ISLAMIC INJUSTICE: FORCED LABOR & SLAVERY

Why do you force civilians, innocent war captives to serve you as slaves, to do coercive manual labor, taking away their freedom, mental, psychological, emotional and physical freedom even their dignity and freewill, making them a lower form of citizens, forced in that low level status, when the only thing they were was, as innocent civilians?
There is no equality between master and slave.

Quran 16:75, 71

Slaves are lowly commodities.

You forced and degraded innocent people to mere slaves! Forced and coerced! Its injustice! You force innocent people to be Muslim servants and you as the convenient belly-flexing, snoring, fattened lords, as first class inviolable citizens? Looks vile, ain’t it?

Again, its injustice!

Captives are war booty, properties, whether you’re civilian or a civilian, you would be forced as war booty, slaves! Why? Why would you oppress innocent people to forced labor diminishing them to mere slaves? What did they do? They’re merely civilians! They did not oppressed you for them to deserved forced submission.

ISLAMIC INJUSTICE!

War captives, no matter how innocent, are forced to be slaves. They are war booty. They are the ones said as “the right hand possessed”,

Sahih Bukhari excerpts:

What the right hand possessed are war captives. These are intended as slaves.

Quran 33:50

Wikipedia says:

According to Robert Spencer’s blog:

That is one principal reason why the primary source of slaves in the Islamic world has been non-Muslims, whether Jews, Christians, Hindus or pagans. Most slaves in Islam were non-Muslims who had been captured during jihad warfare. The pioneering scholar of the treatment of non-Muslims in Islamic societies, Bat Ye’or, explains the system that developed out of jihad conquest:

The jihad slave system included contingents of both sexes delivered annually in conformity with the treaties of submission by sovereigns who were tributaries of the caliph. When Amr conquered Tripoli (Libya) in 643, he forced the Jewish and Christian Berbers to give their wives and children as slaves to the Arab army as part of their jizya [tax on non-Muslims]. From 652 until its conquest in 1276, Nubia was forced to send an annual contingent of slaves to Cairo. Treaties concluded with the towns of Transoxiana, Sijistan, Armenia, and Fezzan (Maghreb) under the Umayyads and Abbasids stipulated an annual dispatch of slaves from both sexes. However, the main sources for the supply of slaves remained the regular raids on villages within the dar-al-harb [House of War, i.e., non-Islamic regions] and the military expeditions which swept more deeply into the infidel lands, emptying towns and provinces of their inhabitants.

.Historian Speros Vryonis observes that “since the beginning of the Arab razzias [raids] into the land of Rum [the Byzantine Empire], human booty had come to constitute a very important portion of the spoils.” The Turks, as they steadily conquered more and more of Anatolia, reduced many of the Greeks and other non-Muslims there to slave status: “They enslaved men, women, and children from all major urban centers and from the countryside where the populations were defenseless.” The Indian historian K. S. Lal states that wherever jihadists conquered a territory, “there developed a system of slavery peculiar to the clime, terrain and populace of the place.” When Muslim armies invaded India, “its people began to be enslaved in droves to be sold in foreign lands or employed in various capacities on menial and not-so-menial jobs within the country.”

Jihad slavery has been a historical reality unless Muslims deny that these Jihadist invaders were not true Muslims and their prominent slavery unislamic but given its proportion and scope, it couldnt be considered unislamic. Historically, slavery is an islamic reality.

It is supported by scholars such as:

Sayyid Qutb, the scholar of the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood said in his (Tafsir) of the Quran

“And concerning slavery, that was when slavery was a world-wide structure and which was conducted amongst Muslims and their enemies in the form of enslaving of prisoners of war. And it was necessary for Islam to adopt a similar line of practise until the world devised a new code of practise during war other than enslavement”[95]

In contrast though:

Abul A’la Maududi of Jamaat-e-Islami has said:

Islam has clearly and categorically forbidden the primitive practice of capturing a free man, to make him a slave or to sell him into slavery. On this point the clear and unequivocal words of Muhammad are as follows:

“There are three categories of people against whom I shall myself be a plaintiff on the Day of Judgement. Of these three, one is he who enslaves a free man, then sells him and eats this money” (al-Bukhari and Ibn Majjah).

Clearly, what muhammad intended to mean considering Islamic context as well as historical information’s is that, in the absence of war, it is unislamic to capture innocent people meant as slaves whereas with regards to war, war captives no matter their status innocent or not must be subjected to slavery, so as history attested.

An example of a war captive that was forced to be a slave was a jew named Rayhana, future wife of muhammad, who was forced to become muslim bec of the impending hardship of being a slave.

Therefore, it was Islamic to force war captives to a life of forced labor, non-consensual, mentally abrasive submission. Why mentally abrasive? Note: these muslims massacred your families, husbands and children, orphaned you to be their slave.  Who among innocent civilians would want a life like that: undignified forced labor, against freewill, no real freedom, and all bec they were innocent non-combatant war captives ? What did these civilians do?Nothing! They are mere innocent people, yet greedy, and tyrant Islam degrades them and oppressed them through forced labor. Oppressive Islam playing tyrant. Where is your regard for human rights and welfare, freedom and humanity?

Why do you force people to serve you? Therefore any apparently good treatment you applied on them are mere hypocrisy. Its like dragging an innocent man behind bars then pampering him with good food and warm clothings, but the mere fact that you put him behind bars, restricting her mental, psychological, emotional and physical liberty is more than you oppressed her.

Let’s look at one of those pretentious concern for slaves–front for the initial sadistic (seems like) dictatorship. You forced them to be slaves, Muslims, now you carress them? Sort of sadism in certain aspect–the forcible slave status imposed on civilians!

What is there alibi? Why do they practice forced slavery?

Muslims: Oh, but the bible is likewise condoning slavery! Yes, Allah is good! He makes Muslims the best of human beings otherwise be ye apes! uhh!?

Eh!? 👇

That refers to marrying captive and slave women. Noone must be forced to marry another. That as a principle is likewise the standard procedure regarding slavery. Noone must be forced to be a slave. It must depend from the respondent’s decision. Whatever it is it must be respected. If she wants or not to be a slave it must be by her free consent as it say,

Now Muslims, tell us, which innocent people did you not oppressed through forced labor?

 

WE CRY OPPRESSION! WE DEMAND FREEDOM FROM SLAVERY!

 

If slaves do that, to oppose, what happens?

Muslims: We are kind to them! huhu!

ABU DAWUD 1:142

Meaning if a slave resist slavery and is insolent beat her, but don’t beat your wife in like manner as you beat your slaves, if she too is insolent.

There. Now you know. The question is: Why do you force civilians to serve you? Its like dont insult muslims, or muhammad or allah, bec they’re the best human beings, they force slaves to feed their fattened belly–they have to be respected bec they are the best human beings or else….

Lastly, for reflection:

Ecclesiastes 3:17-18

[17]I said in mine heart, God shall judge the righteous and the wicked: for there is a time there for every purpose and for every work.

[18]I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.

Why?

WHY DO YOU FORCE CIVILIANS TO SERVE AND FATTENED YOU LIKE A MIRE-WALLOWING WHITE CARABAO?!

  • ⛔  This is not Charlie Hebdo™

Note: my sources are screenshot from various sites. If you doubt it, you can do intensive validation personally.

Advertisements

LOGICAL ANALYSIS: ISLAM IS TERRORISM!

From trueislam.com it say, 

The core foundation of believing Islam is not terrorism is as follows:

  • Allah prohibits Muslims to create disorder
  • Allah said, he that kills an innocent person is as though he kills the whole mankind
  • Allah prescribed Muslims during when they are weak to emigrate to other places whenever oppressed 

Now, that is to the effect that they are peaceful enough to be terrorists! Note though that these are their opinion, nowhere did allah said, unambiguously that Muslims are not terrorists, bec in fact, if we are too be more comprehensive, indeed Islam is terrorism, so as how allah intended it to be. 

Firstly, Muslims claim they don’t do terrorism bec muhammad exemplary cowardice of running away from oppression is not a compulsory injunction but only a matter when they are weak and helpless,  bec when tyrrany is on their side, their developed confidence, privileged them to retaliate in the worst possible terror they could inflict as it say,

There niceties, good-natured shrinking coward whenever they are weak are transformed to monstrosity and appalling, frightening predators, and terror-bent protagonists.

Even recklessly, compromising innocent people just so to satiate their bloodlust war-stricken revenge, preferring to kill enemies than compassion for possible collateral damage. Would you war enemies knowing the possibility of collateral damage? Even if you did not deliberately kill innocent people, but bec you pursue an ambush, you preferred still to have collateral damages, which proves that, Islam has no concern for innocent lives as long as they would possibly be killed as collateral damages.

Therefore, this is Islam: When Muslims are weak, they will not fight, but when they are in power, they would kill oppressors regardless of innocent people killed as collateral damage, in that aspiration of worst treatment against enemies in combat–to sow terror, in its most appalling nature. 

I don’t say that is terrorism! Its war. 

Secondly, Allah don’t approves that Muslims cause disorder. In context, a disorder that is not in the cause of allah, whereas, in the cause of allah, atrocity is allowed as how muhammad battles oppressors.

As it say, killing is disallowed unless it is for a just cause. Therefore, with just cause, disorder through killings and war is permitted.  What just cause is that?

I’ll show later.

It means there are times that allah allows muslims to kill even to the point of terrorism.

Thirdly, Allah said, he that kills an innocent person is as though he kills the whole mankind. The question is, who are innocent? Is this woman consented by muhammad as worthy of death not innocent?

As you can see, persistent insult against muhammad merits death, so as how muhammad consented of it. Its a shallow offense for someone to be killed. This manifest the integral onion-skinned sensitivities of muslims, even to deadly intolerance. Therefore, even from shallow persistent offense, such as insult one is regarded already as guilty of death, and regarded not innocent.

Therefore, when anyone is persistently spreading false news against Islam to that effect of insulting Muslims, you are not innocent even if shallow offense is your crime such as spreading, “allah is demonic”, “muhammad is false prophet”, etc… or, spreading offensive cartoon depiction of muhammad as charlie hebdo etc… If it insults Muslims, you are not innocent, but must be hunted wherever you are, to be killed, as it say, 

Who declares who are guilty or innocent, and who declares punishment?

Obviously, the leader determines the crime and punishment as exemplified above regarding the killing of the woman insulting muhammad. The leader must always have the decision if such crime is allowed or not, therefore, he is the one that have the authority to declares who are innocent or not. None else! It was exemplified when muhammad decided who among teenage warriors are guilty and innocent. He decided that teens with pubic hair are guilty and those warriors without pubic hair are innocent even without Allah’s permission from the universal law contained in the Quran. As I said in my other blog, Quran is the complete book of universal laws, thus, killing prepubescent boys with pubic hairs, bec it is a universal law as a deed, as pattern of good conduct for Muslims, must be in Quran bec it is a universal law but in reality, is nowhere in quran. Therefore, muhammad bec allah required that he is the pattern of good conduct, apparently, condone these killing acts, though allah said, he will kill muhammad if he follow other than what is revealed to him which muhammad disobeyed and kill people even if allah did not reveal any permission, we could conclude, Muhammad’s decision of killing pubic haired boys, and deciding by his personal judgment, who is innocent or not, is exemplary of how leaders of true Islam must do! As muhammad, presumption of guilt is one reason for death penalty as I elaborated here.

Leaders of true Islam must therefore follow that sunnah, to be the authority, to decide who among alleged offenders are innocent or not even by mere hunches or guess as muhammad did, even if it is without Allah’s order.

What offenses would merit one to be eligible as criminal worthy to be presumed guilty of death?

Firstly, an oppressor as presented above. Secondly, a persistent insult-bent person such as Christians who keep falsifying Islam or even, cartoon makers negatively depicting Islam, allah and muhammad. It doesn’t matter how shallow a crime is, like insult, as long as the leader presumed you guilty of death, you must die. Therefore, it doesn’t matter how shallow a crime is as long as it is bent for insulting Islam like in the case of the woman, or in spreading alleged false news, it is tantamount to being “not innocent”.

Who are innocent therefore?

Logically, anyone the leader construe as innocent.

If insult is shallow, spreading false news must likewise be shallow, its content no matter how shallow if it is insulting enough, for the leader to declare you guilty, they would hunt and kill you, wherever you are in the world. 

Therefore true Islam, has these distinction: Firstly, PRESUMPTION OF GUILT AS BASIS FOR DEATH PENALTY as leaders right to declare an alleged offender, as guilty or innocent by mere presumption, by how muhammad did to the teens of banu quraisha, even without any sanction of any universal law in the Quran. Leaders have right to decide anyone guilty or innocent even if they have no basis from Allah or Quran! Secondly, SHALLOW OFFENSE AS INSULT MERITS DEATH PENALTY!

True Islam is likewise reflected on this: TO PRACTICE BEYOND WHAT ALLAH REVEALED as replicating Muhammad’s sunnah, making non-quranic judgments, whom allah consented by saying, muhammad is a pattern of good conduct.

What is terrorism?

To terrorize unlawfully.

 Islam don’t do terrorism indeed as their apparently terroristic acts, as killing those who insult islam and those who spread false news, are lawful as allah condones it by saying muhammad is the pattern of good conduct. Thus when Muslims, hunts these who insult islam and spreading false news–shallow as it may be–and killed them, no matter who are killed as collateral damages, as I’ve shown above how muhammad is not concern of collateral damages, it is not terrorism bec it is lawful as per Islamic jurisprudence. Therefore, bombing or ambush, or killing, in whatever means, these alleged offenders as decided by the leader, the primary judge, it is not terrorism!

Therefore, the killing of charlie hebdo cartoonists is not terrorism. The bombing or massacre of Christians as alleged false news propagator against islam, if it insults the leader, and declared them guilty of death, when materialized, in forms of bombing, mutilation, or beheading is not terrorism.

Likewise, Maute group in our country occupying Marawi city, is not terrorism. It is Islamic, the government as an enemy, or oppressor must be dealt with, force and necessary of retaliation, as occupying a non military city, is stratagem of war, wherein islam is not concern of collateral damage pursuant to its goal, to fight its enemy as exemplified by muhammad.

Every strategy of war must be pursued regardless of collateral damages such as occupying a city pursuant to its cause: war against oppressors!

Sahih Muslim 4311

How is the government an oppressor, or an enemy of war?

Let’s look on history what Muslim armed groups were fighting for and what justifies rebellion. Here it say,

By this, we could deduce why Muslims took arms. Initially, as response to an alleged oppression against them–the jabidah massacre, as a platform for a bangsamoro autonomy as an objective of the armed group, MNLF.  They feel like Bangsamoro is their ancestral domain which was taken out of their authority. Its like a Muslim land under dominion of foreigners. Thus the need for liberty thus the god given right to fight oppression–initially was genocide.

Having a valid reason for jihad, that is, liberty from dominion, it must necessitate a peace treaty for peace but without it, war is already declared, wherein, government mitigating rebellion through assault, it must be met in the same manner of aggression as it is Islamic for retaliation, blood for blood, in like manner and intensity.

This objective of Bangsamoro autonomy is valid reason for jihad, as claiming ancestral domain. The emergence of other Muslim armed groups like Maute are therefore as valid as the cause they are fighting for: Bangsamoro Autonomy, thus any war method they employ as strategy of war, even deceit, or breaking peace treaties are all Islamic in essence as exemplified by how muhammad broke the hubaydiyyah treaty thereby war progress, until these Muslims are satisfied.

War is deceit so as Muhammad said, thus any war strategy they employ such as occupying Marawi city are justified. 

This is the time of war unless a peace treaty is made. Without it, war is a deceit. But even, with a treaty, Muslims are not trustworthy as exemplified by the breaking of hubaydiyyah treaty, wherein, muhammad broke it, and its ok, whereas when, the other party broke it, muhammad killed them!

This is Islam during war. It could break any treaty as long as it likes or it serves to their advantage. But if the other broke it, they must be killed. 

I don’t say that is terrorism. It is Islamic–to kill, as by the leader’s discretion, as muhammad exemplified. Anything Islamic is not terrorism!

How about Abu sayyaf kidnap for ransom and beheadings?

Its likewise Islamic as akin to stealing, robbery and raiding caravan trade for booty.

Now, is terrorism Islamic?

Let me recap my arguments:

  • The leader can decide if an alleged offender is guilty of death or innocent even by presumption of guilt, or by hunches or guess, like muhammad presumed guilt through pubic hair without Allah’s confirmation. 
  • The leader can sanction anything even if it is not written in the complete law–the Quran! Like how muhammad massacred pubic haired boys without Quranic sanction!
  • Shallow offenses as spreading false news against Islam or even, shallow insults, merit death penalty, and the offender hunted or BOMBED anywhere regardless of innocent people killed as collateral damages as muhammad is not concerned of innocent people killed as collateral damages.
  • In times of war, every strategy and deceit of war is employed.
  • Treaties could be violated, such as the hubaydiyya treaty. 
  • Stealing, robbery and raiding other people’s property as booty, is akin to kidnap for ransom and beheadings! Why not? Raiding caravan trade, would be inevitable of killing, non combatant businessmen, in return, for their properties!

Now, may I ask again, is terrorism Islamic?

Is the killing on charlie hebdo, a cartoonist media, depicting muhammad with insult, terrorism?

NO! Its religious act. Anything, lawful is not terrorism! But of course, that is at the perspective of true Muslims (the terrorists) and not by the perspective of non Muslims (Medina sunni).

I, on the other hand, bec I am a christian, defines terrorism as Islamic and Islam as murderer of innocent people. But that is, speaking about true Islam which actions were by the authority of a leader, or caliph, in reference to ISIS. Sunni (mainstream), however, numerous they are lacks a leader, therefore, they are generally peaceful as no leader is there as commanding officer. But they, failing to be true Islam, are merely misguided. 

Note: my sources supporting my argument are not mine. They are screenshots from various sites. They could be true or not. If you want to validate the reliability of this blog. Make your own validation. 

ALLAH KILLED MUHAMMAD BEC OF BANU QURAISHA

Allah said to kill Muhammad if he resorted to inventing revelations.

it is the speech of a noble Messenger. It is not the speech of a poet (little do you believe) nor the speech of a soothsayer (little do you remember). A sending down from the Lord of all Being. Had he invented against Us any sayings, We would have seized him by the right hand, then We would surely have cut his life-vein. S. 69:40-46 Arberry

Muhammad was commanded to practice ONLY what is revealed.

And when Our signs are recited to them, clear signs, those who look not to encounter Us say, ‘Bring a Koran other than this, or alter it.’ Say: ‘It is not for me to alter it of my own accord. I follow nothing, except what is revealed to me. Truly I fear, if I should rebel against my Lord, the chastisement of a dreadful day.’ S. 10:15 Arberry

Muhammad cannot do things by his own inclination but only by revelation.

53:1-5

By the star when it descends, your companion [Muhammad] has not strayed, nor has he erred, Nor does he speak from [his own] inclination. It is not but a revelation revealed, taught to him by one intense .

Muhammad cannot invent things by his own inclination bec once he did, Allah rebuked him as it say:

May Allah pardon you, ; why did you give them permission ? Until it was evident to you who were truthful and you knew the liars. [Qur’an 09:43]

So, here we see Allah pointing out that Muhammad gave a wrong command.

O Prophet, why do you prohibit what Allah has made lawful for you, seeking the approval of your wives? And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. [Qur’an 66:01]

Muhammad massacred a tribe according to the judgment of a Jew.

thus the apostle said: Will you be satisfied, o Aus, if one of your own number pronounces judgement on them? When they agreed he said that Sa’d b. Mu’adh was the man…Sa’d said, Then I give judgement that the men should be killed, the property divide, and the women and children taken as captives. (Ibid,. pp. 464)

The people of (Banu) Quraiza agreed to accept the verdict of Sa`d bin Mu`adh. So the Prophet sent for Sa`d, and the latter came (riding) a donkey and when he approached the Mosque, the Prophet said to the Ansar, “Get up for your chief or for the best among you.” Then the Prophet said (to Sa`d).” These (i.e. Banu Quraiza) have agreed to accept your verdict.” Sa`d said, “KILL THEIR WARRIORS and take their offspring as captives, “On that the Prophet said, “You have judged according to Allah’s Judgment,” or said, “according to the King’s judgement.”(Sahih al-Bukhari volume 5, Book 59, Hadith 447)

Therefore Muhammad killed them.

Including teens with pubic hairs as guilty of death and spared those without pubic hair as innocent.

Sunan an-Nasa’i:

It was narrated that Kathir bin As-Sa’ib said: “The sons of Quraizah told me that they were presented to the Messenger of Allah on the Day of Quraizah, and whoever (among them) had reached puberty, or had grown pubic hair, was killed, and whoever had not reached puberty and had not grown pubic hair was left (alive).” (Sunan an-Nasa’i Volume 4, Book 27, Hadith 3459).

The question is, allah did not abrogate it, should it be Islamic custom, muhammad being the pattern of conduct to do things by mere guess who are guilty or innocent through pubic hair even without allah’s order, or by killing outside revelation through a non muslim’s verdict but as imitation of that sunnah to kill through presumption of guilt even without allah’s permission or by killing outside revelation, must be Islamic custom!?

Apparently, muhammad’s action was by unrecited revelation. Revelation which were not included in the Quran as Muslims say.

The Qibla was also an unrecited revelation. It was not detailed in Quran yet Muslims practiced it.

A Muslim site say:

e: The Holy Qur’ân says:

And We did not appoint the Qiblah on which you were earlier, but that We might know the people who follow the Messenger as distinct from those who turn back on their heels. (2:143)

 

In order to understand the verse, it is necessary to know the background in which it was revealed:

In the early days of Madani life, after the Holy Prophet’s migration to Madinah, the Muslims were ordered to direct their faces in prayers towards Baytul-Maqdas (Jerusalem) which had been appointed as Qiblah of the Muslims. Up to seventeen months, the Muslims had been observing the Baytul-Maqdas as their Qiblah. It was after seventeen months that the Holy Qur’ân abrogated the earlier order and the Muslims were required to observe the Holy Mosque of Makkah as their Qiblah and turn their faces towards it while praying. The following verse was revealed to appoint the new Qiblah:

.So turn your face towards al-Masjid al-Haraam. (2:144)

This new order was criticized by some disbelievers and they objected on it as to why the Baytul-Maqdas was appointed as Qiblah earlier. The above quoted verse (2:143) was revealed to answer this objection. The answer was that the appointment of the former Qiblah was in order to test the people whether or not they follow the Messenger. To quote the meaning of the verse again:

And We did not appoint the Qiblah on which you were earlier, but that We might know the people who follow the Messenger. (2:143)

Here the appointment of the previous Qiblah has been attributed to Allâh Almighty, which is a clear indication to the fact that the appointment of Baytul-Maqdas as Qiblah was done by the order of Allâh Almighty Himself. But this order is nowhere in the Holy Qur’ân, and there is no verse in the Holy Book which directs the turning of faces towards Baytul-Maqdas. This order was given to Muslims by the Holy Prophet ( ) with no reference to any verse of the Holy Qur’ân. Still, this order was mentioned by the Holy Qur’ân in the above quoted verse as the order of Allâh: The words,

“We did not appoint the Qiblah,” instead of the words,

“The Holy Prophet did not.” are too clear on this point to need more explanation.

This statement of the Holy Qur’ân, thus, evidently proves that the previous order given by the Holy Prophet was based on a revelation which did not form part of the Book. And this is exactly the “unrecited revelation.” 

🔺

As you can see, there are acts of muhammad absent from quran which are allegedly “unrecited revelations” which are obligatory for muslims to do such as the Qibla or the praying direction wherein Muslims face.
Therefore, Muhammad’s action, killing all captives by a non Muslim verdict and killing teens with pubic hair is apparently by unrecited revelation. And bec it is an action that is a pattern of conduct for muslims, as muhammad is the model, it must have been written in the Quran. Quran being the complete book of truth and universal laws.

Bec this action of muhammad is absent in the quran suggest it as his personal decision. Allah did not order him bec if he did, this order should have been in the complete book of truth and universal laws, the quran!

Bec it was not in the quran, to kill all captives including teens by a non muslim verdict therefore, Muhammad has did something Allah did not permits, which makes muhammad a transgressor of the law, and an evil doer.

How come?

He followed something that is not in quran or something allah did not reveal.

And when Our signs are recited to them, clear signs, those who look not to encounter Us say, ‘Bring a Koran other than this, or alter it.’ Say: ‘It is not for me to alter it of my own accord. I follow nothing, except what is revealed to me. Truly I fear, if I should rebel against my Lord, the chastisement of a dreadful day.’ S. 10:15 Arberry

Though, there are times when allah corrected him when he did things that allah did not reveal, those were minor offenses, whereas killing without Allah’s approval or consent is a major sin which allah said, if muhammad made any saying (unauthorized law, to be followed) other than what is revealed allah would kill him if its weight is a major sin, as implied,

.Had he invented against Us any sayings (unauthorized law) We would have seized him by the right hand, then We would surely have cut his life-vein. S. 69:40-46 Arberry

‘Bring a Koran other than this, or alter it.’ Say: ‘It is not for me to alter it of my own accord. I follow nothing, except what is revealed to me. Truly I fear, if I should rebel against my Lord, the chastisement of a dreadful day.’ S. 10:15 Arberry

Thus when muhammad died of poison. It was allah who killed him just as he warned. Bec muhammad was an evil person! A murderer! Lawless! Bloody evil ruler! Who did murder, a major sin, which Allah did not allow.

Why did Allah kill muhammad?

He killed him bec he did things out of his own personal decision and not by revelation as it say:

53:1-5

By the star when it descends, your companion [Muhammad] has not strayed, nor has he erred, Nor does he speak from [his own] inclination. It is not but a revelation revealed, taught to him by one intense .

A pattern of good conduct?

 

REFUTING MUHAMMAD’S ‘UNRECITED REVELATION’ JUSTIFYING HIS MASSACRE OF JEWS 🌙

In my first post, I have explicitly shown the massacre of banu quraisha by Muhammad as murder and unlawful as it was not Qur’anic. There is nothing in Quran that justifies killing captives by virtue of the Torah and by conforming to a non-muslim’s verdict as basis for the massacre. As I reiterated, Quran is complete and fully detailed thus all Islamic sanctions must be by the Quran. Nothing in it suggests killing of captives by virtue of saad’s verdict and by the Torah.

Quran being the complete truth, therefore, impose the reality that all of muhammad’s action must at least have quranic basis, which the massacre of banu quraisha is traceless from it.

Nevertheless, muslims have defended it by bringing out the reality of “unrecited revelations” which they seem to say, justifies muhammad’s actions such as the massacre of banu quraisha, which are absent from any quranic ruling.

What are “unrecited revelations”?

These are revelations absent from the Qur’an during when it was not yet completed.

I want to refute that. I want to refute that Muhammad’s massacre of banu quraisha is justified.

I WILL PROVE BY SIMPLE LOGIC AND CONTEXT THAT INDEED MUHAMMAD WAS A MURDERER AND ALLAH A LIAR AS I PREVIOUSLY CLAIMED.

Firstly, I want to reinforce Islamic teaching. Indeed, there are two kinds of revelation given to muhammad, the recitation (the quran) and the “unrecited revelation”.

 

 


 

 

57:9 it is he who sends down the revelations (unrecited revelation and the quran)  to his slave (Muhammad) that he may bring you out from darkness to light.

 


 

A. THE QURAN AS THE FIRST KIND OF REVELATION!🌙

💀


“Ye without doubt, sent down the Message (quran) and We will certainly guard it (from corruption).”Qur’an 15:09


 

Quran 6:19] Say, “Whose testimony is the greatest?” Say, “God’s. He is the witness between me and you that this Quran has been inspired to me, to preach it to you and whomever it reaches. Indeed, you bear witness that there are other gods beside God.” Say, “I do not testify as you do; there is only one god, and I disown your idolatry.”

[Quran 6:38] We did not leave anything out of this book.

[Quran 7:52] We have given them a scripture that is fully detailed, with knowledge, guidance, and mercy for the people who believe.

[Quran 10:37] This Quran could not possibly be authored by other than God. It confirms all previous messages, and provides a fully detailed scripture. It is infallible, for it comes from the Lord of the universe.

[Quran 12:111] In their history, there is a lesson for those who possess intelligence. This is not fabricated Hadith; this (Quran) confirms all previous scriptures, provides the details of everything, and is a beacon and mercy for those who believe.

Quran 6:114] Shall I seek other than God as a source of law, when He has revealed to you this book fully detailed? Those who received the scripture recognize that it has been revealed from your Lord, truthfully. You shall not harbor any doubt. 

[Quran 6:115] The word of your Lord is complete, in truth and justice. Nothing shall abrogate His words. He is the Hearer, the Omniscient.


Qur’an is “a guidance for mankind… and the distinction (between right and wrong).”Qur’an 2:185

Verily, We have sent down to you (O Muhammad) the Book for mankind in truth. So whosoever accepts the guidance, it is only for his own self; and whosoever goes astray, he goes astray only for his own loss.” Qur’an 39:41

🌙

CONCLUSION: QURAN IS COMPLETE IN TRUTH, FULLY DETAILED, A GUIDANCE AND CRITERION TO KNOW RIGHT FROM WRONG, AND LASTLY, IT HAS EVERYTHING AS BEACON AND MERCY FOR BELIEVERS AND BY SAYING,

“We did not leave anything out of this book.”

IT MEANS, THERE IS NO UNIVERSAL RELIGIOUS TRUTH OUTSIDE QURAN THAT IS NEEDED, AS EVERYTHING IS IN IT, NOTHING IS LEFT OUTSIDE IT, THUS, QURAN IS THE ONLY SOURCE OF RELIGIOUS MATERIAL, OR THE BASIS OF RELIGIOUS TRUTH, OR THE BASIS FOR CLARIFICATION SUCH AS BY THE HADITHS.

B. THE “UNRECITED REVELATIONS” OR REVELATIONS ABSENT IN THE QURAN!🌙

A Muslim site explains:

This second kind of revelation is not contained in the Holy Qur’ân, but the Holy Qur’ân itself not only refers to it frequently but attributes its contents to Allâh Almighty. Some verses of the Holy Book are reproduced below which clearly prove that the “revelation” is not confined to the Holy Qur’ân, but there is another kind of “wahy” which does not form part of the “Holy Book,” yet it is the revelation from Allâh Almighty:

First Example: The Holy Qur’ân says:

 

And We did not appoint the Qiblah on which you were earlier, but that We might know the people who follow the Messenger as distinct from those who turn back on their heels. (2:143)

 

In order to understand the verse, it is necessary to know the background in which it was revealed:

In the early days of Madani life, after the Holy Prophet’s migration to Madinah, the Muslims were ordered to direct their faces in prayers towards Baytul-Maqdas (Jerusalem) which had been appointed as Qiblah of the Muslims. Up to seventeen months, the Muslims had been observing the Baytul-Maqdas as their Qiblah. It was after seventeen months that the Holy Qur’ân abrogated the earlier order and the Muslims were required to observe the Holy Mosque of Makkah as their Qiblah and turn their faces towards it while praying. The following verse was revealed to appoint the new Qiblah:

 

.So turn your face towards al-Masjid al-Haraam. (2:144)

This new order was criticized by some disbelievers and they objected on it as to why the Baytul-Maqdas was appointed as Qiblah earlier. The above quoted verse (2:143) was revealed to answer this objection. The answer was that the appointment of the former Qiblah was in order to test the people whether or not they follow the Messenger. To quote the meaning of the verse again:

And We did not appoint the Qiblah on which you were earlier, but that We might know the people who follow the Messenger. (2:143)

Here the appointment of the previous Qiblah has been attributed to Allâh Almighty, which is a clear indication to the fact that the appointment of Baytul-Maqdas as Qiblah was done by the order of Allâh Almighty Himself. But this order is nowhere in the Holy Qur’ân, and there is no verse in the Holy Book which directs the turning of faces towards Baytul-Maqdas. This order was given to Muslims by the Holy Prophet ( ) with no reference to any verse of the Holy Qur’ân. Still, this order was mentioned by the Holy Qur’ân in the above quoted verse as the order of Allâh: The words,

“We did not appoint the Qiblah,” instead of the words,

“The Holy Prophet did not.” are too clear on this point to need more explanation.

This statement of the Holy Qur’ân, thus, evidently proves that the previous order given by the Holy Prophet was based on a revelation which did not form part of the Book. And this is exactly the “unrecited revelation.” The verse of the Holy Qur’ân (2:143) quoted above proves the following facts:

(a) The Holy Prophet used to receive some revelations which are not contained in the Holy Qur’ân.

(b) These revelations were from Allâh Almighty, so much so that the orders based on such revelations were attributed to Allâh Almighty.

(c) The orders based on such revelation were as binding on the believers as the orders of the first kind of revelations, i.e. the verse of the Holy Qur’ân.

(d) These orders were sometimes given so as to test whether or not the Muslims follow the Messenger irrespective of the question that his orders are contained in the Holy Qur’ân or not.

🌙

Obviously, that justifies that indeed muhammad received “unrecited revelations” absent from the quran thus necessarily, every words or actions by muhammad as sanctioned by these “unrecited revelations” is likewise approved by allah and that, being universal laws are obligatory for the muslim community to follow as it say,

Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah. 

Qur’an 33:21

“Whoever does not believe in Allah and His Messenger, We have prepared a blaze for the unbelievers.”

Al-Qur’an 48:13



🌙

THE MERE FACT THAT ALLAH PRESCRIBED MUHAMMAD AS A PATTERN OF CONDUCT AND THAT ANYONE WHO DONT BELIEVE HIM, WILL BE PUNISHED, NECESSITATES THE FACT THAT, HIS ACTIONS AS SANCTIONED BY QURAN AND THE “UNRECITED REVELATIONS” ARE PATTERNS OF CONDUCT FOR ALL.

Thus the massacre of banu quraisha by virtue of the Torah and a non-muslim’s verdict is a moral pattern for all Muslims in times of war, thus as a war pattern, muslims could use the specific torah law in killing captives or could summon a non-muslin to judge captives, and that as not exceeding the limits of religion.

These are the bounds, the limits set by Allah. Do not then transgress them for who transgress them are evil doers. [Surah Al-Baqarah (2): Ayah 229],

and in Surah Al-Talq, Ayah 1, Allah says:

And those are the set limits of Allah and whosoever transgresses the set limits of Allah then he indeed has wronged himself.”


BY THESE, THE CONTEXTUAL RELATIONSHIP OF THESE TRUTH, USING LOGIC, IT CONCLUDES THAT INDEED MUHAMMAD IS A MURDERER, AND ALLAH, PROMOTING MURDER AS MORAL CONDUCT, OBVIOUSLY MAKES HIMSELF DEMONIC.

How did I come to that conclusion?

Firstly, Allah said, that nothing is left out from the quran, complete and fully detailed.

“We did not leave anything out of this book.”

“The word of your Lord is complete, in truth and justice.”

“Provides the details of everything”

“This book fully detailed”

Logically, if anything is not left out of the book, it means no truth is left outside quran meaning all truth is in quran, implying, all universal truth, as quran is complete in truth. Universal truth in the sense that it is truth that transcends through generations meant for all mankind, thus all truth, that is religious in nature, such as laws and doctrine from adam, to abraham, to moses and jesus, to muhammad being universal truth are all intact in the quran as it is a book of complete universal truth so as claimed:

“We did not leave anything out of this book.”

The word of your Lord is complete, in truth and justice.”



QURAN IS COMPLETE IN TRUTH.

what truth is that?

The sunnah of Allah that cannot change that is a criterion of morality since Adam to Muhammad as it say,

“you will not find in the way (sunnah) of Allāh any change.”

Qur’an is “a guidance for mankind… and the distinction (between right and wrong)



Obviously, quran as complete in truth means complete with all universal religious truth such as laws and doctrine since Adam to Muhammad. Meaning, quran is the conglomeration of all universal religious laws.

Those from the past from Adam to Jesus to muhammad which are not universal truth are obviously not included in the quran likewise revelations which are abrogated, if necessary, likewise abrogated unrecited revelations, if necessary are not included but all universal truth such as religious laws are complete in quran, as a criterion to know good from evil.

 “a guidance for mankind… and the distinction (between right and wrong).”



Logically, all aspect of right and wrong can be discerned by quran as it is complete in truth, meaning, quran has all universal law applicable in all aspect of right or wrong.

What are universal laws in aspect of religion?

A Muslim site explains:

These universal laws of Allāh (subḥānahu wa ta’āla) are not just restricted to matters pertaining to nature alone, rather they extend to the manner in which Allāh (subḥānahu wa ta’āla) deals with mankind, whether that be related to the way in which Allāh (subḥānahu wa ta’āla) guides, brings happiness, provides, gives victory, destroys nations, relieves people from distress, causes progress, failure and gives safety, and more. Many of these laws (sunan) that are related to societies and human interaction are fixed and determined just like the universal laws are too. Thus if a believer wants to understand how Allāh (subḥānahu wa ta’āla) interacts with His creation it is a necessity that he studies and reflects over such sunan which have been mentioned throughout the Qur’ān and Sunnah.

An example of such sunan is the way in which Allāh (subḥānahu wa ta’āla) deals with the hypocrites. Allāh (subḥānahu wa ta’āla) says:

“If the hypocrites and those in whose hearts is disease and those who spread rumors in al-Madīnah do not cease, We will surely incite you against them; then they will not remain your neighbors therein except for a little. Accursed wherever they are found, [being] seized and massacred completely. [This is] the established way (sunnah) of Allāh with those who passed on before; and you will not find in the way (sunnah) of Allāh any change.”[5]

Imam at-Tabari in his exegesis commented on the last part of the verse: “and you will not find in the way (sunnah) of Allāh any change.” Allāh (subḥānahu wa ta’āla) is saying to His Prophet Muhammad (subḥānahu wa ta’āla):  “You will not find, O Muhammad, any change with regards to the sunnah of Allāh (subḥānahu wa ta’āla) that he has decreed for His creation. So be sure to know that He is not going to change His sunnah for these hypocrites.”[6]

Likewise Allāh (subḥānahu wa ta’āla) says:

“And they swore by Allāh their strongest oaths that if a warner came to them, they would be more guided than [any] one of the [previous] nations. But when a warner came to them, it did not increase them except in aversion. [Due to] arrogance in the land and plotting of evil; but the evil plot does not encompass except its own people. Then do they await except the way (sunnah) of the former peoples? But you will never find in the way (sunnah) of Allāh any change, and you will never find in the way of Allāh any alteration.”[7]

🌙

Meaning, universal laws are transcendent laws for all mankind, from Adam to muhammad which were not abrogated and not exclusive for a certain people or tribe. Universal laws are laws applicable for all mankind and would never changed intended throughout time. These has not changed or will be changed. These includes “unrecited revelations” which are universal laws.

THEREFORE, UNIVERSAL LAWS ARE RELIGIOUS LAWS FROM ADAM TO MUHAMMAD MEANT FOR MANKIND WHICH CANNOT BE CHANGED AS IMPLIED,

“you will not find in the way (sunnah) of Allāh any change.”

Therefore, quran being complete in truth suggests, it is the complete book that contains the complete universal, religious truth such as laws and doctrines. Logically, “unrecited revelations” which are universal laws, though possibly, not included in the incomplete quran during when it was yet under the process of completion, but when quran was finally completed in truth, it necessarily must have included all universal truth such as all “unrecited revelations” which are universal truth in essence.

How come?

Bec quran is complete in truth implying complete with the universal laws of Allah that cannot be altered. And that nothing about the sunnah of allah that cannot be changed, implying universal laws, are left outside the quran meaning, all sunnah (universal laws) of allah that is immutable or unchangeable is in quran, so as the verses imply.

We did not leave anything out of this book.”

The word of your Lord is complete, in truth and justice.”

you will not find in the way (sunnah) of Allāh any change.”



Meaning, quran as complete in truth, which truth, are those sunnah of allah that cannot change, since Adams time, these are universal laws, logically speaking, including of course “unrecited revelations” which are universal laws in essence, too, as universal laws are for all mankind, thus necessarily, it must be revealed in the quran, too.

MUHAMMAD’S MASSACRE OF BANU QURAISHA BY VIRTUE OF THE TORAH AND BY VIRTUE OF A NON-MUSLIM’S VERDICT, IS IT A UNIVERSAL LAW?

whether it is by “unrecited revelation” or not, if it is a universal law, quran being complete in universal, religious truth and no truth is left outside it, that massacre “war ethics” being a universal law should have been in the quran, but is it?

The war ethics of massacre of captives by virtue of the Torah or by virtue of a non-muslim’s verdict is a universal law as Islamic ruling in times of war bec of the fact that it was not abrogated, and being a conduct of Muhammad being the model of morality must be as required, emulated as proper conduct in times of war.

 

 

 

“Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah.-Qur’an 33:21

Allah did not permit Muhammad to do something he did not allow, bec when he did at one time, Allah rebuked him and say,

Why did you allow what allah did not permits?”

Logically, massacre of captives by virtue of the Torah or by virtue of a non-muslim’s verdict, being not abrogated and not specifically, prohibitted and Muhammad being an example of good conduct, makes his act as a universal law, and being in that status, massacre of captives by virtue of a non-muslim’s verdict, must have been in the quran as quran is a complete book of truth such as universal religious laws.

The fact that this war ethics is absent in quran, it makes it inevitably as a lawless crime, thus Muhammad as perpetrator makes him lawless and murderer!

These are the bounds, the limits set by Allah. Do not then transgress them for who transgress them are evil doers. [Surah Al-Baqarah (2): Ayah 229],

And Allah exalting him as model of good conduct, despite Muhammad doing something he did not permits makes it a lawless act. Muhammad being a model of moral conduct, therefore requires lawlessness and murder as good conduct, therefore, assailing himself by saying, do not exceed limits of religion, but then, requiring people to go beyond religious limits, Muhammad as the model, who kills without Quranic sanction,for them, too, to murder even without divine sanction!
why?

Bec they have to emulate Muhammad as Allah required.

Conclusively, Muhammad without divine sanction did massacre a tribe and Allah patronizing it as good conduct makes the two, an evil tandem. One a murderer, the other pushing others to be murderers.

These in essence are traits of Satan.