Virtues of Infidel Arabia (Must Read)

[Haik Monsieur]

Virtues of Infidel Arabia

[Friends, I added an emphasis (Must Read) because during these three or four days of absence something has occurred. I happened to be in a forum with wrong people, and had to fight hard. Just go through the post please and in the parenthesis, I will tell you in details]
---------------------------------------

“O Abu Yazid, you surrendered too readily, you ought to have died a noble death”

“By god, I could hardly contain myself when I saw Abu Yazid in this state and that is why I said what I did”

I quoted one of the wives of Muhammad named Sauda Bint Sama. Abu Yazid was a war captive of Badr-the first full-scale battle Muhammad fought against infidel Meccans and won.

Ibn Ishaq gives us the full account of this incident. It should be read in context to get the picture right. Let’s go through this most authentic biography of Muhammad. What is following are the accounts of few incidents occurred among Muslims after they won the battle of Badr.

"Then the apostle went forward until when he came out the pass of Al-Safra, he halted on the sandhill between the pass and al-Naziya called Sayar at a tree there and divided the booty which god had granted to the Muslims equally. Then he marched until he reached Rauha when the Muslims met him congratulating him and the Muslims on the victory god had given him. Salama Bin Salama said “what are you congratulating us about? By god, we only met some bald old women like the sacrificing camels who are hobbled and we slaughtered them!” The apostle smiled and said, But Nephew, those were Al-Mala” (Chiefs) [Sirah Ibn Ishaq. 458]

Most people in the forum should have heard of Muslims apologetics that Muhammad prohibited killing women and children. They will produce hadiths in which Muhammad instructs not to kill women, children and not to ruin trees etc. See it here as he himself puts up a great example by appreciating his fellow thugs for their wonderful performance…! It was slaughtering some old women! Those butchers didn’t find anything honorable or funny in the incident. And when got congratulated by others than Muhammad, they reject the honor as “we could only slain some old women stranded helpless as scapegoats” But as usual Allah’s merciful prophet is not going to devalue his thugs endeavor. Though they could only manage to kill some old women he assures them as they still deserved to be praised, because those whom slaughtered were the chiefs of infidels.
Story doesn’t end up there, as Ibn Ishaq continues :

"Uqba (an infidel) had been captured by Abdulla bin Salima, one of the Banu al Najjan. When the apostle ordered him to be killed, “Uqba said, but who will look after my children, O Muhammad, “Hell” Muhammad answered and Asim bin Thabit Al-Ansari killed him. [Ibn Ishaq. 458]

This is the noblest Muslim tradition in which one should be proud of…! Muhammad; the prophet sent to the whole of humankind shows us the supreme example on how to wage war and after winning; how to deal with the captives..! Uqba as we found in above was a captive, surrendered who had a lot of humaneness left in him as his only concern before getting beheaded by Muhammad was of his children. Like any loving father. Then, Muhammad the glorious prophet of the most merciful god blesses his children “Hell”

Again, if to focus on Muslim apologetics: All we hear from them is whatever heinousness Muhammad did was because they were the norms of seventh century Arabia. But this Uqba incident refutes their claim because as we can get it from the victim’s own words, killing war captives was not the norm of that time, especially of those who are bound with familial obligations. When Uqba, the unfortunate victim heard the order of Muhammad that he will be killed, his pleading was “then who will look after my children Oh Muhammad” clearly indicative of killing war captives was not the norm of the time, but was Muhammad’s own invented median.

To confirm further, just go through the quotes of one of Muhammad’s wives you find as opening statements of this post. The incident is recorded in Ibn Ishaq: Once again keep in mind this occurs right after winning the battle of Badr.

"The apostle arrived in Medina a day before prisoners. Abdulla bin Abu Bakar told me that the prisoners were brought in when Sauda bint Zama’a the wife of the prophet was with the family of Afra when they were bewailing Auf and Mu’awwidh, . Afra’s sons, this being before the veil was imposed on them. Sauda said: As I was with them, suddenly it was said: “Here are the prisoners” and I returned to my house where the apostle was. And there was Abu Yazid in a corner of the room with his hands tied to his neck. I could hardly contain myself when I saw Abu Yazid in this state and I said, “O Abu Yazid, you surrendered too readily, you ought to have a noble death!” Suddenly the prophet’s voice startled me: “Sauda, would you stir up trouble against God and his apostle? I said: By god, I could hardly contain myself when I saw Abu Yazid in this state and that is why I said what I did” [Ibn Ishaq 459-460]

Here, we should see who this Sauda Bint Zama’a was. She was an old woman who knew people of that time and had been known to many. Jut a piece from Sahih Bukhari to substantiate:

Sahih Bukhari. Volume 6, Book 60, Number 318:
Narrated Aisha:
Sauda (the wife of the Prophet) went out to answer the call of nature after it was made obligatory (for all the Muslims ladies) to observe the veil. She was a fat huge lady, and everybody who knew her before could recognize her. So 'Umar bin Al-Khattab saw her and said, "O Sauda! By Allah, you cannot hide yourself from us, so think of a way by which you should not be recognized on going out. Sauda returned while Allah's Apostle was in my house taking his supper and a bone covered with meat was in his hand. She entered and said, "O Allah's Apostle! I went out to answer the call of nature and 'Umar said to me so-and-so." Then Allah inspired him (the Prophet) and when the state of inspiration was over and the bone was still in his hand as he had not put in down, he said (to Sauda), "You (women) have been allowed to go out for your needs." [End of Hadith]

When we focus on the bolded red it makes clear Sauda was an exceptional woman as she had been known to the people of that time due to her body structure. Omar the second caliph of Islam said to her “You can’t hide yourself from us, because we all know you” Omar was a staunch enemy of Muhammad before he became Muslim. The picture unfolds is of a Sauda who was much older and well known by all at that time. Now, when she sees one of the captives whom she knows beforehand, she couldn’t help not opposing the way the captive is being tied up. From her sympathetic tone, we understand it was not the norm of that time to torture war captives in the way Muhammad did. His own wife testifies it, but Muhammad shuts the humane inside Sauda - the symbol of seventh century Arabia- using his ego along with a god, his altered ego.

We have a distorted image of Pre-Islamic Arabians – Pagans because our only source to reach them is highly doctored historical accounts by Muslims themselves. Ibn Ishaq is our first source to know of Muhammad’s life. Even the original work of Ibn Ishaq is not available to refer as what we have now is an edited version by Ibn Hisham.

Whenever any objection we raise against Muhammad, the Muslim refutation always been “It was the norm of that time” It is very convenient for Muslims, but even from highly edited (by Muslims) versions of history, we get many clues of the virtues of those people Muslims call backward barbarians. All that changed was because of Muhammad’s narcissistic personality and the way he indoctrinated his devotees. I will end up this post with just one more piece of conversation extracted from Sahih Bukhari to illustrate pagans of Arabia preserved high morals but it was Muhammad who destroyed all virtues.

Sahih Bukhari. Book 59. Hadith 369:

Allah's Apostle said, "Who is willing to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?" Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, "O Allah's Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?" The Prophet said, "Yes," Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive kab). "The Prophet said, "You may say it." Then Muhammad bin Maslama went to kab.>>>>> He came to kab at night along with kab's foster brother, Abu Na'ila. kab invited them to come into his fort, and then he went down to them. His wife asked him, "Where are you going at this time?" kab replied, "None but Muhammad bin Maslama and my (foster) brother Abu Na'ila have come." His wife said, "I hear a voice as if dropping blood is from him, Ka'b said. "They are none but my brother Muhammad bin Maslama and my foster brother Abu Naila. A generous man should respond to a call at night even if invited to be killed.">>>>>>>> So they killed him and went to the Prophet and informed him. (Abu Rafi) was killed after Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf." [End of Hadith]

Being untruthful or deceiving another was not the norm of that time. As we can see when Muhammad asked who can kill Kab bin Ashraf (his only sin was composing some satirical verses against Muhammad and Muslims) one of his thugs furthering with a request to lie and deceive..! If lying and deceiving was the norm of that time, such a request wouldn’t have cropped up. Here one of Muhammad’s disciples announcing his willingness to carry out a vicious incentive of Muhammad, but his only request is to allow him tell a lie to deceive another human being. Hi request went against the norms of that time. But Muhammad had no problem with it so he granted and blessed the assassins allowing him to use the deceptive tactics. To have it simply Muhammad allowed to break a norm of that time.


Then if we look at Kab bin Ashraf (who is depicted in Islamic sources as an ignoble character) here unfolds of a very noble and gallant person representing the nomads of that time. When called outside his fort by Muhammad’s appointed assassins, his wife could sense some danger as it was night and situations were doubtful. But Kab bin Ashraf was not going to give up the nobility they maintained so far as his reply to his wife indicates. “A generous man should respond to a call at night even if invited to be killed”

There is an ancient Indian proverb “Noble is he who won’t go to bed as long as his neighbour stays up” Read Ka’b bin Ashraf’s reply to his wife and assess it yourself how both match up. It took a prophet of god to demolish all existed virtues; furthermore devotees of this prophet and god are trying to wipe out all of what humanity earned so far. Whenever we hear the holler “Allah Akbar,” consider it as alerting us not to stay idle but to act for the sake of humanity.

Haik Monsieur

PS: I issued this post in councilofexmuslim.com, but that ended up in real carnage. I don't know what went wrong. I still have no clue on what was that against civility in my article. This is the last response I got from the moderator of that forum.

[humandecency]

Well dear Haji, it looks like they have done a grand hatchet job.

Maybe they should rename to "CouncilofMuzzle-ims" for all the muzzling they do.
Your thread there started off as a normal intellectual discussion and for no explicable reason, degenerated into a brawl.

Perhaps you were a bit oversensitive to a moderator questioning your common sense. A request to her for an apology may have perhaps achieved more than telling her to "shut up".

However, I do consider it not right that a moderator make such a personal slur, even if not high on the scale of insults, when involved in debate. A member bearing the avatar of "moderator" should be setting an example.
_________________
The Swordy Whahabian flag bears the sword, islamic symbol of peace.


>>paradoxtoparadise]<<
>>> http://www.geocities.com/humandecency/first <<<

™

[Haik Monsieur]

[humandecency]

[Max]

[Haik Monsieur]

[humandecency]

Here is a post by a Lackey Lickspittle, in your thread at Councilof Muzzle-ims, or Muzzling imams, that was removed to the rant area as "off topic".
That osmanthus is a nice person, but power seems to be going to his head.

The heavy hand of the Muzzle Men at the Council of Muzzlings is something quite obscene to observe.


So it seems dear Haji, anyone who posts anything remotely in your defence, is "Off Topic".

[Cassandra]

I believe the best moderated fora are those where the moderators do not engage in debate. I've been in Muslim fora where the moderators are amongst the worst offenders, and where the power really goes to their heads.

I'm reminded of the psych experiment where two groups of college students were instructed to role-play prisoners and guards. It didn't take long for the 'guards' to turn sadistic.

[Ansar al-Zindiqi]

Hi Haji,

Thanks for copying over that part over to this forum. I'm cool with it. I don't have any doubts that Muhammad broke the taboos of his day in order to gain control over all of Arabia. I also believe that there must have been previous events that individuals and communities would know of (from whatever stories that circulated at that time about dhu Nhuwas as well as others) that would pave the way for the acceptance of Islam. It's not impossible to suggest that since the rule of dhu Nhuwas didn't last very long many of Muhammad's contemporaries would keep something like this in mind when assessing Muhammad as he got going in his military campaigns. Even though dhu Nuwas had broken accepted rules of conduct and much of it was decidedly not acceptable to his neighbours it may have been enough to get people to believe that Judaism was a religion of conquest. Perceptions of the Lakhmids may have also led many to view Christianity as doctrinally violent since such behavior was indulged in by them. After all, there was enough illiteracy and ignorance to go around to allow that perception to become common within Arab society. I don't see why these mis-conception wouldn't be commonplace. After all, Muhammad did fool the Arabs into thinking that Islam was an Abrahamic religion.

As for myself, I'm not too concerned as to whether Muhammad was the most vicious out of any cast of characters either. I believe that Muhammad did something far more insidious to the Arab people that no other ruler had done previously to any other people. If one were to call it vicious I would have no objection. He had distorted the collective self-image of a people and this was the by-product of the horrification that society around him suffered from as he broke previously assumed rules of conduct and moral taboos. The selective "picking off" of opponents and those who left Islam within his primary core of followers should tell us that once these sort of events take place that a certain set of dynamics will be set in motion.

Also, I think that his initial attacks may have been perceived as "just another ghawza" by his contemporaries until it was too late. The closest parallel that comes to mind (for me at least) for "ghawza" would be the Flower Wars (xōchiyāōyōtl) of pre-Conquest Mexico and Central America. It may not have been very appetizing but it was bound by set rules of conduct. Then one day a prophecy came true . . . . .
_________________
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Don't be a believer, but a heretic unto your own.

[peacebewithyou]

[humandecency]

And now in addition to Haik Monsieur, another member there has received personal insults at the hands of the administrator there.

It's getting to be a banana republic over there, but hey, I like bananas.
_________________
The Swordy Whahabian flag bears the sword, islamic symbol of peace.


>>paradoxtoparadise]<<
>>> http://www.geocities.com/humandecency/first <<<

™

[yeezevee]

[humandecency]

[yeezevee]

[Haik Monsieur]