Ruba.M.Bahareth

[Ruba.M.Bahareth @RubaBahareth78]

@BritCali_ @triggerpod @Ed_Husain Yeh I am not getting into that. No thank you it will be like going into a never ending circle let’s agree to disagree and leave it at that

[Ruba.M.Bahareth @RubaBahareth78]

You are the one being misleading

Which hadith has Aisha herself saying “I was 6 and 9”?

The wording comes through later narrators. Bukhari records Hisham ibn Urwah → his father Urwah → Aisha. We have no direct written statement from Aisha herself saying those words. So let’s be precise: you’re citing a hadith attributed to Aisha through a chain, not Aisha’s own written testimony.

And if chains and reports are open to scrutiny—as classical hadith scholars themselves taught—then historical analysis is not “throwing Aisha under the bus,” it’s applying the same methodology Muslims have always used. Respect for Bukhari is not the same as claiming every report is beyond discussion.

[Ruba.M.Bahareth @RubaBahareth78]

Nobody said it was “pulled out of thin air.” The point is that you keep moving the goalposts. We were discussing whether a hotheaded husband who personally witnessed adultery could carry out punishment himself. The answer is no.

Yes, some Muslim states enforced stoning, but state practice isn’t proof of divine intent any more than the Inquisition defines Christianity. Classical Islamic law placed hudūd in courts, not in the hands of angry husbands.

And even on stoning, Islamic scholarship isn’t monolithic. The Qur’an explicitly prescribes 100 lashes (24:2), while stoning comes from hadith and later jurisprudence. Many contemporary scholars argue the Qur’anic ruling supersedes rajm or that its application belonged to a historical legal context.

Fiqh itself allows ijtihād. Even concepts like jihad and some legal applications have evolved through interpretation. Moral absolutes like murder, rape, child abuse, theft, fraud, oppression, corruption, etc., remain prohibited. That’s called jurisprudence, not pretending.

[Ruba.M.Bahareth @RubaBahareth78]

lol ok let me make it clear since it not clear enough

Even if a husband personally witnessed adultery, he was not authorized to carry out punishment himself. In classical Islamic law, hudūd punishments belonged to the ruler or court, not private individuals. The standard for zinā was four eyewitnesses or a confession. If he lacked the required proof, the Qur’an prescribed liʿān (mutual oaths, Qur’an 24:6–9), not vigilantism. If he killed her, he could himself face qiṣāṣ or punishment.

In other words, “I saw it” is not a license to kill. Sharīʿa restrains private vengeance; it does not authorize it. Your position is tribal honor culture, not Islamic law.

This is the mainstream position of the classical jurists. The existence of liʿān itself is proof that a husband’s personal testimony alone did not entitle him to exact punishment.

[Ruba.M.Bahareth @RubaBahareth78]

1/ Yathrib, Ta’if and Hegra being on some maps proves nothing about Mecca. Argument from silence is not evidence. Many ancient settlements existed long before appearing in surviving maps. Archaeology and ancient geography don’t support the claim that Mecca suddenly appeared after Islam.

2/ Muhammad ﷺ wasn’t first mentioned 130 years later. The Doctrina Jacobi (634–640) mentions a prophet among the Arabs, and Bishop Sebeos (~660) explicitly mentions Muhammad and his movement. That’s within decades, not 130 years. Meanwhile, the Qur’an itself is a 7th-century source.

3/ Yes, the Black Stone predates Islam. Muslims don’t worship it. Umar ibn al-Khattab said: “I know you are only a stone; had I not seen the Prophet kiss you, I would not have kissed you.” Islam destroyed idols and preserved the Kaaba as an Abrahamic sanctuary.

4/ And no, Jesus wasn’t written about by outsiders “a few years after his death.” The earliest accounts are Christian texts. Tacitus and Josephus wrote decades later. Applying one standard to Christianity and another to Islam is special pleading.

[Ruba.M.Bahareth @RubaBahareth78]

@FryMeFalafel @triggerpod @Ed_Husain You stopped debating and started preaching. You stopped arguing and started vilifying. That’s when people show their colors. Thanks again for allowing me to share facts vs your lies

[Ruba.M.Bahareth @RubaBahareth78]

@FryMeFalafel @triggerpod @Ed_Husain Educated people would read this and laugh

[Ruba.M.Bahareth @RubaBahareth78]

“Jews aren’t commanded to kill anymore, unlike Muslims” is a strange claim when some modern extremists openly invoke Amalek rhetoric against Palestinians in Gaza. The existence of extremists abusing scripture today no more defines Judaism than ISIS defines Islam.

Jesus preached love, yet Christians fought Crusades, inquisitions, colonial wars, and world wars. The issue isn’t which religion has bad followers; it’s whether you judge a faith by its scripture and ideals or by every empire and extremist that later claimed it.

Muhammad ﷺ lived in a world where war was universal, yet he prohibited killing women, children, monks and noncombatants, made treaties with Jews and pagans, and forgave the Meccans after twenty years of persecution. Muslims are not commanded to kill innocents; that is explicitly forbidden.

This is my final reply. I’ve wasted enough time, but I had to interject for this laughable statement. Selective outrage isn’t morality, and repeating polemics isn’t history.

[Ruba.M.Bahareth @RubaBahareth78]

“Muhammad led a rape gang” is an accusation, not evidence. Name one contemporary source saying he recruited men with promises of rape. You can’t. Historians deal in sources, not fantasies. If insults are all you have, you’ve already conceded the argument.
Also the word “ tape gang” just tells me who you are .. a hazbara bot spewing hate
However
Thanks for the opportunity to make this thread public. At least people can read both sides, and those capable of objective thought can do their own research and reach conclusions based on evidence rather than hate and slogans. 😂

[Ruba.M.Bahareth @RubaBahareth78]

@FryMeFalafel @triggerpod @Ed_Husain Cite sources which Hadith. You are just spewing lies

[Ruba.M.Bahareth @RubaBahareth78]

Ancient maps aren’t Google Maps. The absence of Mecca on surviving pre-700 maps proves nothing; many cities are missing from surviving maps, and Ptolemy’s 2nd-century Macoraba is identified by many historians with Mecca.

Ibn Ishaq wrote 130 years later, just as many ancient historians wrote long after the events they described. And no, Muslims themselves never treated Ibn Ishaq as infallible—Malik criticized some reports and Ibn Hisham edited his work. Historians cross-check with the Qur’an, hadith, inscriptions, archaeology, and non-Muslim sources. Rejecting some reports of Ibn Ishaq no more erases Muhammad than criticizing Herodotus erases Alexander.

As for the Black Stone, Muslims don’t worship it. Umar ibn al-Khattab said, “I know you are only a stone; you neither benefit nor harm.” Kissing it is symbolic, not idolatry.

[Ruba.M.Bahareth @RubaBahareth78]

You’re smuggling your conclusion into the premise. Muhammad ﷺ fought wars in a 7th-century Arabia where every state and tribe did, but the question is why and under what limits. He forbade killing women, children, monks, and noncombatants, made treaties with Jews and pagans, and forgave the Meccans after conquering the city despite years of persecution.

If violence itself invalidates a religion, then Moses, Joshua, David, and many Biblical prophets are equally disqualified. If context matters for them, it matters for Muhammad too. History is more complex than “Christians violate Christianity, Muslims follow Islam.”

And if Islam commands indiscriminate violence, why did Christian-majority populations remain Christian for centuries under Muslim rule? That historical fact alone contradicts your caricature. Selective readings and double standards aren’t history—they’re polemics.

[Ruba.M.Bahareth @RubaBahareth78]

The explicit claim of rape is actually a modern polemical interpretation, not something stated in the early sources. The relevant reports are:

1. Ibn Ishaq (8th century) → preserved by Ibn Hisham

This is the source often cited for Kinana b. al-Rabiʿ (Safiyya’s husband) being questioned and killed. Ibn Ishaq was born about 70 years after Muhammad ﷺ and frequently transmitted reports without complete chains (mursal reports). Major hadith critics such as Malik ibn Anas criticized his reliability, especially regarding historical narratives.

Importantly: Ibn Ishaq nowhere says Muhammad ﷺ raped Safiyya.

2. al-Tabari (10th century)

Tabari was a compiler. He recorded multiple versions of events, including weak and contradictory ones, often without judging between them. He himself states that he merely transmits what reached him. Some chains go through narrators considered weak (da’if) or abandoned (matruk).

Again, no report says rape occurred.

3. Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim

These are the strongest sources. They state that:

Safiyya was taken captive after Khaybar.
Muhammad ﷺ freed her.
He made her emancipation her dowry.
He gave her a choice, and she accepted Islam and marriage.
He delayed consummation until they had left Khaybar and she had completed the waiting period (istibra’).

Bukhari records:

“The Prophet freed her and made her manumission her dowry.”

(Bukhari 371)

[Ruba.M.Bahareth @RubaBahareth78]

It matters a great deal. You’re collapsing 1,300 years of history and dozens of dynasties into “Islam” while excusing everyone else. The Umayyads, Abbasids, Seljuks, Mamluks, and Ottomans were states pursuing power centuries after Muhammad ﷺ. By that logic, Jesus is responsible for the Inquisition and colonial massacres.

And your claim about Muslims being uniquely brutal simply isn’t supported by history. The Crusaders massacred Jerusalem in 1099, cannibalism was reported at Ma’arra (1098), and the Mongols, Byzantines, and European kingdoms committed atrocities too. Medieval warfare was brutal everywhere. Empires are judged by history; religions by their teachings. Conflating the two is ideology, not scholarship.

[Ruba.M.Bahareth @RubaBahareth78]

“Lies” then you present no evidence

Calling Islam a system of coercion ignores both scripture and history. The Qur’an says, “There is no compulsion in religion” (2:256), and Sūrat al-Kāfirūn ends with, “To you your religion, and to me mine” (109:6). When Caliph Umar entered Jerusalem, he allowed Jewish families—previously excluded under Byzantine rule—to return, and he refused to pray inside the Church of the Holy Sepulchre lest future Muslims turn it into a mosque. If humiliation and forced conversion were the goal, those actions make little sense.

[Ruba.M.Bahareth @RubaBahareth78]

That’s simply false. The humiliating rituals you mention were not universal Islamic law but policies of a few later dynasties. Distinctive clothing was imposed by Caliph al-Mutawakkil (847–861) and some Mamluk rulers, while the Almohads (12th–13th c.) were exceptional for coercive policies. Hundreds of Muslim states existed over 1,400 years, and most never enforced such measures consistently. Christians remained majorities in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Anatolia for centuries after the conquests—something impossible under systematic forced conversion. Jizya itself exempted women, children, monks, the poor, elderly, and military service, and was often comparable to or lower than zakat. Don’t confuse the excesses of a few medieval rulers with Islam any more than the Inquisition defines Christianity.

[Ruba.M.Bahareth @RubaBahareth78]

Your chronology is off by centuries. The Crusades began in 1096, about 460 years after Muhammad ﷺ died (632). Nobody who personally knew him was there.

And most of the large Muslim empires you’re referring to came even later—Umayyads (661–750), Abbasids (750–1258), Seljuks (11th–14th c.), Mamluks (13th–16th c.), and Ottomans (1299–1922)—all after the Prophet ﷺ and the Rashidun Caliphs (632–661). These were states pursuing political and imperial interests, not prophets receiving revelation.

Yes, medieval wars were brutal. But if you want examples, Christian chroniclers themselves recorded Crusaders resorting to cannibalism during the Siege of Ma’arrat (1098), and the massacre of Muslims and Jews in Jerusalem (1099). Yet no serious person says Jesus taught cannibalism or that Christianity is defined by the Crusades.

Likewise, Islam is judged by Muhammad ﷺ and its teachings—not by every act committed centuries later by Muslim rulers. Confusing empires with prophets is bad history. Selective outrage is polemics, not scholarship.

[Ruba.M.Bahareth @RubaBahareth78]

If the dhimma system was designed to force conversion, it failed spectacularly

Egypt remained majority Christian for centuries after the conquest.
Syria remained heavily Christian.
Iraq had large Christian communities.
Anatolia was majority Christian for centuries.
Jews flourished in many Muslim lands and sought refuge there after expulsions from Christian Europe.

None of this is consistent with a policy of “convert or be humiliated.”

[Ruba.M.Bahareth @RubaBahareth78]

Yes. A few important historical points are often omitted in polemics.

1. Jizya was not imposed on everyone

Classical jurists generally exempted:

Women
Children
The elderly
The poor and destitute
Monks and hermits (in many periods)
The disabled and chronically ill
Slaves
Those unable to work
Non-Muslims who served in the military

Conversely, Muslims paid zakat and were liable for military service. Non-Muslims who fought alongside Muslims were often exempted from jizya altogether. This happened, for example, with some Christian Arab tribes and in agreements under the early caliphates.

[Ruba.M.Bahareth @RubaBahareth78]

2. Jizya vs. Zakat

There was no universal amount, since both varied by wealth and time.

Generally:

Zakat = 2.5% annually on accumulated wealth above the nisab threshold, plus other forms on agricultural produce and livestock.
Jizya = usually a fixed head tax paid only by able-bodied adult males with means.

In many periods, jizya amounted to roughly 1–4 dinars annually (or equivalent), often less than what prosperous Muslims paid in zakat and other obligations. Poor non-Muslims were exempt altogether. Historians such as Thomas Arnold, Ira Lapidus, Marshall Hodgson, and Fred Donner note that conversion to Islam was gradual and not driven by coercive taxation.