MUHAMMEDS ATTACK ON NON MUSLIMS AND APOSTATES
Hello all you
followers of that fucking asshole Mohammed. I got this from this website.
Of course you with your fucked up brainwashed mentality will probably say it isn't true, but read on.......
Murdered by Muhammad:
The Brutal Deaths of Islam’s Earliest Enemies
Consider the following passages about Muhammad and the tolerance of Islam:
[Muhammad] captured the hearts of the people with his boundless sympathy and human kindness. He ruled justly. He did not swerve from truth and righteousness. He did not oppress even his deadly enemies, men who had sworn to kill him, who pelted him with stones, who turned him out of his homeland, who pitched the whole of Arabia against him—nay, not even those who chewed the raw liver of his dead uncle in a frenzy of vengeance. He forgave them all when he triumphed over them. He never took revenge on anyone for his personal grievances. He never retaliated against anyone for the wrongs perpetrated on him.
The ethical and the religious history of the world presents perhaps but one instance of acting up to the idealistic saying “Love thy enemy.” The Holy Prophet had nothing but the tenderest treatment to mete out to such dangerous enemies as the hypocrites. He never punished them for their offenses. . . . The Holy Prophet’s generosity even towards his enemies stands unique in the annals of the world. . . . [T]he Holy Prophet’s forgiveness was unbounded. . . . A report from Aishah says that he never avenged any wrong to his own person. . . . Forgiveness was another most radiant gem in the Holy Prophet’s character. It found its perfect manifestation in him.
There is no
ground for the oft-repeated allegation that Islam is intolerant and was
propagated by the sword. The Kur’an states clearly “there is no compulsion in
These passages have much in common. First, they are modern writings that reflect modern notions about Muhammad. Today’s Muslims typically believe that Muhammad wouldn’t have squashed a mosquito unless the mosquito had first waged war against Islam. Second, modern writings of this sort seldom, if ever, provide references for their assertions. They glorify Muhammad and his gentle nature, but they fail to support their claims with early sources (such as Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah or the Sahih Al-Bukhari). Third, modern writings about Muhammad characteristically ignore historical facts that call Muslim views into question. When they do address such facts, they often deny the evidence, choosing instead to hold to their idealized and unrealistic portrait of Muhammad. Indeed, Muslim “explanations” of difficult passages frequently turn out to be nothing more than circular affirmations of faith in Muhammad. When faced with a concerned questioner, the debate often proceeds as follows:
Muslim: “Muhammad was the greatest moral example ever! He was so kind and tolerant! He never hurt anyone unless they were waging a war against Islam!”
Questioner: “What about all the men and women he assassinated?”
Muslim: “Muhammad couldn’t have done such things, because he’s the greatest moral example ever! Shame on his earliest and closest followers and biographers for making up a bunch of immoral stories about him!”
Questioner: “But how do we know he was the greatest moral example ever?”
Muslim: “Because of all the historical evidence!”
Questioner: “What about the historical evidence that he was sometimes a poor moral example?”
Muslim: “That evidence is all wrong!”
Questioner: “How do we know it’s wrong?”
Muslim: “Because Muhammad is the greatest moral example ever! Don’t listen to what the early Muslims said about Muhammad’s murders, tortures, robberies, etc. Just listen to what they said about his acts of kindness!”
This argument may seem convincing to a Muslim who has been taught all his life that Muhammad was morally flawless. But to an unbiased inquirer, such reasoning is silly. If we want to determine whether or not Muhammad was a good moral example, our only reasonable option is to examine the earliest, most reliable writings and to use these writings to get an overall picture of his character. If a Muslim wants to object to a particular story about Muhammad, he should do so on historical grounds, not on dogmatic ones.
The earliest extant biography of Muhammad is the Sirat Rasul Allah by Muhammad Ibn Ishaq, who was born at the beginning of the eighth century AD in Medina. His grandfather, Yasar, became a Muslim shortly after being captured around AD 634. Yasar’s son Ishaq began collecting traditions about Muhammad, and his grandson Muhammad followed in the footsteps of his father Ishaq. By age thirty, Muhammad Ibn (“son of”) Ishaq was recognized as an authority on the traditions about Muhammad. He compiled the most reliable sources into the Sirat Rasul Allah, providing us with an early, largely accurate, and authoritative source on the life of Muhammad.
Most of the following accounts are taken from Ibn Ishaq’s work. As the title of this essay implies, I have focused here on cases displaying Muhammad’s cruelty, for these stories are almost always omitted in modern Muslim accounts of the life of Muhammad. However, it must not be forgotten that the Sirat Rasul Allah contains many instances of Muhammad’s kindness and mercy; thus, the following excerpts should be considered alongside the more favorable traditions.