Sprint, Saudi and Islam are not the same thing. That is the association fallacy - like if someone were to insist that Christianity is defined by the spanish inquisition.

this is what mohammad did.
After the war of the trenches he lined up 100's of jews to be beheaded.
(Sound like terrorist behaviour ?)
he had trenches dug in the sdand for the blood.

He "offered" to spare them if they became muslims.
As far as I am aware, none did. They all preferred beheading.
As far as I am aware that is compelling people to a religion (btw, his one).
Something he said should not happen in his own book, the koran.


Sure saudi is not muslims. the very country that has mecca in it and is entirely comprised of muslims.
What about yemin ?


Another question, who wrote the koran?
mohammad was illiterate so could not write.
Who wrote it down on paper?
Who took a pencil and put it to paper ?
Who wrote it ?



.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2008 at 9:52pm:

Those Jews broke the agreemenst that they came to that created the Constitution of Medina and conspired with the Pagans against the State. That is treason, their doing so was a crime punishable by death. It is the right of any nation to punish treason with the death penalty and history attests to the fact that this tribe committed the treason.

Yes they would have been given the option to convert and be forgiven, simply because in Islam we believe if someone accepts Islam and repents that their previous sins are forgiven and we have no legal right on the battlefield to kill them.

In a previous war the Muslims were fighting the Pagans, and a Muslim was about to kill a pagan soldier in battle when the pagan seeing that he had no way out made a declaration of faith that there is no God but God gbtH and Muhammad pbuh is His messenger. The Muslim soldier killed him anyway. The prophet heard of this and was displeased.. He asked why the soldier killed the pagan and the soldier replied that the Pagan accepted Islam to escape death and so he killed him anyway. The prophet pbuh then said that it is not for us to judge the hearts and intentions of others in this situation, the law states they are forgiven for their sins and their intentions are between them and God.

Thus it would have been inappropriate according to Islamic law to execute the traitors without first giving them the option of accepting Islam first. There is certainly no compulsion there to become Muslim because they weren't executed for being Jewish. They were executed as a punishment for the crime of treason.

If they were executed for being Jewish the Muslims would have done the same with all of the other Jewish tribes in the area, which they didn't.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2008 at 9:52pm:


I said Saudi Arabia is not an Islamic State, of course it is full of Muslims.. but it certainly isn't following the laws of Islam when it comes to the criteria to be an Islamic State

What about yemen?
Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2008 at 9:52pm:

The Prophet Muhammad pbuh didn't write the Qur'an down. You see the word 'Qur'an' is translated into English to mean 'Recitation'. Muhammad pbuh received the revelation from God and recited those words directly to the people around him. thus we do not hold the Qur'an as the words of Muhammad pbuh, but the words of God told to Muhammad and recited back to us. In many verses of the Qur'an you will see that it starts with the word 'say' where God was telling Muhammad pbuh 'say such and such' etc.

Muhammad pbuh recited the Qur'an to the people and they memorized it and wrote it down which was checked and rechecked. It has not changed since then and even the orientalist's admit that. Even if we were to throw all of the Qur'an's in the sea we could reproduce it because around the world there are millions of people who know the Qur'an off by heart.. They are called Hafiz ul Qur'an.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 4^th, 2008 at 12:45am:

First of all. It was not simply a treaty, it was the Constitution of Medina. It was an agreement between all of the tribes and religions in Medina on the expectations of each other. The tribes all agreed on these laws, even the Jewish ones.

The funny thing is that before Medina was an Islamic State, the Banu Qurayza which were the Jewish tribe that committed treason were treated like dirt by the other Jewish tribes in the area, Muhammad pbuh granted them a higher status and made it law that they are given the same full rights that the other Jewish tribes were. And the repayment the State got for their trying to bring this tribe to a better position was treason.

Treason has everything to do with it, because no matter what the religion of the Banu Qurayza was, they still committed treason which was punishable by death. It is only because of our duty to God as Muslims to allow mercy in case someone accepts Islam that obligates us to ask first if they want to accept Islam or not.

The Banu Qurayza conspired with the pagans against the Muslims, it almost cost the Muslims and other inhabitants of Medina the entire city. It is called the Battle of The Trench because the Muslims dug a giant trench around the city to prevent the Pagans from gaining entry. It was the final stand of the Pagan forces and they brought an army of more than 10,000 to raid Medina.

Forcing people to accept religion is what the Christians did to hundreds of millions of non Christians all over the world. The only difference was that in many cases, they made the people Christian and then still massacred them on top of it. They forced them to become Christian even though the people had committed no offence. Whereas the Muslims allowed the Jews to practice their religion and be protected with full rights of a citizen without being treated like dirt as Christians have historically treated them.

You say you disagree on the "treaty", but you haven't provided any facts to back up your position.. I have given you historical evidence.. You have continuously posted up the same garbage every time even though I have explained it. So I am now wondering considering that I have explained it correctly and in detail, you either are intentionally ignoring the facts on the issue to get your agenda across, or your logic and reasoning abilities have been compromised with all the hate you carry and can only see your argument.. Either way you are making yourself look like a fool because at the end of the day it is clear I have clarified these issues for you.

and this is the guy you say phub after ??

I say gfyc

yes or no ?

mohammad said, become a muslim or die now ?

As far as I am aware that is compelling people to a religion

No it isn't sprint. The had they option to remain jewish and if they chose it, which they did, they would not have been worse off. The beheading was for treason, not for being jewish. Attaching conditions to clemency is not the same thing as compelling people to take up a religion.

You cannot expect Malik to take your question seriously when to do so requires him to accept an assumption he does not share. The real issue is whether the punishment for treason was just, not whether a conditional pardon is unfair.

By taking what was said out of context, you are changing it's meaning.

malik - my records of that war are vastly different ot yours, obviously.
The winner writes the records.

lets stick to the point.
if they stayed jews, it was beheading by muslims.
If they became muslims, they lived.

Certainy makes no difference on their ALLEGED treason.
whether they be jews, muslims or pirates.