4 readers online now  |  69 million page views

Justme ( More it's ! )

Reader comment on item: Something Rotten in Denmark?
in response to reader comment: Adib Farakish.. they themselves are not sure about their religion

Submitted by Another one (Egypt), Mar 23, 2006 at 02:13

Justme, my personal feelings have nothing to do with this discussion, therefore i'm not mad at you,i'm only trying to preserve the image of Islam from the distortion that you are trying persistently to apply.

Truth is you have failed me ! I thought we had an agreement not to assault each other's religion and beliefs,debating over an old scripts half of it doesn't even match our current way of living, but you insist on the clash,so be it.

(Justme)
"I was going to post the quotes that show Mohammed forced this treaty yesterday, but I didn't"

(Me)
- You don't scare me justme,also you don't give up your writing out of compassion ! save
your pity for someone else but me please !!! write whatever you like,our faith wont be shaken
it's stronger than you might actually think .

(Justme)
"But I also found where it's untrue that the Banu Qurayza let the other tribes come through"

(ME)
- I never mentioned they let them through,if you were quoting from my former post then here's
what i wrote:

"More to it, he was"referring to Quriyza" preparing him self for opening his fortress gates to
let the enemy breakthrough and willing to attack you like any" filthy rat" would do using
advantage of your weakness and blind spot."

(Justme)
"Mohammed intentionally forced these enemies into a treaty,(the guy surrounded them and
made them sign it or die) knowing there was a high probability they might help out their exiled
friends and knowing the punishment for breaking a treaty was death"

(ME)
- I do realize you are defending your points "justme"but before you find your self dragged
into further debate don't forget it's a religious facts your are discussing in here which means
if i proved you wrong,don't keep pushing your self into erring just to save your pride.

- Ok basically you are wrong because that treaty wasn't made during the war and there was no
surrounding at all !.The treaty was held "lonnnnnnnnnnnng" ago before the war starts just
When the prophet migrated to al Madina .The invading of bani quriza came later after the
treaty with not less than 3 or 4 years !

A Charter of Islamic Alliance "Al Raheeq Al Maktoom"
"Just as the Prophet [pbuh] had established a code of brotherhood amongst the believers, so
too he was keen on establishing friendly relations between the Muslims and non-Muslim
tribes of Arabia. He established a sort of treaty aiming at ruling out all pre-Islamic rancour and
inter-tribal feuds. He was so meticulous not to leave any area in the charter that would allow
pre-Islamic traditions to sneak in or violate the new environment he wanted to establish. "

(Justme)
" then at the next battle left only one way through for the enemies to come to, which
happened to be at Banu Quaryza. (what a coincidence) Then when it was 'rumored' that they
let them through-- which they didn't-- they were murdered, beheaded by Mohammed and his
men. "

(ME)
- i take it you are talking about "the Trench battle" which was followed by Bani-Quryiza
invasion.
- It was no coincidence that the only way to breakthrough the muslims army was the way
through "bani-quryiza" fortress As the muslims dug a circular trench around al madina
making all the other ways impossible for trespassing ,as i mentioned before you may recall :

" They gathered up a great army and put Yathrib"Al madina" under siege [Saheeh Bukhari -4103]. Mohammed , based on a suggestion by Salman Al-Farisi"persian", dug a trench
around Yathrib, except for the "Bani-Qurayza "side that is, because they had great fortresses
and it would be practically impossible for the Pagan Arabs of "Qurayish" to get through their
fortresses unless Bani-Qurayza allowed it. Now since "Muhammad" and Bani-Qurayza had a
treaty, Muhammad had nothing to fear as they have their back well covered from Bani-
Qurayza side."

- The rumors said that the "bani quryiza"have broken the treaty and willing to let the Arab
pagans walk through their fortress gates,that's why the prophet made up a small plan to
make sure whether these rumors were true or false,if such a thing was true then the plan will
stir up conflict between the pagans and the traitors of bani-quriza :

"Nu‘aym ibn Mas‘ud" was one of the leaders of the Allies, who before the battle, had come to
Madina to sow discord; instead, he then began to incline towards Islam. During the battle, he
secretly converted to Islam and, ordered by the prophet , proceeded to stir up Banu Qurayza.
Nu‘aym set Banu Qurayza against the Quraysh by telling them that they would be
abandoned by the Makkans and should refuse to help unless they were given hostages from
the Quraysh. To the Quraysh, on the other hand, he said that Banu Qurayza would not fulfil
their promise to help and would attempt to stall by asking for Qurayshi hostages to share
their plight in the case of defeat.so the Qurayshi sent a message on sabbath day "saturday"
as "Nu‘aym" recommended asking them for supplies and weapons "not knowing that
sabbath is a holy day for the jews" ,the jews of Banu Qurayza replied that the day was
sabbath,however they cannot answer their demands unless they send hostages first from
the Qurayshi tribes as showing well intentions,guarantee that Qurayshi wont stab them on
their backs. so The stratagem succeeded. Dissension among the Allies grew."

- Practicaly it wasn't Prophet"Muhammad"PBUH who ordered the beheading.
Again,it sucks i know ! [ it was (Sa'ad bin Mu'adh) former Jewish man from "Al Aws tribe"
supportive allies to bani "quriza" who converted to Islam along with (Nu'aym ibn Mas'ud)
from the "Ghatfan tribe" before the starting of the trench battle.As the Aws tribe urged the
prophet to let someone from their own tribe to condemn them he granted them their wish ]


(Justme)
"You mention they had many weapons as some kind of proof of treachery, but wasn't
Mohammed asking the Banu Qurayza in this battle to keep anyone from coming through their
area which would necessitate weapons? I can post the quotes if you like"

(ME)
With all due respect "Justme" don't make predictions from your mind while facts are clear as the sun.

1- Those weapons were perfectly hidden,only the investigations of "Nu‘aym ibn Mas‘ud"
brought it to the light when they thought he was an ally and revealed their plans infront of
him.
2- The fortress of bani-quriza was as much invincible as the trojan walls,they needed no
weapons to defend them selves from an outsider attack,plus they had the muslim army by
their side and surely they would have supported the rear if it was under the threat of
infiltration.

(Justme)
Another one, I like you and if you don't want to reply to this, that's okay. I only felt the need to defend my statement due to Sarah saying I 'concocted' this up.

(ME)
Back again to that cute and cuddly state of yours ! thank you "Justme" but i think i can
manage it,it's not that hard really !.
- Disagree with "Me" with "Sarah" with anyone you like "Justme", just beware that's someone's faith you are discussing.

(Justme)
By the way, why do you defend Sharia Law with your comment? I was hoping you wouldn't think the terrible things done under this law were ever tolerable. You said, "However, i confirm that only those who commits the sin, gets the brutal punishments normal decent people aren't affected of such a law.."

(ME)
although i don't personaly submit to such a law but as a muslim,i think i should clarify some facts regarding that shari'a law :

- The wisdom of such a cruel punishment is to keep people away from committing sins.
let's choose one of the sharia subjects,like"adultery for instance :

- The punishment stated in the Qur'an is 100 lashes for each of the two parties. All scholars
agree that this is the punishment for fornication and most scholars also agree that the
punishment for adultery is stoning, which applies to both partners. If one of them is married
and the other is not, then stoning is applied to the married partner, while the other receives
the punishment of fornication.

- Even in the case of associating partners with God, if the person who does it changes his
position and declares his belief in God's oneness and in Muhammad, peace be upon him, as
God's messenger, he is forgiven his past. This means that if a person is guilty of adultery, he
or she may repent and seek God's forgiveness, which may be forthcoming once the
repentance is sincere and coupled with a resolve not to repeat the offense.

Abu Hurayrah reports that the Messenger of Allah said, "When a person commits adultery he
casts away from his neck the bond that ties him to Islam; if, however, he repents, Allah will
accept his repentance" (Al-Bukhari,Muslim, Abu Dawud, An-Nisa'i and others).

- As you can see,even with their crime there can be a way out,if that person repented to allah
and married that women he made committed the "adultery" with,his sin is forgivable and he
wouldn't be punished."and Allah knows best"

- However, Some of those who follow that law likes to ignore those facts about "forgiveness".
- Though it might be a bit out of the topic,but i feel i must shed some light on that point about
the "Wahabism" followers ( currently represents Kingdom of Saudi Arabia )

[ some religious historians believe that the "Wahabism" was the start of Muslim extremism
Era and that they were harsher and more stripped down than the religion that the Prophet
Muhammad had founded centuries before. Al-Wahhab forbade many practices and traditions
that were an established part of Muslim culture.]

[Others rejected that fact about calling it the start of "extremism Era" and commented that :"
Muhammad ibn `Abdul-Wahhab is a great scholar who wanted to wake people so that they
would go back to the Qur'an and the Sunnah. He was reliable in his knowledge, devotion and
methodology."]

- To be equal i think we should shed some light also on the biblical verses which condemns
adultery,and they weren't softer than Al sharia law !

Adultery is the act of unfaithfulness in marriage that occurs when one of the marriage
partners voluntarily engages in sexual activity with a person other than the marriage partner.
It is prohibited both in act and in desire in Two of the Ten Commandments of the Decalogue,
"You shall not commit adultery", "You shall not covet your neighbor's wife" (Deut.5:18,21, Ex
.20). The punishment for adultery is death by stoning for both parties in the Holiness Code of
Law, "If a man commits adultery with his neighbor's wife, both the adulterer and the
adulteress shall be put to death" (Lev.20:10, Ezk.16:40, Jn.8:3). Adulterers will not inherit the
kingdom of God (1Cor.6:9).

Deuteronomy 22:22 "If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who
slept with her and the woman must die."

Deuteronomy 25:11-12 "If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue
her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you
shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity."

P.S "correct me if i'm wrong about those verses "

- Also another interesting issue i was discussing days ago with a christian friend about
Divorce according to al Anjeel (gospel) he mentioned that this is a very critical point of
argument between the eastern christians mostly"orthodox" and the western"catholic".
As the eastern "orthodox" beliefs that divorce the unpardonable sin,although some would
run away to the states just to remarry or divorce.

References from the bible that confirms the rejection of "divorce" :
Deuteronomy 24:1-4: When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in
his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a bill of divorce and
puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house, and if
she goes and becomes another man's wife, and the latter husband dislikes her and writes her
a bill of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband
dies, who took her to be his wife, then her former husband, who sent her away, may not take
her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled.; for that is an abomination before the
Lord, and you shall not bring guilt upon the land which the Lord your God gives you for an
inheritance.

I Corinthians 7:10-11: To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not
separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled
to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

I don't like to ramble more about that subject since it's avery long one,but i'll view what i've
concluded from this :

- The main problem is we "middle eastern population" are very religious"or the most of us !"
,attached to religion at every aspect of our life.That would include "Muslims,christians,jews"
so what we are facing in here is a clash of culture,traditions between the east and the west.

- Islam,christianity,judaism has forbidden "adultery" and condemn it,yet the westerners from
"muslims,christians,jews" are cheating on their wives, making love to prostitutes and
whores,homosexuality,unidentified born sons literaly "Bastards"! etc..

- The "westerners" aren't that much bounded by religion as they are by "freedom and
liberality".

- In the middle east the girl MUST be virgin before marriage "that also includes christians and
jews",such a relation as boy/girl friend are practiced but never reachs "bed"before marriage.

- Ofcourse rules were meant to be broken,hence you can find some exceptions .

- The orthodox christians don't submit to the social law regarding divorce,and the very
religious among them are considering it to be an unforgivable sin that you people of the west
wont be able to redeem your selves for in front of the lord.

- Eastern christians"orthodox" don't wear a head scarf or cover their hair like the majority of
muslim women,but yet they do wear a proper prudish outfits no such a thing as nudity
involved.that's our " taboo"our traditions that we were raised on.

[ To those who dig out hatred,your only harvest is sorrow ! ]
Note :"Justme" this is not the way of someone who is tryin!g to seek knowledge and requesting an explanation for matters he cannot understand "if you ever claimed your self to be one". You are trying to prove that our faith is wrong and should be expelled from this
world, claiming that quraan is the seed of all muslim's evil .
Submitting....

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to Justme ( More it's ! ) by Another one

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

See recent outstanding comments.

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List
eXTReMe Tracker

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2020 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)