Sam Harris

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d8b_1179037960

Muhammad personally beheaded between 600 and 900 members of the Bani Quraiza, a Judaized Arab tribe, for no crime other than being Jews and refusing to convert to Islam. This shocking episode is recorded in ghastly detail in the authorized Hadith of Bukhari.

In this series of short videos Walid Shoebat, an ex-member of the Palestinian al-Fatah brigade, talks about the violence inherent in Islam and explains how the earlier, more peaceful Meccan verses from when Muhammad was powerless were abrogated by the later, more intolerant and violent Medinan verses, from when Muhammad had become a warlord.

These later injunctions are the ones that Muslims must obey if they are to follow Muhammad in strict reality. Those that do are the terrorists and suicide bombers.

The 9th sura is Islam’s last word on jihad and behaviour towards unbelievers. It says: ‘Kill them wherever you find them.’ This sura abrogates, that is, replaces or cancels, all previous verses on the subject.

As one of the commentators says: ‘There is no natural human morality in Islam, therefore Muslims have to go to the Qur’an and the Hadith to find out what to do and what not to do.’

Between 600 and 900? Pretty good disparity there. Apparently record keeping is as big a problem as their insane religious views.

Classy dude was Mohammed.

Then why does George W Bush, the christian warrior, call them a religion of peace?

Obviously he is not a history buff?

McCreason - 22 September 2008 02:33 PM

Between 600 and 900? Pretty good disparity there. Apparently record keeping is as big a problem as their insane religious views.

Witnesses reported different numbers. But can you believe that? One man deciding to behead several hundred prisoners, ordering trenches dug and having them brought out in batches. He then cut their heads off with a knife, one by one. And this man is the founder of a world religion.

Even Genghis Khan never did anything quite so vindictive and psychopathic as that. The more I learn about Muhammad, the more he horrifies me.

Yes unbelievable. That scenario actually makes Joseph Smith look like a Cub Scout leader.

Makes me always wonder why people have to make up the mystical when truth is even more bizaar.

Meso

This account says that Muhammed ‘approved’ of the beheading of between 600-900 prisoners. And of course it is disputed by Muslim scholars.

Muhammad is also criticised for the death of the men of Banu Qurayza, a Jewish tribe of Medina. The tribe was accused of having engaged in treasonous agreements with the enemies besieging Medina in the Battle of the Trench in 627.[26][27] Ibn Ishaq writes that Muhammad approved the beheading of some 600-900 individuals who surrendered unconditionally after a siege that lasted several weeks.[23] (Also see Bukhari 5:59:362) (Yusuf Ali notes that the Qur’an discusses this battle in verses [Qur’an 33:10]).[28] The women and children were sold into slavery. According to Norman Stillman, the incident cannot be judged by present-day moral standards. Citing Deut. 20:13-14 as an example, Stillman states that the slaughter of adult males and the enslavement of women and children, though bitter, was common practice throughout the ancient world.[29] According to Rudi Paret, the adverse public opinion was more a point of concern to Muhammad when he had some date palms cut down during a siege than after this incident.[30] Esposito also argues that in Muhammad’s time traitors were executed and alleging similar situations in the Bible.[31] Esposito says that Muhammad’s motivation was political rather than racial or theological; he was trying to establish Muslim dominance and rule in Arabia.[15]

A few Muslim scholars, such as W. N. Arafat and Barakat Ahmad, have disputed the historicity of the incident.[32] Ahmad, argues that only the leaders of the tribe were killed. (see his thesis)[33] Arafat argued that Ibn Ishaq gathered information from descendants of the Qurayza Jews, who embellished or manufactured the details of the incident.[34][35] Watt finds Arafat’s arguments “not entirely convincing.”[36]

McCreason - 22 September 2008 08:43 PM

Banu Qurayza

Same lot. Banu/Bani, Quraiza/Qurayza. Of course it is disputed - by later Muslim redactors, who are trying to make the prophet look less bad. And the survivors exaggerated -  what survivors? All the men were killed and their women and children sold into slavery, with the instruction that the male slaves should be killed as soon as pubic hair appeared on their bodies. Female witness was routinely discounted. Only contemporary witness by Muslims is accepted, and that is the report that has come down to us in Bukhari’s hadith.

The last word?

The Quran isn’t in any kind of chronological order. The verses were collected pretty much randomly off of pages, sheets and sometimes camel shoulder blades and put in order by length. When they contradict each other, as they often do, it’s a matter of opinion which one should be followed.

As for a violent life, well, yes. The Arabian Peninsula has been home to as backward a set of hicks as ever graced the world. Banditry and warfare have been ways of life there for a long, long time. It would have been shocking to find a peaceful leader of any religion.

telner - 01 October 2008 06:36 PM

The last word?

The Quran isn’t in any kind of chronological order. The verses were collected pretty much randomly off of pages, sheets and sometimes camel shoulder blades and put in order by length. When they contradict each other, as they often do, it’s a matter of opinion which one should be followed.

Nonsense.
The well-established principle of abrogation, as indicated by an ayah in Sura 2 states that chronologically later revealed verses take precedence over earlier, whenever there is a conflict between them in individual cases.

This means, for example, that the peaceful “verses of the Dove” from the Meccan period are abrogated by the aggressive Medinan “verses of the Sword”.

Read, for example, David Bukay’s article:
http://www.meforum.org/article/1754

Fair enough. Some schools of jurisprudence don’t follow that principle, but since the majority do it reflects normative Islam today as practiced by most Muslims.

telner - 12 October 2008 06:39 PM

Fair enough. Some schools of jurisprudence don’t follow that principle, but since the majority do it reflects normative Islam today as practiced by most Muslims.

At any rate, the problem is that such a text is in the canon at all.  Once again, the problem that religious moderates face—and, ultimately, cannot triumph over—is that their “holy” texts contains some truly loathsome moral codes which cannot be explained away if one accepts that legitimacy of ANY of their holy texts.  You can’t have the peace-and-love suras without the kill-the-unbelievers ones, and so forth.