I need help, with a debate (from Muslim only)

[Italianguy]

I am in a debate on one of my Christian forums. I know your thinking "so what" but it is a thread about Islam and the hellfire and the 2 Muslims that are on it are being bombarded with stuff. I decided o help them out but have ran into a snag. If you can, help me with a reponse to this.

From another poster in response to me.

I have mentioned this in other threads but it deserves repeating.

Portrayed in the Old Testament are acts of G*d's judgement on man. This is DISTINCT from a man (muhammad) who killed for supremacy.

On the following quotes; Ishaq is the author of a biography on muhammad who knew him personally. Tabari was a student of Ishaq. Bukhari is a companion of muhammad. Here are there sayings:

Ishaq:489"Do the bastards think that we are not their equal in fighting? We are men who think that there is no shame in killing."

Tabari IX:69"Killing disbelievers is a small matter to us."

Bukhari:V4B52N270"Allah's Messenger said, 'Who is ready to kill Ashraf? He has said injurious things about Allah and His Apostle.' Maslama got up saying, 'Would you like me to kill him?' The Prophet proclaimed, 'Yes.' Maslama said, 'Then allow me to lie so that I will be able to deceive him.' Muhammad said, 'You may do so.'"

What we see is that muhammad had henchmen that killed and lied for him BUT WE DO NOT SEE MUHAMMAD DISCUSSING IT WITH HIS "ALLAH" FIRST.

DID MOSES GO ABOUT KILLING WHOMEVER HE PLEASED OR WAS HE INSTRUCTED BY G*D? DID THE APOSTLES GO ABOUT KILLING? DID ANY OF THE PROPHETS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT KILL INDISCRIMINANTLY OR DID THEY RECEIVE ORDERS FROM G*D FIRST?

Can anyone give me verses in the Qur'an or hadiths that can go against this please. Thanks ahead of time for your response.

Oh and sorry for being absent for so long, I will post more soon

God be with you all!

[Rahmaniyyah]

On the following quotes; Ishaq is the author of a biography on muhammad who knew him personally. Tabari was a student of Ishaq. Bukhari is a companion of muhammad.

Sorry I don't have time to add anything more (exams) except to say the quoted part above shows the author's ignorance.

The historians came generations later, and certainly none of the above 3 Ishaq, at-Tabari or al-Bukhari lived at the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him). That's not to say the quotes are incorrect though.

[Nasir 'Abd as-Salam]

First of all, Ibn Ishaq did not know the Prophet personally. I've never heard that Tabari was a student of Bukhari. Imam al-Bukhari was certainly not a Companion of the Prophet. So, right from the get-go, it's evident that this person doesn't have a clue of what he or she is talking about.

As for the references, I would have to see something more specific to read the original Arabic. "Tabari #45I34532I2I538U" doesn't mean anything to anyone. In general, it can be said that yes, the Prophet did order that certain enemies be killed. However, this was not for any personal reasons, nor did these incidents increase his power (Muslims did not attain sociopolitical dominance until after the Treaty of Hudaibiya, during a two-year armistice when their numbers reached critical mass as a result of effective preaching). Rather, it was done in the capacity of a political leader responsible for the security of an entire community. All of the enemies of the Muslims whom were killed and we know by name were either direct aggressors or responsible for either inciting or lending support to the aggression of others.

[Yaqubi]

The person who posted it just copied and pasted from an anti-Islamic website. I see it all the time. When you refute them they don't accept what you say because they already have an image of Islam set in their minds.

As brother Rahmaniyyah said, Ibn Ishaq did not live at the time of the Prophet, sallau `alayhi wa sallam, so straight away you can see the person has no idea what they are talking about.

If I remember correctly, Imam Ahmad criticized Ibn Ishaq from taking stories and incidents from anyone (like unreliable people).

I also don't have much time to add more.

[ibn Mikael]

Firstly, Ibn Ishaq's history of the Prophet contains all the information he was able to collect; as such, there are many false stories in the original book. This is because the text was not written for laypeople, but for scholars who would know which reports are verified and which are not.

As for the hadith from Bukhari, one has to recognize the context. First off, the quote they used deliberately distorts the meaning; here's the hadiths:

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 269:

Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah:

The Prophet said, "War is deceit. [which is very true--one of the best lessons from Sun Tzu]"

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 270:

Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah:

The Prophet said, "Who is ready to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has really hurt Allah and His Apostle?" Muhammad bin Maslama said, "O Allah's Apostle! Do you like me to kill him?" He replied in the affirmative. So, Muhammad bin Maslama went to him (i.e. Ka'b) and said, "This person (i.e. the Prophet) has put us to task and asked us for charity." Ka'b replied, "By Allah, you will get tired of him." Muhammad said to him, "We have followed him, so we dislike to leave him till we see the end of his affair." Muhammad bin Maslama went on talking to him in this way till he got the chance to kill him.

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 271:

Narrated Jabir:

The Prophet said, "Who is ready to kill Ka'b bin Ashraf (i.e. a Jew)." Muhammad bin Maslama replied, "Do you like me to kill him?" The Prophet replied in the affirmative. Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say what I like." The Prophet replied, "I do (i.e. allow you)."

Before one makes any judgements, one has to ask: who is Ka'b bin Ashraf? Did he commit any crimes? Was he at war with the Muslims during this period? Was this said prior to going into battle against them? If so, this could hardly be considered some random killing (ie murder), but a legitimate act of war against an enemy combatant. And as we know, the Prophets of old , especially those who have been tasked with forming a community, were allowed to engage in combat. Just because Isa didn't engage in combat doesn't mean it's the normative for the Abrahamic religions. Even Christian theologians have adopted policies of just war.

[Italianguy]

Sorry I don't have time to add anything more (exams) except to say the quoted part above shows the author's ignorance.

The historians came generations later, and certainly none of the above 3 Ishaq, at-Tabari or al-Bukhari lived at the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him). That's not to say the quotes are incorrect though.

Thanks for answering anyway. God be with you on your exams. I am taking some to and it's allot i understand.

[Italianguy]

The person who posted it just copied and pasted from an anti-Islamic website. I see it all the time. When you refute them they don't accept what you say because they already have an image of Islam set in their minds.

As brother Rahmaniyyah said, Ibn Ishaq did not live at the time of the Prophet, sallau `alayhi wa sallam, so straight away you can see the person has no idea what they are talking about.

If I remember correctly, Imam Ahmad criticized Ibn Ishaq from taking stories and incidents from anyone (like unreliable people).

I also don't have much time to add more.

I didnt even think to put thier response in google to see if it was anti Islamic! Good call.

[Abu Shuja'ah]

What we see is that muhammad had henchmen that killed and lied for him BUT WE DO NOT SEE MUHAMMAD DISCUSSING IT WITH HIS "ALLAH" FIRST.

DID MOSES GO ABOUT KILLING WHOMEVER HE PLEASED OR WAS HE INSTRUCTED BY G*D? DID THE APOSTLES GO ABOUT KILLING? DID ANY OF THE PROPHETS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT KILL INDISCRIMINANTLY OR DID THEY RECEIVE ORDERS FROM G*D FIRST? [/B]

Can anyone give me verses in the Qur'an or hadiths that can go against this please. Thanks ahead of time for your response.

Oh and sorry for being absent for so long, I will post more soon

God be with you all!

Peace be upon the guided ones,

Just because the narrator did not mention him consulting God, does not mean that he did not. He was narrating for that time when he said what he said, he did not narrate, the context of the situation, the actions done pre, during and post.

As well as, just several times in Qur'aan, like Surah 9, where God laid out the foundations for what would happen (fighting) when an incident would occur, so God's guidance was always there.

Then again you can just quote, Qur'aan 2:190-194:

Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors. (190) And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (191) But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. (192) And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers. (193) The forbidden month for the forbidden month, and forbidden things in retaliation. And one who attacketh you, attack him in like manner as he attacked you. Observe your duty to Allah, and know that Allah is with those who ward off (evil).

[Italianguy]

Peace be upon the guided ones,

Just because the narrator did not mention him consulting God, does not mean that he did not. He was narrating for that time when he said what he said, he did not narrate, the context of the situation, the actions done pre, during and post.

As well as, just several times in Qur'aan, like Surah 9, where God laid out the foundations for what would happen (fighting) when an incident would occur, so God's guidance was always there.

Then again you can just quote, Qur'aan 2:190-194:

Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors. (190) And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (191) But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. (192) And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers. (193) The forbidden month for the forbidden month, and forbidden things in retaliation. And one who attacketh you, attack him in like manner as he attacked you. Observe your duty to Allah, and know that Allah is with those who ward off (evil).

I'm gonna try his out, so pardon my spelling,

Jazakullah khair, did i get that right?

Thank you for your reply my friend! I shall use that in battle.lol

[Abu Shuja'ah]

I'm gonna try his out, so pardon my spelling,

Jazakullah khair, did i get that right?

Thank you for your reply my friend! I shall use that in battle.lol

Peace be upon the guided ones,

Maybe you can link me to this forum......just go to twitter.com/islamqa or facebook.com/islamqa and leave a message for me and the link to it please, I love debates.

Yes you got it right!

wa Allahu Alam.