Baz1   28 #121 Posted September 15, 2014 You might want to read this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Qurayza    You need to look in to the historical context before making judgements- wikipedia is not a reputable site (for Islamic history) though enough to derive some information.  Main point we need to acknowledge is that Muhammad and the Jews were allies- as stated in the Charter of Medina Article 49 “The parties to this Pact are bound to help each other in the event of an attack on Yathrib (which later became known as Medina) Also if you looked further (or even read some of your links) you will learn that the crime committed by this tribe Banu Qurayzah was that of HIGH TREASON (didn't the UK execute people for that crime once)?  Secondly, the tribe BQ - had chosen Sa'ad ibn Muadh to be their judge (not Muhammad) as he was from an area who were allies with them.  He judged according to the Jews own Book- The Torah. Which is as follows:  When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it: And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee. (Deuteronomy) So Muhammad killed no one nor did he commission the decision.  Stanley Lane-Poole, 19th Century historian recounts this in his book (Studies In a Mosque) It was a harsh, bloody sentence; but it must be remembered that the crime of these men was high treason against the State, during a time of siege; and one need not be surprised at the summary execution of a traitorous clan.  I also wish to point to your assertion that IS are doing what Muhammad did- well, show me one piece of evidence that Muhammad killed innocent people.  You may want to be reminded that even at the first conquest of Mecca, when a victorious Muhammad returned to his home city (after the Pagan Arabs had tried and failed to kill him) - he forgave them.  No one was executed- I don't see IS following this example do you?  They are a barbaric bloodthirsty group who have transgressed the boundaries placed in Islam. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
firemanbob   10 #122 Posted September 15, 2014 (edited) You need to look in to the historical context before making judgements- wikipedia is not a reputable site (for Islamic history) though enough to derive some information. I used wikipedia because the member I was responding to used wikipedia, I agree that it isn't the most reliable source of information, and I am not making judgments just making an observation that ISIL aren't doing anything that wasn't done by Mohammad.  Main point we need to acknowledge is that Muhammad and the Jews were allies- as stated in the Charter of Medina Article 49 “The parties to this Pact are bound to help each other in the event of an attack on Yathrib (which later became known as Medina)  Also if you looked further (or even read some of your links) you will learn that the crime committed by this tribe Banu Qurayzah was that of HIGH TREASON (didn't the UK execute people for that crime once)?  Secondly, the tribe BQ - had chosen Sa'ad ibn Muadh to be their judge (not Muhammad) as he was from an area who were allies with them.  He judged according to the Jews own Book- The Torah. Which is as follows:  (Deuteronomy)  So Muhammad killed no one nor did he commission the decision.  Stanley Lane-Poole, 19th Century historian recounts this in his book (Studies In a Mosque)  I also wish to point to your assertion that IS are doing what Muhammad did- well, show me one piece of evidence that Muhammad killed innocent people.  You may want to be reminded that even at the first conquest of Mecca, when a victorious Muhammad returned to his home city (after the Pagan Arabs had tried and failed to kill him) - he forgave them.  No one was executed- I don't see IS following this example do you?  They are a barbaric bloodthirsty group who have transgressed the boundaries placed in Islam.  IN the eyes of ISIL the people they kill are not innocent, and it will be the same with Mohammad, in his eyes and probably yours the people he killed were not innocent and deserved to be killed, and according to the history books Mohammad had people executed by decapitation.   Muhammad: The Warrior Prophet  Muhammad was first and foremost a revolutionary, a fiery religious guerrilla leader who created and led the first genuine national insurgency in antiquity that is comprehensible in modern terms, a fact not lost on the jihadis of the present day, who often cite the Koran and Muhammad's use of violence as justification for their own insurgencies. Unlike conventional generals, Muhammad did not seek the defeat of a foreign enemy or invader; rather, he sought to replace the existing Arabian social order with a new one based upon a radically different ideological worldview. To achieve his revolutionary goals Muhammad utilized all the means recognized by modern analysts as characteristic of a successful insurgency in today's world.  Muhammad's rise to power was a textbook example of a successful insurgency, in all likelihood the first such example in antiquity. The West has been accustomed to thinking of the Arab conquests that followed Muhammad in purely conventional military terms. But the armies that achieved those conquests did not exist in Arabia before Muhammad. It was Muhammad's successful unconventional guerrilla operations, his successful insurgency, that brought those armies into existence. The later Arab conquests, as regards both strategic concept and the new armies as in*struments of military method, were the consequences of Muhammad's prior military success as the leader of an insurgency.  The rapid growth of Muhammad's insurgent army is evident from the following figures. At the Battle of Badr (624 ce), Muhammad could only put 314 men in the field. Two years later at Second Badr, 1,500 Muslims took the field. By the 628 battle at Kheibar, the Muslim army had grown to 2,000 combatants. When Muhammad mounted his assault on Mecca (630) he did so with 10,000 men. And at the Battle of Hunayn a few months later the army numbered 12,000 men. Some sources record that Muhammad's expedition to Tabuk later the same year was composed of 30,000 men and 10,000 cavalry, but this is probably an exaggeration. What is evident from the figures, however, is that his insurgency grew very quickly in terms of its ability to recruit military manpower. Edited September 15, 2014 by firemanbob Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
tinfoilhat   11 #123 Posted September 15, 2014 Because your friends Cameron and Hague dropped one when they wanted to arm IS a few months back. Now they're desperately trying to make up for it with by trying to identify with public opinion and switching sides.  So we shouldn't try and stop Assad killing literally tens of thousands of his own people? Or should we? Isn't Middle East politics complicated! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
kidley   48 #124 Posted September 15, 2014 So we shouldn't try and stop Assad killing literally tens of thousands of his own people? Or should we? Isn't Middle East politics complicated!  That is the way these people fight they over run a village and then move forward with the cover of civilians i ask you, what would you do in circumstances like that, Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
tinfoilhat   11 #125 Posted September 15, 2014 That is the way these people fight they over run a village and then move forward with the cover of civilians i ask you, what would you do in circumstances like that,  So are the Free Syrian Army in the same bracket as ISIS? They've been falling out with each other almost from the get go. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Mozilla   10 #126 Posted September 15, 2014 So are the Free Syrian Army in the same bracket as ISIS? They've been falling out with each other almost from the get go.  Both were created and still funded by Saudi Arabia. Armed by west for regime change. Its all gone wrong....they don't care about civilians! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
tinfoilhat   11 #127 Posted September 15, 2014 Both were created and still funded by Saudi Arabia. Armed by west for regime change. Its all gone wrong....they don't care about civilians!  We didn't arm them though? And I thought it was rich individuals from Saudi etc not the Saudi state. Assad was still oppressing his people - or are we air brushing out all the initial peaceful protests that ended in bloodshed? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Mozilla   10 #128 Posted September 15, 2014 Saudi Arabia have been beheading for fun over the last few years but the Government don't seem too bothered.That said these monsters atrocities can't carry on unanswered.  UK does big business with Saudi selling them arms that has resulted in 100,000 dead in Syria. Beheading was overlooked....until now! Even now the language and action from UK\USA is mute..... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
tinfoilhat   11 #129 Posted September 15, 2014 UK does big business with Saudi selling them arms that has resulted in 100,000 dead in Syria. Beheading was overlooked....until now! Even now the language and action from UK\USA is mute.....  This is wrong. I read plenty of articles on the bbc website highlighting attrocities whilst we still talking to ISIS and the FSA. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Mozilla   10 #130 Posted September 15, 2014 We didn't arm them though? And I thought it was rich individuals from Saudi etc not the Saudi state. Assad was still oppressing his people - or are we air brushing out all the initial peaceful protests that ended in bloodshed?  10 billion of arms was pumped into Syria for regime change. Assad is a dictator no worse then most of them. Most Sunnis back Assad supported by the rich Sunni families and business people who really rule Syria. without this support he would have been long gone. Majority of Alawites are poor.  ISIS ideology is the same as Saudi Arabia. Promoted by the Royal Kingdom... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
charmer   10 #131 Posted September 15, 2014 No it started because I claimed that ISIL are doing nothing that Mohammad didn't do, they are simply following his example. ---------- Post added 15-09-2014 at 18:41 ----------   I agree to a point, but when Christians commit violence they are not following the example set by the man they revere, Jesus.   When Muslims commit violence they are following the example set by the man they revere, Mohammad.  Compared to his contemporaries Mohammad was a fairly peaceful leader, benevolent to the people he conquered. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Mozilla   10 #132 Posted September 15, 2014 This is wrong. I read plenty of articles on the bbc website highlighting attrocities whilst we still talking to ISIS and the FSA.  Lot of mainstream news is propaganda used as a political tool. Journalists are not allowed to report on certain topics... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...