Jump to content

Islamophobia VS Kafirophobia ::: Media VS Quran/Sharia


Alam_dar

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, panther said:

The decision was saad and was in accordance of the law of the time.

If decision was in accordance of the law of the time then why is the Prophet considered the best human ever lived whose teachings could be followed in any time irrespective of the era? 

Surely this would count under war crimes as per Modern era laws?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

Don't run away by putting the blame on Sa'ad and law of that time, while main question is if Allah of Jews or the All of Muslims (which is the same) had no wisdom to change these draconian and unjust laws of the time? 

 

Muhammad didn't conquer the castle of Banu Qurayzah, but he sent them the message to lay down the weapons. When they responded positively and laid down their weapons, then Muslims tied their hands and feet and made them the prisoners. After that Muhammad ordered to slaughter all the men (including all the old men and 12-14 years old boys who got the pubes) to be slaughtered even though those old men and boys got nothing to do with the war. And the women and and the small children were also innocent of any war, but they were also made slaves for whole of their life, and even their coming generations were also born as slaves due to the curse of birth slavery in Islam. 

 

As compared to Muhammad and his fabricated Allah, just look at the wisdom of great Buddha and his follower Ashoka and other Buddhist governments. Buddha taught against slavery about 1200 years before Islam, and Ashoka demolished the markets of slavery in India, and the later coming Buddhist governments all together demolished the institution of slavery by introducing the system of serfdom. This is called "wisdom", and not what the fabricated god of Muslims did. 

 

Remember, Buddah was an atheist who didn't believe in any divine teachings or divine laws, but he made all the laws by using his own reasoning and human rationale. 

 

 

That is the death penalty for treason.

 

They surrendered on condition that saad would decide their fate, and their fate was decided by saad.

1 hour ago, Stradlater said:

If decision was in accordance of the law of the time then why is the Prophet considered the best human ever lived whose teachings could be followed in any time irrespective of the era? 

Surely this would count under war crimes as per Modern era laws?

The decision was in accordance with the law of the Jews and was not abbrogated so it still stands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, panther said:

That is the death penalty for treason.

 

They surrendered on condition that saad would decide their fate, and their fate was decided by saad.

The decision was in accordance with the law of the Jews and was not abbrogated so it still stands.

Still a war crime though if looked from modern lenses. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, panther said:

That is the death penalty for treason.

What treason?

Muhammad did it for the war booty. 

Not even a single Muslim was killed by Banu Qurayzah during the whole siege of Madina by the Meccans (which lasted for 30 days). 

And trench was not even dug from the side of the Banu Qurayzah, but they didn't give the way to the Meccans to attack the Muslims from this side. 

 

According to Muslim's own authentic Hadith, the Meccan leader went back complaining that Banu Qurayzah didn't supported them. 

 

But the blame upon the Banu Qurayzah was this that Meccan leader wrote them a letter and they replied. 

 

Although absolutely no harm was done by the Banu Qurayzah, but still Muhammad slaughtered all of them for the crime of writing letter. 

 

And this letter was written by their leader, but Muhammad slaughtered ALL the MEN, including all the Old men, and 12-14 years old boys who had nothing to do with any war or with any letter. And the women were made the sex slaves along with their coming generations, although women had no role in that war or in letter. 

 

Quote

They surrendered on condition that saad would decide their fate, and their fate was decided by saad.

Saad was himself a Muslim and follower of Muhammad. Banu Qurayzah got not chance to had any neutral name for deciding their fate. 

But Muhammad was totally free to neglect the draconian decision of Sa'ad, but he didn't-

 

For example, even if Banu Qurayzah did any treason, even then Muhammad could have taken their weapons and money and had ordered them to leave the land of Arabia (as Muhammad already did with the other 2 tribes of Jews already). 

 

In this way Muhammad was totally able to avoid this bloodshed (actually massacre). But no, Muhammad showed absolutely no mercy, but went for the most brutal type of massacre. 

 

Quote

The decision was in accordance with the law of the Jews and was not abbrogated so it still stands.

Yes, that is the real truth that Allah of Muslims is directly responsible for this massacre. Otherwise Muslims always try to hide this crime of their Allah in name of law of Jews, as if their Allah would have been merciful to the prisoners. 

 

And yes, I already wrote that great Atheist Buddah was much more WISE and  much more merciful than the Allah of Muslims could ever be. 

 

The Allah of Muslims filled this earth with tyranny, massacre and blood of the innocents, who had nothing to do with the wars. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alam_dar said:

What treason?

Muhammad did it for the war booty. 

Not even a single Muslim was killed by Banu Qurayzah during the whole siege of Madina by the Meccans (which lasted for 30 days). 

And trench was not even dug from the side of the Banu Qurayzah, but they didn't give the way to the Meccans to attack the Muslims from this side. 

 

According to Muslim's own authentic Hadith, the Meccan leader went back complaining that Banu Qurayzah didn't supported them. 

 

But the blame upon the Banu Qurayzah was this that Meccan leader wrote them a letter and they replied. 

 

Although absolutely no harm was done by the Banu Qurayzah, but still Muhammad slaughtered all of them for the crime of writing letter. 

 

And this letter was written by their leader, but Muhammad slaughtered ALL the MEN, including all the Old men, and 12-14 years old boys who had nothing to do with any war or with any letter. And the women were made the sex slaves along with their coming generations, although women had no role in that war or in letter. 

 

Saad was himself a Muslim and follower of Muhammad. Banu Qurayzah got not chance to had any neutral name for deciding their fate. 

But Muhammad was totally free to neglect the draconian decision of Sa'ad, but he didn't-

 

For example, even if Banu Qurayzah did any treason, even then Muhammad could have taken their weapons and money and had ordered them to leave the land of Arabia (as Muhammad already did with the other 2 tribes of Jews already). 

 

In this way Muhammad was totally able to avoid this bloodshed (actually massacre). But no, Muhammad showed absolutely no mercy, but went for the most brutal type of massacre. 

 

Yes, that is the real truth that Allah of Muslims is directly responsible for this massacre. Otherwise Muslims always try to hide this crime of their Allah in name of law of Jews, as if their Allah would have been merciful to the prisoners. 

 

And yes, I already wrote that great Atheist Buddah was much more WISE and  much more merciful than the Allah of Muslims could ever be. 

 

The Allah of Muslims filled this earth with tyranny, massacre and blood of the innocents, who had nothing to do with the wars. 

You are picking and choosing hadith, post the whole narrations, I read about this a long time ago so don't remember all the details but you are not posting the full story of their treason.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, panther said:

You are picking and choosing hadith, post the whole narrations, I read about this a long time ago so don't remember all the details but you are not posting the full story of their treason.

 

Seems like Mohammed, like Allah, are backwards compared to normal human beings of the 20th century : treason is an individual crime, not group. If Allah/Mohammed applied group punishment for individual crimes, it means they are not wise enough, powerful enough or clairvoyant enough to identify each and every traitor and take action against them, thus punishing everyone 'just to play safe'. Aka, the whole 'all powerful' claim is proven nonsense- Allah doesn't have the power to discern the guilty ones from the not guilty ones. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

Don't run away by putting the blame on Sa'ad and law of that time, while main question is if Allah of Jews or the All of Muslims (which is the same) had no wisdom to change these draconian and unjust laws of the time? 

 

Muhammad didn't conquer the castle of Banu Qurayzah, but he sent them the message to lay down the weapons. When they responded positively and laid down their weapons, then Muslims tied their hands and feet and made them the prisoners. After that Muhammad ordered to slaughter all the men (including all the old men and 12-14 years old boys who got the pubes) to be slaughtered even though those old men and boys got nothing to do with the war. And the women and and the small children were also innocent of any war, but they were also made slaves for whole of their life, and even their coming generations were also born as slaves due to the curse of birth slavery in Islam. 

 

As compared to Muhammad and his fabricated Allah, just look at the wisdom of great Buddha and his follower Ashoka and other Buddhist governments. Buddha taught against slavery about 1200 years before Islam, and Ashoka demolished the markets of slavery in India, and the later coming Buddhist governments all together demolished the institution of slavery by introducing the system of serfdom. This is called "wisdom", and not what the fabricated god of Muslims did. 

 

Remember, Buddah was an atheist who didn't believe in any divine teachings or divine laws, but he made all the laws by using his own reasoning and human rationale. 

 

 

 

You don't have to make up nonsense to bolster your case of Buddhist superiority over desert cults. There were no markets of slaves/slavery in India in Ashokan times or before. Occasionally, defeated soldiers/PoWs were enslaved and thats it. Megathenes, who visited Chandragupta Maurya's court ( that is Ashoka's grandfather) clearly mentions that India has no slavery except the PoW slavery and that too, very occasionally. 

 

Oh and Buddha was not an atheist. Buddha was an agnost. He categorically refused to confirm or deny the existence of God when pointedly asked to, multiple times ( this is cannonical in all Buddhist literature), instead saying that existence/non-existence of creator God or Gods is irrelevant to us. This is a classic agnostic position, not atheistic one.

 

Edited by Muloghonto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, panther said:

You are picking and choosing hadith, post the whole narrations, I read about this a long time ago so don't remember all the details but you are not posting the full story of their treason

I have the references in Urdu at moment. Hopefully you could read urdu. In short, they are a proof that Banu Quraza didn't do any treason. They killed not a single Muslim. They didn't let the Meccans to attack Muslims from their side.

Their only sin was this that their leader was blamed to have a transfer of letters with the Meccans.
Therefore, maximum Muhammad should have punished their leader. Or even those men who were with the leader. Muhammad could have easily exiled them as he did with the 2 other Jewish tribes before.
But no, Muhammad slaughtered all the men including civilians and old people and 12 years old children too:

 

مسند الإمام أحمد بن حنبل کی 'صحیح' روایت (لنک):

 فقال يا حذيفة فاذهب فادخل في القوم فانظر ما يفعلون ولا تحدثن شيئا حتى تأتينا قال فذهبت فدخلت في القوم والريح وجنود الله تفعل ما تفعل لا تقر لهم قدر ولا نار ولا بناء فقام أبو سفيان بن حرب فقال يا معشر قريش لينظر امرؤ من جليسه فقال حذيفة فأخذت بيد الرجل الذي إلى جنبي فقلت من أنت قال أنا فلان بن فلان ثم قال أبو سفيان يا معشر قريش إنكم والله ما أصبحتم بدار مقام لقد هلك الكراع وأخلفتنا بنو قريظة بلغنا منهم الذي نكره ولقينا من هذه الريح ما ترون والله ما تطمئن لنا قدر ولا تقوم لنا نار ولا يستمسك لنا بناء فارتحلوا فإني مرتحل ثم قام إلى جمله وهو معقول فجلس عليه ثم ضربه فوثب على ثلاث فما أطلق عقاله إلا وهو قائم ولولا عهد رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم لا تحدث شيئا حتى تأتيني ثم شئت لقتلته بسهم۔۔۔۔ 
تعليق شعيب الأرنؤوط : حديث صحيح وهذا إسناد حسن لولا إرساله
ترجمہ: 
۔۔۔ صحابی حذیفہ الیمانی کہتے ہیں: ۔۔ رسول خدا نے مجھے سے کہا کہ اے حذیفہ جا اور دشمن لوگوں میں گھس کر بیٹھ جا اور دیکھ کہ وہ کیا کرنے جا رہے ہیں۔۔۔ پھر کفار کا سردار ابو سفیان بن حرب نے کہا: اے قریش کے لوگو! تمہارا موجودہ مسکن ایسی جگہ نہیں ہے جہاں زیادہ دیر ٹہرا جائے، تمہارے گھوڑے مر چکے ہیں اور بنی قریظہ نے ہمارا ساتھ دینے سے انکار کر دیا ہے اور ہمیں انکی طرف سے وہ پیغام ملا ہے جو ہمیں پسند نہیں (یعنی بنی قریظہ نے انہیں انکی فوجیں اپنے قلعے سے گذارنے کی اجازت نہیں دی)، اور یہ ہوا ہمیں سخت وقت دے رہی ہے جیسا کہ تم دیکھ رہے ہو۔ ہمارے دیگچے چولہوں پر الٹ جاتے ہیں اور آگ بجھ جاتی ہے اور خیمے کی طنابیں اکھڑ جاتی ہیں۔ تو واپس چلو کہ میں بھی واپس جا رہا ہوں ۔۔۔
امام الارنؤوط نے اس روایت پر 'صحیح' کا حکم لگایا ہے۔

ابن کثیر الدمشقی نے بھی تفسیر ابن کثیر (لنک) میں ہہی لکھا ہے کہ بنو قریظہ نے قریش کا ساتھ نہ دیا:

۔۔۔ ابوسفیان نے کہا اللہ گواہ ہے ہم اس وقت کسی ٹھہرنے کی جگہ پر نہیں ہیں ۔ ہمارے مویشی ہمارے اونٹ ہلاک ہو رہے ہیں۔ بنو قریظہ نے ہم سے وعدہ خلافی کی اس نے ہمیں بڑی تکلیف پہنچائی پھر اس ہوا نے تو ہمیں پریشان کر رکھا ہے ہم کھانا نہیں پکا سکتے آگ تک نہیں جلاسکتے خیمے ڈیرے ٹھہر نہیں سکتے۔ میں تو تنگ آگیا ہوں اور میں نے تو ارادہ کر لیا ہے کہ واپس ہوجاؤں۔۔۔

  •  مسلمان آزادانہ طور پر محاصرے کے دوران بنو قریظہ کے علاقوں سے گذرتے رہے اور کسی نہ نہ تو انہیں روکا اور نہ ہی انہیں قتل کیا۔ یہ اس بات کا ثبوت ہے کہ بنو قریظہ نے مسلمانوں کے خلاف کوئی جنگ نہیں کی اور نہ ہی کوئی 'عملی' بدعہدی کی۔
  •  
Edited by Alam_dar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Alam_dar saffron brigade is jealous. A Hindu male is effed by Indian law if he divorced so he cant see others happiness. 

Financially, for example, A registered Muslim priest was getting INR 10000-20000 while Saffron Babas will only, now get INR 4000. They are now registering themselves.

TBH, most saffron guys don’t care about how Muslim want to live as long as they are not systematically letting their men exploit their women and kids in name or religion or not given preferential treatment by indian democracy.

 

PS: same is true for every country in west. People in Britain, France, and some other EU states have started speaking about how democratic rules are ending up giving preferential treatment to Muslim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alam_dar said:

I have the references in Urdu at moment. Hopefully you could read urdu. In short, they are a proof that Banu Quraza didn't do any treason. They killed not a single Muslim. They didn't let the Meccans to attack Muslims from their side.

Their only sin was this that their leader was blamed to have a transfer of letters with the Meccans.
Therefore, maximum Muhammad should have punished their leader. Or even those men who were with the leader. Muhammad could have easily exiled them as he did with the 2 other Jewish tribes before.
But no, Muhammad slaughtered all the men including civilians and old people and 12 years old children too:

 

مسند الإمام أحمد بن حنبل کی 'صحیح' روایت (لنک):

 فقال يا حذيفة فاذهب فادخل في القوم فانظر ما يفعلون ولا تحدثن شيئا حتى تأتينا قال فذهبت فدخلت في القوم والريح وجنود الله تفعل ما تفعل لا تقر لهم قدر ولا نار ولا بناء فقام أبو سفيان بن حرب فقال يا معشر قريش لينظر امرؤ من جليسه فقال حذيفة فأخذت بيد الرجل الذي إلى جنبي فقلت من أنت قال أنا فلان بن فلان ثم قال أبو سفيان يا معشر قريش إنكم والله ما أصبحتم بدار مقام لقد هلك الكراع وأخلفتنا بنو قريظة بلغنا منهم الذي نكره ولقينا من هذه الريح ما ترون والله ما تطمئن لنا قدر ولا تقوم لنا نار ولا يستمسك لنا بناء فارتحلوا فإني مرتحل ثم قام إلى جمله وهو معقول فجلس عليه ثم ضربه فوثب على ثلاث فما أطلق عقاله إلا وهو قائم ولولا عهد رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم لا تحدث شيئا حتى تأتيني ثم شئت لقتلته بسهم۔۔۔۔ 
تعليق شعيب الأرنؤوط : حديث صحيح وهذا إسناد حسن لولا إرساله
ترجمہ: 
۔۔۔ صحابی حذیفہ الیمانی کہتے ہیں: ۔۔ رسول خدا نے مجھے سے کہا کہ اے حذیفہ جا اور دشمن لوگوں میں گھس کر بیٹھ جا اور دیکھ کہ وہ کیا کرنے جا رہے ہیں۔۔۔ پھر کفار کا سردار ابو سفیان بن حرب نے کہا: اے قریش کے لوگو! تمہارا موجودہ مسکن ایسی جگہ نہیں ہے جہاں زیادہ دیر ٹہرا جائے، تمہارے گھوڑے مر چکے ہیں اور بنی قریظہ نے ہمارا ساتھ دینے سے انکار کر دیا ہے اور ہمیں انکی طرف سے وہ پیغام ملا ہے جو ہمیں پسند نہیں (یعنی بنی قریظہ نے انہیں انکی فوجیں اپنے قلعے سے گذارنے کی اجازت نہیں دی)، اور یہ ہوا ہمیں سخت وقت دے رہی ہے جیسا کہ تم دیکھ رہے ہو۔ ہمارے دیگچے چولہوں پر الٹ جاتے ہیں اور آگ بجھ جاتی ہے اور خیمے کی طنابیں اکھڑ جاتی ہیں۔ تو واپس چلو کہ میں بھی واپس جا رہا ہوں ۔۔۔
امام الارنؤوط نے اس روایت پر 'صحیح' کا حکم لگایا ہے۔

ابن کثیر الدمشقی نے بھی تفسیر ابن کثیر (لنک) میں ہہی لکھا ہے کہ بنو قریظہ نے قریش کا ساتھ نہ دیا:

۔۔۔ ابوسفیان نے کہا اللہ گواہ ہے ہم اس وقت کسی ٹھہرنے کی جگہ پر نہیں ہیں ۔ ہمارے مویشی ہمارے اونٹ ہلاک ہو رہے ہیں۔ بنو قریظہ نے ہم سے وعدہ خلافی کی اس نے ہمیں بڑی تکلیف پہنچائی پھر اس ہوا نے تو ہمیں پریشان کر رکھا ہے ہم کھانا نہیں پکا سکتے آگ تک نہیں جلاسکتے خیمے ڈیرے ٹھہر نہیں سکتے۔ میں تو تنگ آگیا ہوں اور میں نے تو ارادہ کر لیا ہے کہ واپس ہوجاؤں۔۔۔

  •  مسلمان آزادانہ طور پر محاصرے کے دوران بنو قریظہ کے علاقوں سے گذرتے رہے اور کسی نہ نہ تو انہیں روکا اور نہ ہی انہیں قتل کیا۔ یہ اس بات کا ثبوت ہے کہ بنو قریظہ نے مسلمانوں کے خلاف کوئی جنگ نہیں کی اور نہ ہی کوئی 'عملی' بدعہدی کی۔
  •  

I can't read urdu

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

To ghazwa-e-hind kaise karega, khajoor? Bas ghanta hilate raho. :whack2:

Pathan prowess was broken by the Sikhs, hence they are so scarred that they need to keep saying 'ghazwa-e-hindh' to soothe the burns inflicted by the Sikhs on their psyche. 

Just like Russians broke Napoleon's 'grande armee' and its invincible reputation, the Sikhs did the same for the Pathans. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, panther said:

I can't read urdu

Ok, then let me translate:

 

 

Narrated Huthayfa bin Al-Yaman…

He [Muhammad] said to me, "O Huthayfa, go and infiltrate the people [the armies against the Muslims] and see what they're up to, and don't say a word until you return."

So I went and infiltrated the people while the winds and the soldiers of Allah were doing what they were doing – not leaving them [the armies] any cauldron or fire or structure. So Abu Sufyan bin Harb stood up and said, "O ye people of Quraysh, let every person check and see the person sitting next to him [in fear of spies]."

So I took the hand of the man next to me and said, "Who are you?"

He replied, "I am someone the son of someone."

So Abu Sufyan said, "O ye people of Quraysh, by Allah your [current] dwelling isn't a place to be dwelled in [meaning that their current situation is bad]; the horses [and camels, mules, etc..] have died, Bani Qurayza has turned us down - we received from them what we don't like [meaning they refused to let them in through their fortresses], and this wind is giving us what you see [a hard time]. By Allah, our cauldrons aren't standing, the fires aren't lasting, and the structures aren't holding. So retreat for I am retreating." (Musnad Ahmad, Number 2283)

 

Muslim Ulama declared this tradition to be SAHIH (i.e. Authentic). Link.

 

 

Remember, there was no trench in the area of Banu Qurayzah. If they really wanted to deceive Muslims, then they only had to allow the 10,000 strong army of Meccans to attack the Muslims from their side. But they didn't. But still Muhammad slaughtered them all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Khaleed bin Waleed that's the guy whom apart from  caliphate played huge role in spreading the peacefuls apart from the usual Arab traders ,from Africa to Iran to parts of today's Afghanistan, he spread it the traders took it to Maldives Indonesia and Malaysia. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, vayuu1 said:

Khaleed bin Waleed that's the guy whom apart from  caliphate played huge role in spreading the peacefuls apart from the usual Arab traders ,from Africa to Iran to parts of today's Afghanistan, he spread it the traders took it to Maldives Indonesia and Malaysia. 

 

Islam lucked out for two major reasons, or else it'd have been a no-name religion like Manichaeism or various other cults that fermented in the ME in the first millenia AD.


The two main luck factors were, in order of luck:


A) The Sassanid-Byzantine war of 602-628 AD. This is the 'mother of all Roman-Persian wars', which left both sides utterly decimated. The war started with the Persians conquering the levant, Egypt and most of eastern & central Anatolia, with them even taking over Chalcedon for 15 years ( Chalcedon is part of metropolitan Istanbul and traditionally, was a small city directly across Constantinople on the Asian side).

Heraklius, the Byzantine Emperor, launched an 'all or nothing' war campaign, where he sailed all his troops all the way to Turkey-Georgia border region, where the Sassanids did not expect it and carved a path south from the Black Sea cost, directly for Ctesiphon ( close to Baghdad), that was the Sassanid capital. Since his army was his 'final army', literally composed of the last of the able bodied men left in the European section of Byzantium (Ie, modern day Greece + Bulgaria + Macedonia + European Turkey), he did not hold these cities but burnt them down, to force a Sassanid parley.

Sassanids recalled their armies from Egypt & Asia minor but due to hasty arrivals, they got destroyed and only when Heraklius came close to Ctesiphon, did the Sassanids break all the canals and turn Ctesiphon into an 'island city', flooding the countryside. Only then did Heraklius accepted terms, the borders returned to the previous margins and he retreated.


This was the back-breaking war that broke both the empires. Sassanids descended into civil war, mostly due to the severe over-taxation to support the 26 year old war had left an entire generation of peasants destitute and rebellious. Between 628 and 650, when the Sassanid Empire finally fell, they went through 5 emperors, two of which were their first empresses ( such was the dire succession crisis, that Sassanids for the first time ever picked women royalty, due to lack of males, to prop up the dying dynasty). 

The Byzantines were utterly crushed too - having lost most of the revenue and seeing most of Anatolia & Levant plundered by the retreating Sassanid armies, along with 3 years of grain stockpile emptied out of Egypt by the Sassanids. 

It was in THIS climate, that the Arabs attacked. Its sheer luck of the Byzantines that the Arabs focussed on the Sassanids first (mostly due to bad blood between the Arabs and the Persians, as the Arabs had betrayed the Persians several times during Sassanid low periods and wars with Byzantines and the Sassanids had exacted brutal revenge every single time). 

Had the Arabs attacked the Byzantines first, they'd have barged into Europe and maybe Iran would've survived the onslaught as the Byzantines did in reality. This is because though the Arabs defeated both the Byzantines and the Sassanids in the levant & fertile crescant, they only had manpower to conquer one - they chose Persia, their traditional enemy, which gave Byzantines a generation to recover and put up a defence in the Anatolian sector ( where the Caliphate- Byzantine border stabilized into).

 

B)Khalid Ibn Walid.  He is one of history's few undefeated generals and he is the executor of the actual Arab victories against the Byzantines and Sassanids. All the famous Arab wins that they attribute to 'allah's miracle' - Battle of Nahavand, Battle of Al Qadissiyah, Battle of Yarmouk - they were all won by this chap. Had Khalid not been around, the Arabs wouldn't have been able to capitalize on the 'once in a millenia weakness' of both the Byzantines and the Sassanids.

 

 

The Caliphate/Islam is an example of how exploiting unique geo-political advantages or being at the right place at the right time can turn a bunch of barbaric nobodies, inferior to their neighbors in every which way possible, into fundamental shapers of history.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, vayuu1 said:

Khaleed bin Waleed that's the guy whom apart from  caliphate played huge role in spreading the peacefuls apart from the usual Arab traders ,from Africa to Iran to parts of today's Afghanistan, he spread it the traders took it to Maldives Indonesia and Malaysia. 

It is not about spreading of the state through force and bloodshed, but it is the question of Humanity and Justice by the Prophet Muhammad himself. 

 

If the Muhammad himself fails the litmus test of Humanity, and proves to be a barbaric killer, then whole religion of Islam itself proves to be falsehood. 

 

Conquering land does not mean being Divine. Ashoka the great conquered more land (at least people) than Khalid. Rest Buddhism spread in China, Japan, Thailand, Sri Lanka through preaching. 

 

Genhiz khan also united the tribes and his grandsons conquered more lands than Khalid bin Waleed. 

 

As compared to Khalid bin Waleed, there were many Prophets and Messengers of Allah who were unable to make one person monotheist and unable to conquer even a single inch of land. In fact, these Prophets and Messengers were brutally killed by the people and Allah was unable to do any thing. And testimony of this is itself present in Quran. For example:

 

(Quran 2:91) قُلْ فَلِمَ تَقْتُلُونَ أَنبِیَاءَ اللّہِ مِن قَبْلُ إِن کُنتُم مُّؤْمِنِیْن.

 Translation: If you were believers, why then you used to kill the Prophets? 

 

Also see Quran 2:87 where Quran is testifying the killing of the Messengers (Rasool). Remember, Rasools are ahead in merits than prohets. 

 

So, should we believe that Khalid bin Waleed was above than these messengers and prophets?

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...