[Ali Imran]

I am giving you my opinions but you are taking someone's opinions to refute me....haiya...you cannot form your own? I will be glad if it comes out from your mouth..at least it can be called an effort! What a lazy bum! 

You have reliable records and info? Then what are you waiting for? Show me? I am waiting for days!

When you said our prophet ordered a massacre with the intention to tarnish the image of our prophet, you didn't say it was your opinion. You said it as though you know it to be true. Now, we know you don't know. Are you going to take back what you've said?

[pinkpanther]

When you said our prophet ordered a massacre, with the intention to tarnish the image of our prophet, you didn't say it was your opinion.

Do I have to tell you if I visit the toilet....I made a statement based on my opinions which was largely formed by my findings...what is so difficult to understand?

Don come tell me if 30 men or 50 men is a massacre....you need to go to a dictionary to know the definition of a massacre!

[pinkpanther]

When you said our prophet ordered a massacre with the intention to tarnish the image of our prophet, you didn't say it was your opinion. You said it as though you know it to be true. Now, we know you don't know. Are you going to take back what you've said?

If you bother to go thru all the links that I mentioned...you will find the consistency for me to call a spade a spade....of cos we all know you too well that you are lazy! I brought the hadiths and that page from the life of muh to bury your false claim! If we were to continue discussing this incident...there will be more damages for you!

What you should do now is to limit damages...change topic or get the hell outta here!
I would be wise to change topic!

[Ali Imran]

Do I have to tell you if I visit the toilet....I made a statement based on my opinions which was largely formed by my findings...what is so difficult to understand?

Don come tell me if 30 men or 50 men is a massacre....you need to go to a dictionary to know the definition of a massacre!

Ok. Thank you for giving us your opinion. 

Killing everybody, the women, the children, the infants, the livestock, practically every living things, is that a massacre?

[Lukongsimi]

https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/gun...022-06-05/

[Ali Imran]

If you bother to go thru all the links that I mentioned...you will find the consistency for me to call a spade a spade....of cos we all know you too well that you are lazy! I brought the hadiths and that page from the life of muh to bury your false claim! If we were to continue discussing this incident...there will be more damages for you!

What you should do now is to limit damages...change topic or get the hell outta here!
I would be wise to change topic!

Where did you get that 600 number from? From an unreliable source.

I hope you are clear on that fact.

[pinkpanther]

https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/gun...022-06-05/

To Ah Lee 50 is way too few to be considered as a massacre 

[Ali Imran]

To Ah Lee 50 is way too few to be considered as a massacre 

I didn't only use 50 as the qualifier.

[pinkpanther]

Where did you get that 600 number from? From an unreliable source.

I hope you are clear on that fact.

The number estimated was at least 600 and above...yes the hadith did not reported on the actual toll...if you check with at least 4 to 5 Pro Islamic sauces...you will know that I am not lying!

[pinkpanther]

Ok. Thank you for giving us your opinion. 

Killing everybody, the women, the children, the infants, the livestock, practically every living things, is that a massacre?

The Amalekites was discussed in great length before! Thanks but No!

[Ali Imran]

The number estimated was at least 600 and above...yes the hadith did not reported on the actual toll...if you check with at least 4 to 5 Pro Islamic sauces...you will know that I am not lying!

Yes, there are those who said 600, but they all got that information from only 1 source, an unreliable source, ibn Ishaq. There is no other source.

[pinkpanther]

Yes, there are those who said 600, but they all got that information from only 1 source, an unreliable source, ibn Ishaq. There is no other source.

If ibn ishaq is unreliable...then everything at banu qurayza can be deleted....then who else can you trust?

[pinkpanther]

If you take away ibn ishaq...there will never be a biography on muh...

In hadith studies, ibn Isḥaq's hadith (considered separately from his prophetic biography) is generally thought to be "good" (ḥasan) (assuming an accurate and trustworthy isnad, or chain of transmission) and himself having a reputation of being "sincere" or "trustworthy" (ṣadūq).

Do not discredit someone of your own for the works that he had done! Haiya!

[pinkpanther]

Yes, there are those who said 600, but they all got that information from only 1 source, an unreliable source, ibn Ishaq. There is no other source.

If ibn ishaq is unreliable...many pro Islamic websites will not take his estimations!

[Ali Imran]

If ibn ishaq is unreliable...then everything at banu qurayza can be deleted....then who else can you trust?

We have a few authentic reports concerning that tribe so no, the tribe cannot be removed from history. 

We don't need to trust anybody on this because the story has no direct implication to our salvation. Whether we believe it is 50 or 600 killed, it doesn't affect our salvation either way. Believing in God and being obedient to his command has a direct impact on our salvation. The James and Paul question has a direct impact on our salvation. As a matter of fact, all the questions I've raised have a direct impact on your salvation and you cannot answer them.

[Lukongsimi]

To Ah Lee 50 is way too few to be considered as a massacre 

50 is a lot of people killed not 1 or 2

[pinkpanther]

We have a few authentic reports concerning that tribe so no, the tribe cannot be removed from history. 

We don't need to trust anybody on this because the story has no direct implication to our salvation. Whether we believe it is 50 or 600 killed, it doesn't affect our salvation either way. Believing in God and being obedient to his command has a direct impact on our salvation. The James and Paul question has a direct impact on our salvation. As a matter of fact, all the questions I've raised have a direct impact on your salvation and you cannot answer them.

I believed the earliest compilation only you will refute that and say you have a few authentic  reports to write him off...but you have no sauces to prove so!

James and Paul...Now you are digging a hole for me to fall 

[pinkpanther]

We have a few authentic reports concerning that tribe so no, the tribe cannot be removed from history. 

We don't need to trust anybody on this because the story has no direct implication to our salvation. Whether we believe it is 50 or 600 killed, it doesn't affect our salvation either way. Believing in God and being obedient to his command has a direct impact on our salvation. The James and Paul question has a direct impact on our salvation. As a matter of fact, all the questions I've raised have a direct impact on your salvation and you cannot answer them.

Now you said the tribe cannot be removed from history....
What did you say yesterday..can you still remember?  You still quoted a bombastic word!

[Ali Imran]

I believed the earliest compilation only you will refute that and say you have a few authentic  reports to write him off...but you have no sauces to prove so!

James and Paul...Now you are digging a hole for me to fall 

The sira of ibn Ishaq is not Hadith. If I'm not mistaken, ibn Ishaq even said that his source for that information came from a bani Quraiza, someone who came from that tribe.

[Ali Imran]

Now you said the tribe cannot be removed from history....
What did you say yesterday..can you still remember?  You still quoted a bombastic word!

The writings of ibn Ishaq is apocryphal.

[Ali Imran]

I can't remember if I this is a repeat but I think you guys have not seen this one yet. I have plenty in this series.

[pinkpanther]

I can't remember if I this is a repeat but I think you guys have not seen this one yet. I have plenty in this series.

OK.. noted..a testimony from a nobody...she visited a mosque..came out of it..say some good words and gets reported! That is what politicians do...pleasing the public!

[pinkpanther]

The writings of ibn Ishaq is apocryphal.

You can tell that to the pro Islamic websites that follows him..you can also take down the biography of muh too..because he plays a part in it too...maybe the hadiths can also take his writings down lah.....how abt that? Sounds good?

[Ali Imran]

OK.. noted..a testimony from a nobody...she visited a mosque..came out of it..say some good words and gets reported! That is what politicians do...pleasing the public!

Is that all she was, a politician?

[Ali Imran]

Another woman. Yup, women twice today. Why? Someone was showing his misogynist side.

[pinkpanther]

Another woman. Yup, women twice today. Why? Someone was showing his misogynist side.

Another politician....Don trust them! 2 women testimonies are only equal to 1 Muslim man testimony! 

Should politics and religion go hand in hand? This one you can debate lah!

[Oyk]

What is the source of atTabari? Do you know?

The Quran did not mention the number 600. Only 1 unreliable record mention 600.

The Quran did not mention a helluva lot of things. On its own it's incomplete. While historical records in the Bible are complete, those in the Quran have no head and tail. They are just like random recital of biblical verses and often edited or paraphrased.

Then through the centuries, you all tried to fill the dotted lines with different peepur, all scholars and historians, saying different things. All contradicted one and another. So those which fit your Quran and give Glory to Muh, you'd say are reliable Hadith. Those which didn't, you just dismiss as unreliable.

And you will post over and over that picture of an AMDK saying the West lies about Muh when those inconvenient Hadith came from Moslems themselves, and not the West, not Christians and not erm Hindus.

[pinkpanther]

The Quran did not mention a helluva lot of things. On its own it's incomplete. While historical records in the Bible are complete, those in the Quran have no head and tail. They are just like random recital of biblical verses and often edited or paraphrased.

Then through the centuries, you all tried to fill the dotted lines with different peepur, all scholars and historians, saying different things. All contradicted one and another. So those which fit your Quran and give Glory to Muh, you'd say are reliable Hadith. Those which didn't, you just dismiss as unreliable.

And you will post over and over that picture of an AMDK saying the West lies about Muh when those inconvenient Hadith came from Moslems themselves, and not the West, not Christians and not erm Hindus.

Nah Ah Lee...Oyk changed the topic for you liao....you can bite on this bait!

[Lukongsimi]

https://www.youtube.com/live/oOvLU6qOzQk...Bti9QfuzAN

[pinkpanther]

Yes, there are those who said 600, but they all got that information from only 1 source, an unreliable source, ibn Ishaq. There is no other source.

Actually there are other sources....from the descendants of Banu Qurayza!  

It's also mention in Tafsir ibn Kathir, under the explanation of Surah al-Ahzab verse 26, under the section "The Campaign against Banu Qurayzah":

the Messenger of Allah commanded that ditches should be dug, so they were dug in the earth, and they were brought tied by their shoulders, and were beheaded. There were between seven hundred and eight hundred of them. The children who had not yet reached adolescence and the women were taken prisoner, and their wealth was seized.

The beheading of men is reported in the History of at-Tabari, volume 8, under the section "The Events of the Year 5," page 35:

"...Allah's Messenger went out into the market place of Medina and had trenches dug in it; then he sent for them and had them beheaded in those trenches. they were brought out to him in groups..."