okay Mr sayed Umar Rastogy let’s see your assumptions and questions I laughed almost when you told that you reject The hadiths I had provided to you to counter that argument you have provided these statements
:(( Then let me question you ………… unreliable Ibn Ishaq is let me show some of your points and then some of mine ))-------------------------- Blatantly and straight forwardly I defy your claim of judgment. I see your judgments rely on internet based information rather than using your own self wit, judgment and understanding the true facts according to your self findings.
Lets have a look at the reason of authenticity

: Muhammad: - died 632 AD
: Ibn Ishaq:- Born 704, died 770 AD
: Ibn Hisham :- Died 833 AD
: Al-Dhahabi :- Born 1274, died 1348 AD
If I can get you right the summary of your statement was that
1 There are fatal contradictions in Hadith
2 This contradiction has caused muslims to leave Islam and Hadith both.
3According to youclaim the nearest source is the most authentic.
okay ??? then I have to say sorry brother as there were even more ancient sources than sirate-ibn-ishaq and even they Make my prophet more enigmatic than even Ibne-Hisham .I am going to state their names.
Aban b. `Uthman al-Bajkali (640-718 C.E.),`Urwa b. al-Zubayr b. al-Awwam (643-712 C.E.) the cousin of the Prophet and referred to the founder of Islamic history. There is doubt that he authored anything, but there are many traditiions that have been handed down in his name.
and Musannaf of Ibn Jurayj (d. 150 AH)
Musannaf of Ma`mar bin Rashid (d. 153 AH)
these are the sources of earliest Islamic knowledge Sirat Ibn ishaq couldhave been a good source but do you know why I reject it ?
The original text of the Sīrat Rasūl Allāh by Ibn Ishaq (Medina 85 A.H.; Bagdad 151 ) did not survive. Yet it was one of the earliest substantial biographies of Muhammad. Fortunately, as noted above, much of the original text was copied over into a work of his own by Ibn Hisham (Basra; Fustat c. 218 A.H.)
source:Dates and places, and discussions, re Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Hisham in Guillaume (xiii, xli).
So the Ibn ishaq we see is very very much questionable. You nust be thinking then who wrote the IShaq we see
and then let’s think what was the source for Ishaq ? were they these ? no they were another book
whichwas written by
Shurabil b. sa`d (740 C.E.),
who was a latter man at this stage and see
Shurabil b. sa`d (740 C.E.), who wrote a maghazi, but this book was considered unreliable and thus seldom used by later historians.
I ask why ?? I defy you also by geting forward and telling that your assumption were totally wrong!as there are even earlier resources which tells me MY prophet wasa avery good man .

May be this will solve some of your question . And to your other question/claim
The unreliability of the Ibn Ishaq can be found here in detail
"The Life of Muhammad" by Ibn Ishaq has been quoted by many critics of Islam. They get excited when Ibn Ishaq paints a bad picture of Prophet Muhammad and use it in their writings to attack Islam.Although Ibn Ishaqwas the earliest of the traditionists to write a biography of the events that pertained to the time of Muhammad (p) there are several severe problems with his writings. As Bassam Zawadi says" just because something is early doesn't mean it is true". He has a good point.Not everyone back then was reliable and honest.Ibn Ishaq was known to be careless in him collecting stories about the Prophet, etc.

Several respected Muslim theologians rightly reject his (Ibn Ishaq's) authority for several reasons:

(A) That he was a Shi'i favouring Ali over all the other contenders to the Khilfa

(B) That he held the view that Man has free will, which is kind of contrary to the Quranic perception.

(C)That his Isnads (chains of transmissions) were defective, ie not 'iron' tight by naming all the reporters, which is important because this determines whether the transmitter of the story is trustworthy or not. Ibn Ishaq was not an eye witness to any of the events of Prophet Muhammad's life.Ibn Ishaq was writing about 150 years after the Prophet's death so this is very important. In Islamic sciences in order for a report of the Prophet (peace be on him) to be true is if the isnad is solid or not.

(D) He used reports of traditions gathered from Jewish sources. Jews made up a lot of false stories/legends of Prophet Muhammad (just like the early Christians living outside of Palestine made up a lot of myths and legends of Jesus and put them in the Gospels). Making up stories and legends about the Prophet are unnacceptable in the eyes of many Islamic scholars.

(E) Ibn Ishaq was (for lack of better term) a "suck up" to the Jews of Arabia. He said several complimentary reports of the Jews of Arabia, despite the fact that the Jews of Arabia were constatnly fighting with the Arabs and were charging interest when loaning money. The Jews of Madinah were constatly plotting againist the Prophet Muhammad. They were always trying to undermine his authority. In fact they sided with the Makkans in order to assinate the Prophet.

(F) Most important of all, his report about Laylat al Qadr (the first revelation), contradicts all the hadith versions. The hadith collectors Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, etc were more careful in collecting their hadith (their chains of transmission).

(G) There are several stories in Ibn Ishaq which are never found in the hadith. The reason why is because several hadith collectors such as Bukhari-- did not trust Ibn Ishaq.

Ibn Ishaq as an author was in fact subjected to devastating attacks by scholars, contemporary or later, on two particular accounts. One was his uncritical inclusion in his Sira of so much spurious or forged poetry [7] ;the other his unquestioning acceptance of just such a story as that of the slaughter of Banu Qurayaza

So In fact Ibn Ishaq is the most unreliable source not the reliable and not even the earliest.

All right M.r Rastogy let's se about yourclaims
1. . Mr.Hasan are u a muslim? or a convert? I doubt, cause, It seems you have a lack of knowledge in Quran and Hadith authentication. You didnt tell anything whats your problem with Sirat e Ibn Ishaq. Please do clarify it. According Hadith ref I know that Sirat e Ibn Ishaq is far older than Sirat-e-Ibn Hisham, Ibn Hisham writes in his al-Sirat al-Nabawiyya
quoting from the Imam Muhammad ibn Ishaq. So whoever uses its ref reason is it is far more authenticated than the later one, in a quote u also admitted it. The matter about Ishaq's authenticity is
a.)its written directly in raw arabic language
b. ) The first prophetic biographer of the Islamic world
c.) Muslim scholars accept the accuracy from its earliest biographies( Sirat e Ibn Ishaq) and there is no other all others are later written.
So it clearly states, u seem realy lack of knowledge about authenticity of hadith understanding the meaning of the word authentic and reason for omitting that defame Muhammed that you urself admitted.humm

Then let me question you Have you ever actually been a muslim before?If you were You would have certainly knew that how unreliable Ibn Ishaq is let me show some of your points and then some of mine

c.) Muslim scholars accept the accuracy from its earliest biographies( Sirat e Ibn Ishaq) and there is no other all others are later written.

Yes they do by an extent but they also know the mistakes Ibn ishaq had done. for example
"Adh-Dhahabi also listed some of the major scholars of Islam who refuted Ibn Is'haq's reliability in Hadith narrations. Imam Malim, for instance, called Ibn Is'haq a liar and Yahya Ibn Saeed al-Ansari, as well as al-Amash refuted one of Ibn Is'haq's narrations by saying that he lied." Imam Ahmad also said that Ibn Ishaq did not care from whom he collected Hadiths. Imam Ibn Numair said that Ibn Ishaq reported false Hadiths from unknown narrators." (Shaykh Jalal Abu Al Rub - The Prophet of Mercy - Chapter 2 - Page 10).

Ibn Ishaq did not care from whom he collected Hadiths look at this point.Ishaq was not a kafir neither he defamed prophet rather he was like a man who collected anything he got,Without properly judging it.So Ibn ishaq can't be called a good source.

So as u admitted Ibn Ishaq sources defamed Muhammad.

No but they drew a wrong image as he didn't had the choice and time for judging which were real and which were unauthentic read the next part

"False ascription was rife among the 8th century scholars (versus Bukhari who lived in the 9th century) and that in any case Ibn Ishaq and contemporaries were drawing on oral traditions." ( Cook, M: Muhammad, Oxford 1983. pg. 65) It has been stated by a non muslim!

then let's see again Even the famous Polemist and anti-Islam author Robert Spencer admits in his book The Truth about Muhammad , that "However, Ibn Ishaq's life of Muhammad is so unashamedly hagiographical that its accuracy is questionable." (Spencer, Robert: The Truth about Muhammad, Regnery Publishers, 2006 pg. 25) Despite his negative opinion regarding Ibn IssHaaq, out of the 400 footnotes of Robert Spencer's book, 120 footnote refer to fabricated stories from Ibn Ishaq's book.

Because Robert Spencer hates Islam so much that he is willing to present these stories as if they are true, even though he knows that their source is unreliable.

Then got it? even Islamphobes consider him as an unauthentic writer whose writtings were edited and been made correct.,If you were a muslim you must have knew that
After the civil war many rifts came across the islamic empie of caliphate. Many hidden Hippocratestried to make false allegations on prophet.Without proper ijtihad It was an era when the Islam was under going a brief period of caos so Ibn Ishaq tried his best to preserve the records but he couldn't.If you even doesn't know this I have nothing to say about you.

Once you have quoted this

most disgusting dishonor to a woman by becoming a sex slave to many???? where have you find this?It's a direct violation of quran

where has been stated
And do not compel your slave girls to prostitution, if they desire chastity, to seek [thereby] the temporary interests of worldly life. And if someone should compel them, then indeed, Allah is [to them], after their compulsion, Forgiving and Merciful.24;33

Does it seems that a woman who will be slave will be a sex slave to many ?

If any where is stated like this tell me I know you won't be able to do it.

After that you stated that

5. Still a truth is a truth;whatever or however you try to conceal in most elegant and better way. I quoted a hadith source from ur Ishaqs book about Safiyah.
a. A Woman of 17 year old( under age by today's term) teenage
b. Taken as Captive
c. Her husband, father, relatives were killed
d. Taken as booty
e. Had sex on the same night, the day all her dear ones were killed
g. Woman 17 year , Man 62 year, 45 years difference, a complete pedophiliac act of character who claims to be a prophet really. I would like to ask no excuses here either just ans right or wrong, just say if these points are true or false?

Let me see your first point

Had sex on the same night, the day all her dear ones were killed

You are absolutely wrong about that

As stated According to Muhammad al-Bukhari, Muhammad stayed for three days between Khaybar and Medina, where he consummated his marriage to Safiyya.(After Three days )

His companions wondered if she was to be considered a captive (Arabic: ma malakat aymanukum) or a wife. The former speculated that they would consider Safiyya as Muhammad's wife, and thus "Mothers of the Believers", if Muhammad ordered her to veil herself, else she would be his slave-girl.
Some modern scholars opine that Muhammad chose to marry Safiyya, the only surviving member of Banu Nadir's ruling family, as part of reconciliation with the Jewish tribe.

Let’s see about this sect Some modern scholars opine that Muhammad chose to marry Safiyya, the only surviving member of Banu Nadir's ruling family, as part of reconciliation with the Jewish tribe.

It’s not an entire truth so let’s see another account

Marriage of Safiyah (widow of Kinanah) . -The Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) told Safiyyah that he was prepared to set her free(Look at this sect), and he offered her the choice between remaining a Jewess and returning to her people or entering Islam and becoming his wife. "I choose God and His Messenger," she said; and they were married at the first halt on the homeward march. -The marriage to Safiyyah(R) has a political significance as well, as it helps to reduce hostilities and cement alliances. - This significant act of marrying Safiyyah(R) was indeed a great honor for her, for this not only preserved her dignity, it also prevented her from becoming a slave (Sahih bukhari Volume 3, Book 33, Number 251: Narrated Ali bin Al-Husain)

Then you may ask

Her husband, father, relatives were killed. (Some citations are needed here)They were not murdered they were car causalities.(You may try to point out another point here okay then it’s for the next time)

And You may ask why did she didn’t go and married prophet ? so then here is your answer.

"It is related that she bore the mark of a bruise upon her eye; when the Prophet asked her tenderly the cause, she told him that, being yet Kenāna's bride, she saw in a dream as if the moon had fallen from the heavens into her lap; and that when she told it to Kenāna, he struck her violently, saying: 'What is this thy dream but that thou covetest the new king of the Ḥijāz, the Prophet, for thy husband!' The mark of the blow was the same which Moḥammad saw." cf. Muir (1912) pp. 378-379

So nither her marriage was a rape nor she was compelled .And if you tell these proofs as hoaxes then I must question why are you raising questions on these matters ?

Then I must see your more points next

d.Taken as booty your point is answered here

The Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) told Safiyyah that he was prepared to set her free

Then let’s see the next point g.Woman 17 year , Man 62 year, 45 years difference, a complete pedophiliac act of character who claims to be a prophet really.

Do you know the definition of pedophile correctly and properly?

Definition of a Pedophile: "Pedophile: also spelled PEDOPHILIA, psychosexual disorder in which an adult's arousal and sexual gratification occur primarily through sexual contact with prepubescent children. The typical pedophile is unable to find satisfaction in an adult sexual relationship and may have low self-esteem, seeing sexual activity with a child as less threatening than that with an adult." – Encyclopedia Britannica, 1998

Look at this point

(The typical pedophile is unable to find satisfaction in an adult sexual relationship and may have low self-esteem, seeing sexual activity with a child as less threatening than that with an adult.")

So if prophet was a pedophile(Nauzubillah) Then he would have never been able to have sex with any older age women in his life.

And even after that safiyah(ra) was a willing candidate for marriage.Even at modern law the age of consent is 17 at many places. So neither it was a crime nor it was pedophilia.

Your sixth claim was like this

"Thus Islam Advocated Sex slaves, killing n dishonoring the women to forcefully marry or to become sex slaves , continuously doing coitus interrupts, most disgusting dishonor to a woman by becoming a sex slave to many. Those who had rejected the faith they were treated alike. Being a muslim u should feel shame tht islam is just only a pagan cult not even a religion."

1st point Islam Advocated Sex slaves It’s not true at allindeed Islam condemns he who sells any freeman as slave.

As prophet Muhammad(Pbuh) stated

Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, "Allah says, 'I will be against three persons on the Day of Resurrection: -1. One who makes a covenant in My Name, but he proves treacherous. -2. One who sells a free person (as a slave) and eats the price, -3. And one who employs a laborer and gets the full work done by him but does not pay him his wages.' "

(One who sells a free person (as a slave) and eats the price) See this is there any question on slavery of a free man next to your mind ?

killing n dishonoring the women to forcefully marry or to become sex slaves. Let’s see if islam promotes it really

In an authentic narration from Sunan Al Bayhaqi,Book no. 72 Chapter no. 84 Hadith no. 18001 Maktaba Darul Baz Makkah Mukarramah 1994 It is mentioned:

Umar bin al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) sent Khalid bin al-Walid in an army, hence Khalid sent Dharar bin al-Auwzwar in a squadron and they invaded a district belonging to the tribe of Bani Asad. They then captured a pretty bride, Dharar liked her hence he asked his companions to grant her to him and they did so. He then had sexual intercourse with her, when he completed his mission he felt guilty, and went to Khalid and told him about what he did. Khalid said: 'I permit you and made it lawful to you.' He said: 'No not until you write a message to Umar'. (Then they sent a message to Umar) and Umar answered that he (Dharar) should be stoned. By the time Umar's message was delivered, Dharar was dead. (Khalid) said: 'Allah didn't want to disgrace Dharar'

Even as an ex-muslim you don’t know this it’s rather unbelievable from you that you don’t know these simple things I assumed that you must have knew these without this I would have told you everything.

If you want to know more I will certainly tell you

6 Ahmadiyya ألأحمديّة
6.1 Ahmadiyya Muslim Community
6.2 Lahore Ahmadiyya Movemen

ask anybody without these three all of them are quite good muslims and if somebody wants to paint them it's politics and racism of nationality nothing else.Your next questions are repetitions I have tried to answer them. Look at other comments.

Koran is also a full contradiction and confusions, Muslims themselves fought against each other each claiming their understanding and implications were right, after the muhammad death at the golden age of islam within 200 years 50 subgroups like kharejis, assasins, shiaties, sunnis,hanafi, shalafi etc and many more killed each other. If koran is nt contradictions why there are so misunderstandings and killing muslims,.Even this things were continued still today.

Koran doesn't have contradictions it has takhsess(Specification) If any one wants to use It he can do It by calling it a contradiction.

As for you black ships has born and will born in a religion. If a black ship doesn't understands the context and the situation(Which must be properly understood) and does this will he be blamed or will quran be blamed ?

After That You told that

•Sirat e Rasulullah, Ibn Hisham, page 766 “Safiyah was captured in the Khaibar raid and was claimed by the apostle as his share of booty.. She was then seventeen. She was groomed and made-up for the Prophet by Umm Sulaim, the mother of Anas ibn Malik. They spent the night there. In the early dawn, the Prophet suspected some movement near the tent) . He went out to enquire and saw Abu Ayyub.. He asked him what he was doing near his tent. He replied: “I was afraid for you with this young lady. You had killed her father, her husband and many of her relatives, and till recently she was an unbeliever. I was really afraid for you on her account and was guarding you.” The Prophet prayed for Abu Ayyub al-Ansari (Ibn Hisham, p. 766)

Earlier in your comment you statedthat Ibn Hisam is n't a 100% true kitab or book I agree with you

So let's see about the hadith(I ain't telling this is the end and it proves all still we need to judge circumstances and the perceptions and Shane nuzul also)

you." So that was the marriage banquet of the Prophet and Safiya. Then we proceeded towards Medina, and I saw the Prophet, making for her a kind of cushion with his cloak behind him (on his camel). He then sat beside his camel and put his knee for Safiya to put her foot on, in order to ride (on the camel)" Sahih Bukhari, Sahih al-Bukhari, 5:59:522

and other com-entries from Shibly numani

In the aftermath, the female captives were divided amongst Muhammad and his followers.[5] Safiyya was assigned to Dihya ibn Khalifa, but Muhammad selected her while compensating Dihya with two of her cousins,or, according to other sources, seven head of cattle,[3] and according to a differing source, seven female slaves.She then converted to Islam, thereby becoming Muhammad's wife; her dowry being her emancipation.On the way back from Khaybar, the Muslims camped at a place called Sadd al-Rauha. By now, Safiyya was clean from her menstrual period, and the marriage was thus consummated. Thereafter, Muhammad held a banquet of dates and butter in celebration of the marriage, and then returned to Medina.

May be you will say how ruthless he is attacking innocent people and marrying their girls without consent

So here is your answer

Muhammad himself survived several assassination attempts. In one of these, a Meccan tried to crush the Prophet's head with a large boulder while he was praying at the Ka'abah, the holy shrine at Mecca. God, however, miraculously foiled the attempt and the Prophet was saved.

Read more: <a href="http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Islam/2002/08/What-The-Quran-Really-Says-About-Violence.aspx#ixzz1zTW6tLyV
http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Islam/2002/08/Wha... />
As I stated many assasination attempts have been done to prophet(Sm) and seven of them were plotted by jews of khaibar They also gave sanctuary to the enemies of Islam. We never called them an enemy at the first time It was them who called us.So If anybody wants to defend himself against his enemies instead of dying like jesus he is a criminal actullay ?
You may call that why did he enslaved girls
By the al amin kitab We can get a clear view how many people prophet held captive in wars
They were 6579 among them 6211 were set free after paying the ransom 2 people were killed(If you want to say banu qurayza then I have a different point to discuss)
215 or more people were enslaved may be 300 so the people who tried to kill him , drove him away,never even wanted diplomacy with him ,hated him all their life even then he set free 97% of them can you show me a leader in today's world who can forgive so many people ? and he is a blood sucker in your eyes! whatever.

For your last question

1. Quoran and its all verses are revelations only.- this means verses were given when an incident took place, not before the incident , proof it if its not. The biggest proof of revelation is u need hadith and tfsirs to understand the verses, but tht could be done even if verses were came down at frst than the things were happened according to but it didnt, So whats ur point abt this? U cant go even against koran as its completely a revelation.
2. Koran is also a full contradiction and confusions, Muslims themselves fought against each other each claiming their understanding and implications were right, after the muhammad death at the golden age of islam within 200 years 50 subgroups like kharejis, assasins, shiaties, sunnis,hanafi, shalafi etc and many more killed each other. If koran is nt contradictions why there are so misunderstandings and killing muslims,.Even this things were continued still today

Many of them came first but you call them manipulations as examples

The Qur’an gave the news of the conquest of Makka two years before

2. It was only six years after the Prophet, upon him be peace and blessings, had emigrated to Madina that he left for Makka for a minor pilgrimage. However, the Makkans stopped him at Hudaybiya and a peaceful treaty was concluded after negotiations. Some articles of the Treaty were objected to by the believers but the Qur’anic verses which were revealed following the conclusion of the Treaty described it as a manifest victory and gave the believers the decisive glad tiding, which is as follows:

In truth, God fulfilled the vision of His Messenger: You will surely enter the Sacred Mosque, if God wills, in full security; you will have your heads shaved, your hair shortened, and you will have nothing to fear. He knew what you knew not, and He granted, besides this, a near victory. He it is Who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth, that He may cause it to prevail over all religion. God is enough for a witness. (al-Fath, 48.27–8)

One year later the Muslims performed the minor pilgrimage and the year after they conquered Makka. Also, Islam has been prevalent over all other religions for centuries and, if God wills, it will have a world-wide superiority in a near future.

FINGER PRINTS

"Their skins will bear witness against them as to what they have been doing" (41:21)
(You may tell they are about last day or judgement day but they can be proven otherwise as an assumption)

ESTABLISHMENT OF ISRAEL

And after him We said to the Children of Israel, 'Dwell Ye in the promised land; and when the time of the promise of the Latter Days come, We shall bring you together out of various people." (17:105)

So not all of them were done after the incident besides that.Many incidents had an aftermath which was indicated in quran.So it doesn't make sense

Islam and Koran as a pagan cult is already defamed by Muslim extremist like u, they try to define themselves first as what u wrote in bracket later they come out of the falsehoods turning to be a Jihadist. As a muslim u should also know that sirat-e-ibn hisham is not at all 100% authenticated by the Muslim scholars, u even didnt wrote abt what points u would like to quote, cause quoting from Sirat can be nullified by the other authenticated hadith books. Why are u trying to pick sirat-e-ibn hisham instead of so many other more authenticated biography of Muhammad. Though It is one of the most earliest biography of Muhammad but u also know that hisham himself omitted many of the writtings tht could disgrace muhammad

I have told it as M.r Sinaconstantly uses sirate ibn ishaq to defame our prophe, so it was my opinion that many sira books don't tell such Manipulated things which were produced after the 150 years of prophets death.So Ibn hisam was both an early source and a quite better source than Ibn Ishaq(Though it was created from Ibn ishaq's war diaries of prophet) it was much much more elegant and a better piece of work,Which can solve many problems of the Islamphobes.

But not all

also marrying them doesnt comply them as free women.

Nobody is completely free in Islam, everybody is chained in responsibilities and order. As once said That man is born free but everywhere he is in chains.

Brother please don't read missionary sites and their references they may claim to have the actual record but they don't. Most of their accounts are from these manipulated sources.So please don't do that.

You will certainly tell that islam considers women slaves ,dogs etc etc then I wil just tell you to read them carefully (may be you have done it but don't keep haterd when you read it I myself don't hate you we are not taught to hate anyone beside a bad man who hurts other without reason)

By hearing this you may tell that prophet himself hurt so many of jews and christians
but I have to tell you one thing didn't they plotted against him so that they could take Medina ?
Didn't they tried to kill Prohet during tobuk or before in Medina ?
Didn't they elected young men to kill him befeore hijrat ?
Did they not tried to ruin us ?
Did Utba, kab bin ashraf,Rifa bin sattar and Abdullah ibn Ubai plotted against prophet ?

Then may be you will call us evil and so we needed to be destroyed so they did this then ask yourself who is propagating hate me or you ?

Alright I have read some part of your book, and after that I have come here,M.r Sina okay I will try to response to your claims in that book that my prophet was an ill person and needed projak.You have made allegations that from the first day of his life prophet didn't receive love at all so he eventually became schizophrenic all right? okay let's take to this part. If we study prophets sir'a we can get all these phenomena together all right ?

but please say just one simple thing at first aren't these phenomena common all together in the religious scriptures ?

it's my first comment (and a very easy one too ) answer this and I guarantee you I will try to show my logic in this aspect

let's see your article in here

(9:23) states that the believers should not take for friends and protectors (awlia) their fathers and brothers if they love Infidelity above Islam

and let's see the sahih International

O you who have believed, do not take your fathers or your brothers as allies if they have preferred disbelief over belief. And whoever does so among you - then it is those who are the wrongdoers.

Muhsin khan

O you who believe! Take not for Auliya' (supporters and helpers) your fathers and your brothers if they prefer disbelief to Belief. And whoever of you does so, then he is one of the Zalimun (wrong-doers, etc.).

Pickthall
O ye who believe! Choose not your fathers nor your brethren for friends if they take pleasure in disbelief rather than faith. Whoso of you taketh them for friends, such are wrong-doers.

Yusuf Ali
O ye who believe! take not for protectors your fathers and your brothers if they love infidelity above Faith: if any of you do so, they do wrong.

Dr. Ghali
O you who have believed, do not take to yourselves your fathers and your brethren to be (your) patrons, in case they show love to disbelief (rather) than belief. And whoever of you patronizes them, then, those are they (who) are the unjust

allright from the above section we can get an indication that it's about 'warrior code' or what a warrior shall do in the situation of battle.

Maybe it's not as clear as it sounds but I think you will try to put our Islam and the golden rule in front of each other stating that a Muslim can't understand what is unilaterally good as they follow Muhammad(Pbuh)

so the question remains the same is n't it ?

alright I will read your entire book and then I will talk to you If you want to talk to me.

Ali sina you are constantly using circular logic t defame Islam. if it's to be carefully read you can obviously get a clear picture of the prophet.You have never mention anything from Sirate ibn HIsham, or similar books. Every time you have tried to accuse the prophet you have given the same examples which many of them are taken from the orientalists who have hated islam from the first day they have began searching for it. Prophet did never asked for anybody to be killed without any good reason you can't blame any man for just doing a political effort for people.Thus you have read 2:62,5:69 and 3:114or 3:113 verses of quran you have also read the good sayings of quran towards the people of the book you haven't read the sura ankabut where the ahl-kitab has been respected as our brother? If we were so evil why we didn't destroyed the west when we had the power? okay you may say that we didn't follow Islam so strictly then,but at the same time you blame us for destroying the enlightenment in Iran and many other regions in your article you have said

Islam is the only doctrine that calls upon its believers to do evil to others for the simple fact that they are not believers.

I laughed when I heard it,You have stated the verse of the sword on the occasion 9:5 but you as a clever man haven't recited the full paragraph or the chapter.Mr Sina how is that possible that a strong critique like you didn't know the basic rules for implementing Quran or how to use it's meaning ?

does that mean you are deceiving people? why? what is the reason you want to destroy us ?

So that we may no longer be united? so the Americans can torture us as much as they want? how can 99.99% of the muslims of the world be peaceful even after reading the quran and It's meaning? If it's so violent without the cause? You are trading the same logics that has been used for 1000 years to defame us yet we still survive.You can't destroy us because 99% of the muslims don't preach hate like you and we shall survive no matter what happens.

(Please don't level me an extremist after hearing this I am very sad for you to condemn our prophet) That's all

Ali sina you are constantly using circular logic t defame Islam. if it's to be carefully read you can obviously get a clear picture of the prophet.You have never mention anything from Sirate ibn HIsham, or similar books. Every time you have tried to accuse the prophet you have given the same examples which many of them are taken from the orientalists who have hated islam from the first day they have began searching for it. Prophet did never asked for anybody to be killed without any good reason you can't blame any man for just doing a political effort for people.Thus you have read 2:62,5:69 and 3:114or 3:113 verses of quran you have also read the good sayings of quran towards the people of the book you haven't read the sura ankabut where the ahl-kitab has been respected as our brother? If we were so evil why we didn't destroyed the west when we had the power? okay you may say that we didn't follow Islam so strictly then,but at the same time you blame us for destroying the enlightenment in Iran and many other regions in your article you have said

Islam is the only doctrine that calls upon its believers to do evil to others for the simple fact that they are not believers.

I laughed when I heard it,You have stated the verse of the sword on the occasion 9:5 but you as a clever man haven't recited the full paragraph or the chapter.Mr Sina how is that possible that a strong critique like you didn't know the basic rules for implementing Quran or how to use it's meaning ?

does that mean you are deceiving people? why? what is the reason you want to destroy us ?

So that we may no longer be united? so the Americans can torture us as much as they want? how can 99.99% of the muslims of the world be peaceful even after reading the quran and It's meaning? If it's so violent without the cause? You are trading the same logics that has been used for 1000 years to defame us yet we still survive.You can't destroy us because 99% of the muslims don't preach hate like you and we shall survive no matter what happens.

(Please don't level me an extremist after hearing this I am very sad for you to condemn our prophet) That's all