Apostates of Islam

[Heresson]

Lucian of Samothrace

I may be wrong, but wasn't it Lukian of Samosate (Samsat), city (nowdays flooded by a lake on Euphrates) in Roman Mesopotamia,
rather than Samothrace, an Island in northern Aegean?

[Imran Siddiqui]

One big misrepresentation of the quoted website:

It is interesting that the Arabs had some kind of decency when they captured married women but the prophet of Allah did away with that decency and proclaimed that it is lawful for a man to have sexual intercourse with a women captured in war. (Q. 4: 24)

http://www.submission.org/suras/sura4.htm

[4:24] Also prohibited are the women who are already married, unless they flee their disbelieving husbands who are at war with you. These are GOD's commandments to you. All other categories are permitted for you in marriage, so long as you pay them their due dowries. You shall maintain your morality, by not committing adultery. Thus, whoever you like among them, you shall pay them the dowry decreed for them. You commit no error by mutually agreeing to any adjustments to the dowry. GOD is Omniscient, Most Wise.

4:24 speaks about who you could MARRY, not allowed to rape, as the biased article tries to assert.

When there is such a blatent lie in these articles, how can they be expected to be taken seriously?

[Imran Siddiqui]

And an example of taking quotes out of context:

Quran 9: 5 Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolators wherever ye find them and take them captive, and besiege them and prepare for them each ambush

http://www.submission.org/suras/sura9.htm

[9:4] If the idol worshipers sign a peace treaty with you, and do not violate it, nor band together with others against you, you shall fulfill your treaty with them until the expiration date. GOD loves the righteous.

[9:5] Once the Sacred Months are past, [(and they refuse to make peace) - explination by the site] you may kill the idol worshipers when you encounter them, punish them, and resist every move they make. If they repent and observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat), you shall let them go. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.

[9:6] If one of the idol worshipers sought safe passage with you, you shall grant him safe passage, so that he can hear the word of GOD, then send him back to his place of security. That is because they are people who do not know.

and:

Sura 8:40: And fight them (nonmuslims) until there is no persecution and religion is wholly to Allah. But if they desist, then surely Allah is Watchful of what they do.

http://www.submission.org/suras/sura8.htm

[8:39] You shall fight them to ward off oppression, and to practice your religion devoted to GOD alone. If they refrain from aggression, then GOD is fully Seer of everything they do.

[8:40] If they turn away, then you should know that GOD is your Lord and Master; the best Lord and Master, the best supporter.

[Az]

I find it very stupid you people are even having this argument.

The "true" nature or the history of religions are good for one thing, and one thing only: for feelings of indignation and moral superiority/ inferiority.
Even if Mohammad preached the eating of babies, or, on the contrary, developed a cure for cancer, it doesn't matter at all. Sacred texts are as fertile grounds for re-interpretation and scewing as any other, like countless laws and constitutions all around the world.

Give it a ****ing rest.

Islam, today, is evil. I would rather have it gone.
Same could be said to varying degrees about all ( most, since I don't know them all) religions, including Judaism, and I haven't even got to the part that lying to some of the believers a part of the time is a natural part of every religion.

Islam is not the only cultural problem of the arab world.


Give it a rest, people. You agree on the basics, after all.

[Hueij]

The reason no serious scholar doubts the existence of a historical Jesus is because you (based on this logic) would have to deny the existence of Caeser, Alexander the Great, Darius, etc. There is more historical textual proof for Jesus than Caeser crossing the Rubicon.

There are 10 copies of Julias Caeser and 14,000 for Jesus.

The problem with this is that we have accounts for Caesar, Alexander and Darius from contemporary witnesses. All we have on Jesus is from much later. Maybe Caesar didn't cross the Rubicon but we know he did exist for certain.

[Dinner]

The first quote is speaking about how the Koran repeatedly says men can have sex with women "taken in their right hand" meaning women they have fought and taken through fighting. The second quote is speaking about which types of women muslim men can marry. It talks about you may not remarry a woman you have divorced unless she has married (and divorced or widowered) from another husband inbetween, they may not marry their father's or their son's wives, etc... The bolded part then says that other then the women which Muhammad outlawed all other muslim women are fair game to marry.

It's really very simple and straight out of the Koran but I suppose if one diliberately wants to misunderstand then he will find a way. I continue to say what I have always said; that the violence in Islam is caused by the violent orders made in the Koran. The fundimentalists are right, Islam does demand dispicable acts of barbarism and that's why it is more dangerous and more harmful then the other two monotheistic religions.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The first quote is speaking about how the Koran repeatedly says men can have sex with women "taken in their right hand" meaning women they have fought and taken through fighting.

Um.. no it doesn't. It is part of a section on marriage. If you looked at the context, you'd realize that. When 4:20, 4:21, 4:22, 4:23, and 4:25 speak on marriage, it follows that 4:24 is going to be on marriage.

If you weren't so blatently bigoted, you'd see that.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Oerdin
It's really very simple and straight out of the Koran but I suppose if one diliberately wants to misunderstand then he will find a way. I continue to say what I have always said; that the violence in Islam is caused by the violent orders made in the Koran. The fundimentalists are right, Islam does demand dispicable acts of barbarism and that's why it is more dangerous and more harmful then the other two monotheistic religions.

Nah, the other two have similar monstrosities, if you are to take the old testament literally. My favourite remains the stoning of raped women (well, only those that didn't scream for help loud enough ). And genocide is more accepted in the OT than in the Koran, considered that God orders the Jews (as an ethnical group) to slaughter the entire population of the promised lands. And it's not a few genocidial verses I'm talking about, but a whole book chanting the greatness of genocide (Joshua).

All scriptures have many things to them that are repugnant to our advanced societies. The problem doesn't come from these outdated piece of papers, but from the people that obey them literally. A pissing contest between the three main monotheistic scriptures doesn't explain the differences in today's world between Arabs and Westerners. And if you want to play the pissing contest, the OT is by far the worst.

[Heresson]

A pissing contest between the three main monotheistic scriptures doesn't explain the differences in today's world between Arabs and Westerners

You underestimate the influence of religion

[Ramo]

The only (sort of) relevant stuff to the argument:

INVADING BANU QURAIZA:

The next were the Banu Quraiza. Soon after the Battle of the Trench was over, Muhammad claimed that the Archangel Gabriel had visited him "asking that he should unsheathe his sword and head for the habitation of the seditious Banu Quraiza and fight them. Gabriel noted that he with a procession of angels would go ahead to shake their forts and cast fear in their hearts." (2) Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 443

It is not clear why the Archangel needed Muslim's help to wipe out the Jews if he had "a procession of angels" who would shake their forts. Nevertheless, "the Messenger of Allâh immediately summoned the prayer caller and ordered him to announce fresh hostilities against Banu Quraiza," (2)

Muhammad headed an army of three thousand infantry men and thirty horsemen of Ansar (Helpers) and Muhajireen (Emigrants).

The Banu Quraiza was attacked for not supporting Muhammad when the Quraish attacked Medina. Ali sworn that he would never stop until he either storms their garrisons or be killed. This siege lasted 25 days. Finally the Banu Qurayza surrendered unconditionally. Muhammad ordered that the men be handcuffed, while the women and children were isolated in confinement. Thereupon Al-Aws tribe interceded begging the Prophet to be lenient towards them. Muhammad suggested that Sa‘d bin Mu‘adh, a former ally, be deputed to give verdict about them, and they agreed.

Sa'd's verdict who had received as a serious wound in the previous Battle of the Confederates was "that all the able-bodied male persons belonging to the tribe should be killed, women and children taken prisoners and their wealth divided among the Muslim fighters." Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 280

One wonders why Muhammad who claimed to be the messenger of Allah and in contact with him needed the judgment of a human. Yet this most cruel verdict was precisely what pleased him and he "accepted his judgment saying that Sa‘d had adjudged by the Command of Allâh."

Al-Bubarapouri adds that "In fact, the Jews deserved that severe punitive action for the ugly treachery they had harbored against Islam, and the large arsenal they have amassed and which consisted of one thousand and five hundred swords, two thousand spears, three hundred armours and five hundred shields, all of which went into the hands of the Muslims." (4)

The Muslims historians have been quick to bring the same baseless alibis to justify their raids against their victims like, they were "mischievous", causing "sedition" or being "treacherous" and "harboring against Islam". However no specifics exists as of the nature of those sins to warrant such a sever punishment and their total genocide.

Trenches were dug in the bazaar of Madinah and a number of Jews between six and nine hundred were beheaded therein.

Huyai, Ibn Akhtab, the chief of the Bani Nadeer and Safiyah’s father was captured in this siege and brought to the Prophet with his hands tied to his neck with a rope. In an audacious defiance he rejected Muhammad and preferred to be beheaded than submitting to his Religion by force. He was ordered to sit down and was beheaded on the spot.

To separate men from the boys, the youngsters were examined and if they had grown any pubic hair, it was enough to behead them.

Sunan Abu-Dawud Book 38, Number 4390

Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi:
I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair.

If anyone cannot see that this is NOT how a messenger of God should behave cannot claim to have grasped the meaning of humanness. I believe the cruelty of what the Prophet did to the Jews of Arabia are self-explanatory and any fair-minded person would acknowledge that. It is inconceivable that a messenger of God could kill between 600 to 900 people and banish thousands more with no feelings or compassion.

The man we call the Prophet, was full of hate. He thought of nothing but killing, brought nothing but death, taught nothing but vengeance. Muhammad was not a "mercy of God to mankind" but the curse of devil to humanity. Not only in his life he killed and banished all the Jews he could lay hand on, in his dead bed he instructed his followers to continue with the ethnic cleansing that he had initiated.

Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 288

The Prophet on his death-bed, gave three orders one of them was to Expel the pagans from the Arabian Peninsula.
Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 176

Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar:
Allah's Apostle said, "You (i.e. Muslims) will fight with the Jews till some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, 'O 'Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.' "

This man was a hoodlum not a messenger of God, he was a thief, a gangster and a highway robber. He enriched himself with the wealth of his victims.
Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 176

Narrated Anas bin Malik:

People used to give some of their datepalms to the Prophet (as a gift), till he conquered Bani Quraiza and Bani An-Nadir, whereupon he started returning their favors.

If you still believe that Muhammad was a messenger of God. Think to yourself what has happened to your humanity.



I am not going to go into details on the massacre of the Banu Qurayza because there is a great detailed and revealing article on them that you can read in the following link.
What really happened to the Banu Qurayza?

The article in the above link describes the massacre of the Banu Quraiza and the reason why the Prophet chose Sa'd bin Mu'adh as the arbitrator. This is a must read to understand Muhammad and his true character. It should be read is sequence.

Part 1: The siege, the surrender & the intercession of al-Aus

Part 2: Who is Sa`d bin Mu`adh?

Part 3: Appointment of Sa`d bin Mu`adh, his judgment, its execution and conclusions

First thing to note is that there is absolutely no Qurannic source for the genocide of the Medinan Jewish tribe. In other words, you were full of ****. The reason why this is really, really important is because the Quran was written contemporanously with the alleged genocide.

Second thing to note is that the Atiyyah al-Qurazi account was originally transcribed by Ishaq. Dawud (and others) came a century later, taking Ishaq's account. As I said, a lone source writing a century and a half after the fact don't constitute "well-established fact."

Then there's a bunch more stuff taken outside of their context.

[Ramo]

Why would He want that?

Two possibilities: to intimidate other religious groups, or to provide religious justification for slaughtering/enslaving civilians.

There could've been numerous reasons...
Perhaps there was nothing better, for example

No, there are a few biographies considered fine as well by Islamic jurists of the period.

Ramo, I've seen Muslim propaganda movies with Muslim scholars saying that Banu Qurayza massacre did happen. It's not like claiming it (in Oerdin's or mine case) is bigotry

I didn't say that. I called Oerdin a bigot for saying that being a Muslim is morally equivalent to being a Holocaust denier, and that "the idolation of [Mohammed] by muslims is disgusting."

[Spiffor]

Heresson:

Nope. I know religion is something very important in the construction of collective mentalities, and it has a very longlasting influence even on societies that have sopped being religious.

However, as you know, religion is closely intertwined with tradition. Most Christian or Jewish beliefs of today have nothing to do with the obvious literal message contained in the scripture. And that's fortunate, considering that a part of this scripture (mostly, some parts of the Old Testament) are outrageous to our modern minds.

When religion poses a problem, it doesn't really come from scripture, but from the religious beliefs that are held in its name. When the mainstream religion has an enlightened interpretation of the scripture (such as dismissing calls to genocide or to public stoning, for example), it poses much fewer problems than when it's mainstream to accept all or most of the scripture literally.

Christianty and Judaism are less plagued by fundamentalism than Islam (although I think any Christian should be really watchful of what's happening in the US and subsaharian Africa). Islam suffers more from the school of thought that scripture should be observed literally.

Thus, the difference between western and Arabic socieites doesn't come merely from scripture (the OT is worse than the koran anyway), but from the use of scripture by the religionists (there's a boatload of other cultural factors that have nothing to do wth religion as well, but they're for another thread). Scripture and religion isn't the same thing.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ramo
[q]
I didn't say that. I called Oerdin a bigot for saying that being a Muslim is morally equivalent to being a Holocaust denier, and that "the idolation of [Mohammed] by muslims is disgusting."

It is. Just like idolation of Hitler by Neo-Nazis or idolation of Stalin by certain pro-Soviet people or the idolation of Mao by Chinese Communists is absolutely disgusting. These were evil men who spent their lives commiting horrid crimes.

Please note how they are being reviled because of what they did not who they are. That's the main reason why your charges of racial or religious bigotry are so laughable. I guess you feel that religious figures should never be questioned or brought to task for their acts. Luckily, most sane people disagree with you.

[beingofone]

Originally posted by Hueij

The problem with this is that we have accounts for Caesar, Alexander and Darius from contemporary witnesses. All we have on Jesus is from much later. Maybe Caesar didn't cross the Rubicon but we know he did exist for certain.

It depends on what scholar you ask. If they want to believe say in Caesar, then the manuscripts are current with the life of Caesar. If they are trying to discredit him - then the manuscripts were written much later than his life, if you see what I mean.

BTW - Only Caesar`s account was contemporary. So if we are going to use textual criticism with these rules -
Then only Caesar actually existed out of the thousands of historical persons. The rest were pure fiction - follow me?

Textual criticism is very subjective, if a historian doesn`t like the results of the text, he just dates the manuscript much later. An example would be " I do not believe the city of Athens could support 500,000 people so the text is wrong, or it was written much later."

So when the historian disagrees with the account, it is the text that is wrong.

There is more proof in all forms for the scripture on ancient history then any other texts, yet because it cannot be 100% proven it is unreliable? Hmm

"The benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, not arrogated by the critic to himself"- Aristotle
This should be a rule of thumb, including the scripture.

Here are some non- Biblical authors who quoted scripture as history.
Clement of Rome 96 A.D.
Ignatious- 70-110 A.D.
Polycarp- 70-156 A.D.
Irenaeus- 156 A.D.
Tatian- 170 A.D.

[Ramo]

It is. Just like idolation of Hitler by Neo-Nazis or idolation of Stalin by certain pro-Soviet people or the idolation of Mao by Chinese Communists is absolutely disgusting. These were evil men who spent their lives commiting horrid crimes.

Please note how they are being reviled because of what they did not who they are. That's the main reason why your charges of racial or religious bigotry are so laughable. I guess you feel that religious figures should never be questioned or brought to task for their acts. Luckily, most sane people disagree with you.

Please note how you don't bother with telling us about these Qurannic verses that you asserted that you have, and persist on whining about being called on your bigotry. I don't mind criticism of religious figures, hell I do my fair share of that. I do mind intellectually dishonest criticism to justify one's bigotry.