Italian translation

The wars in the Arabian Peninsula, prior to Islam, were in comparison insignificant to those instigated by Muhammad and other Muslim rulers.  The earlier wars had mainly centered on tribal differences and were confined to bouts of squabbling with some fights. With the introduction of Islam came not only war, but also an unrelenting genocide and terror that would quickly become integral components in furthering Islam’s expansionism.

The early years of Muhammad’s prophetic career, in his native town Mecca, were peaceful. After 13 year of preaching no more than 80 or 100 people had embraced his cause. Not all of them were able fighting men. That explains why those early years were peaceful. Muslims did not have the strength to fight.

Soon after Muhammad migrated to Medina and the Arab population of that town accepted his religion, he began raiding and looting, first the merchant caravans and then the human settlements.

Shorty after Muhammad strengthened his position amongst the Arabs of Medina, he surrounded the Jewish quarter of Bani Qainuqa, a prosperous population of goldsmiths and blacksmiths and after confiscating their properties (vineyards and homes) and belongings (jewelry and arms) he banished them from their ancestral home.  Then he set his sight on the Bani Nadir, another Jewish tribe of Medina. He did a similar thing to them. He killed their leaders and many of their able-bodied men and after confiscating their properties and wealth, expelled them from Medina. In neither of these cases the Jews offered any resistance.

Emboldened by his victories over these weaker, non-combative and non-threatening people who agreed to give up their wealth in exchange for their lives and goaded by an insatiable greed and lust for power this self styled messenger of Allah then set his eyes upon other Jewish tribes of Arabia living outside of Medina. This time it was the turn of Bani al-Mustaliq.

Bukhari, the great biographer of Muhammad, narrates the attack on Bani al-Mustaliq in the following story (Hadith)

“Narrated Ibn Aun:
I wrote a letter to Nafi and Nafi wrote in reply to my letter that the Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives; the Prophet got Juwairiya on that day. Nafi said that Ibn ‘Umar had told him the above narration and that Ibn ‘Umar was in that army
.” Volume 3, Book 46, Number 717:

This same Hadith is recorded in the Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4292, which validates its authenticity.

Muhammad molded his religion after Judaism in the hope that the Jews would be the first to heed his call.  To his chagrin, the Jews had no interest in his religion and he never forgave them for that.  You cannot reject a narcissist without invoking his rage.  Muhammad was so upset that he changed the direction of the Qiblah (the direction towards which Muslims pray) from Jerusalem to Ka’ba, which at that time was just a temple of idols and made the Jews the scapegoat to rally his followers around himself.

The Arabs of Medina were generally a bunch of illiterate folk with little skills and often poor who made their living by working in the vineyards of the Jews and rendering other services to them. They were originally immigrants from Yemen, while the Jews were the masters of trades and the owners of the lands and had called Medina home for 2000 years. They were easy targets.  He prowled their wealth, enslaved their women and children and distributed them among the Arabs.  He convinced his followers that raiding and killing is ordained by God. Since then his prophetic career became very lucrative, one that would change his fortunes, and set his new religion on its path of war and military conquests.

Muhammad sent one of his companions; Bareeda bin Haseeb, to spy on the Bani al-Mustaliq. After assessing the situation he ordered his men to attack. Muslims came out of Madina on the 2nd of Shaban of 5 A.H. and encamped at Muraisa, a place at a distance of 9 marches from Medina.

The following is from an Islamic site:

The news of the advance of Muslim forces had already reached Haris. In panic, his men deserted him and he himself took refuge in some unknown place. But the local population of Muraisa took up arms against the Muslims and rained showers of arrows in a sustained manner. The Muslims launched a sudden and furious attack and routed the enemy, who suffered huge casualties and nearly 600 were taken prisoners by the Muslims. Among the booty there were 2,000 camels and 5,000 goats.

The prisoners of war included Barra, the daughter of Haris, who later on became Hazrat Juwairiyah, the consort of the Holy Prophet. According to the prevailing practice all the prisoners were made slaves and distributed among the victorious Muslim soldiers. Hazrat Juwairiyah fell to the lot of Thabit bin Qais. She was the daughter of the leader of the clan, and therefore, very much felt the discomfiture and disgrace of being made slave of an ordinary Muslim soldier. Therefore, she requested him to release her on payment of ransom. Thabit agreed to this, if she could pay him 9 Auqias of gold. Hazrat Juwairiyah had no ready money with her. [As if she had the money in some bank.  Muhammad had looted everything she and her people owned. How could she have any money with her or anywhere else?] She tried to raise this amount through contributions, and approached the Holy Prophet also in this connection. She said to him “0 Prophet of Allah! I am the daughter of Al Haris bin Zarar, the Lord (chief) of his people. You know that it is by chance that our people have fallen captive [by chance? I thought Muhammad had raided them] and I have fallen to the share of Thabit bin Qais and have requested him to release me considering my status, but he has refused. Please do an act of kindness and save me from humiliation”. The Holy Prophet was moved [aaah, he was moved. How tender!] and asked the captive woman if she would like a thing still better. She asked as to what was that thing.  He said that he was ready to pay her ransom and marry her if she liked. She agreed to this proposal. So the Holy Prophet (sallal alaho alahie wasallam) paid the amount of ransom and married her.”

The above is the story how Muhammad married Juwairiyah as recorded by Muslim historians. Interestingly Muhammad makes his Allah praise him with verses such as the following: “And surely thou hast sublime morals” (Quran 68:4). and Indeed in the Messenger of Allah you have a good example to follow” (Quran 33:21). The question that begs an answer is; was he really the standard of sublime morals and good example to follow?

First he attacks a population without warning and takes them by surprise. This is called terrorism.  Why?  Because they were easy targets and wealthy.  As usual he kills the unarmed men, plunders their belongings, then enslaves the rest. Is this behavior befitting of a messenger of God?

The narrator says, “According to the prevailing practice all the prisoners were made slaves and distributed among the victorious Muslim soldiers.” As we read the history of Islam, we see this WAS indeed the prevailing practice of Muslims, throughout the bloody history of Islam. Yet the question is whether this how a messenger of God should behave?

Muhammad called himself the mercy of God for all the worlds 21:107 . What is the difference between this “mercy of God” and a ruthless marauding gangster?

If this was the prevailing practice of the Arabs, couldn’t the messenger of God change it? Why engage in such a barbaric practice at all?  Did he not say that he had come to set the example for all to follow? Why should a man with such a claim behave in so brutal a fashion?  Did he come to set an example or to follow the evil deeds of the people of his time?

The apologist says that Muhammad was “moved.” Obviously he was not moved by compassion but by lust. The man was heartless. What moved was his genital.

Muhammad did not set free Juwairiyah because he felt sorry for her. He was a man incapable of such feelings. He wanted Juwairiyah for himself.

Unlike what most people think, Muhammad’s intentions were not to convert people to his religion. His real aim was power, wealth and domination. Religion was a pretext. He weighed each case and considered its financial benefits. In most cases it was more profitable if the people did not convert to Islam, but killed and their belongings pillaged.

If people were given the choice they could have feared defeat might have accepted Islam. Then Muhammad could not steal their wealth.  Muhammad did not deem wise to warn the Bani Mustaliq and many others whom he raided, vanquished and looted.

Muslim, another biographer of Muhammad narrates:

Ibn ‘Aun reported: I wrote to Nafi’ inquiring from him whether it was necessary to extend (to the disbelievers) an invitation to accept (Islam) before meeting them in fight. He wrote (in reply) to me that it was necessary in the early days of Islam. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) made a raid upon Banu Mustaliq while they were unaware and their cattle were having a drink at the water. He killed those who fought and imprisoned others. On that very day, he captured Juwairiya bint al-Harith. Nafi’ said that this tradition was related to him by Abdullah b. Umar who (himself) was among the raiding troops.” Book 019, Number 4292:

Muslim warriors carried on this sunnah (examples set by Muhammad) after his death.

When a Muslim army invaded a town, they did not allow people to convert to Islam for three days.  During these three days they killed as many men as they could, pillaged their properties and raped their daughters and wives.  Only after a town had been decimated and the young women and children that could be sold as slaves were captured would the brutal campaign of Islamization, with its mandate that all must convert or die began.  The Jews and the Christians were given protection to live, provided they enter into dhimmitude.  Dhimmi means bonded.  But the dhimmis had to pay for their protection.  This payment known as jizyah was the source of livelihood for Muslims, who through it were able to live like parasites off the labor of the dhimmis.

Narrated Juwairiya bin Qudama At-Tamimi:
We said to ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab, oh Chief of the believers! Advise us.” He said, “I advise you to fulfill Allah’s Convention (made with the Dhimmis) as it is the convention of your Prophet and the source of the livelihood of your dependents (i.e. the taxes from the Dhimmis.)
”  Volume 4, Book 53, Number 388:

Aisha who accompanied the prophet on this expedition narrates how Juwairiya was captured.

when the prophet-peace be upon him- distributed the captives of Banu Almustaliq, she (Barrah) fell to the lot of Thabit ibn Qyas. She was married to her cousin, who was killed during the battle. She gave Thabit a deed, agreeing to pay him nine okes of gold for her freedom. She was a very beautiful woman. She captivated every man who saw her. She came to the prophet-peace be upon him-, to ask for his help in the matter. As soon as I saw her at door of my room, I took a dislike to her, for I knew that he would see her as I saw her. She went in and told him who she was, the daughter of al-Harith ibn Dhirar, the chief of his people. She said: “you can see the state to which I have been brought. I have fallen to the lot of Thabit, and have given him a deed for ransom, and I have to come to ask your help in the matter.’ He said: ‘would you like something better than that? I will discharge your debt, and marry you.’ she said: ‘yes. O then it is messenger of Allah! Done.’ he replied.”

This story ends any arguments about to Muhammad’s real motives in taking so many women. It was not to help the widows but because they were young and beautiful.  Muhammad murders the husband of Juwairiyah, who was also her cousin.  Captivated by her beauty, he offers to free her, but only on the condition that she marry him. After having come to Muhammad to plead for his help, this self proclaimed “mercy of God for humanity” presents her with a most unwelcome choice, for whose price she had to become the wife of the murderer of her husband.  What other choice could she possibly have?

Muslim apologists insist that most of Muhammad’s wives were widows. They want to make us believe that Muhammad married them for charity.  The truth is that they were young and beautiful. If they were widows, it was because Muhammad murdered their husband. Juwairiyah was just 20 years old, and Muhammad was 58.

The rest of the story of Juwairiyah is mixed with half-truths and exaggerations, in the manner that have tainted most of the Hadiths.

It is said that when the Prophet-peace be upon him- departed from the raid with Juwairiyah and was at Dhuljaysh, he entrusted her to one of the Ansar and went forward to Madinah. Her father, al-Harith, discovered that she was held captive and went back o Madinah, bringing his daughter’s ransom. When he reached al-Aqia, he looked at the camels he had brought as her ransom and admired the two of them greatly, so he hid them in one of the passes of al-Aqia. Then he came to the Prophet-peace be upon him- dragging the camels behind him, and told him: “My daughter is too noble to be taken as a captive. Set her free by this ransom.” the Prophet-peace be upon him- replied: “Isn’t it better that we let her choose her self?” that is fair enough,” said al-Harith. He came to his daughter and said: “This man is letting you chose so do not dishonor us!” “I choose Allah’s messenger,” she replied calmly. “What a disgrace!” he exclaimed.

The Prophet-peace be upon him-, then said “where are two camels which you have hidden in al-Aqia in such -and- such a pass?” al-Harith exclaimed: “I bear witness that there is no God but Allah, and that you Muhammad are the messenger of Allah! For none could have know of this but Allah.”

Ibn-i-S’ad in his ‘Tabaqat’, states that the father of Juwairiyah paid her ransom amount, and when she became free, the Holy Prophet married her. As a result of this marriage a11 the prisoners of war numbering about 600 were freed by the Muslims as they did not like that any member of the family in which the holy Prophet was married, be made a slave.”

It is hard to determine which parts of this story are true.  But it is not hard to notice the contradictions contained within the main storyline.  We read that Muhammad paid the ransom to Thabit the captor of Juwairiyah and then married her. Then we read that Hairth, Juwairiyah’s father paid the ransom.

As to the claim of Muhammad having some sort of psychic ability, for instance knowing certain information such as the whereabouts of the camels, we can safely conclude that these claims are false. On many occasions Muhammad demonstrated precisely the opposite, and proved that he was by no means psychic, let alone prescient, as he failed to discern or to obtain through divine blessings the information he so desired. For instance, when he raided Khaibar, he tortured Kinsns the treasurer of that town, to the point of death, just so he could extract from him the information that would lead to the whereabouts of the city’s treasures.

Take note that in this particular instance the Arabs exhibited higher moral standards than their prophet. They released the relatives of Juwairiyah after they learned that Muhammad had married her. Muhammad was devoid of common decency, of having or showing even a hint of the virtue reflective of a moral leader.

Muslims claim that Juwairiyah became a very devout believer and would spend all of her days praying. The source of this claim can be found in the book Usud-ul-Ghaba. The author writes, whenever the Prophet used to come to Juwairiyah he would find her praying, then when he would return at a later time he still found her praying. One day he said to her: “Shall I tell you few words, if you say them they will be heavier in the scale than what you have done? You say: ‘subhaana allahe ‘adada khalqihi, subhana allahe ridhaa nafsehe, subhana allahe zinata ‘arshehe, subhana allahe zinata ‘arshehe,subhana allah midadda kalimaatihi.’ (Praise Allah as many times as number of his creatures, and as much as pleases him, and as much as the weight of his throne, and as much as the ink for his words).

One wonders why Muslims spend 5 times a day praying and waste that much man hours unproductively when they have such a simple and unbeatable formula to praise Allah?

Let us look at this story from a more realistic perspective. Put yourself in the shoes of a young woman who has just fallen into the lot of a murderer of her husband!  If you were a woman in Juwairiyah’s situation, how would you feel about the killer of your husband and many of your relatives and loved ones? Suppose further you have nowhere to go to. Juwairiah had no choice but to accept Muhammad’s offer to marry her. Now what would any woman do when this man came to her for sex? She probably would devise a survival ploy to avoid him a much as possible. That is what Juwairiyah did. Any time she heard Muhammad is footsteps, she pretended to be praying, in the hope that he may go to his other wives to satisfy his wretched lust. Yet, Muhammad was a cunning bastard.  He soon prescribed a sentence and told Juwairiyah that this “will be heavier in the scale” than praying all day long, robbing her from her excuse to shun him.

No decent person can believe this despicable criminal could be the prophet of God. Those who call themselves Muslims are either ignorant about the truth or they are truly shameless criminals themselves.  If up till now you called yourself a Muslim out of ignorance, you are left with no excuses.  Now it’s up to you to prove your humanity, spit at Muhammad and his filthy book of terror and leave Islam.

Read my book, Understanding Muhammad and all your questions about Islam will be answered.

You may also like...

No Responses

  1. Sakat says:

    See how you have attracted specifically to this ad,Ali Sina always stress here that, Mohammed and his followers can be lured by pornographic elements and see how aptly it applies you here. Ha,ha,ha.

  2. I-HATE-ISLAM says:

    Of course, Muhammad was evil. How else do you describe a man who himself caused and his ideas and examples are still causing so many millions of people untold misery?

  3. Momo says:

    Those who follow Ali Sina never have healthy brain.
    I tell you brothers and sisters, all Ali Sina wants is your hatred to Islam and muslims.
    don't you realize that you are now being brainwashed? your hatred is being raised up to your head as if you want to kill Muhammad and all muslims.

    Read carefully what he writes about Islam, he never speaks politely. I suspect he never knows what polite means. His writing is full of hatred, insult, and offence.

    I don't believe someone who has good education can speak like kids.


  4. I-HATE-ISLAM says:

    Slave mentality, it is the muhammadan who has to prove what he alleges viz: that there was an entity called allah which was different from Muhammad, that Muhammad was indeed a prophet and that both the quran and muhammadanism are not concoctions by Muhammad. The maxim is : he who asserts must prove. He who denies has nothing to prove. Until the muhammadan discharges that burden of prooof, the onus will not shift to the non muhammadan. All that the muhammadans have done so far is to regurgitate the words of a 6th century conman in proof of his allegations. They have not produced one miniscule of evidence outside the rantings of that conman. Islam lays emphasis on corroboration. But when it comes to applying the same principle to Muhammad and his claims, muhammadans buckle under the weight of lack of evidence.
    It gives me pleasure to see muhamadans fall over themselves in accepting Michael Hart's writing that Muhammad was the most influential political figure in history. That claim was based on the fact that Muhammad was a war monger and the author of the quran which work reflects his words and actions. This lays to rest any claim that there was ever a separate entity called allah and that the quran is of divine origin. On that score Muhammad was no prophet.
    The non muslims have produced ample proof to back up their claims. The world is still waiting for the Muhammadans to do the same with even the slightest of evidence.
    The inspiration derived from your prophet's act could be seen in Afghanistan where the Taliban took the country back into the dark ages. It is seen in the hundreds of mutilated bodies blown and strewn across several landscapes. It is also reflected in the endless war muhammadans wage within and without themselves and the destruction that follows.

  5. Slave of Prophet says:

    Non-believers have nothing concrete to refute Quran and prophet. They are just beating the bush. Our prophet every act is a great inspiration for the followers.

  6. Khanz says:

    first of all I invite u to the peaceful religion of islam.please u r saying stuff out of context.
    u said ab8 muslims leaving their stuff in makkah n migrated to medina.well they did and they never wanted it back.u said our prophet raided caravans.well it was a ploy by Mekkans to attack Medina which they did in Badr.please brother or sister whoever u r.dont take stuff out of context.may Allah guide u in your life.

  7. murtad malabari says:

    muslims visiting this site ends up as apostates. the brainwashed moon god cult members, be blessed leave islam.

  8. Faisal Moaiz says:

    Dr Ali Sina, you're living in an err.

  9. RIGHT TO LIVE says:

    Mr.rajesh.I had an oppertunity to read Dr.Sina BLOG.i allways think that the Onnly one religionis made not with love,but with sword,thats why every muslims(EVEN INTELUCTUAL) are not differ .ONE SICKMINDperson made the whole world to belive HE IS THE MESSANGER OF GOD,Actually he is not a messanger of god,inteeds he is the MESSANGER OF SATAN.

  10. truth set u free says:

    hassan:u brainwashed by your so call religion of peace lol…so u unable to see the truth!u r gud muslim anyway tat y u cant accept the fact and the truth about your crazy religion!

  11. Comment says:

    Hassan,dont forget me,even I want to go to school,plz admit me,I think muslims have complete their school,but we couldn't,cause we were finding mistakes in muhammad,so that means,he likes to waste time of people.

    Thanks for the offer.

  12. Hassan says:

    I have to admit "THIS GUY IS MAD",he make's stupid mistake's =,that even a child can catch,Ali Sina,I advise u to visit ur nearest school,and,no problem,I will pay ur fees,tell them to admit u in class 1,oh sorry i insulted class 1 buy admitting u,grow up man,

  13. Sapna says:

    How can you justify such thing. imagine you being killed / hurt badly and that man forces your daughter to marry him (as she has no option).

  14. John K says:

    The thing is most Muslims don't know Arabic either.

    Things like this are only said by people who don't understand the process of translation anyway.

    Bill Warner uses the example that you may not be able to translate "birds of a feather flock together" in a way that conveys the original English depth, but you can certainly translate it in such a manner that the reader understands that birds of the same type stay together. In other cases footnotes can be added to add depth and meaning to a passage, but it is certainly ridiculous to assert that something written in one language can't be translated such that someone reading in another language can understand the meaning. That's just Muslim obstructionism.

  15. Sanada_10 says:

    You see, the excuse of "not knowing Arabic" is very famous among muslims who have no other point to refute. This fallacy takes a lot of ignorance on:

    1. Various muslim scholars who had translated and interpreted it to other language.
    2. The very same logic can be applied when muslims try to attack Bible, lack of knowledge in original language.

    The funny thing is, the one who uses this excuse is no more reliable than these scholars. It is common sense to see that no "true" translation and tafsir ever appear based on this. It's mere excuse.

  16. John K says:

    You must be kidding Seraj. Sanada has more Islamic facts at his fingertips than you will ever have if you don't change your ways. You are a perfect example of the ignorant exalting themselves against the learned.

  17. Sanada_10 says:

    Is that all? Claiming yourself as a winner before you even start? If mine is second grade then what is Zawadi's? Third grade? what is yours? Fourth? As far as I can see, your comments contain nothing special. Borrowing Sina's words, "you are not smart".

  18. Seraj says:

    Ah, done reading and reading your comments, Sanada. Rather second grade, I can see how you misinterpreted with your lack of Islamic understanding and Arabian linguistic methods and fashions. I do plan, inshaa'Allah, to do my best according to my knowledge to debunk the ridiculous points you make. However right now I have much more important things in my life, that which doesn't concern you. Peace.

  19. Hakan says:

    hahaha ur funny

  20. Sanada_10 says:

    And hilarious when they shoot their own foot.

  21. Sanada_10 says:

    He's right there all right, doing his job as a devout muslim. That is narcissistic remark. No muslim can pretend to be skeptic.

  22. Sanada_10 says:

    Let alone you.

  23. Sanada_10 says:

    Good confession, I must say.

  24. Sanada_10 says:

    No one asks, you know.

  25. John K says:

    What's wrong? Don't you watch the movies? The good guys always win.

  26. John K says:

    It will. But the good news is you don't have to wait. You will be shocked and awed at how you have been conned by Islam just by reading his book, which is available today. And you can even get it for free.

  27. John K says:

    I so love Muslims. They are so articulate.

  28. Hakan says:

    whether u believe in islam or not, deep down u lot know Islam is gonna kick ass and take over, nothing u could do im sorry 🙂

  29. everin says:

    The atomic bomb is not needed lah, because the muslims r killing each other lah in ME countries as well as in Pakistan n afghanistan lah. U head is buried in the "sand" of Arabia lah. At least check the news in the Internet lah.

  30. Hakan says:

    its pity u cant use it 🙂

  31. Hakan says:

    i hardly ever wacth aljazeera

  32. Hakan says:

    sorry , but thou doth not make any sense 🙁

  33. Hakan says:

    blah blah blah

  34. John K says:

    Too bad the West cannot come up with a more successful tool.

    Oh, I forgot – the atom bomb – invented by a Jew. Should do the trick.

  35. Sanada_10 says:

    Noooo!!! Al Jazeera is a western tool to destroy Islam!

  36. Sanada_10 says:

    He has redefined the word "skeptic". That's for sure.

  37. Sanada_10 says:

    Riiight, Mr. "Skeptic".

  38. Sanada_10 says:

    Thanks for ignoring all my points and posts including Banu Mustaliq posts.Your own words is full of biased and prejudiced statements and worse of it you didn't dare to discuss anything. Just petty excuse like cornered mouse. Your faith itself is speculative one. The difference between you and me is, I am informed and you are not.

    Ops, no so fast boy, before you write anything further (maybe you have the urge to reply me) I just want to make sure one thing. Do you know the meaning of “bias” and its application? I have to know that you know what you are talking about. Don’t get me wrong, I’m here to help you so that you don’t “shoot your own foot” and in the future, your “head” will be safe from your own “bullet”. It’s such a shame, right? Judging from your “pretty head”, well, at least you claimed it that way.

  39. everin says:

    Hakan,  If u don’t believe yr own Arab News Channel, Aljazeera, then u r still dreaming to meet yr 72 virgins . But why 72 only ?  Hey ! WHERE GOT  ENOUGH TO SERVE THE BILLIONS OF MUSLIMS. So u believe in this BIG LIE.  Keep dreaming zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz n never wake up.  Because when u wake up u cannot face realities.    Inshaala !

  40. John K says:

    Your blind and ignorant conviction against documented fact. You belong to a medieval death cult. Who cares about your barbarian conviction?

  41. John K says:

    Nobody has to speculate. The Quran clearly shows the criminal nature of Muhammad and his puppet Allah. Muhammad also has one of the most documented lives of anyone in history. Even if you accept only the most conservative Ahadith and Sira, you have thousands of pages documenting Muhammad's life of crime.

    Do yourself a favor and take Dr. Sina up on his offer of a free copy of his book, "Understanding Muhammad." It will not be possible for you to remain a Muslim after reading it. Are you man enough to take the challenge? Or will you be a coward, afraid of what you might learn?

  42. John K says:

    Surely the cause of the global economic crisis – too many people involved with non-productive activities!

  43. John K says:

    Okay. Found it at Wikipedia. I can see why BYU didn't tolerate his work.

  44. Hakan says:

    peace be upon him 🙂

  45. Hakan says:

    what ifs and what ifs, what if ur right n im wrong, what if i am right and u r wrong, the diffrence between me and u is i dont giv a toss, i also find it extremly unjustified to put myself in a position to come to a derogatory conclusion on someones controversial decisions that were made over 1000 years ago, u act the judge and jury and wen i giv u a what if ? u naturally respond wis a what if also lol, which shows me u only have a biased obbsesion wis ur own speculative views on the prophet Muhammed

  46. Sanada_10 says:

    Wow, your teeth is so yellow.

  47. Sanada_10 says:

    And what if the genuine intention was the make sure that booty and support belonged to him? You wouldn't know , would you? Coz, you are just blind believer.

    Dear oh dear. That's why I discuss it in this very page. Look at my other comments in this page. You didn't read it. Man, you are so ignorant.

  48. Hakan says:

    BiG YAAaaaWWWnnn ,im not so naive and gullible as ur self, these r clinicly manufactured revolutions, my conviction against ur belief 🙂

  49. Hakan says:

    well wat if he had a genuinne motive to attack without warning ?? u would nt know, would u ??, coz u just an armchair critque in the 21st century.

  50. Sanada_10 says:

    It's Steven not Stephen. He is devout Mormon and expelled from his university, Brigham Young. Join other CT as "ace card" and trying hard to make his paper reviewed by scientific publisher and found Bentham.

  51. Sanada_10 says:

    That's it, Mr. "Skeptic"? Wow, some brain power there. It seems you are not only biased and prejudiced but you're also rather slow to grasp sentences and this site "system of reply". Do read my post again and here, the clue: "An arrow left from your user name". If you don't understand something just say so and ask, don't just rant like ego pleasing muslim, ops, you are a muslim.

  52. Sanada_10 says:

    And CT is "busy" accusing it.

  53. Sanada_10 says:

    ………………… (no comment due to…)

  54. Sanada_10 says:

    Thanks for showing your true self, Mr. "Skeptic".

    Yups, Juwairiyah and her folks was attacked without warning by aggressive warlord Mo, enslaved, forced to marry, etc. The rest of your "short" post is just muslim blind faith who dismiss anything bad against Mo.

    Hey! It's easy to be you!

  55. Hakan says:

    yeh jawaria and her folks were enslaved,she married the prophet pbuh, and she lived happily ever after 🙂 ,the rest is ur wild speculation against a muslims belief.

  56. Hakan says:

    ur electronic ramblings are failing to make any sense dear,.. wats ur point in a nut shell ?

  57. Hakan says:

    was an inside job aright

  58. John K says:

    Our government is busy with enough things without thinking up conspiracies to carry out.

  59. John K says:

    Whoever Stephen Jones is, he is not notable or he is not a scientist. The only Professor Stephen Jones I could find is a professor of Russian and Eurasian studies.

  60. John K says:

    "plotting to make Islam appears as bad religion"

    Typical paranoia. When all one needs to do is say one true thing about Islam to make it look bad, anything anyone says is subject to fear.

  61. everin says:

    Hakan, Did u know why no photo of the dead Osama ? Because he blew himself into pieces on seeing the SEALs team. Go n get a piece of his body set up a shrine for him, for GOD's sake.

  62. Sanada_10 says:

    Actually, he's right about that in "certain way".

  63. Sanada_10 says:

    If that's your power I don't want it, why? Oh, think it for yourself, with your power.

  64. Sanada_10 says:

    A man’s silhouette at unknown place talking on the phone using American accent:

    “9/11 operation is done, sir … yes sir, the towers and pentagon … yes sir, the broadcasting is smooth … no sir, everyone involved had no problem … yes sir, all “evidence” and “witnesses” had been deployed … Victims sir? That’s a shame but it is necessary … Bin Laden sir? He’s with me now, drinking beer … Yes sir, he will depart right away … of course sir, those muslims will never know what hit them … Angry sir? We’ll appease those muslims, sir … Towers sir? Explosive traces had been covered, sir … Sir, forgive my impudence but why we had to explode the towers, sir? ……………………….. Sir? ………………….. Sir? …………………. Are you there, sir? ……………….. Ugh, I, I’m sorry sir … O, ok sir, I won’t ask again … Yes sir, everything will be according to plan … Mr. President (loud music thriller after the last word).”

    Watch the full movie in your nearest cinema! Available also on DVD! (No piracy please, pretty please, we are making money you know).

  65. Sanada_10 says:

    Excuse me Mr. Physicist. It’s Einstein not Einstien. This is the second muslim who had misspelled his name as far as I know in this site. (muslim mode on: accusing without basis), just because he was Jewish you think you can play with his name ignoring that he is one of the greatest physicists? (off).

  66. Sanada_10 says:

    Says the "skeptic", ops. One of CT’s weaknesses is biased and prejudiced attitude. They often decide the result first before the so called investigation, if one of their theories doesn’t fit their goal they’ll propose new one but the goal stays. In this case you had already assumed that everin is an American. That will sum up your mindset, Mr. “Skeptic”. Well you are a muslim after all so what can I say? By the way, many media have mistyped and misspoken Osama for Obama. Funny isn’t it, “Obama is dead”? Could it be that Obama is Osama? Oh, another CT but hey, I can’t resist from thinking it just like any human can’t to story like this.

    What I don’t like about CT is their cultic behavior. One thing for sure, CT is not skeptic. Oh, how about I dismiss Jones with the same way you dismissed Sina on 9/11? Jones had made a research about evidence of Mormonism, right?

  67. Sanada_10 says:

    This talk is suitable for experts, not us because we can only assume this and that from afar using “image” or “video” (and of course CT side do this too), but could you show the report of “pool of molten steel” by experts? Next time you should bring reference about all of these.

    And since I’m not an expert I’ll ask you these ignorant and yet skeptical questions. According to you (not Jones),

    1. Who could have specifically done this?

    2. What motive did they have?

    3. How many explosives were needed and how about its type and position?

    4. How about preparation for demolition (this you didn’t answer)?

    5. Is there any evidence of explosive used?

    6. Why did they pick this method, I mean making the building collapse, what’s the point? They surely didn’t want this risky and fragile plan since it’s easy to be sniffed just like we “see” today. Or that was exactly their purpose, creating CT?

    From the way I look at it, “explosive” is just another theory not scientific finding. All of these CT make me think that the US government is very cunning, perfect and powerful (this includes indoctrinating and keeping the “conspirators’ mouth” shut) while in reality it’s not. Well, the impression itself is an advantage to the government and makes the enemies think twice to go against it. Even Muhammad couldn’t do this, right? “USA the best deceiver”, how’s that? It had replaced Allah.

    Another impression is that many CT are from US themselves so this is one way to defend their “identity” and “pride” that USA is strong and the only one that can defeat it is USA itself aka no one. It controls everything on this earth like puppet master from trivial matter to the global one (like Allah).

  68. Sanada_10 says:

    Steven Jones? Thermite? Superthermite? So far, his theory is unclear in many ways and still many elements don’t fit perfectly into the incident. His theory about the motive was too cliché and hardly compatible with facts on the field. Didn’t his university reject him? Is he a demolition or building expert? Did he ever try it, I mean, destroying steel building using nanothermite? What did engineering and building experts say about this? What did other professors/academics say about this? Sorry, but I don’t follow something like “this” since I’m not American nor do this kind of American “thingy” so I’m quite ignorant.

    As a scientist you don’t decide the motive and political purpose before investigation. A scientist should dwell only on his own scientific finding, no political guessing. By the way, what is the result of his research on “nanothermite” after that, like making it to explode?

  69. Sanada_10 says:

    That would be obvious from his position as muslim. I would be surprised if he didn’t believe CT. Many devout muslims in my country believe CT but they also deny anything bad against muslim or Islam in other matters, an obvious bias. Wait until you see their comments about Jews (surprise, surprise, they never know or meet a Jew).

    Even if we pretend that one of CT is right then USA is a stupid government actually, I mean, judging from the planning, the process, and the result not to mention letting the average, ordinary people to disclose it. US government can’t do secret operation without someone “knowing/finding” it. Forget the oxymoron, which one is stupid, US government or CT? It’s your choice, the fact is one of them must be stupid.

    Here, a question for everyone here truther or not, troll or not, assuming that truthers (not troll) are right, did the US government orchestrate this incident in order to be found or not?

  70. Sanada_10 says:

    Hey, no yawning in class (throwing a chalk into the opened mouth).

  71. Sanada_10 says:

    Yes, “indirectly”. If he even knows what that means.

  72. Sanada_10 says:

    Huh? Is this pride pleasing comment? This will not do you any good. The “dumb” audience is eager for you to “elaborate” this, not yawning or repeating the same argument by CT sites.

    Ok, I’ll try:

    Yeah … yeah … yeah… whatever you say muslim… zzz (snoring).

    Hmm, that’s not really good when I see it again. Sounds like an uneducated punk not a physicist.

  73. Sanada_10 says:

    Ah, you must be a physicist, ops, don’t reply with “blah” or “yawn” again since no physicist does that. Didn’t you write “there r so many unexplained phenomenas in this world” in “Russian babay” article? Hmm.

  74. Sanada_10 says:

    Hmm, actually the futile one is the CT and when you try to refute them, none will happen. Why? It’s because they are not mainstream or accepted by people like Ahmadiya in muslim world. In that article, Sina had mentioned 8 points, finish that first then talk about futility. Here’s my advice, post your 8 points of rebuttal to that article.

    As long as I recall Sina despises muslims to the extent that they follow Muhammad’s standard. Hey, who doesn’t despise 7th century barbarian mindset anyway?

  75. Sanada_10 says:

    Actually they really are conspiracy theorists (CT) since all they can do is theorizing (with various different stories and culprits) a conspiracy. In short they are not reliable. Some of these theories are ridiculous and racist, some are unclear, some don’t make sense, some are biased, some are incomplete and all of them belong to speculation world. Those people (who?) of course would want independent investigation after reading all of these theories, even Da Vinci Code can make people doubt and want to investigate further. You have mentioned academics. Are there other scientists that do like Jones does?

    Islam is what? What is the connection between 9/11 CT with Islam and Muhammad as topic? Buddy, you are blabbering again. How about you and me discuss Islam? First topic: define “vast” and “elastic” in Islam. You remind me of one muslim I have discussed with. All he had for Islam is cheap excuse.

    Sina wanted to nuke Mecca and Medina? This kind of post is what I call blatant accusation fueled by your prejudiced feeling toward critics of Islam. Reference is what you need not your mouth. Are you one of CT? You should write a novel or book. Here in my country there are muslims who accuse Indonesian government for plotting to make Islam appears as bad religion since Soeharto era. There is also accusation of a famous muslim musician being a militant Jew or some muslim politicians being communists. Are you really a skeptic? Your mouth and your action are different.

  76. Sanada_10 says:

    Didn’t Jones and others claim that they “found” both thermite and nanothermite composites in dust and debris?

  77. Sanada_10 says:

    Ridiculous post really, and for someone who claimed to be skeptic you are a bad one. You had switched topic and giving irrelevant response here. Check again what everin had posted and compare it with your reply. Notice anything? If not then think for yourself, you are supposed to be a skeptic after all, just don’t go too wild in imagination.

    Then you connected it with Islam. Going sideways instead of straight, eh Hakan? I was hoping a muslim comes here to discuss the issues I raise here but as always the original topic is ignored (this article) and another topic emerges (9/11). But that’s ok for it is a human defensive nature to struggle for any opening they can find no matter how small it is. I’ve seen that in the past (including your "skeptical" post at "russian babay").

    I assume you are ready to discuss Islam judging from your “bold” statement. Why don’t you refute Juwairiyah article and my posts here? No muslims touch my posts so far.

    Your words, “naturally u would deny this as any muslim would deny the fallacies u point out to about aspects of there faith” is really …, oh I don’t know how to call this. Comparing these 2 things is so … (oh, I don’t know, buddy). I’ve seen too many illogical statements like this you know, coming from muslims.

    Your effort is clear and the displayed result is ugly, if you even know what I mean. Ah, I forgot, you are a troll judging from your post at "Russian babay". You actually had admitted it yourself.

  78. Hakan says:

    how do u know it was alqaida, for all u know it could just be the cia covering its arse, yet again johny boy,ur blind speculations gets the better of u, such a shame really 🙁 , coz me kinda thought u ppl here were ratTioNAL

  79. Hakan says:

    think wis my reasoning power eh! , i suggest u practice wat u preach, and errrm… mellow down on the CaPs.. its the internet, its just not posSsiBLe to hear u, n ny the way the president does'nt wanna release any images yet, me supposes he got alot of photo shoppin to do, especially since 9/11 had so many clues lol, like errrrrmm.. that footage of the plane that hit the trade centre n the nose of the plane emerged fully intact on the other side n the then the broadcast goes dead hahaha lmaov

  80. John K says:

    An al-Qaeda revenge attack crossing from Pakistan to Afghanistan has already been repulsed with heavy losses to AQ. AQ know he's dead. Why do you think you know more? It's just your Muslim upbringing of supremacy and ignorance.

  81. Hakan says:

    blah blah blah, the most wanted fugitive in american history and ur president would nt even show u his body, and im sure pretty soon wen images of the dead osama is shown it would be some grainy inconclusive load of bull which u would be head over heels wis, keep smileing sheeps becuase ur own goverments would screw u long before any muslims would.

  82. everin says:

    Hakan, OBAMA Killed Osama, the most stupid millionaire, who had spent all his wealth fighting for a lost cause, because he believe in LIES. He could not think out of his religious box, n set himself free from HATE. His “achievements” had caused more Muslims’ death n great sufferings to his Muslim brothers n sisters. Could it be Divine arrangement for him n his gangs to be sacrificed as pawns to cleanse the sins of the former colonial powers ? Inshaala !

  83. John K says:

    This, folks, is an example of the intellectual capacity and articulation abilities of Muslims, at least the ones who believe their superstitions.

  84. Hakan says:

    yeh yeh yeh, blah blah blah

  85. everin says:

    Hakan,   What maybe ?  I do not know what rubbish u r talking about.  If u want to believe in LIES spout out to u go ahead.  Yr people r programmed to believe u, but all the world cannot be fooled.  The world can only think that u r  FOOLS.

  86. Hakan says:


  87. Hakan says:

    ok einstien

  88. John K says:

    Who wrote your physics text? Muhammad?

  89. John K says:

    You haven't got a clue about science. Your posts are meaningless gibberish.

  90. Hakan says:

    sorry buddy but there is no evidence for pools of thermite on 9/11 at ground zero, but there is much evidence for pools of molten steel below the debris, and if u had done any bit of research then u would have known that even the massive central columns in all 3 of the buildings were sliced into transportable pieces dureing and whithin the 15 seconds of the collapsing sequence

  91. Ali Sina says:

    What science you are talking about? I have shown you that the thermite is used for cutting steel and since those large columns had to be cut into pieces for transporting them, pools of thermites were formed on the site.

  92. Hakan says:

    i suppose accepting a rational conclusion or even a rational inquiry into the 9/11 attacks does not fit well wis ur crusade against islam, i fail to see how ur obvious bias would do ur credibility any good 🙁

  93. Hakan says:

    @everin, maybe on ur planet the laws of physics r diffrent, but here on our planet earth a large mass does not collapse and then overwhelms a point where there is the highest ressistance,cheerio 🙂

  94. Hakan says:

    Thermite isn't some rust and alluminium or welding grains still remaining on highly scrutinsed industrial steal used for the construction of some of the largest buildings in history,I'm sorry My erudite friend, science doesnt lie. WTC 1,2 & 7 were destroyed with explosives, atleast thats is the most convincing explanation. I undertand your psuedo skepticism, I'm pretty skepitcal myself. Please, go digging and researching. The truth does exist, thankfully

  95. Ali Sina says:

    If you read my article you’d have noticed I said super thermite is used for cutting steel. I even provided a picture of how steel were cut in the site.

    This conspiracy is so stupid that I did not want to write about it until one friend whom I know is not stupid wrote and was confused by all the lies she was hearing.

    How can any sane person believe that a large number of Americans went into those buildings and prepared it for their collapse? Is that plausible? Hundreds of people would have needed to work on those buildings for weeks. Is is possible? Americans preparing the death of their own countrymen? How stupid one must be to believe in that?

    The amazing thing is that this whole thing was kept a secret so far and none of those people have come forth to blow the whistle.

    How could such a large demolition crew get into those offices and prepare the buildings for their collapse without anyone noticing, Remember that the preparation takes weeks and a large crew. It also requires the columns to be exposed. How can all this happen beneath the nose of the people working there?

    There must be some limit to stupidity, or is there? Well maybe there isn’t. Einstein said, there are two things that are unlimited, the Universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the Universe.

  96. everin says:

    Hakan,    If u have better IQ, u will be able to discern that the 2 planes carried lots of jet fuel that exploded on impact with the WTC, creating infernos that raised the temperature to thousands of degrees.  The steel structures of the WTC simply melted n buckled n smashed down by their own weights.  Can u have a better technical  explaination  other than this ?  Otherwise, don’t believe in LIES that are purposely-created.       

  97. Hakan says:

    haha ali sina thinks u would naturally find thermite dust in amongst the collapse debris of steel buildings, the man is just like a mad mullah targeting his dumb audience eager to believe his bullshit, besides mr sina the traces of thermite that were examined by proffesor stephen jones were high grade nano thermite that could only be developed in sophisticated labs

  98. John K says:

    Of course you don't give any good reason for the things you are saying, because there isn't any. Posts like yours are representative of an endemic problem of the dumbing down of the world. Of course, since you are Muslim, you have never been anything but dumb. You have never been taught the analytical reasoning skills that made our great civilization possible, and if your trend continues unchecked, Islamic countries will never get out of the stone age.

  99. John K says:

    Surely you don't take those kind of people seriously. Obviously you didn't read the article.

    Dr. Sina does have a weapon to demoralize the Muslim psyche. It's called "Understanding Muhammad". Guaranteed if you read the entire book you will not remain a Muslim:

  100. Hakan says:

    a futile attempt by ali sina to refute the so called 9/11 conspiracy theorist, i believe now that ali sinas rationale is emotionaly influenced by his dislike of islam, he and his cronies r far from impartial and no where near as close to a genuinne skeptic as u often come accross, u all r just as primitively tribalistic as the muslims u despise so much.

  101. Hakan says:

    There is a much more voiciforous crowd out in the world and in particular the states that is composed of all sorts of academics,journalists,actors and actressess and senators calleing for a new independent investigation into the events that occured on 9/11, these ppl r ridiculed and called silly names as conspiracy nuts by the mainstream media of allmost every established western country on this planet, and islam is such a vast and elastic subject that thrives in a world of finget tip information, i am afraid ali sinas crusade against it is futile unless he has access to atleast a few nuclear weapons where by he could have the option of once and for all demoraliseing the muslim pyche by tagetting our most revered spiritual centres such as mecca and madina

  102. John K says:

    Bend the laws of physics to suit your argument? Dual propaganda by bin Laden claiming credit for his victory and blaming it on Jews or Americans at the same time?

  103. Hakan says:

    9/11 was an inside job buddy, the law of physics makes it impossible for buildings to collapse straight down onto there own footprints at free fall speeds, naturally u would deny this as any muslim would deny the fallacies u point out to about aspects of there faith, there is no more middle ground in the 21st century of information, wen u stand out against one some what percieved bullshit u do so by bieng stuck in another

  104. Sanada_10 says:

    What you call gibberish is "intelligent" to muslims due their faith and is "right" to ignorant people due to their … (ah, I don't need to mention it). In short, it is needed.

  105. John K says:

    Good job, by the way. One has to admire your patience in the effort you make to give detailed responses to the gibberish.

  106. Sanada_10 says:

    Now it’s clear and of course Jews would dislike Muhammad but Mubarakpuri said this without source,

    “They started a process of trouble-making, jeering at the Muslims, hurting those who frequented their bazaars, and even intimidating their women.”

    This event happened before the threat of Muhammad but Martin Lings wrote the opposite that no such thing happened and only one incident had occurred. He wrote, “A few days later, in the same market-place, an incident occurred which brought things to a climax: a Muslim woman who had come to sell or exchange some goods was grossly insulted by one of the Jewish goldsmiths.” (page 161).

    Montgomery Watt also stated the same thing, he wrote, “About the same time the Jewish tribe of B. Qaynuqa' was attacked after a trivial dispute had led to the death of a Muslim, was besieged for a fortnight, and, when they surrendered, sent away from Medina.” (page 15). Also read page 181 and 209.

    Sir William Muir also stated the same that the incident was after Muhammad’s threat. He wrote, “An incident soon occurred which afforded the pretext for an attack. An Arab girl, married to a convert of Medina, went to the shop of a goldsmith in the market-place of the Cainucaa, where waiting for some ornaments, she sat down. A silly neighbour, unperceived, pinned the lower hem of her skirt behind to the upper dress. When she arose, the awkward exposure excited laughter, and she screamed with shame” (Vol. 3, Chapter 13, page 134).

    So Mr. Prejudiced, the correct one is one man from Banu Qaynuqa (not they, let alone all) made fun (not rape) of a muslim woman as an effect of their dislike for Muhammad (after he described them badly in Quran and threaten them in the market). After that one muslim (not her husband) retaliated by killing this Jew. So, this was unbalanced, a trivial incident which resulting no wound or pain except shame was avenged by murder, very Islamic indeed. Jews then retaliated by killing this muslim (that’s better, at least the balance is made). Then Muhammad having made a threat (because Qaynuqa rejected Islam thus was seen as threat) before, saw this isolated incident as opportunity to kill them all but didn’t do it because he was persuaded by Ibn Ubayy (Ibn Ishaq 363.546).

    Even your idol, Mubarakpuri didn’t said what you said,

    “One day a Jewish goldsmith provoked a Muslim woman whose genitals become uncovered when he had tied the edge of the garment to her back. A Muslim man happened to be there and killed the man; the Jews retaliated by killing that Muslim. The man’s family called the Muslims for help and war started.”

    I repeat again, your user name is really ironic.

  107. Sanada_10 says:

    Question for you, do you have any intent to kill Sina like Muhammad’s on Ka’b? Here, a quote from sealed nectar showing how a muslim thinks,

    “At this stage, the situation became unbearable and could no longer be put up with. The Prophet (Peace be upon him) gathered his men and said: “Who will kill Ka‘b bin Al-Ashraf? He had maligned Allâh, and His Messenger.”

    You can also read Ibn Ishaq 369.554 to know how a muslim thinks.

    Interestingly Ka’b appeared to be a brave person and said, “Even if the call were for a stab a brave man must answer it” and muslims who were hungry for blood for a mere critique had injured their own friend. This cowardly trickery, attacking from behind is the method of Muhammad to the critic of Islam. This assassination would serve the key as why Jews in Medina started to dislike Muhammad in muslim’s view. Ibn Ishaq wrote, “Our attack upon God’s enemy cast terror among the Jews, and there was no Jew in Medina who did not fear for his life” (Ibn Ishaq 368.552).

    Did Mubarakpuri mention the bravery? Of course he wouldn’t and that’s predictable, very. He even wrote ridiculous thing such as, “When the Jews learned about the death of their tyrant, Ka‘b bin Al-Ashraf, they were scared and even their stonelike hearts were in the grip of inexpressible panic”. The only tyrant existed was Muhammad and Ka’b was a mere poet and businessman and at that time Jewish tribes were not united even unfriendly to each other. What a stupid statement, only muslims take this book as reliable and only a messy non Islamic site made it as source. Here, another ridiculous statement, “He then applied his saliva to Al-Harith’s wound and it healed on the spot” and gave irrelevant reference such as Bukhari and Dawood. Ibn Ishaq only mentioned that Muhammad spat, period, no curing. It’s more like method for curing wound at that time rather than miracle (Bukhari 1.309). Why didn’t Muhammad use his own saliva when he was injured in Ta’if and Uhud? Care to answer? You don’t write history book and mix it with myth. It would be a romance not historical fact.

    Abu Sufyan rode to Medina with weak force for the sake of his pride after losing in Badr. He was received by chief of Nadir but he didn’t provide anything to him and made him to retreat. This shows that Nadir wasn’t hostile to Muhammad even after the “nice” attitude shown by Muhammad including evicting Banu Qaynuqa.

    You wrote, “as for banu qainuka they raped a women and killed her husband just because they were followers of Muhammad ans before that declared open war on muslims”

    Two thumbs up for your ignorance. May I ask where did you get that? Don’t tell me it’s from sealed nectar again. Here, prejudiced quotes from it,

    “The Jews, however, whose natural disposition is closely linked to treachery, betrayal and covenant-breaching, could not rid themselves of the tradition of theirs”

    “Such were the practices of the Jews, trouble-making, dissension-sowing, falsehood, fabrication, faking belief in the day, and practising disbelief at night.”

    Wow! Why did Muhammad even make covenant “knowing” this? Which part was breached in the covenant anyway? This is clearly anti semitic remark and no, the award in muslim world doesn’t surprise me even one bit because it’s exactly what they do, inciting hatred to all Jews.

    Let’s see, before the incident Muhammad made insulting remarks about Jews in Quran since his arrival. In this day and age we call it “hate speech on religion” or “intolerant bigot” or “racism” or “phobia” or whatever bad names you can think of created by the almighty PC people, the holder of “truth” and spread to the entire globe with amazing speed like cancer. One day after he had won in Badr he assembled Jews and asked them again to convert, he also wanted Jews to fear him learning their lesson in Quraish’s fate at Badr. So he said, “O Jews, beware lest God bring upon you the vengeance that He brought upon Quraish and become Muslims. You know that I am a prophet who has been sent – you will find that in your scriptures and God’s covenant with you”. Muhammad the provocateur was very good at creating enmity as he did with Quraish then blamed them for that. Of course the Jews would be angry and said that if Muhammad wanted to attack then attack because they would be different opponent (Ibn Ishaq 363.545). Do you know that Muhammad did here? Threatening Jews to submit and convert or met the same fate with Quraish at Badr, in short, it was war declaration after he felt strong enough (boasted by his success). Muhammad in this case had put the Nadir with the same place with the Quraish while these 2 were different in their action towards Muhammad.

  108. Sanada_10 says:

    just stay silent hoping that maybe you or other muslims can answer my points below but you didn’t. Is this the habit of muslim, type and run? I’ll response to your 3 posts.

    You wrote, “FIrst of before Muhammad the fighting in Arabia were intense and pointless”

    Proof? Yes, in Arabia they often fought each other but in small scale and of course not pointless. They usually fought for their tribe’s interest or survival and that’s a point. Every nations and races on this earth was undergoing similar natural process but at different time and level. Without it we wouldn’t reach our present state.

    You wrote, “Banu nadir tried to assasinate the prophet and always showed open hostilities”

    Did they? According to Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad went to them to ask blood money for false murder of 2 men from Banu Amir by muslims (435.650-437.652). But the murder didn’t have anything to do with Nadir and the guilty party was muslim so Muhammad should pay Banu Amir with his wealth from raiding caravans. Why did Muhammad go to Nadir instead of Amir? Logically by doing so would be an injustice to both Banu Amir and Nadir plus they had alliance with Muhammad. Also, in Medinan “constitution” Muhammad had said that “a man’s not liable to his ally’s misdeeds” (Ibn Ishaq 233.343). Double standard also exists concerning blood money whereas killing believers must be avenged with killing except the victim’s family wanted money but this didn’t apply to non muslims which is blood money was certain. Unless Muhammad had a plan he didn’t have any business with them. He’s planning something.

    When you read a book you have to be critical of it. Muhammad knew their intention not from rational way but irrational way, a revelation came solely from his own mind with no one except him could hear. What an advantage that no one could disapprove. Muhammad also went there with no army but few companions. If Nadir wanted to assassinate him it was piece of cake and they shouldn’t plan it secretly by throwing a rock from unknown position. Killing Muhammad would turn the tide 180 degrees and made muslims in chaos thus could be easily defeated. Just made him wait in a room, close the exit, bring many men surrounding him and kill this old man with sword. Simple, isn’t it? Unless you are a blind fan that love myth stories that his companions fight like thousand men, like typical romance.

    One fact disturbs me. There are no spies watching Muhammad’s move. Let’s say they wanted to assassinate him, at least they could put someone to watch his movement to ensure the plot. No, Muhammad was wandering freely and went unnoticed and so did his companions (at that time they didn’t even know what was going on and why Muhammad left). What a poor plot compared to Muhammad’s plot to assassinate Ka’b (assuming that they really wanted to kill him). Even if I played along with devout zero critical muslim and accepted this assassination plot to justify the beloved king of kings, prophet of prophets, trickster of tricksters, parent of parents, and last but not least, nectar of nectars (?), Banu Nadir’s intention to Muhammad would be understandable. Muhammad brought religion which insulting Jews, assassinating one of their men (Ka’b), and behaved like he was the master (constitution of Medina) and could use them for his profit (asking unrelated blood money).

    Anyway, in order to know why Banu Nadir didn’t like or more precisely, feared Muhammad we have to know the story behind it. Banu Nadir didn’t have any enmity with Quraish in the first place but they also didn’t have any grudge with Muhammad. In short, they were neutral. After muslims raided Quraish caravans they attacked Meccans at Badr and won. Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf half Arab half Nadir Jew didn’t like this act (who would like that robbery anyway?) and criticized Muhammad. Since he was half breed he had 2 sides to sympathize. This time he sided with Arab Quraish and engaged poetic war with muslim and poetry was common at that time even muslims made it to criticize their enemies. That should be sufficient just like me or you on internet but Muhammad who loved to deal physically planned to kill him because he was incapable of refuting with words. His habit is imitated by muslims until now including the dual standard of criticism. From the very start Muhammad was already provoking Meccans with his insult to their religion, gathering arms in Mecca, raided their caravans then he killed them at Badr. Any sane person (free from blind faith and PC) can see that Muhammad was the aggressor and supporting Meccans is of course justified. Beside, even if Ka’b didn’t do this the Quraish would take revenge anyway. It’s silly to think that Quraish would act based on one man’s word alone. If my possession got robed I won’t need someone to tell me to get that back.

  109. Sanada_10 says:

    Sure, sure. Muslims will use the later book such as “sealed nectar” to justify Muhammad’s action even the title is clear. Everything he did must be right. But that book is not history book and judging from its content it is filled with biased and prejudiced statements not to mention name calling to Muhammad’s enemies which remind me of 2 muslims here, rahman and inove, I even perceived them as one person due to cultic style they had presented. A true historian doesn’t write a book containing ego pleasing words. Logical person will reject this book but muslims of course will accept it as long as it conforms to their belief (duh, that’s basic even kids know it). Beside a book which made in 20th century claimed to know more than earlier historians without explaining its source. Other muslims such as ZaU also used it with the same reason but the story in that book doesn’t make sense and it made Mustaliq’s leader Harith as a stupid man with no common sense. Any group will lose if its leader thinks like Harith.

    Here’s quote for the so called history book “sealed nectar”,

    “Buraidah bin Al-Haseeb Al-Aslami was immediately dispatched to verify the reports. He had some words with Abi Dirar, who confirmed his intention of war. He later sent a reconnoiterer to explore the positions of the Muslims but he was captured and killed.”

    “On hearing the advent of the Muslims, the disbelievers got frightened and the Arabs going with them defected and ran away to their lives.”

    So, they allied themselves with Arabs (who?) and wanted to attack Medina (they must felt that they were strong enough at least in number to deny Muhammad) then they let the news of this alliance spread. After being asked, they didn’t hide it and confirmed it thus giving Muhammad an open door to raid them (they must be aware of Muhammad’s style when dealing with Meccans and Jews before). Then they stayed in watering place with their women, children, and cattle after declaring a war and sent scouts (which clearly stupid) and their ally was equally stupid.

    What a stupid plan. Muslims love to read it because of that, eh? No wonder this book is one of favorites at least in their own cage.

    Questions for you,

    1. Who was Buraidah bin Al-Haseeb Al-Aslami? Can you elaborate his detail on that day?
    2. What was the fate of Harith bin Dirar? There are 2 versions about paying ransom, which one is right? Note that he was the enemy commander, a fighting man, so his property should be confiscated and he himself captured.
    3. Arabs were fleeing from Mustaliq, so they were with them? For what? War? The 2 conditions above don’t show that. Who were these Arabs?
    4. Banu Mustaliq was just a small tribe with weak military, why then they wanted to attack a city like Medina especially when looking at the battle of trench’s result?
    5. Banu Mustaliq was a branch of Khuza’ah who was expelled by Quraish in the past. Why did they side with Quraish?

    This funny story was also written by Martin Lings, a muslim convert. He wrote that Harith cared more about his camels (planned to be exchanged with his daughter) than Juwayriyah (page 242). His daughter was in enemy’s hand and all he thought was his camels. If he thought like that then what would he think about his own tribe? According to muslim biased sources, Harith was not only stupid but selfish and care less about his own people. How could he become leader in the first place? And why didn’t Muhammad use his nature to win him or his tribe against him so that invasion wouldn’t be necessary? It’s easy to deal with this type of man, no need for war. This silly story contradicts its own in the same page when before Harith came Muhammad had already said that he was the one who would pay the ransom. The silliness includes Muhammad’s magical eye to detect the hidden camels which is absurd only fit for believers.

    Even these sentences Sina had quoted from Islamic site are more ridiculous, “The news of the advance of Muslim forces had already reached Haris. In panic, his men deserted him and he himself took refuge in some unknown place”. Dear oh dear, I have no comment on this Harith, he was really something. There are holes in these sentences. Let me know if you want to discuss it.

    So, I shouldn’t trust Sina but you? Can I test you right now to see your reasoning? No offence but talking is cheap, proving is not, being ignorant is very easy but being knowledgeable is not. Majority of people are ignorant but they shout harder than others, muslim or non muslim alike. One more, trolling is easy too. Are you one of them?

  110. Sanada_10 says:

    You wrote, “As for the women and children were only taken captives because they needed protection against the wild arab tribes that would take any body captive who would come into their control.”

    Wonderful, I never ceased to amaze that muslims will use anything to defend Muhammad, literally anything including assumption. You do realize that this can be classified as lying and yet your user name is ironic. I give 4 points:

    1. There is no historical record about Muhammad’s reason for capturing them was for their protection. One thing for sure was for their protection from Muhammad himself. If you entered Islam, your life and property would be safe from him.
    2. They were fine before Muhammad attacked them, they could take care of themselves if Muhammad didn’t enslave them in the first place and they were friendly to Muhammad before invasion with one minus point, they weren’t muslims. Now, what Allah had said about unbelievers?
    3. Could you mention specifically about “wild Arab tribes”? Did you mean they were like Arabian Genghis Khan or Viking, invading right and left without cause? Did Muhammad ever encounter them or even literally fighting self defensive war against them? I repeat: literally self defensive war.
    4. What next? Sex with captives is ok? Doing azl to avoid pregnancy so that their price kept high?

    Bukhari 5.459:
    Narrated Ibn Muhairiz: I entered the Mosque and saw Abu Sa`id Al−Khudri and sat beside him and asked him about Al−Azl (i.e. coitus interruptus). Abu Sa`id said, "We went out with Allah's Apostle for the Ghazwa of Banu Al−Mustaliq and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus. So when we intended to do coitus interrupt us, we said, 'How can we do coitus interruptus before asking Allah's Apostle who is present among us?" We asked (him) about it and he said, 'It is better for you not to do so, for if any soul (till the Day of Resurrection) is predestined to exist, it will exist."

    Let’s see, muslims were doing this in order to protect them from Arab tribes too, literally from wild Arabs’ “little brothers”. This was truly a protection but for the sake of muslim’s “rod” not the slaves. Go on, I’m waiting your list of rationalization.

    Why Muhammad didn’t do the following:
    Attacking the hostile Banu Mustaliq (assuming that they did want to attack for the sake of argument), after that he released them without harm and left them alone with some warning. With this way, Banu Mustaliq would think positively about Muhammad as the most merciful leader deserved to be followed and would hesitate to confront him again in the future since he had beaten them in information and stratagem (assuming again) thus making them convert by themselves. As for their allies, the coward unknown Arabs, releasing Banu Mustaliq could raise suspicion that they had turned to Muhammad’s side since he had released them after battle without any loss or the “tradition of slavery” and made the future alliance very unlikely to happen. With this Banu Mustaliq would have no choice but to go to Muhammad’s side since Muhammad’s enemies wouldn’t trust them anymore. This method is more elegant and suitable for a man that claimed to have divine guidance who was (supposed to be) free from his current civilization and norm.

  111. Sanada_10 says:

    Banu Mustaliq wanted to attack Muhammad? This is so typical. There is no proof that they wanted to attack Muhammad. According to Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad only heard news that they was gathering against him with Harith bin Abu Dirar as the leader (Ibn Ishaq 490.725). The problem is, Bani Mustaliq was suddenly attacked by Muhammad during 2 conditions,

    1. Resting in their own place with their cattle, women and children (Bukhari 3.717)
    2. Without the presence of Harith (where was he?)

    From these 2 points it’s clear that they weren’t ready for any war against Muhammad let alone the sufficiency of their strength to take down Muhammad. The news was nothing more than a rumor and Ibn Ishaq didn’t specify the people who brought that rumor or whether he was a spy or not.

    The habit of creating and accepting rumor and false information for the expansion of Islam was the method Muhammad used since his arrival at Medina. Even after Bani Mustaliq accepted Islam the rumor about the evil of Bani Mustaliq still existed (this time about tax) and Muhammad wanted to attack them again (Ibn Ishaq 493.730). During his paranoid struggle, an embassy from Mustaliq came and told their real intent. Muhammad then came to realize that he was about to attack his own new followers and that’s bad for his position which was still at war with Meccans. Then he revealed Q 49:6.

    “O you who believe! if an evil-doer comes to you with a report, look carefully into it, lest you harm a people in ignorance, then be sorry for what you have done.” (Shakir)

    Duh, that’s too late.

    About Juwayriah’s decision, she offered herself to Muhammad in order to save her people even your idol Mubarakpuri agreed. She was not free at all since she had nowhere to go. Her tribe was at the hand of Muhammad’s mercy.

    You wrote, “And Muslims when invading their enemies accepted anyone to come into treaty with them or even better become a muslim and therefor he would remain free.”

    Good choice of word, they were literally invading their “enemies”. The treaty was only available when the invasion was premature but when Muhammad had the strength he invaded and imposed Islam or die or became slaves/dhimmi. The only way to survive in Muhammad’s rule was become a muslim. So much for Q 2:256. Beside, being a muslim doesn’t mean being free because there is a duty to serve Muhammad’s cause using your property and life.

    You wrote, “She accepted the better option.”

    Agreed, judging from her condition this was the best option for the whole tribe. We know what Muhammad would do, right?

    You wrote, “ANd if Muhammad were to let his enemies go rather then become slave it would be not earthly because chances are that they gather and plan a another assault on the muslims.”

    The slave trade was proven to be one of the Muhammad’s main incomes to expand his religion so to say it unearthly is really naïve. The problem is that no enemies of him planned any assault in the first place. The assault was always done by Muhammad with “justification” of course. Read also your idol’s book about the benefit of raiding Khaibar. If there was no benefit Muhammad wouldn’t do it like when he evicted trading and crafting expert, Banu Qaynuqa and rich land owner, Banu Nadir or massacred (again) rich land owner, Banu Qurayza. All of these would benefited muslims in military and since they rejected Islam they become obstacle.

    Are you trying to justify slavery? There are many ways to win the enemy’s side but Muhammad’s limited view couldn’t go beyond it. USA defeated Germany and Japan but it didn’t enslave them and looked at those 2 countries now. By your logic, it is ok for American to enslave Iraqis, Afghanis or even Iranians (since it is hostile to US and deserved to be attacked, of course I mean sudden attack when they are unprepared).

  112. windblows says:

    their faith based on lies and hate

  113. Sanada_10 says:

    I know it's a lie. No historian mention it. I was analyzing Zawadi's article.

  114. smart thinking says:

    When the 9/11 attacks occured the muslims rejoiced n clapped their hands. Some months later, a muslim convert told me there no Jews were killed in the attacks n it was a Jewish plot. Few days ago, a muslim woman blamed America for all the troubles in the Arab countries happening now. I just wonder how they can believe in this kind of malicious lies.!

  115. John K says:

    The problem is Muhammad was not a sane person. He has passed his mentally ill ideas on to generations of Muslims everywhere.

  116. John K says:

    Right. If she has to live in a cesspool, better to live at the top than the bottom.

  117. Ali Sina says:

    “So If Ali Sina is referring to the caravans that held Muslim belongings that were to be sold, then I see no problem that it was attacked.”

    This is a lie. You should not get your information from the cartoon The Prophet Muhammad. Read the Sira of Ibn Ishaq or the Tabaqat or the Tabari.

    What is amazing to me is that virtually all Muslims are utterly ignorant of their religion and at the same time they are so convinced.

  118. Sanada_10 says:

    ZaU continued, “Abu Sufyan, who learned of these intentions, led his caravan out of the main route and inclined it towards the Red Sea.”

    Protecting your own goods from robbers? It’s natural and normal reaction to me. It’s self defense, a real one not Islamic one.

    ZaU continued, “Also, I want to add on the fact that the Quraysh began to make preparations for an attack on Medina, which they believed would exterminate the nascent power of Islam”

    Oh yes they did but after Muhammad raided their caravan. They wanted Muhammad to stop attacking caravan. What else could they do? Islam had insulted and threatened their identity, religion and economy so it’s natural for them to do that. In Uhud they defeated muslims but didn’t pursue them and went back to Mecca so their goal was to teach Muhammad a lesson not to mess with caravan again.

    Imagine Iran suddenly out of nowhere insulting USA and its civilization, calling it satanic nation and deserved to be annihilated if USA didn’t want to follow Islamic law. Then USA (instead of attacking it) put a boycott in Iran’s economy until it stops the insult. With this Iran become poor nation and its leader wanted to get revenge by raiding US ships to obtain the booty. USA then marched to protect the ships and finally wanted to attack Iran itself to stop this “pirate” thing. With Islamic logic alone Iran is deserved to be attacked from the very start because it’s showing hostility towards USA. Fitnah and persecution is worse than killing but it also works the other way around. Rejecting democracy and liberty is enough reason to attack muslim.

    ZaU continued, “Ali Sina states in his article that Muhammad (peace be upon him) attacked human settlements to survive and to provide for his followers "soon after" he migrated to Medina.”

    Apparently ZaU didn’t know how to grasp the meaning of a sentence. Sina didn’t say what they said.

    Then they quoted a book by muslim, “Prayers being thus regulated, the Prophet next turned his attention to cementing the ties of brotherhood amongst the Muslims of Medina who were called Ansar, and the Muhajirun, i.e., emigrants from Mecca. It was a necessary step since the refugees who had left their hearths and homes and had said goodbye to friends and relatives were feeling lonely. To raise their feelings of loneliness, and to attune them to the changed circumstances, a new fraternity was established amongst the Muslims of Mecca and those of Medina.”

    I’m amazed on this irrelevant response. The emigrants were lonely because of themselves and Muhammad’s advice to migrate. It’s logical consequence.

    The quote continued, “This brotherhood was indeed unique in the history of the world. The fellow-feeling and love on which this new relationship was established found a wonderful expression.”

    Everyone who knows Islam knows perfectly that muslim is a single brotherhood free from any national boundary and loyal only to Islam and its mission. There is no such thing called Indian muslim, American muslim, British muslim, or African muslim in Islam. So muslims in the west are loyal only to Islam. They are brother to each other but harsh to unbelievers. That’s basic.

    The quote continued, “For example Sa'd b. Sabi a Helper said to his fellow brother 'Abd al-Rahman b. 'Awf, " I am the richest man amongst the Helpers. I am glad to share my property half and half with you. I have two wives, I am ready to divorce one, and after the expiry of 'iddah, you may marry her."

    Oh wonderful, my belonging is yours and your belonging is mine too. The belonging includes women as object. What is this, wife transaction?

    I realize one thing after reading this first part. ZaU didn’t answer Sina’s argument in this first part at all. ZaU was rambling.

  119. Sanada_10 says:

    ZaU continued, “So If Ali Sina is referring to the caravans that held Muslim belongings that were to be sold, then I see no problem that it was attacked.”

    It was the simplicity of Arab’s mind, lack of spirituality and wisdom (assuming that Meccans did take it and the caravan did contain it). Revenge is one of the negative qualities in religious philosophy and yet this “mercy to the world”, “sublimed morality” and “the seal of revelation” had chosen an ordinary reaction that could be done by any human even animal. Raiding caravan was the first thing that came to mind even to illiterate Arabs when they had nothing and couldn’t produce anything (even just an idea) just like a hungry man sees another man’s bread, an animal instinct which had nothing to do with divine intervention. Beside, Zawadi didn’t quote about this in his own references and that means it didn’t happen.

    ZaU continued, “Let's ask Ali Sina if someone would take all his belongings in his house, then sell them, would Ali Sina just sit quietly, and let people take his possessions and sell it? I don't think so.”

    No if at first Sina had made a foolish act on insulting, creating social and economic disturbance within his neighbor, mocking certain people, and then making a very stupid decision on leaving without good preparation and his properties making it obviously said “take me”. His neighbor would see this as throwing away his own property and a sign of “needless”. Consider it as compensation just like any nation confiscates its citizen’s property due to certain crime (assuming again that his neighbor did take it and sell it).

    ZaU continued, “Let us also note that this was how the Battle of Badr began”

    And yet this Zawadi argued like a child in “looting” article about it.

    ZaU continued “Note: It wasn't just one caravan, it was many but The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) intercepted the caravan specifically led by Abu Sufyan mainly because it would deliver a big blow to the Meccan glory”

    Huh? First it was about revenge of (alleged) stolen properties and now it’s about political reason. Having quick change of mind? Muhammad wanted to attack the caravan that coming from Syria not from Mecca. If Abu Sufyan did take muslim’s properties to Syria (which ZaU mentioned it earlier but gave no proof) then it had already been sold in Syria. Why Muhammad didn’t intercept earlier with original properties still intact? How could these exchanged properties be divided accurately according to each muslim originally had? Did Muhammad even calculate all the lost belongings and matched it with caravan’s booty to limit the plundering? Why did he take one fifth from it if this was all about avenging the stolen properties? Muhammad also didn’t only raid Abu Sufyan’s caravan, he did that to others too as long as it was belonged to the Quraish. Oh, it’s not always Quraish, he did that to Banu Damra too. Did this tribe steal muslim’s properties or did they ever attack/persecute muslims? Muhammad the aggressor always blamed his victim and force Banu Damra to have a treaty as if they were at fault in the beginning:

    "This document is from Muhammad, the messenger of Allah, concerning the Banu Darmah. In which he (Muhammad) established them safety and security in their wealth and lives. They can expect support from the Muslims, unless they oppose the religion of Allah. They are also expected to respond positively if the prophet sought their help”

    See the pattern?

    The goods Abu Sufyan had was not even belonged to muslims. It was belonged to the Quraish and Muhammad said, “Go out and attack it, perhaps God will give it as a prey”. Yes, a prey not retrieving stolen properties and some muslims were reluctant to participate (Ibn Ishaq 289.428). If this is about revenge for their stolen properties they should eagerly join the attack.

  120. Sanada_10 says:

    Huh? It appears that no muslims want to discuss Zawadi’s article with me not even Marwan who initially came here with huge confidence. What’s wrong with you muslims? This site is free from censorship unlike Islamic sites and you are free to post your argument. You can even copy paste from any muslim scholar you can fine. I’ll add more:

    Zawadi and his co writer Umar (ZaU) was ignoring Sina’s first opening words about no big battle took place before Islam came.

    ZaU wrote, “When the Muslims migrated from Makkah to Medina, they left all their possessions in Makkah.”

    What I want to know is why these muslims left their belongings? Why they didn’t bring whatever they could bring and sold the rest that couldn’t be brought? In this case they wouldn’t need their relatives to protect their properties if they did it. If you wanted to leave your place for a long time at least you didn’t go empty handed because that would be stupid plus leaving it with the one that hates you. Beside, did all muslims have property? What was their social standing, were they rich?

    Jewish migration to Palestine is a good example. They didn’t leave all their properties. They came and brought their own skills making Israel as rich as today. Why muslims under the guidance of the “creator of universe” (CoU) couldn’t do the same? Imagine they migrated to Medina bringing their properties (all or some of it) and settled nicely, creating new field of works or knowledge (with the help of the “CoU” of course) thus making muslims rich with their own effort, not raiding caravan like barbarian. With this, people would be amazed and converted to Islam without being asked. This CoU was not capable of thinking outside Arab’s mindset just like ZaU. Was Allah locked in 7th century barbarian thinking?

    Huh? Quraish didn’t take anything according to Ibn Ishaq. Abu Sufyan was recorded selling house that had been abandoned by the owner but the owner left because of Muhammad’s advice and told them to let it go and be pleased with houses in paradise. When Muhammad conquered Mecca, Abu Ahmad complained because Abu Sufyan sold it to pay his debt, so this was an individual incident plus it’s his cousin’s house. Muhammad also disliked Abu Ahmad’s request about his house (Ibn Ishaq 230.339).

    They continued, “Later on the Quraysh took all the possessions of the Muslims in Makkah, and led by Abu Sufyan they took all those possessions to Syria so that it could be sold.”

    What’s happened to the relatives who protected their belongings? All of these must come with reference and Zawadi only gave quotes of later muslim books. What he and his friends need was the earliest source of history not this. Every historian/even plain writer had used earlier source as reference (because they don’t have time machine) and often they give analysis and opinion according to their mindset and worse of it, their fact less faith. What I need is the earliest source that this historian used. Could ZaU mention the list of goods Abu Sufyan had while he went to Syria?

    As I stated earlier that the one that created the enmity was Muhammad not the Quraish. Muhammad started Islam (anti polytheism) and created blasphemy to their religion and gods (if Islam won of course any one knew that polytheism would be erased including their heritage, culture, economy, etc). They tried to stop him through negotiations but failed, then they used embargo. If Muhammad created religion outside the Quraish (without defaming it) then no one would object. Oh, I remembered ahmadiyah’s case in Indonesia. It’s just very similar. Then the consequence was obvious.

  121. Sanada_10 says:

    If this method is adopted (one of the the muslim’s duty to emulate Muhammad) by muslims through out the ages then one can always expect deception from muslims and war is all about deception while the meaning of “war against Islam” is different in Islam. Islam wants to suppress other but does not want to be suppressed and it always attack (ideologically) first.

    Zawadi then said, “So saying he killed all the "unarmed able-bodied men" is a clear cut lie!“. Nowhere in Zawadi’s quotes explained about this. Muhammad only forbade killing old men (with exception, Abu Dawood 14.2664), women, and children.

    Sahih Muslim:

    The Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) has given clear instructions about the behaviour of the Muslim army. He observed:

    "Set out for Jihad in the name of Allah and for the sake of Allah. Do not lay hands on the old verging on death, on women, children and babes. Do not steal anything from the booty and collect together all that falls to your lot in the battlefield and do good, for Allah loves the virtuous and the pious."

    Nope, there are no men here. Didn’t he observe puberty on Banu Qurayza and killed all males who had pubic hair? Actually this is common sense for Muhammad:

    1. Dying old men => they will be dead anyway, they couldn’t even lift a sword without trembling
    2. Women => sex, breeding, and conversion
    3. Children and babes => potential convert and army
    4. Able men (and teenagers with pubic hair) => capable of revenge, war and understand that Muhammad was ruthless murderers that killed their fathers, brothers, and sons

    Zawadi also didn’t “catch” Sina’s words on “prevailing practice” and that’s why he didn’t discuss this point. Maybe one of Zawadi’s fan named Marwan can help me discuss this? Zawadi also didn’t give clear verse in Quran that specifically forbids killing this and that in war. Hello, Marwan, are you here? Or maybe Zawadi himself can some and discuss it particular part.

  122. Sanada_10 says:

    6. For Q 8:61, in verse 56, Allah made a prejudiced statement, “but they break their covenant every time” about pagans. With this kind of thinking one can always expect blame shifting from muslims. What was the point of making it in the first place if they couldn’t even keep it according to their historical record? Verse 58 says, “If thou fearest treachery from any group, throw back [their covenant] to them”. This is again prejudice and phobia beside the judge will always be muslims and their narcissistic feeling just like “wife beating” verse. I can accept if the verse says like this, “If you find any sign and proof of treachery…”, but no, this verse doesn’t talk that way. In fact, it was Muhammad who violated the rule of the treaty for the sake of Quranic verse (Bukhari 3.874)

    7. For Q 5:28, I don’t know whether to laugh or weep. Zawadi had given irrelevant verse to justify Muhammad’s wars. Verse 27 says,

    “Recite to them the truth of the story of the two sons of Adam. Behold! They each presented a sacrifice (to Allah): It was accepted from one, but not from the other. Said the latter: "Be sure I will slay thee." "Surely," Said the former, "Allah doth accept of the sacrifice of those who are righteous."

    This is no more than ancient tale about first murder in human history (religious version) between Habil and Qabil, a copycat from Judaism.

    So according to Zawadi Q 5:28 which says, “If thou dost stretch thy hand against me, to slay me, it is not for me to stretch my hand against thee to slay thee” and verse 29 which says, ”For me, I intend to let thee draw on thyself my sin as well as thine, for thou wilt be among the Companions of the Fire, and that is the reward of those who do wrong” can be applied to Muhammad’s wars. Really funny indeed, can he mention just one example? With this attitude, Muhammad shouldn’t have war at all. Let’s look at the result in verse 30, “The (selfish) soul of the other led him to the murder of his brother: He murdered him, and became (himself) one of the lost ones”. So, why didn’t Muhammad practice this so that he could be killed by non believers and finally sent them to hell?

    8. For Q 2:193, it is just continuation from verse 190. “And fight them until persecution is no more” means just that, Islamic standard of fitnah and shirk. Muslims fought the polytheists because they didn’t accept and allow Islam to be practiced not because they literally fought muslims while Zawadi didn’t even understand the golden rule that explains the hateful attitude of Muhammad towards pagan religion. If you hate someone you will be hated back at some extent. “They desist” means after muslims (attacker) defeat the polytheists (defender) who had surrendered at Mecca and muslims successfully made Islam win, “there prevail justice and faith in Allah”.

    9. For Q 60:8-9, I again don’t agree with this irrelevant verse. Surah 60 is all about testing faith not war. It begins in verse 1 which forbids muslims to love their enemies. If this was about war situation, how could Allah told muslims not to love the enemies? The enemies here must be faith based not physical. Was it about Meccans who drove muslims out? This doesn’t make sense. If you are driven out from your home you should hate them not loving them. The fact is Meccans never wanted to expel muslims, it was Muhammad who encouraged muslims to migrate using verses. Verse 2 was talking about Allah intimidating muslims. If disbelievers found muslims they would act as enemies, hurting muslims. This was a persuasion, not fact. If this was a fact, verse 1 wouldn’t be necessary. Verse 3 is another intimidation. Allah assured that families were useless if they chose disbelief so don’t choose them. Again this is the proof that enemy is faith based. Verse 4-6 explains that instead of loving your kafir families (who of course didn’t consider muslims as enemies) you must take Abraham as example except his prayer to kafirs. Verse 7 is not clear. Allah told that it is a possibility to make friendship with disbelievers who were considered enemies by believers. Verse 8 and 9 makes things clear. Allah used faith to decide whether someone is an enemy or not. By rejecting Islam (logically after being preached), everyone will be automatically become enemy and if disbeliever fought muslims using reason other than faith then the friendship would still possible (assuming that muslims hadn’t preached Islam to them and making them potential converts). One would asks, who had started the war on faith in the first place?

  123. Sanada_10 says:

    Zawadi claimed that he had refuted this article though I notice many weak arguments in his article, I wonder if Sina should make a response to that.

    Now, I have some curiosity about this “self defensive” verses from Zawadi. Muslims claim that Muhammad’s wars were self defense including these particular verses but it’s hard to believe a self defense mentality can unite and conquer the entire Arabia. When I looked at conquerors in history (which initially had united their home nation first), I found them all to be aggressive rulers using variety of war trick and deception. Here are my points:

    1. Self defense is natural and possessed by all creatures not just human. Animals and plants are well known to have this trait. It wasn’t necessary for a god to teach and encourage this obvious instinct, let alone making it as divine rule.

    2. When you defended yourself against attacking force you didn’t gain anything new except what you had already own or belongings left by the attackers. You didn’t own your aggressor’s land.

    3. Can muslims here provide an example about Muhammad waging a self defense war in literal sense? I mean, a situation when non muslim forces attacked Muhammad suddenly in Muhammad’s own place.

    4. What is the meaning of “those who fight you” in Q 2:190? The Islamic standard is different from normal, for example it says, “fitnah and shirk is worse than killing”. Does the original Arabic of Q 2:190 use the same word for first and second “fight”? Is there any creature on this earth that doesn’t fight (defensive) those who fight (offensive) it?

    What is the meaning of “but do not transgress limits”? If this is about self defense then you shouldn’t worry about limit. The priority is the safety of defenders not the limit of transgression, unless you are in attacking side. If you are in attacking side this sentence can be applied too, for example, muslims attacked Mecca and had been ordered to fight those who fight back.

    5. Q 2:191 gave description of Muhammad’s standard moral, just like fitnah and shirk. It says, “And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter” and “Such is the reward of those who suppress faith”. This is not self defense, it clears that Muhammad wanted to turn the Meccans away from Mecca while he himself told his followers to migrate to Medina and you don’t find/catch your attacker, the attacker finds you instead. Preventing Islam is considered worse than slaughter and deserved to be fought, while Islam itself had demonized other religions especially polytheists. This is a double speak at best.

    From Ibn Kathir, it becomes clear that this verse doesn’t talk about self defense in literal sense,

    Allah said:

    (but transgress not the limits. Truly, Allah likes not the transgressors.)

    This Ayah means, `Fight for the sake of Allah and do not be transgressors,' such as, by committing prohibitions. Al-Hasan Al-Basri stated that transgression (indicated by the Ayah), "includes mutilating the dead, theft (from the captured goods), killing women, children and old people who do not participate in warfare, killing priests and residents of houses of worship, burning down trees and killing animals without real benefit.''

    Now it’s clear who the attacker was. No able men either (Zawadi wrote this part as a “rebuttal” to Sina about killing “able men”).

  124. Ali Sina says:

    You accept everything you are told hook line and sinker. Instead of reading the regurgitated books of Muslim apologists read the actual history of Islam. Read the Sira of Ibn Ishaq or Tabari or the Tabaqat. Then you’ll know everything they have told you are lies.

    I too used to believe in those lies until I read the books I mentioned above.

  125. alisinaisaliar says:

    . Then when that is settled a revelation comes own telling him that he would not even sacrifice two of his best camel for her daughter. Ali Sina in not a sane person. He would not know the truth if it would kick him. SO never trust him. For more information, google the sealed nectar and read it. Islam is the truth!

  126. alisina is a liar says:

    . Bani Mustaliq were also planning to raid madinah and they didnt bother hiding it. As for the captive that Muhammad married, remember he asked her if she would like something better then that and meaning he told her he would free her but if she wants there is somthing better for her. She accepted the better option. And Muslims when invading their enemies accepted anyone to come into treaty with them or even better become a muslim and therefor he would remain free. They also did not kill anyone that did try to hurt any of their member. ANd if Muhammad were to let his enemies go rather then become slave it would be not earthly because chances are that they gather and plan a another assault on the muslims. As for the women and children were only taken captives because they needed protection against the wild arab tribes that would take any body captive who would come into their control. Any body that allied themselved to the muslim would become free. THe ayaat where Juwairiya`s father come to get he is simple to understand for anybody that is brain damaged. Her father goes to ransom her for camels but Prophet asks for her to choose and she chooses the prophet

  127. Sina is a Liar says:

    FIrst of before Muhammad the fighting in Arabia were intense and pointless. Banu nadir tried to assasinate the prophet and always showed open hostilities as for banu qainuka they raped a women and killed her husband just because they were followers of Muhammad ans before that declared open war on muslims

  128. John K says:

    Read the Quran. No one can read the Quran and believe it came from a god.

  129. Shoaib says:

    I invite you to the islam…Allah is the best Judge. And Muhammad (SM) Is..And If you think, you got a lot of mistake, than know it that..to explain the Holy Quran it need in total 16 number of knowledge. and may be you have complete all of those..but i have not find any wrong.it is too good that after analyzing everything you got the truth and the Almighty allah will response your in justification…take care

  130. rajeshn1091 says:

    Very good Dr Sina! Execellent of you to start another site alisina.,org- thats what we wanted! Please just post the challenge in BOLD.

Leave a Reply