As a result of his numerous raids Mohamed took over the properties of those he raided. These raids eventually made him very wealthy. As a result, he was able to amass a large number of followers and weaponry. He therefore felt no reservations in subduing whoever he wanted to either by force of arms or DECEPTIVE DIPLOMACY.

rubbish from your desire. All because you could not defend your bible

Having attained the level of strength he felt he was comfortable with, he turned his attention on Mecca, a city he ignominiously escaped from several years back. [I have noted previously that Medina which was originally called Yathrib accommodated Mohamed when he left Mecca disgracefully but he ended up taking it over].

See as you dey talk as if you care about those people. You are simply jealous. Go to Medina and take it back. You will die trying

A treaty for peace had been made between the Meccans and Mohamed. It was to be a ten-year truce. However, before the expiration of this treaty Mohamed, looking for an opportunity to take over Mecca, came up with a spurious charge that the Meccans violated the terms of the treaty. Consequently, he claimed he now had the right to retaliate and capture Mecca.

see this one trying to re-write history. You will be exhausted while trying this

Having what some record say were up to ten thousand (10,000) men at his command, Mohamed marched on Mecca. When told about the massive size of Mohamed’s army [Yes! Mohamed maintained an ARMY] at their doorstep and with the capacity of that number of men to take over the city and annihilate its population if they were to go into physical combat, the Meccans felt the better option was to capitulate.

seems like you have been reading too much of evangelical liar, David Wood lately. You think you can convince me or what exactly?. Listen, there is no Religion acceptable in the sight of God EXCEPT ISLAM. You are making up this stories in your head because this is your last grip. You are grasping on straws.

After taking over Mecca however, Mohamed committed a series of crimes including killing within the precinct of the Kaaba, in direct violation of what the koran said in chapter 2:125. At one instance Mohamed chided his followers for not cutting off a man’s head but they claim they were waiting for an order from him; he expected them to know his positions on things by now and didn’t have to give a direct order verbally or by a sign.

As if you believe in that verse of Qur'an. I know you are desperate now. You don't want to give up in shame



[

b]In spite of the surrender, Mohamed killed a number of Meccans who had reverted to their former religion from Islam[/b].

I am sure you don't even agree with their former religion they went back to either. You are saying all these because of your irrational hatred for our Prophet. It is too late for that. But don't let it be too late for you before you accept muhammad as your messanger.

Abu Sofian escaped death only because he was smart enough to embrace Islam and Mohamed. That was why Mohamed let him off the hook. It was not because of any magnanimity or “exemplary behaviour” on the part of Mohamed. He served Mohamed’s purpose when he made this move.

smh. Abu sufyan was still non muslim when Muhammad arrived in Mecca with full force. He embraced Islam after seeing brilliant character of the prophet for not destroying him and his family despite atrocities he had committed against Muhammad and Muslims.

What Empi.ree failed to say was that this same Abu Sofian had previously approached Mohamed when Mohamed was still in Medina to explain things and sort out the matter BUT MOHAMED SNUBBED HIM – so much for an “exemplary behaviour”! Maybe Emp.iree should tell us how Abu Sofian became a Moslem.

good. Muhammad (p) snubbed him because Abu sufyan's homeboys violated treaty by killing Muslims. I don't think you would want to talk to someone who hurt your feelings either. Do you?.



[

b]A man with an army is out for WAR![/b] This should be clear even for a kid. But, maybe Moslem apologists like Empiree will now tell us that Mohamed NEVER had an army; that what he had was a band of “peaceful worshippers”. He may even go on to tell us that they were just a handful when they arrived Mecca but the people “willingly” gave over their city to them.

we never told you he didn't have army. This is true. And in fact, it fulfilled your bible because that showed that he was Prophet like Moses. Moses had army too



[

b]The conquest of Mecca was peaceful only to the extent that the people felt overwhelmed and took a decision they thought was best for the preservation of their city and people[/b].

you struggling to hold on to your last strongholds. You failed man.

Mohamed had in fact given orders for the Moslems to march on Mecca. Can Emp.iree tell us what a military order to march on a location means? Is it to go on a “friendly” visit? The only credit Empi.ree gets for this is that he agreed it was a “conquest” and not an acceptance of Mohamed by Meccans.

ask your Christian leaders George Bush and Tony beLIAr

Attempts at whitewashing history will just not work in today’s information age.

you are the one trying to change history. It will not work

Empiree:

Anyways, muhammad (saw) was the messanger SENT BY GOD to restore monotheism brought by Abraham to Mecca. So therefore, monotheism MUST be enforced in Mecca.

I'm glad you're now admitting that Mohamed used FORCE to entrench Islam in Mecca. Not only in Mecca but in all his other campaigns.

Empiree:

See as you dey talk as if you care about those people. You are simply jealous. Go to Medina and take it back. You will die trying

I'm stating FACTS you're spilling out emotions.

Empiree:


see this one trying to re-write history. You will be exhausted while trying this

seems like you have been reading too much of evangelical liar, David Wood lately. You think you can convince me or what exactly?. Listen, there is no Religion acceptable in the sight of God EXCEPT ISLAM. You are making up this stories in your head because this is your last grip. You are grasping on straws.

What have these got to do with the FACTS of history I presented?

Empiree:

As if you believe in that verse of Qur'an. I know you are desperate now. You don't want to give up in shame

This is to show yet again that your prophet flouted the koran he wanted the rest of you to hold unto hook line and sinker. That is an opener as to his character.

Empiree:

[I am sure you don't even agree with their former religion they went back to either. You are saying all these because of your irrational hatred for our Prophet. It is too late for that. But don't let it be too late for you before you accept muhammad as your messanger.

smh. Abu sufyan was still non muslim when Muhammad arrived in Mecca with full force. He embraced Islam after seeing brilliant character of the prophet for not destroying him and his family despite atrocities he had committed against Muhammad and Muslims.
good. Muhammad (p) snubbed him because Abu sufyan's homeboys violated treaty by killing Muslims. I don't think you would want to talk to someone who hurt your feelings either. Do you?.

You are again honest enough to admit that the "exemplary" SNUBBED someone. You are coming close to getting it.

Empiree:

[ we never told you he didn't have army. This is true. And in fact, it fulfilled your bible because that showed that he was Prophet like Moses. Moses had army too

Thanks again for agreeing with me that Mohamed maintained an army; and we all know what an army is for, don't we?
Now, did you also catch yourself referring to the Bible you claim is corrupted?

Empiree:

[ you struggling to hold on to your last strongholds. You failed man.
ask your Christian leaders George Bush and Tony beLIAr
you are the one trying to change history. It will not work

All the information I stated are in the PUBLIC DOMAIN. Readers can check for themselves and see who between the two of us is trying to rewrite history.

You are trying to be "an expert" in deception. I tell you what, i am always ahead of you

plainbibletruth:

I'm glad you're now admitting that Mohamed used FORCE to entrench Islam in Mecca. Not only in Mecca but in all his other campaigns.

What you criticized here is equivalent to this bible verse:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life. ... For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
John 3:16

This means, this verse is your declaration of faith. Therefore, whoever does not believe Jesus is begotten son of God, nor believe in Jesus, nor recognized Jesus authority, WILL PERISH

You are again honest enough to admit that the "exemplary" SNUBBED someone. You are coming close to getting it.

Jesus SNUBBED Canaanite woman In Matthew 15:22-28, Jesus ignores and then denies a healing to a sincere Canaanite woman. It is not uncommon for a preacher to provide an excuse for why Jesus ignored the sincere cry of the Canaanite woman in Matthew 15:22-23. However, neither an excuse nor an apology needs to be produced. The Lord knew exactly what he was doing, was sure that it was the right thing to do, and explains his simple reason in verse 26.


“It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs.” – Matthew 15:26


Surely any modern church will take offense to this statement if made by a member of their church today. Yet here is the your Lord Jesus Christ making such a frank statement.

Thanks again for agreeing with me that Mohamed maintained an army; and we all know what an army is for, don't we?

Nonsense!!! Irrational comment coming from "educated christian"..smh Can you tell us why every country of the world have army?. To answer your question, we all know what an army is for, don't we?.

Vatican has element of military base. You can tell us why they have military?. You are so ridiculous.

Empiree:

Nonsense!!! Irrational comment coming from "educated christian"..smh Can you tell us why every country of the world have army?. To answer your question, we all know what an army is for, don't we?.

Vatican has element of military base. You can tell us why they have military?. You are so ridiculous.

Empiree, we are talking about the prophet who was supposed to be the "seal of the prophets", "the mercy to all mankind", an exemplar of "The Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful"

Do you see that when you equate him with others, apparently to show that since others did what he did then it was alright for him to have done them, you are actually ADMITTING that he fell short of who and what he claimed to be.

A prophet with an army of marauders?

If the "seal" of the prophets demonstrated nothing above and beyond the characters of others; if the "seal" of the prophets showed no extraordinary display of mercy; if the one who is to be followed as an example never exhibited the nature of "Most benevolence" then that should throw up a red flag to show that something is wrong somewhere.

Empiree, do you know what "Most beneficent" and "Most Merciful" mean?

plainbibletruth:

Empiree, we are talking about the prophet who was supposed to be the "seal of the prophets", "the mercy to all mankind", an exemplar of "The Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful"

Do you see that when you equate him with others, apparently to show that since others did what he did then it was alright for him to have done them, you are actually ADMITTING that he fell short of who and what he claimed to be.

A prophet with an army of marauders?

If the "seal" of the prophets demonstrated nothing above and beyond the characters of others; if the "seal" of the prophets showed no extraordinary display of mercy; if the one who is to be followed as an example never exhibited the nature of "Most benevolence" then that should throw up a red flag to show that something is wrong somewhere.

Empiree, do you know what "Most beneficent" and "Most Merciful" mean?

You are not making sense and I'm gonna ignore you soon. This is because you lack sincerity. Moses had army to curb pharaoh excesses. Other Prophets also had some sorts of bodyguards or defense technics. So tell me what's wrong having army while his oppositions had too?. Do you have sense at all or you are simply being hypocritical?.

Empiree:
You are not making sense and I'm gonna ignore you soon. This is because you lack sincerity. Moses had army to curb pharaoh excesses. Other Prophets also had some sorts of bodyguards or defense technics. So tell me what's wrong having army while his oppositions had too?. Do you have sense at all or you are simply being hypocritical?.

Empiree, the Moses of the Bible did not have an army " to curb pharaoh excesses." Which pharaoh's excesses? When Israel left Egypt they didn't have to fight Pharaoh with an army.

The "seal of the prophets", "the mercy to all mankind", an exemplar of "The Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful" was the one opposing every other person. It was not the other way round. Don't twist history.

Mohamed was the one that started fighting and looting other people's caravans and communities. He INITIATED all the fights in the Arabian peninsula in one way or the other. Any physical opposition to Mohamed was as a response to his initial attacks on others. That is what history clearly shows.

If you are ADMITTING that Mohamed fell short of who and what he claimed to be, and had just a man-of-the-street's morals then no wonder you are attracted to him.

If a judge turns out to be a thief, a con-man and even an extortionist, how much trust will you have on such a man? If a so-called prophet lacks basic morals what should make one accept his claims as true?

We have not even talked about Mohamed being bewitched. We have not talked about Satan speaking through him and those words are in the koran - a copy of the mother of books in heaven. We have not talked about disgusting sexual behaviours of a prophet (?)

So, the last prophet never exhibited anything that made him rise above the man on the street. In fact, in many instances, Allah REQUIRED stricter moral standards from the common Moslem than he did from Mohamed.

If all these make him an example to be followed it can only make sense to the people like you Empiree.

plainbibletruth:

Empir.ee, the Moses of the Bible did not have an army " to curb pharaoh excesses." Which pharaoh's excesses? When Israel left Egypt they didn't have to fight Pharaoh with an army.

The "seal of the prophets", "the mercy to all mankind", an exemplar of "The Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful" was the one opposing every other person. It was not the other way round. Don't twist history.

Mohamed was the one that started fighting and looting other people's caravans and communities. He INITIATED all the fights in the Arabian peninsula in one way or the other. Any physical opposition to Mohamed was as a response to his initial attacks on others. That is what history clearly shows.

If you are ADMITTING that Mohamed fell short of who and what he claimed to be, and had just a man-of-the-street's morals then no wonder you are attracted to him.

If a judge turns out to be a thief, a con-man and even an extortionist, how much trust will you have on such a man? If a so-called prophet lacks basic morals what should make one accept his claims as true?

We have not even talked about Mohamed being bewitched. We have not talked about Satan speaking through him and those words are in the koran - a copy of the mother of books in heaven. We have not talked about disgusting sexual behaviours of a prophet (?)

So, the last prophet never exhibited anything that made him rise above the man on the street. In fact, in many instances, Allah REQUIRED stricter moral standards from the common Moslem than he did from Mohamed.

If all these make him an example to be followed it can only make sense to the people like you Empi.ree.

Did prophet Muhammad's enemies have armies or not?. Answer this.

Empiree:
Did prophet Muhammad's enemies have armies or not?. Answer this.

Here you go again. You know I got you there and you're now diverting attention away from those issues about your prophet.

No one started out being an enemy of Mohamed. He instigated others to turn against him. He first became the enemy to those who welcomed him as friend.

What did it take to become Mohamed's enemy? Simply this: anyone who did not acknowledge him as ruler and prophet of Allah automatically becomes his enemy.

Mohamed determines who became his enemy. The person does not need to come against Mohamed. If Mohamed doesn't like the person or people or he wanted what they had then they become his enemies.

Mohamed betrayed the hospitality he received from the people of Yathrib (Medina). He formed an army there and began to raid those around him. No people first sent an army against Mohamed. He INITIATED ALL the raids and the wars he fought.

Can anything be clearer than this:
Narrated Jabir: The Prophet sent us as an army unit of three hundred warriors under the command of Abu 'Ubaida to ambush a caravan of the Quraish. ... (Bukhari: vol. 7, bk 67, no. 402, Khan)

Or this:
Narrated Ibn 'Umar: Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform all that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah." (Bukhari: vol. 1, bk. 2, no. 24, Khan)

plainbibletruth:

Here you go again. You know I got you there and you're now diverting attention away from those issues about your prophet.

No one started out being an enemy of Mohamed. He instigated others to turn against him. He first became the enemy to those who welcomed him as friend.

What did it take to become Mohamed's enemy? Simply this: anyone who did not acknowledge him as ruler and prophet of Allah automatically becomes his enemy.

Hopefully this is probably my last reply to you. You said he (saw) instigated his enemies?.

When he declared he's Prophet and messanger of God, the same way Prophets before him like Jesus and Moses declared theirs, Meccans rejected him just like they rejected Jesus and Moses. Can you tell us how the Jews treated Jesus and Moses. Did Jews not disobeyed Jesus and threatened his life. This are rhetorical questions. I don't need answer from you. We have answers.

Last rhetorical question is, is declaring oneself God's Prophet to guide the people an act of instigation and aggression. You don't need to answer this either.

Mohamed betrayed the hospitality he received from the people of Yathrib (Medina). He formed an army there and began to raid those around him. No people first sent an army against Mohamed. He INITIATED ALL the raids and the wars he fought.

Can anything be clearer than this:
Narrated Jabir: The Prophet sent us as an army unit of three hundred warriors under the command of Abu 'Ubaida to ambush a caravan of the Quraish. ... (Bukhari: vol. 7, bk 67, no. 402, Khan)

Or this:
[u]Narrated Ibn 'Umar: Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform all that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah." (Bukhari: vol. 1, bk. 2, no. 24, Khan)

when the prophet was chased out of Mecca and migrated to Medina, yes, he was welcomed with hospitality by the Ansar, NOT the Jews. The Jews became his number one enemies in Medina after it was clear they rejected him just like they rejected Jesus. So they now planned to kill the prophet. That's the beginning of their end.

Just like they decided to kill Jesus after it was clear they rejected him. And according to your bible, they nailed him on the cross and killed him. So God would not allow repeat of that - so God ordered prophet muhammad to defend himself. In the process, pagan Arabs allied with the Jews and collectively waged wars on muslims.

Hadith you quoted @underlined, was the same thing Jesus said in Luke 19:27

I don't need your reply after this cus, you aren't here to reason beyond your irrational hatred and islamophobism. You Have A Good Night

Empiree:
Hopefully this is probably my last reply to you. You said he (saw) instigated his enemies?.

When he declared he's Prophet and messanger of God, the same way Prophets before him like Jesus and Moses declared theirs, Meccans rejected him just like they rejected Jesus and Moses. Can you tell us how the Jews treated Jesus and Moses. Did Jews not disobeyed Jesus and threatened his life. This are rhetorical questions. I don't need answer from you. We have answers.

Last rhetorical question is, is declaring oneself God's Prophet to guide the people an act of instigation and aggression. You don't need to answer this either.






when the prophet was chased out of Mecca and migrated to Medina, yes, he was welcomed with hospitality by the Ansar, NOT the Jews. The Jews became his number one enemies in Medina after it was clear they rejected him just like they rejected Jesus. So they now planned to kill the prophet. That's the beginning of their end.

Just like they decided to kill Jesus after it was clear they rejected him. And according to your bible, they nailed him on the cross and killed him. So God would not allow repeat of that - so God ordered prophet muhammad to defend himself. In the process, pagan Arabs allied with the Jews and collectively waged wars on muslims.

Hadith you quoted @underlined, was the same thing Jesus said in Luke 19:27

I don't need your reply after this cus, you aren't here to reason beyond your irrational hatred and islamophobism. You Have A Good Night

When he declared he's Prophet and messanger of God, the same way Prophets before him like Jesus and Moses declared theirs, Meccans rejected him just like they rejected Jesus and Moses. Can you tell us how the Jews treated Jesus and Moses. Did Jews not disobeyed Jesus and threatened his life. This are rhetorical questions.




so what did Jesus do afterwards don't tell me my question is unimportant oo

OLUWABIG:
When he declared he's Prophet and messanger of God, the same way Prophets before him like Jesus and Moses declared theirs, Meccans rejected him just like they rejected Jesus and Moses. Can you tell us how the Jews treated Jesus and Moses. Did Jews not disobeyed Jesus and threatened his life. This are rhetorical questions.

so what did Jesus do afterwards don't tell me my question is unimportant oo

I don't recall ever having conversation with you nor did i direct my response to you. But since you chose to stick your nose, here is how Jesus respond to his supposed enemies and criminals at the temple. Why did he not leave them alone peacefully. Why did he has to resort to aggression to pass his message across?



Now, let's review. We will take Jesus's response to money changers at the temple as a case study. We read how Jesus violently turned the table and beat the hell out of the Jews. In Gospel Of John, we read about "setting the stage" at the Temple. Verses 13–14 set the stage for Jesus’ action. “The Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple he found those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the money-changers sitting there.” So inside the temple court, a place meant for prayer and other acts of worship, there were pens of oxen and sheep, and cages of pigeons and sellers sitting around them waiting to make a transaction, and others who were prepared to exchange a pilgrim’s money into the right currency so that they could make a purchase.

The outward reason for this set up was probably that the law required sacrifices of oxen and sheep and pigeons, and many worshippers would have come a long way and would not have brought their sacrifice with them. So this made the animals readily available for purchase. You could say it was the loving thing to do. Make the purchase convenient.


Jesus’ Response

Now what is Jesus’ response when he saw this? Verses 15–16:

And making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and oxen. And he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables. And he told those who sold the pigeons, “Take these things away; do not make my Father’s house a house of trade.”

Jesus obviously did not approve of what he saw. Why not? What was the problem?. You can see from the description from the Bible verses that if Jesus had a gun or sword, he would have done worst damage and kill relatively peace loving Jewish gathering changing money. How is changing money deserved been rough handled and whipped by Jesus?. This is act of violence Jesus espoused. As you can see from the portrait, see how Jesus messed up and turned peaceful temple to wrestlemania ring?

OLUWABIG:
so what did Jesus do afterwards don't tell me my question is unimportant oo

Let's spice it up in another dimension of speech. The incident at the Temple is better addressed as "Going on a Rampage". This is more factual

Perhaps the most famous of Jesus’ anger issues occurred when he came across a temple to his dad, and found it full of moneylenders and animal-sellers. Jesus was furious at this sacrilege, but he didn’t just get mad—he effectively Hulked out, flipping over tables and knocking over chairs. And then he stood guard at the door, to make sure no more jerks came in on non-worshipping business. As for as reasons for Jesus to be angry go, this is a solid one, but admittedly it doesn’t seem much in line with the “turn the other cheek” and “love your enemies” guy. (Matthew 21:12-13).

OLUWABIG:
So what did Jesus do afterwards don't tell me my question is unimportant oo

Another anger management of your Jesus according to your Bible, Jesus killed a tree.


The most baffling Jesus-related moment in the New Testament is unquestionably when the Son of God found himself a touch peckish while he was traveling. From Mark 11:

The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs.

Then he said to the tree,“May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” And his disciples heard him say it.


You are reading this correctly: Jesus killed a tree. He was hungry, the fig tree had no fruit, and Jesus was so pissed off at this he cursed the tree, and it died.


Now, there are only two explanations for the tree not having fruit: 1) the weather had been bad, possibly from lack of rain, which prevented the tree from bearing fruit. This would have been totally God’s fault. The other option is crazier: 2) Figs just weren’t in season. So the tree was only obeying the natural rules that God had set, and Jesus, throwing a very uncharacteristic temper tantrum, murdered the tree for not somehow bending the rules. Please note that at this point in the book of Matthew, Jesus had already performed several miracles including restoring sight to the blind, restoring the ability to speak to the mute and, making money appear in fish. So it stands to reason he could have made the tree produce fruit if he’d wanted to… but instead, he really wanted to kill the tree. Maybe the tree was a sinner of some kind?


You guys portrayed you Jesus as peaceful person. We read in your bible how he displayed his aggression. Why did he throw tantrum at fig tree. This is rhetorical question.

OLUWABIG:
so what did Jesus do afterwards don't tell me my question is unimportant oo

Here we can see that Jesus in the Bible obeyed and followed Old Testament. Not only did he followed Old rules but he legislated this rule for the Christians to follow. This case study is about "Refusing to Wash His Hands"


This is apparently why Jesus was a carpenter and didn’t work in the service industry. From Matthew 15:

Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked,

“Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”

Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?



For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’

But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’

They are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.

You hypocrites!

Plainbibletruth said Law of killings in the Bible is Old Testament. That Christians don't have to follow it. How about this capital punishment in New Testament to kill whoever curses parent?. You hypocrites.



Yes, the Pharisees threw a little shade at Jesus for not washing his hands before dinner, and Jesus immediately retorted with the fact that they weren’t killing their unruly children, like the Old Testament had explicitly ordered.

Empiree:
Hopefully this is probably my last reply to you. You said he (saw) instigated his enemies?.

When he declared he's Prophet and messanger of God, the same way Prophets before him like Jesus and Moses declared theirs, Meccans rejected him just like they rejected Jesus and Moses. Can you tell us how the Jews treated Jesus and Moses. Did Jews not disobeyed Jesus and threatened his life. This are rhetorical questions. I don't need answer from you. We have answers.

Last rhetorical question is, is declaring oneself God's Prophet to guide the people an act of instigation and aggression. You don't need to answer this either.

when the prophet was chased out of Mecca and migrated to Medina, yes, he was welcomed with hospitality by the Ansar, NOT the Jews. The Jews became his number one enemies in Medina after it was clear they rejected him just like they rejected Jesus. So they now planned to kill the prophet. That's the beginning of their end.

Just like they decided to kill Jesus after it was clear they rejected him. And according to your bible, they nailed him on the cross and killed him. So God would not allow repeat of that - so God ordered prophet muhammad to defend himself. In the process, pagan Arabs allied with the Jews and collectively waged wars on muslims.

Hadith you quoted @underlined, was the same thing Jesus said in Luke 19:27

I don't need your reply after this cus, you aren't here to reason beyond your irrational hatred and islamophobism. You Have A Good Night

Empiree, the decision to reply or not is yours and yours alone. No one compels another to do so on this open forum.

I have presented FACTS. You have been unable to respond to the things I have presented. So, tell me who is being illogical here.

How and when did presenting a FACTUAL INFORMATION about a person or thing become dislike of or prejudice against that person or thing?

For example, the fact that Mohamed raided caravans is something that truly happened in history. How does mentioning or stating it turn into irrational hatred?

I thought your koran said that Jesus was not the one crucified but that he was taken away by Allah. Couldn't Allah also have looked for a means of securing his "last" prophet"?

Empiree:
I don't recall ever having conversation with you nor did i direct my response to you. But since you chose to stick your nose, here is how Jesus respond to his supposed enemies and criminals at the temple. Why did he not leave them alone peacefully. Why did he has to resort to aggression to pass his message across?

Now, let's review. We will take Jesus's response to money changers at the temple as a case study. We read how Jesus violently turned the table and beat the hell out of the Jews. In Gospel Of John, we read about "setting the stage" at the Temple. Verses 13–14 set the stage for Jesus’ action. “The Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple he found those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the money-changers sitting there.” So inside the temple court, a place meant for prayer and other acts of worship, there were pens of oxen and sheep, and cages of pigeons and sellers sitting around them waiting to make a transaction, and others who were prepared to exchange a pilgrim’s money into the right currency so that they could make a purchase.

The outward reason for this set up was probably that the law required sacrifices of oxen and sheep and pigeons, and many worshippers would have come a long way and would not have brought their sacrifice with them. So this made the animals readily available for purchase. You could say it was the loving thing to do. Make the purchase convenient.


Jesus’ Response

Now what is Jesus’ response when he saw this? Verses 15–16:

And making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and oxen. And he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables. And he told those who sold the pigeons, “Take these things away; do not make my Father’s house a house of trade.”

Jesus obviously did not approve of what he saw. Why not? What was the problem?. You can see from the description from the Bible verses that if Jesus had a gun or sword, he would have done worst damage and kill relatively peace loving Jewish gathering changing money. How is changing money deserved been rough handled and whipped by Jesus?. This is act of violence Jesus espoused. As you can see from the portrait, see how Jesus messed up and turned peaceful temple to wrestlemania ring?

On Jesus's Action:
Jesus' action was WITHIN THE TEMPLE. He had rights there. They were not supposed to be doing what they were doing withing the temple area. There were SWORDS during the time of Jesus but he didn't resort to that. So, your claim that "if Jesus had a gun or sword, he would have done worst damage and kill relatively peace loving Jewish gathering changing money" is simply not true. So, the Jews to you here have suddenly become "peace loving". Interesting!

Empiree:
Let's spice it up in another dimension of speech. The incident at the Temple is better addressed as "Going on a Rampage". This is more factual

Perhaps the most famous of Jesus’ anger issues occurred when he came across a temple to his dad, and found it full of moneylenders and animal-sellers. Jesus was furious at this sacrilege, but he didn’t just get mad—he effectively Hulked out, flipping over tables and knocking over chairs. And then he stood guard at the door, to make sure no more jerks came in on non-worshipping business. As for as reasons for Jesus to be angry go, this is a solid one, but admittedly it doesn’t seem much in line with the “turn the other cheek” and “love your enemies” guy. (Matthew 21:12-13).

If, like you said there, it was "SACRILEGE", what then is your point in trying to paint Jesus as having done a wrong thing? Ok, your'e trying to use this to justify Mohamed's actions. Right? So, how does responding to SACRILEGE within God's TEMPLE (to which Jesus has a right of control) equate to raiding caravans?

Empiree:
Another anger management of your Jesus according to your Bible, Jesus killed a tree.

You are reading this correctly: Jesus killed a tree. He was hungry, the fig tree had no fruit, and Jesus was so pissed off at this he cursed the tree, and it died.

You guys portrayed you Jesus as peaceful person. We read in your bible how he displayed his aggression. Why did he throw tantrum at fig tree. This is rhetorical question.

How does killing a tree equate to slaughtering UNARMED COMMUNITIES in order to take over their wealth?

Empiree:
Here we can see that Jesus in the Bible obeyed and followed Old Testament. Not only did he followed Old rules but he legislated this rule for the Christians to follow. This case study is about "Refusing to Wash His Hands"


This is apparently why Jesus was a carpenter and didn’t work in the service industry. From Matthew 15:

Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked,

“Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”

Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?



For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’

But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’

They are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.

You hypocrites!

Plainbibletruth said Law of killings in the Bible is Old Testament. That Christians don't have to follow it. How about this capital punishment in New Testament to kill whoever curses parent?. You hypocrites.

Yes, the Pharisees threw a little shade at Jesus for not washing his hands before dinner, and Jesus immediately retorted with the fact that they weren’t killing their unruly children, like the Old Testament had explicitly ordered.

This is again how you refuse to look at things CAREFULLY but instead pick and choose which to accept. Jesus's emphasis here was on HONOURING FATHER AND MOTHER. Not on killing. Why is killing always in the mind of many of you?

Again, to school you: Christianity did not start UNTIL after Jesus paid for mankind's sin on the cross. So, the New Covenant was made possible because of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. The New Covenant superceeds the Old.

Empiree:
You still dont get it. Maybe you chose to ignore the point. Does finding Islam attractive denotes criminal intent?. No. It reforms them. Also you keep saying islam doesn't appeal to decent Americans, i showed some people both white and black influentials who are muslims. Afterall, if they found islam attractive, it simply means it gives them second chance or a new life. You can try harder by trying to link islam with criminals, it will not work. Fact still remain that they committed crimes and were arrested while christians. And there are also undercover affluent muslims who in New York City,both males and females.


No my friend. Thats not christian legal system. That's secular laws. Your legal system is in the Old Testament. You are not following Jesus if you fail to apply old Laws.



Question is, why did christian destroy and colonize muslim countries?. You did that and destroyed and stole their resources through slave trades. The bible taught you how to steal.



Propaganda!!!. And if you want to know about christian community, go find out on your own.



Vatican comes to mind

In statistics, we have what is called 'margin of error' in sample survey. If I said most, I mean a very large proportion, let say 95%.

Throughout my argument, I have maintained that over 95% of Muslim converts in the US are either prison inmates, ex-convicts or disgruntled African-Americans, and Islam offers them the platform to form a fraternity against the conservative American system or society. Over 90% of high profile African-american Muslim converts are political activist who have been off and on the jail system. I wonder why you lack a simple comprehension skill.

As a said earlier, decent Americans that are Muslim converts, without criminal records, are very very minute and insignificant, compared to the ones with criminal records and tendencies. If an ideology is attractive to a population that are seen as outlaws, then that religion, Islam in this case, is a religion that breeds criminals and outlaws.

If you go back to Islamic history, Mohammed and his sahabas were viewed as outlaws and criminals in mecca and were ostracized and exiled to Medina. Their exile to Medina became a blessing in disguise because they were able to reorganise, form a military unit and were able to defeat oppositions and subsequently conquered Mecca from the natives and expelled rebels who area not loyal to Mohammed. Islam is a religion for rebels. Almost in every part of the world, Muslim minorities, following the playbook of their prophet, are always rebels to constituted authorities, especially when they reach a population mark of over 15%.

If you go by Nigeria's history, as a case study, you will fully appreciate the effect of Uthman Dan fodio's jihad of 1804 against the indigenous hausa people after they (the Hausas) gave them (the Muslims) land for cattle rearing and some other agro-allied trade. Today, the rest is history and don't pretend you are ignorant to this fact. The same playbook were used for the people of Ilorin in kwara state Nigeria. If you cannot see the pattern, then you need to go back and study simple logic.

I laughed when you tried to separate the American legal system from it's judeo-christian foundation; a typical Islamic and leftist taught pattern. Over 90% of American legal system are extract from the judeo-christian scriptures which advocated fairness, justice and equality of human race. Islamic Sharia is an epitome of injustice of man against man. In Islamic Sharia, all men are not born equal. The Muslim ummah is meant to be the master of the dhimmi and the kafirs, and this is what is applicable in all sharia-compliant Muslim country. Can you show me a single Muslim country where Muslims and non-muslims are viewed as equal?

You said the west colonize the Muslim world, yes I agree. Go back to history! The Muslim Turkish Ottoman empire colonized, occupy and exploited Christan Greek, Armenia, and most of the eastern European countries for over 500 years. The Muslim (the Islamic Moore) conquered and colonized Spain (Andalusia and grenada) and some part of Portugal for more than 200 years. The Muslims were only expelled and driven back to North Africa after the Spanish Inquisition. Do you know the 2nd khalifa, Umar ibn khatab? He was the one that carried global jihad to the next level conquering and destroying the great Egyptian civilization and replaced the local Copts and the Nubians population with Arabs. Think Australia, think Egypt!

You claimed that there are Christian communities in Saudi Arabia and I asked you to show me where they are but you deflected to the Vatican, can you see that Mohammed had taught you how to be deceptive? If the Saudis cannot tolerate their shia citizens in the southeastern part of Saudi Arabia, how can they tolerate their mortal enemy, the Christians and the Jews? In 2016, the Saudi authority killed the leader of their Shi'a minority, how will they treat Christians? All Saudi Christians I know of have migrated to the US or Europe because they were afraid of the religion of peace.

I don't want to believe that I'm arguing with a kid, with all due respect bro.

plainbibletruth:
[size=6pt][/size]

This is again how you refuse to look at things CAREFULLY but instead pick and choose which to accept. Jesus's emphasis here was on HONOURING FATHER AND MOTHER. Not on killing. Why is killing always in the mind of many of you?

see hypocrite twisting obvious verse. The verse clearly talks about killing those who dishonor their parents. Yet you accused me of picking what suits me while you did the same to Quran and hadith. The verse said without mincing words. KILL THOSE WHO DISHONOR PARENTS. I see again your insincerity. That's why this is my last reply. You are very dishonest and I unfollow this thread.

Between this message was not for you. Why did you have to be a mouthpiece for that lazy guy hiding behind you. Are you being insecure.

Again, to school you: Christianity did not start UNTIL after Jesus paid for mankind's sin on the cross. So, the New Covenant was made possible because of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. The New Covenant superceeds the Old.

Good. Jesus didn't preach Christianity. Christianity started AFTER him as you rightly said. That means Christianity is opinion of group of people. It is innovated religion. That's why there is no GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JESUS.

This alone proves that your entire Bible has nothing to do with Jesus including the so called "new covenant" that doesn't exist and the so called PAID FOR YOUR SIN. It is all scam.

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John scammed you guys.

Have a nice day

Empiree:
SMH

You never heard of or read about prophet Muhammad's last sermon all these years?. You never heard about peaceful Conquest Of Mecca?. Skeptic like you would say prophet muhammad(saw) could easily forgive his enemies because he was weak. How about when he was religiously and politically powerful and in a position of power he could have easily destroy his enemies?. Or when the opportunity presents itself, humans are known for abusing their authority and punishing their enemies brutally.

Here, too, the Prophet demonstrated exemplary behavior. The most well-known example of this is during the peaceful takeover of Mecca by the Muslims. At a time when he could have easily destroyed his worst enemies, Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, showed remarkable restraint. This is even more significant given the culture of vicious tribal rivalry and guilt by association practiced at the time.


Among those the Prophet forgave were Abu Sufyan, a Quraysh leader who was among those who led the opposition to Islam; Ikrimah ibn Abu Jahl, an enemy whose father was one of the Prophet's most vehement opponents; Hind, the wife of Abu Sufyan, who ripped open the corpse of the Prophet's beloved uncle Hamza after the Battle of Uhud and ripped out his heart and liver; Wahshi, the man commissioned by Hind to murder Hamza; Utbah, the son of another of the Prophet's greatest foes, Abu Lahab, who had divorced the Prophet's daughter Ruqayyah under pressure from his father. None of these individuals were harmed or punished for their crimes.




I still don't understand why you want to impose parable on Luke 19:27 when it is clear as daylight that it is a violent passage?. This is just like the way you insist Quran breeds violence.

Wait ooo, did you just say "the writer". Who was the writer?. Definitely not Jesus. This shows that it was the writer's opinion. The "only way" I will leave you alone on this topic is that you either admit that the writer was not inspired but he wrote that verse and that verse has nothing to do with Jesus or we keep dragging it?.

The implication is that if you reject the passage that it was not inspired, it means your bible is corrupt as we always said. You have two desperate options. Chose one






your bible doesn't have impressive chain of narrations and chain of authority.

Who was the writer of Luke 19:27? And does the "chain" of the passage reached Jesus himself?. If it did, could you give evidence where Jesus said it was parable?.

The 3 canonical books recognized (even as many Muslims have vehemently rejected 2) are: the Quran, the hadith and the sirat rasool allahh. Can you show us where we can see this so-called propaganda, I mean the 'last sermon of the prophet'?

The problem with you Muslims is that if anyone goes to the tollet and see a book titled:'Mohammed the best and the greatest', or 'Mohammed the mercy to mankind', or 'Mohammed greatest prophet of allahh', you Muslims will take it to the mosques without verifying the authenticity of the claim and start spreading same. However if a non-muslim show you an hadith you don't like you will say it's weak or fabricated. Islam is wonderful!

You made a claim that Mohammed took over peacefully. Are you kidding me? Have you forgotten that Mecca was weakened as a result of series of wars they have fought with Mohammed and was tired of war when Mohammed finally decided to give them the final blow? Have you forgotten that Mohammed had a ten-yr peace pact with the Meccans and were not prepared for another war with Mohammed? A peace deal which Mohammed unilaterally broke by invading Mecca with his sahabas. Haven't you read, in the hadith, where Mohammed said: war is deceit?

Even at that, when Mohammed wanted to enter Mecca, he asked his men not to attack Mecca, knowing fully well that they lack the capacity to fight back, but should attack if they (the Meccans) resisted Mohammed.

During the second world war the German forces defeated the French army and destroyed many French cities but spared Paris on one condition, the Parisians must not resist Hitler's weimack and Luftwaffe. In your mind Hitler was good and showed a lot of restraint by not fighting the French on the street of Paris hence avoided its destruction. Hitler negotiated peace with the people of Paris, the same way Mohammed negotiated with the people of Mecca, from the position of strength and power (and not weakness). To disappoint you, Mohammed marked 6 Meccans for execution, even if they surrendered, among them is abdullahi ibn sarr ibn abi sarh, the foster brother of Uthman ibn Affan, the third rightly guided khalifa.

On the authorship of the Bible, Jesus never wrote down any scripture: the scripture was written about him. The laws and the prophets (the old testament, the Torah) wrote about the coming Messiah while the four Gospels (the injil) gave account of his earthly experience. The Qur'anic allahh had nothing bad against the Torah and the injil and asked Muslims to consult the people of the book for clarifications. Even allahh called Jesus the Messiah in the Qur'an (Quran 9:30). Its bad that modern Muslims are now wiser than allahh himself.

If you say the Bible is corrupt, defend this claim using the Quran.

Empiree:
when your Christian terrorist leaders enslaved Africa and Asia, were they invited or elected or selected to colonize Africa?. You are becoming ridiculous every second.

Anyways, muhammad (saw) was the messanger SENT BY GOD to restore monotheism brought by Abraham to Mecca. So therefore, monotheism MUST be enforced in Mecca.



[ rubbish from your desire. All because you could not defend your bible



See as you dey talk as if you care about those people. You are simply jealous. Go to Medina and take it back. You will die trying



see this one trying to re-write history. You will be exhausted while trying this




seems like you have been reading too much of evangelical liar, David Wood lately. You think you can convince me or what exactly?. Listen, there is no Religion acceptable in the sight of God EXCEPT ISLAM. You are making up this stories in your head because this is your last grip. You are grasping on straws.




As if you believe in that verse of Qur'an. I know you are desperate now. You don't want to give up in shame



[I am sure you don't even agree with their former religion they went back to either. You are saying all these because of your irrational hatred for our Prophet. It is too late for that. But don't let it be too late for you before you accept muhammad as your messanger.



smh. Abu sufyan was still non muslim when Muhammad arrived in Mecca with full force. He embraced Islam after seeing brilliant character of the prophet for not destroying him and his family despite atrocities he had committed against Muhammad and Muslims.



good. Muhammad (p) snubbed him because Abu sufyan's homeboys violated treaty by killing Muslims. I don't think you would want to talk to someone who hurt your feelings either. Do you?.



[ we never told you he didn't have army. This is true. And in fact, it fulfilled your bible because that showed that he was Prophet like Moses. Moses had army too



[ you struggling to hold on to your last strongholds. You failed man.


ask your Christian leaders George Bush and Tony beLIAr



you are the one trying to change history. It will not work

The Christan west were bad while the Arab Muslims were worst when it comes to enslavement of the black people. Long before the Christian European came in contact with the black people, the Arabs had been enslaving the black people for hundreds of years. The most important black person in Islam, Bilal, was a black slave owned by Abu Bakr, the first rightly guided khalifa. At a time when Bilal was carrying Islam on his head, he begged Mohammed to free him. The so-called apostle of allahh was not told by angel jibril to free the guy but the guy has to personally cried to Mohammed for his freedom. Mohammed must be so merciful!

It was on record, in the hadith, that 100% of all blacks who had contact with Mohammed were all slaves, either to Mohammed himself or to his sahabas. This fact is undeniable. While Mohammed and his fellow criminals were enslaving black people, the European (Byzantine) Christians knew nothing about it. It was later in the 16th century, the European Christians, having studied from the Arab-muslims, joined the slave trade business. The Arabs were the catalyst of the slave business, pioneered by Mohammed and his sahabas. If you don't mind I will show you many hadith (including altabari) on this issue. Feel free to ask for prove.

Slavery has no foundation in Christian beliefs as neither Jesus, nor any of the apostles, kept or own slaves. The apostle of allahh, on the other hand, was a successful slave trader ,(sunnah ibn majjah 2272)

Empiree:
see hypocrite twisting obvious verse. The verse clearly talks about killing those who dishonor their parents. Yet you accused me of picking what suits me while you did the same to Quran and hadith. The verse said without mincing words. KILL THOSE WHO DISHONOR PARENTS. I see again your insincerity. That's why this is my last reply. You are very dishonest and I unfollow this thread.

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John scammed you guys.

Have a nice day

Empiree, why do you think that if you can't beat me to it when we talk about your Koran that you can now fault me with regards to the Bible? You must be joking!

Now, let me expose you here.

I stated that: Jesus' emphasis here was on HONOURING FATHER AND MOTHER. Not on killing.

You called me "hypocrite twisting obvious verse"
You went on to say that "The verse clearly talks about killing those who dishonor their parents"

Let's see how Jesus explained himself:
"But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition." Matthew 15: 5&6

Every one can see clearly here that Jesus's focus was on honouring father and mother. Nothing else. If this were an exam and you were asked what Jesus was bringing out here would you say "killing"? Would that be the lesson here, Empiree?

Copying and pasting does not necessarily amount intelligence. You have to be clear about what you copy and paste.

The gospels are "good news". What in Islam is good news; anything?

You are already running away from defending your prophet. You can see the FACTS about him contrary to the lies you had chosen to believe about him.

Try not to be emotional. Then you'll be able to see more clearly.

Mohamed devoured every set of people he got in touch with. It's there in your Koran and books. Anyone who subjects himself to Mohamed will have his life wasted both now and in the hereafter.

Unfortunately Mohamed succeeded in ensuring that all who come into Islam with the claim of worshipping only one god end up worshipping two - Allah and Mohamed. That is why NO DAY PASSES without the Moslem worshiping Mohamed alongside Allah.

true2god:
The Christan west were bad while the Arab Muslims were worst when it comes to enslavement of the black people. Long before the Christian European came in contact with the black people, the Arabs had been enslaving the black people for hundreds of years. The most important black person in Islam, Bilal, was a black slave owned by Abu Bakr, the first rightly guided khalifa. At a time when Bilal was carrying Islam on his head, he begged Mohammed to free him. The so-called apostle of allahh was not told by angel jibril to free the guy but the guy has to personally cried to Mohammed for his freedom. Mohammed must be so merciful!

Liar. Abu Bakr (ra) bought Bilal(ra) from Jewish/pagan arab slave traders. And in turn, Bilal was freed and became great scholar in islamic history. Jews preceded pagan arabs in keeping slaves.


Slavery existed before prophet muhammad or not?. Jews and christians preceded our prophet or not?. If both preceded our prophet, and it is well known that slavery thrived in in the time of Jews and also slavery was well alive between the reign of Jesus and before the advent of prophet Muhammad(p), how come your new testament barely made reference to slavery while it is as clear as daylight slavery existed in the time of Jesus?. Why did your chronological Gospels skipped this important historic event?. Why did the Jews and christians not end slavery until our prophet(saw) came to deal with mess you people created?. It is so suspicious that New Testament skipped 95% of slave trade history. This is called expungement. This is one of the many reasons to believe your bible was distorted

Here a thread I opened sometime ago:
Is Islam Responsible for Libyan Black Slave Trade?

The media has been awash with disturbing pictures and stories of black Africans in slave markets in Libya.

These stories are now surfacing because of information technology but it has gone on for centuries in Islam.

Islam has never really regarded the black man as equal to the Arabs. It can even be said that he is regarded as less than second class human being.

Action, they say, speak louder than words. Islam has a way with words; even quotes from earliest Islamic sources can be denied and trumpeted as "Not authentic" whilst the same source can be used to substantiate a stand as long as it suits their claim.

Islam has therefore succeeded, throughout history, in suppressing the TRUTH about its real nature by being able to, like they say, "speak from both sides of the mouth".

Islam can deny a source or deny that perpetrators of some evil, even when they claim to be pursuing the course of Islam or be acting in the name of Allah.

The effects of Mohamed’s racism, supremacy, and slavery on blacks continues today, as it is reported that up to 14 million blacks are currently owned by Muslims.

Black people are treated with scorn in the Islamic middle-east today with racism a common attitude with mistreatment. Saudi Arabia’s racism includes black people in slums and subjected to abuse as the Arab psyche would never accept black people as equal to themselves.

This mistreatment and slavery of black Africans has continued albeit underground because Muslims justify their actions with the life of their prophet Mohamed.

Mohamed owned many black slaves during his lifetime. He believed that black slaves were half the worth of Arab slaves, proving this by trading two of his own blacks for one Arab Muslim.

Muslim sources shed light on Islam and
What we are witnessing today:

Sahih Muslim 10: 3901
Jabir reported: There came a slave and pledged allegiance to Allah's Apostle on migration; he (the Holy Prophet) did not know that he was a slave. Then there came his master and demanded him back, whereupon Allah's Apostle said: Sell him to me. And he bought him for two black slaves, and he did not afterwards take allegiance from anyone until he had asked him whether he was a slave (or a free man)

Bukhari 7263
I went to (the house of the Prophet) and behold, Allah’s Messenger was staying in a Mashruba (attic room) and a black slave of Allah’s Messenger was at the top of its stairs.

Mohamed was said to insultingly announced that if anyone wants to see the face of Satan, just look at Nabtal, his black slave, who has long-flowing hair, flaming eyes, and dark, ruddy cheeks.

Al-Tabari, Vol. 2, p. 11, p. 11
Shem, the son of Noah was the father of the Arabs, the Persians, and the Greeks; Ham was the father of the Black Africans; and Japheth was the father of the Turks and of Gog and Magog who were cousins of the Turks. Noah prayed that the prophets and apostles would be descended from Shem and kings would be from Japheth.

Bukhari 6161:
Allah’s messenger was on a journey and he had a black slave called Anjasha, and he was driving the camels (very fast, and there were women riding on those camels).

So, since Muslims regard Mohamed as a PATTERN to be copied they will continue to emulate him and see NOTHING WRONG in enslaving black Africans. After all, their “perfect man” owned blacks of his own and continues to own them today through blind submission.

https://www.nairaland.com/4229976/islam-responsible-libyan-black-slave#63224130

Empiree:
Liar. Abu Bakr (ra) bought Bilal(ra) from Jewish/pagan arab slave traders. And in turn, Bilal was freed and became great scholar in islamic history. Jews preceded pagan arabs in keeping slaves.


Slavery existed before prophet muhammad or not?. Jews and christians preceded our prophet or not?. If both preceded our prophet, and it is well known that slavery thrived in in the time of Jews and also slavery was well alive between the reign of Jesus and before the advent of prophet Muhammad(p), how come your new testament barely made reference to slavery while it is as clear as daylight slavery existed in the time of Jesus?. Why did your chronological Gospels skipped this important historic event?. Why did the Jews and christians not end slavery until our prophet(saw) came to deal with mess you people created?. It is so suspicious that New Testament skipped 95% of slave trade history. This is called expungement. This is one of the many reasons to believe your bible was distorted

Muslim hypocrite! You condemned ibn Ishaq and use his writing when it suits you. See where you get your Bilal transaction from, a slave trade by batter concluded your Islamic khalifa Abu Bakr:

A rock was put on a slave’s chest. When Abu Bakr complained, they said, ‘You are the one who corrupted him, so save him from his plight.’ I will do so,’ said Bakr. ‘I have a black slave, tougher and stronger than Bilal, who is a heathen. I will exchange him. The transaction was carried out.
Ishaq:144

You are not ashamed that Arab-muslims, their prophet and the sahabas, were carrying out transactions on your black ancestors, which encouraged the European Christians to follow on their footsteps. Without Islamic Arabs African slave trade, I doubt if we will have the European slave trade against African people.

See hadith below: Mohammed and enslavement of black people:
...So I went to the upper room where the Prophet was and requested to a black slave of his : "Will you get the permission of (Allah's Apostle) for Umar (to enter)? The slave went in, talked to the Prophet about it and came out saying, 'I mentioned you to him but he did not reply.' So, I went and sat with the people who were sitting by the pulpit, but I could not bear the situation, so I went to the slave again...
Sahih Bukhari 3:43:648

Then I put on my clothes and went to Allah's Apostle's residence, and behold, he was staying in an upper room of his to which he ascended by a ladder, and a black slave of Allah's Apostle was (sitting) on the first step. I said to him, 'Say (to the Prophet ) 'Umar bin Al-Khattab is here.'...
Sahih Bukhari 6:60:435

Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Allah's Apostle was on a journey and he had a black slave called Anjasha, and he was driving the camels (very fast, and there were women riding on those camels). Allah's Apostle said, "Waihaka, O Anjasha! Drive slowly (the camels) with the glass vessels (women)!"
Sahih Bukhari 8:73:182.

Narrated 'Umar: I came and behold, Allah's Apostle was staying on a Mashroba (attic room) and a black slave of Allah's Apostle was at the top if its stairs. I said to him, "(Tell the Prophet) that here is 'Umar bin Al-Khattab (asking for permission to enter)." Then he admitted me.
Sahih Bukhari 9:91:368

Mohammed opposed freeing a slave:

Narrated Kurib: the freed slave of Ibn 'Abbas, that Maimuna bint Al-Harith told him that she manumitted a slave-girl without taking the permission of the Prophet. On the day when it was her turn to be with the Prophet, she said, "Do you know, O Allah's Apostle, that I have manumitted my slave-girl?" He said, "Have you really?" She replied in the affirmative. He said, "You would have got more reward if you had given her (i.e. the slave-girl) to one of your maternal uncles."
Sahih Bukhari 3:47:765

'Imran b. Husain reported that a person who had no other property emancipated six slaves of his at the time of his death. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) called for them and divided them into three sections, cast lots amongst them, and set two free and kept four in slavery; and he (the Holy Prophet) spoke severely of him.
Sahih Muslim 15:4112 (Allah messenger kept 4 in slavery).

According to Donald Trump, sorry Mohammed ibn abdullah, two black slaves is equal to 1 Arab slave. Mohammed was a slave trade genius.

Jabir (Allah be pleased with him) reported: There came a slave and pledged allegiance to Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) on migration; he (the Holy Prophet) did not know that he was a slave. Then there came his master and demanded him back, whereupon Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: Sell him to me. And he bought him for two black slaves, and he did not afterwards take allegiance from anyone until he had asked him whether he was a slave (or a free man)
Sahih Muslim 10:3901 (Here a slave is not expected to say allegiance to Mohammed, being a worthless animal. Anyone can that says allegiance to Mohammed is not expected to still be under slavery).

Mohammed cancelled mamunition of slaves:

Narrated Jabir: A man manumitted a slave and he had no other property than that, so the Prophet cancelled the manumission (and sold the slave for him). No'aim bin Al-Nahham bought the slave from him.
Sahih Bukhari 3:41:598. A man freed his slaves but Mohammed said 'no'. He assisted the man sell the slave to another slave buyer and so the man remained a slave for life (as in arsenal 4 life). As long as I'm arsenal for life so was the guy Mohammed sold into life slavery. Can you see how great your prophet is?

Narrated Jabir bin Abdullah: A man decided that a slave of his would be manumitted after his death and later on he was in need of money, so the Prophet took the slave and said, "Who will buy this slave from me?" Nu'aim bin 'Abdullah bought him for such and such price and the Prophet gave him the slave.
Sahih Bukhari 3:34:351

true2god:
Muslim hypocrite! You condemned ibn Ishaq and use his writing when it suits you. See where you get your Bilal transaction from, a slave trade by batter concluded your Islamic khalifa Abu Bakr:

A rock was put on a slave’s chest. When Abu Bakr complained, they said, ‘You are the one who corrupted him, so save him from his plight.’ I will do so,’ said Bakr. ‘I have a black slave, tougher and stronger than Bilal, who is a heathen. I will exchange him. The transaction was carried out.
Ishaq:144

You are not ashamed that Arab-muslims, their prophet and the sahabas, were carrying out transactions on your black ancestors, which encouraged the European Christians to follow on their footsteps. Without Islamic Arabs African slave trade, I doubt if we will have the European slave trade against African people.

See hadith below: Mohammed and enslavement of black people:
...So I went to the upper room where the Prophet was and requested to a black slave of his : "Will you get the permission of (Allah's Apostle) for Umar (to enter)? The slave went in, talked to the Prophet about it and came out saying, 'I mentioned you to him but he did not reply.' So, I went and sat with the people who were sitting by the pulpit, but I could not bear the situation, so I went to the slave again...
Sahih Bukhari 3:43:648

Then I put on my clothes and went to Allah's Apostle's residence, and behold, he was staying in an upper room of his to which he ascended by a ladder, and a black slave of Allah's Apostle was (sitting) on the first step. I said to him, 'Say (to the Prophet ) 'Umar bin Al-Khattab is here.'...
Sahih Bukhari 6:60:435

Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Allah's Apostle was on a journey and he had a black slave called Anjasha, and he was driving the camels (very fast, and there were women riding on those camels). Allah's Apostle said, "Waihaka, O Anjasha! Drive slowly (the camels) with the glass vessels (women)!"
Sahih Bukhari 8:73:182.

Narrated 'Umar: I came and behold, Allah's Apostle was staying on a Mashroba (attic room) and a black slave of Allah's Apostle was at the top if its stairs. I said to him, "(Tell the Prophet) that here is 'Umar bin Al-Khattab (asking for permission to enter)." Then he admitted me.
Sahih Bukhari 9:91:368

Mohammed opposed freeing a slave:

Narrated Kurib: the freed slave of Ibn 'Abbas, that Maimuna bint Al-Harith told him that she manumitted a slave-girl without taking the permission of the Prophet. On the day when it was her turn to be with the Prophet, she said, "Do you know, O Allah's Apostle, that I have manumitted my slave-girl?" He said, "Have you really?" She replied in the affirmative. He said, "You would have got more reward if you had given her (i.e. the slave-girl) to one of your maternal uncles."
Sahih Bukhari 3:47:765

'Imran b. Husain reported that a person who had no other property emancipated six slaves of his at the time of his death. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) called for them and divided them into three sections, cast lots amongst them, and set two free and kept four in slavery; and he (the Holy Prophet) spoke severely of him.
Sahih Muslim 15:4112 (Allah messenger kept 4 in slavery).

According to Donald Trump, sorry Mohammed ibn abdullah, two black slaves is equal to 1 Arab slave. Mohammed was a slave trade genius.

Jabir (Allah be pleased with him) reported: There came a slave and pledged allegiance to Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) on migration; he (the Holy Prophet) did not know that he was a slave. Then there came his master and demanded him back, whereupon Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: Sell him to me. And he bought him for two black slaves, and he did not afterwards take allegiance from anyone until he had asked him whether he was a slave (or a free man)
Sahih Muslim 10:3901 (Here a slave is not expected to say allegiance to Mohammed, being a worthless animal. Anyone can that says allegiance to Mohammed is not expected to still be under slavery).

Mohammed cancelled mamunition of slaves:

Narrated Jabir: A man manumitted a slave and he had no other property than that, so the Prophet cancelled the manumission (and sold the slave for him). No'aim bin Al-Nahham bought the slave from him.
Sahih Bukhari 3:41:598. A man freed his slaves but Mohammed said 'no'. He assisted the man sell the slave to another slave buyer and so the man remained a slave for life (as in arsenal 4 life). As long as I'm arsenal for life so was the guy Mohammed sold into life slavery. Can you see how great your prophet is?

Narrated Jabir bin Abdullah: A man decided that a slave of his would be manumitted after his death and later on he was in need of money, so the Prophet took the slave and said, "Who will buy this slave from me?" Nu'aim bin 'Abdullah bought him for such and such price and the Prophet gave him the slave.
Sahih Bukhari 3:34:351

More on your prophet trading human beings as if he has a shop in shoprite plaza:

Narrated Jabir bin Abdullah: A man decided that a slave of his would be manumitted after his death and later on he was in need of money, so the Prophet took the slave and said, "Who will buy this slave from me?" Nu'aim bin 'Abdullah bought him for such and such price and the Prophet gave him the slave.
Sahih Bukhari 3:34:351

Narrated 'Amr: Jabir said: An Ansari man made his slave a Mudabbar and he had no other property than him. When the Prophet heard of that, he said (to his companions), "Who wants to buy him (i.e., the slave) for me?" Nu'aim bin An-Nahham bought him for eight hundred Dirhams. I heard Jabir saying, "That was a coptic slave who died in the same year."
Sahih Bukhari 8:79:707

Narrated Jabir: A man from the Ansar made his slave, a Mudabbar. And apart from that slave he did not have any other property. This news reached Allah's Apostle and he said, "Who will buy that slave from me?" So Nu'aim bin An-Nahham bought him for 800 Dirham. Jabir added: It was a coptic (Egyptian) slave who died that year.
Sahih Bukhari 9:85:80

Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah: A man pledged that his slave would be manumitted after his death. The Prophet asked, "Who will buy the slave from me?" No'aim bin 'Abdullah bought the slave and the Prophet took its price and gave it to the owner.
Sahih Bukhari 3:41:588

Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah: A man amongst us declared that his slave would be freed after his death. The Prophet called for that slave and sold him. The slave died the same year.
Sahih Bukhari 3:46:711

Narrated Jabir: The
Prophet came to know that one of his companions had given the promise of freeing his slave after his death, but as he had no other property than that slave,
the Prophet sold that slave for 800 dirhams and sent the price to him.
Sahih Bukhari 9:89:296

Empiree:
Liar. Abu Bakr (ra) bought Bilal(ra) from Jewish/pagan arab slave traders. And in turn, Bilal was freed and became great scholar in islamic history. Jews preceded pagan arabs in keeping slaves.


Slavery existed before prophet muhammad or not?. Jews and christians preceded our prophet or not?. If both preceded our prophet, and it is well known that slavery thrived in in the time of Jews and also slavery was well alive between the reign of Jesus and before the advent of prophet Muhammad(p), how come your new testament barely made reference to slavery while it is as clear as daylight slavery existed in the time of Jesus?. Why did your chronological Gospels skipped this important historic event?. Why did the Jews and christians not end slavery until our prophet(saw) came to deal with mess you people created?. It is so suspicious that New Testament skipped 95% of slave trade history. This is called expungement. This is one of the many reasons to believe your bible was distorted

Will you now agree that, according to the hadith, Mohammed was a slave trader?

true2god:
Will you now agree that, according to the hadith, Mohammed was a slave trader?

answer my questions. Why did Judeo-christian terrorists not end slavery before the advent of Prophet Muhammad (saw)?.

And why did your New Testament made no reference to slavery?

Empiree:
answer my questions. Why did Judeo-christian terrorists not end slavery before the advent of Prophet Muhammad (saw)?.

And why did your New Testament made no reference to slavery?

The judeo-christian world never advocated terror against non-Christians the way Mohammed and allahh did (sahih Bukhari 4:52:220). We never heard of Christian terrorist but Islamic terror or Muslim terrorist (this is because Muslim god promotes terror).

Back to your question, you will agree with me that Jesus never owned, bought or sold slaves (while Mohammed owned, bought and sold slaves). Jesus did not come as a political or military leader. He came to preach peace, righteousness and the coming God's kingdom. He said: 'my kingdom is not of this world'. Besides, even Christians were taken slaves and prisoners in the hand of the Roman emperor Nero. At the 1st century church, Christianity was viewed as a cult that must be destroyed by the colonial Roman govt which occupied Israel at that time. Christians do not have the military and political power to create that order.

What about when the Romanic power accepted Christianity, why didn't they stop it? That's not a question I can answer. It was a bad practice and remains bad thing. Remember, almost in all part of the world slavery was practiced. The Arabs, the Jews and the Byzantine practiced slavery in one form and another. It only became a bigger problem when Islam gave a great religious legitimacy to slavery.

Mohammed and his sahabas cemented slavery (buying and selling of slaves and invoking allahh in the process). Your attempt at shifting Mohammed's problems/evil to Christians is very ridiculous. So you want to blame Jesus for Mohammed's slavery? Well I have heard it over and over again that Muslims don't accept their mistakes, they rather look for who to blame for their sins/errors. You just prove Islamic critics right.

The new testament was not written to promote or encourage slavery, the way the hadith and the sirah were written to encourage and promote slavery. Are you ok with slavery just as your prophet saw nothing wrong with it? Why are you Muslims always looking for cheap points to attack Christianity?

[quote author=true2god post=71457329][s]The judeo-christian world never advocated terror against non-Christians the way Mohammed and allahh did (sahih Bukhari 4:52:220). We never heard of Christian terrorist but Islamic terror or Muslim terrorist (this is because Muslim god promotes terror).

Back to your question, you will agree with me that Jesus never owned, bought or sold slaves (while Mohammed owned, bought and sold slaves). Jesus did not come as a political or military leader. He came to preach peace, righteousness and the coming God's kingdom. He said: 'my kingdom is not of this world'. Besides, even Christians were taken slaves and prisoners in the hand of the Roman emperor Nero. At the 1st century church, Christianity was viewed as a cult that must be destroyed by the colonial Roman govt which occupied Israel at that time. Christians do not have the military and political power to create that order.

What about when the Romanic power accepted Christianity, why didn't they stop it? That's not a question I can answer. It was a bad practice and remains bad thing. Remember, almost in all part of the world slavery was practiced. The Arabs, the Jews and the Byzantine practiced slavery in one form and another. It only became a bigger problem when Islam gave a great religious legitimacy to slavery.

Mohammed and his sahabas cemented slavery (buying and selling of slaves and invoking allahh in the process). Your attempt at shifting Mohammed's problems/evil to Christians is very ridiculous. So you want to blame Jesus for Mohammed's slavery? Well I have heard it over and over again that Muslims don't accept their mistakes, they rather look for who to blame for their sins/errors. You just prove Islamic critics right.[/s]

The new testament was not written to promote or encourage slavery, [s]the way the hadith and the sirah were written to encourage and promote slavery.[/s] Are you ok with slavery just as your prophet saw nothing wrong with it? Why are you Muslims always looking for cheap points to attack Christianity?

Sir, I'm gonna ask you for the last time before I completely UNFOLLOW this thread due to your insincerity.


QUESTION:

Why did Judeo-christian terrorists not end slavery before the advent of Prophet Muhammad (saw)?.

ACCORDING TO CHRISTIANS, Mr. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John EXISTED BETWEEN JESUS & MUHAMMAD (peace be upon them). This was 600yrs in between.

For 600years before Muhammad, Christianity was there. So why did Paul(Saul) and numerous Christians for 600years did not document anything about slavery in your New Testament?.

This is very suspicious. If you can not answer it, just be sincere by saying "I don't know". For the fact that Christianity existed for 600yrs before MUHAMMAD, and slavery was alive for 6 decades during those Times. Six Good Decades. How the heck Christianity missed that?. Are you kidding me?.

If you are saying Jesus came to preach peace and he had no concern with slavery in his time, you are accusing him of shunning INJUSTICE. Yet, he beat the heck out of the Jews in the Temple for henious sin at the temple?.

Every country has history. They don't skip iota. Why did slavery disappears in NT for 600yrs?. That's my question.

[quote author=Empiree post=71458960][/quote]Mohammed and his sahabas cemented slavery (buying and selling of slaves and invoking allahh in the process). Your attempt at shifting Mohammed's problems/evil to Christians is very ridiculous. So you want to blame Jesus for Mohammed's slavery? Well I have heard it over and over again that Muslims don't accept their mistakes, they rather look for who to blame for their sins/errors. You just prove Islamic critics right.

Answer Mohammed's questions relating to his ownership, buying and selling of slaves (both black and white slaves). You attempt to shift Mohammed's immoral and evil behavior to the responsibility of Christians won't work, unless you want me believe that Mohammed was a kid that can never be held responsible for his action.

Will you condemn the action of Mohammed as a slave trader? Answer and stop shifting the burden of responsibility to Christians.

Okay, you can not answer my question. This is the end of my contributions in this thread. You have a great.

true2god:
Mohammed and his sahabas cemented slavery (buying and selling of slaves and invoking allahh in the process). Your attempt at shifting Mohammed's problems/evil to Christians is very ridiculous. So you want to blame Jesus for Mohammed's slavery? Well I have heard it over and over again that Muslims don't accept their mistakes, they rather look for who to blame for their sins/errors. You just prove Islamic critics right.

Answer Mohammed's questions relating to his ownership, buying and selling of slaves (both black and white slaves). You attempt to shift Mohammed's immoral and evil behavior to the responsibility of Christians won't work, unless you want me believe that Mohammed was a kid that can never be held responsible for his action.

Will you condemn the action of Mohammed as a slave trader? Answer and stop shifting the burden of responsibility to Christians.

For record, these are the questions:

Empiree:


1: Why did Judeo-christian terrorists not end slavery before the advent of Prophet Muhammad (saw)?.

2: And why did your New Testament made no reference to slavery?

Empiree:
Okay, you can not answer my question. This is the end of my contributions in this thread. You have a great.



For record, these are the questions:

You have really tried. Well done bro!

WAS MOHAMED BENEVOLENT AND MERCIFUL?
Many Moslem apologists do not tell the whole truth about their prophet and religion but omit several important historical records. In many instances, they practically invent, or re-writing Islamic history to make it palatable to an ignorant and naive audience. Moslem apologists try to tell us that Islam is a religion of peace and Mohamed was a forgiving, benevolent leader. The historical record show otherwise and current record show that Islam is at war with everything that is not subject to its rule.

Moslems have repeatedly attacked and killed in the past, present, and they will again in the future. Yet those same Moslem terrorists continue to claim that Islam is a religion of peace, and Mohamed was a benevolent, merciful leader. Their actions however, contradict their claims.

Mohamed was a man with mixed character. Nevertheless, once he attained power, he turned it upon those that opposed him. Opposition was as simple as mere verbal decline of his offer - whatever that offer was. He was not the benevolent, merciful leader that Moslems try to portray. Mohamed was one of the greatest contradictory character that ever existed. We shall continue to see this more clearly.