here's your chance to win some money if u can disprove Ali sina's claim that

Muhammad was:
a narcissist a misogynist a rapist
a pedophile a lecher a torturer
a mass murderer a cult leader an assassin
a terrorist a mad man a looter

its' here:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/challenge.htm

Yes, he was all of those things. All Muslims know this, they just ignore it or try to justify it.

None of that matters, he was chosen by GOD to bear the Qur'an, he's a messnger and nothing more.

Secondly, that God would choose the lowest of people to reveal his word, is a possible incentive of to faith; it shows god's impartiality, and also possibly his compassion.

I dunno, I'm fairly sure it'd be quite easy to drag up some justification of this.

None of that matters, he was chosen by GOD to bear the Qur'an, he's a messnger and nothing more.

Secondly, that God would choose the lowest of people to reveal his word, is a possible incentive of to faith; it shows god's impartiality, and also possibly his compassion.

I dunno, I'm fairly sure it'd be quite easy to drag up some justification of this.

who;d he pick today?

who;d he pick today?

Sorry, I don't understand the question.

who;d he pick today?

Charles Manson would be my guess. Nobody would listen to anything he says, and for some reason, God really likes to send messages that we ignore until AFTER they come true.

here's your chance to win some money if u can disprove Ali sina's claim that

Muhammad was:
a narcissist a misogynist a rapist
a pedophile a lecher a torturer
a mass murderer a cult leader an assassin
a terrorist a mad man a looter

its' here:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/challenge.htm

You forgot that he was illiterate too. I FUCKING HATE ILLITERATE PEOPLE! Damn peasants!!

^^ those were far worse than being iliterate

^^ those were far worse than being iliterate

Uh, no, not quite.

Misogynist: No, the status of women prior to Islam was not greater than the situation after Islam, far worse actually.

Instances of "female infanticide, unlimited polygyny, patrilineal marriage and others" run rampant through pre-Islamic Arab history.

"They were subordinate to their fathers, brothers, and husbands.. In some instances, women were chattels, effectively property. A woman had no share in inheritance because she was regarded as unwise and incapable of effectively managing her inherited property. There were also patterns of homicidal abuse of women and girls, including instances of killing female infants considered to be a liability. In his book Infanticide: Comparative and Evolutionary Perspectives, Glenn Hausfater details how Qais Bin Assem, a leader of the Tamim tribe, killed every daughter he had for fear of their capture (and his disgrace) in the inter-tribal wars that dominated Arabian society at that time. According to some scholars; during times of famine, especially, poorer families were likely to kill a daughter, regarding her as a burden on a starving family."

Turner, Brian S. Islam (ISBN 041512347X). Routledge: 2003, p77-78.

Contrary to what Sina claims(lol, what a gay name), no single law or custom dictated how women were to be treated- It was up to the tribe at hand, often with poor treatment resulting. He cites the example of Khadijah, who was a very prosperous female member of the Quraish tribe, of which Muhammad was a member. Interestingly enough, he fails to point out that the Quraish had one of the highest standards for treating women, and even so, Khadijah was far and wide an isolated incident. Very few women owned businesses in that time, regardless of region.

He also incorrectly states that Islamic forces destroyed most of the prior written literature(LOL), yet fails to point out that Arabia was far and wide an illiterate region with little writing or written history. Much of what we know about the region prior to Islam comes from other sources, such as Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Persian writings. :rolleyes:

Hoyland, Robert G. — Arabia and the Arabs: From the Bronze Age to the Coming of Islam, Routledge, 2001

so?

it still doesnt change the fact that

Muhammad was:
a narcissist a rapist
a pedophile a lecher a torturer
a mass murderer a cult leader an assassin
a terrorist a mad man a looter

Were you there when these supposed acts of narcissism, rape, mass murder, etc. took place? You, and the author of that website, are getting information from sources that also say that Muhammed ascended into heaven on a part man/ part horse/ part bird hybrid of someshit along with splitting the moon in half and having the sexual power of 10 men. Do you believe that too? Why accept information as fact when you have no way of confirming it?

Q 16:58. And when one of them is given news of a female, his face becomes darkened and he is in grief!
Q 16:59. He hides from his people because of the bad news he has received. Shall he keep her with dishonor, or bury her in the sand? Miserable indeed is how they judge!

so?

it still doesnt change the fact that

Muhammad was:
a narcissist a rapist
a pedophile a lecher a torturer
a mass murderer a cult leader an assassin
a terrorist a mad man a looter

If I had time, I'd have went through the remaining points. Perhaps I will compile it eventually, that 50k would be great to spend.

Q 16:58. And when one of them is given news of a female, his face becomes darkened and he is in grief!
Q 16:59. He hides from his people because of the bad news he has received. Shall he keep her with dishonor, or bury her in the sand? Miserable indeed is how they judge!

Perfect Qu'ranic examples of how wrong this nigr was.

Gah. Anyone can take individual quotes from any given "holy book" and take them out of context, it's what comes before/after and in between that might give you more insight into it, regardless of whether or not you agree with it. This for example, the whole Mohammad situation, or the old testament even, it's all full of raping and murdering and pillaging, and it might sound fucked, but it's a reflection of the backwardsness of the society they were written for a few thousand odd years ago. People were fucked by today's standards, but whatever. People might have always taken offence to some things in any given book, but take into consideration the when/how/where they came into existence.

Disclaimer: I am Muslim, and I am a lawyer. That is all.

If you want to accuse someone of being a rapist/terrorist/etc, I believe that they should be presumed innocent until you prove your accusations.

Sina talks about logic and rationality. Let's analyze one of his claims, that Muhammad was a rapist, using these two traits. Shall we?
http://www.faithfreedom.org/challenge/rapist.htm

Sina claims Muhammad is a rapist. A rapist can either be defined as 1) one who has raped or 2) one who rapes. Since Muhammad is dead, he cannot be one who rapes. Therefore, Sina must be saying that Muhammad has raped.

Rape is defined (in the sexual manner) as forced sexual intercourse.

Ok, now for Sina's website. Regarding quoting the first Hadith from Sahih Bukhari, nowhere does is say or even imply that Muhammad raped anyone. The soldiers wanted to have sex with the women without getting them pregnant, so they though of "pulling out." They ran their idea by the Prophet, and he said what needed to be said for them not to go through with it. He didn't rape anyone, and he didn't advocate rape. His words prevented the soldiers from having sex with the captured women.

Regarding the Qur'anic verse Sina quoted, it doesn't say anything about rape. All it says is that it is permissible for you to have sex with your "slave" women. (For further note, the Islamic concept of slavery is much different than the Western concept, but that is neither here nor there.) It is impermissible for Muslims to have sex with anyone who is not their husband/wife or concubine ("slave" girl). This doesn't mean that a man may rape his wife. It means that a man can have sex with her, as opposed to someone who is not his wife.

Regarding Juwairiya, Sina claims that Muhammad raped her because he took her captive and made her marry him. Forced marriage is not the same as forced sex, regardless of what logical and rational Sina want's you to think.

Regarding Safiya, Sina uses an extremely unreliable source. In Islamic law and jurisprudence, sources must be credible before law can be deduced from them. Hadith (sayings, doing, etc of the Prophet) can be very risky to use unless the sources have been confirmed (very complicated). Basically, a Hadith has to be deemed Sahih (correct/truthful/reliable) before it can be reliably used to deduce rules. The collections of Hadith called Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are the two reliable sources of Sahih Hadith. Sina used a Hadith that is not Sahih, which is one indication that it is not reliable. Also, the person he quoted (Ibn Ishaq) is also a very unreliable source (because many Hadith attributed to him are completely unsubstantiated by any other of the Prophet's companions, and those Hadith directly conflict with many Sahih Hadith), which is another indication that it is not a reliable source.
Every other part of Sina's claim regarding the rape of Safiya is completely unsubstantiated in history. He can create and piece together any story he wants from any sources (shaky Hadith, websites) about anyone, but that does not make his story a factual account of what actually happened.

Regarding Rayhanah, there is not one source Sina uses to back up his story of Muhammad raping her. Again, he can claim what he wants, but that doesn't make it true.

Sina claims Muhammad is a rapist, and he tells people to disprove him. What should happen is that he should prove his claims before telling people to disprove them. Imagine if the police accused you of rape and put you in jail. To get out, you would have to prove that you didn't rape someone. That is EXTREMELEY difficult. That is one reason why the law places the burden of proof on the accuser, not the accused, to prove his/her claims. The accused is presumed innocent until the accuser proves his/her claims.

Regarding Safiya, Sina uses an extremely unreliable source. In Islamic law and jurisprudence, sources must be credible before law can be deduced from them. Hadith (sayings, doing, etc of the Prophet) can be very risky to use unless the sources have been confirmed (very complicated). Basically, a Hadith has to be deemed Sahih (correct/truthful/reliable) before it can be reliably used to deduce rules. The collections of Hadith called Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are the two reliable sources of Sahih Hadith. Sina used a Hadith that is not Sahih, which is one indication that it is not reliable. Also, the person he quoted (Ibn Ishaq) is also a very unreliable source (because many Hadith attributed to him are completely unsubstantiated by any other of the Prophet's companions, and those Hadith directly conflict with many Sahih Hadith), which is another indication that it is not a reliable source.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I recall reading in Hitchens' "God is Not Great" that the process of deciding which of the hadith is genuine is rather shaky in general, not just from specific sources, with the lists of "reliable" hadith culled on the judgement of individual scholars many, many years after the life of the prophet and based on their personal judgement from literally thousands of possibilities...

I'd appreciate some discussion on this rather than the implications of what the hadith say. The Qur'an and the Hadith (canonical or non-canonical) could potentially say a lot of things but until I'm convinced that the texts involved are compiled in a manner that reflects their supposed status as sources of great truth in a confusing world I'd rather not bother considering them, it just seems to get people excited.

see this as well:

what would mo-ham-head do?

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/WWMD.htm