51 Responses

  1. Void
    Void at |

    Lol, the flame mail on this list gonna be epic. Not that im disagreeing with anything listed here, but you did denounce a few well respected leaders and two major religions, one of whom has a fondness for explosives and the other for inhuman amounts of annoying 😀

    Reply
  2. Shamim
    Shamim at |

    With respect to whoever wrote this, i would like you to clarify a few points in Mohammad.
    A few references with authenticity would be in order to prove things like

    “when not spreading the word, would often raid trade routes that other groups relied on, just to get revenge.”

    “After conquering tribes, Mohammad often allowed his men to rape the women that were captured, as long as they weren’t Muslims.”

    “There are also claims that Mohammad raped a 6-year-old girl.”

    Reply
    1. 5minutes
      5minutes at |

      The first 2 points are actually known historical record and are pretty much part and parcel of what any kind of 7th-century leader would do at the time. Mohammed was well-known as a military leader who performed forced conversions and behaved like… well… every other Saudi-area tribal leader of the time.

      The rape of a 6-year-old girl claim is tied to his marriage to Aisha. According to Islamic traditions, she was 6 when they got married, however, the marriage wasn’t consummated until 3 years later. If he lived in modern-day America, he’d be arrested, tried, convicted, and imprisoned for life. In the 7th century Saudi desert… the primary purpose of a family’s girls was to marry off to form family bonds and produce grandchildren – the sooner, the better because more kids = more people in your tribe that can do the things you need done. So… that statement is a bit deceiving and lacks historical context.

      Reply
  3. 5minutes
    5minutes at |

    God? Seriously? Couldn’t come up with a human being to fill that role? Say like Walt Disney? No – had to go with “God”.

    Ugh.

    Reply
    1. Shell Harris
      Shell Harris at |

      This one is on me. As the site owner I should have caught this one. I have removed it. We will try to get a replacement. If not, it will be the only list with nine items.

      Reply
      1. 5minutes
        5minutes at |

        Walt Disney would be a good choice.

        Reply
        1. Shell Harris
          Shell Harris at |

          Hmmm…who would write this entry? I wish I could think of someone. Give me five minutes to come up with an idea of just who could write that. 😉

        2. 5minutes
          5minutes at |

          You took God off the list and He answered your prayers!

        3. Shell Harris
          Shell Harris at |

          I was only jesting, but you are right. Prayer answered and your edit to this list has been added as the #1 item. Thanks!

  4. Logan
    Logan at |

    It’s a bit silly to include God Who, in definition, is impossible to be comprehended as well as His actions. Saying He has a dark-side would suggest He isn’t fully good, despite being Goodness itself.

    Probably a bad idea to include God on a list of famous “People” just to incite a little discontent.

    Reply
    1. alamelu
      alamelu at |

      If you are referring Muhammed as God, then you are mistaken. Muhammed was not God, he was a “messenger” of God. He proclaimed himself to be the final messenger, and all his revelations to be the “final word” from God and asked people to disregard other messenger’s words (which also includes Jesus)

      All his life and actions are recorded in detail.

      One of the reason Islamic sect – Ahmediyas are not considered as Muslim in Islamic countries is because they believe that there was one more messenger after Muhammed.

      Reply
      1. Heavens_Joke
        Heavens_Joke at |

        @alamelu
        The original #1 on this list was “God”. But they removed that entry and replaced it with Walt Disney instead. Logan was not referring to Mohammad as “God”.

        Reply
  5. Skeksis420
    Skeksis420 at |

    god is a fictional character not a person.

    Reply
    1. Logan
      Logan at |

      God is hardly fictional and cannot be dismissed so halfheartedly and quickly. I suggest St. Thomas Aquinas’ 5 proofs for God to at least have deistic understanding of God.

      http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web%20publishing/aquinasfiveways_argumentanalysis.htm

      Reply
      1. Heavens_Joke
        Heavens_Joke at |

        You cannot claim that God is not fictional. There is no observable proof of his existence. You BELIEVE he is real because a book tells you that he is. You HAVE FAITH that he is real because the book tells you that if you do not have faith, you will spend an eternity in a torturous underworld. Your entire religion is based on the idea of having faith in something that cannot be proven. That is literally the basis of ALL religion. It is humans inventing an explanation to something they do not understand. Religion was started as (what we now know as) Astronomy. Humans were trying to understand the Sun, the moon and the stars and what their effect on our world was. This is why the story of Jesus is so similar to the stories of dozens of other pagan deities. He, like all of his predecessors, is representative of the Sun. His life is a metaphor for the Sun’s influence on and interaction with our planet and the stars/other planets.

        Reply
        1. Logan
          Logan at |

          Faith that is only had because one fears an eternity in Hell is a forged and terrible faith that isn’t perfect before God. As St. John wrote in his epistles, “We love Him because He first loved us,” and “perfect love casts away fear.” Of course, this is faith. This is the only way for us to understand Who God is.

          But that God exists isn’t so fundamental held up solely on faith (see St. Thomas’ proofs for God, I have yet to see an adequate rebuttal of them).

          It would make no sense for Jews to invent a story, based on astronomy, because their Law forbids astronomy specifically because it was used by the pagan nations. This, of course, and the fact that Jesus, as a historical person, is accepted by historians to be true whether or not one believes what His disciples say about Him.

          What you are writing is too overly-simplistic.

        2. Heavens_Joke
          Heavens_Joke at |

          I read Aquinas’s “proofs” and I found them to be quite counter productive to their cause. Every proof comes to the same result and therefore they are all the same argument.

          The First Way: Argument from Motion
          This states that nothing can be moved unless something moves it, therefore God must be the sole mover. (To which I ask, what moves God?)

          The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes
          This states that every effect has a cause and everything that exists, exists because something caused it to be. (To which I respond, what caused the effect of the existence of God?)

          The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity
          This states that every contingent being (one who lives and dies) is created by one whom is infinite. (To which I respond, if every living thing is created by something, nothing can be infinite, therefore something had to have created God.)

          The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being
          This states that everything is graded by it’s comparison the epitome of it’s genre. A good example of this is temperature. Since Absolute Zero (0 degrees Kelvin) is the absolute coldest temperature, that means that the temperature of everything is compared to how much warmer it is than Absolute Zero. So the argument is that God is the epitome of perfection in every sense and therefore God must exist otherwise we would have nothing to compare perfection to. (This is flawed because that would mean that God would nullify everything we know and have verified to be absolute, including Absolute Zero, because He is greater than that absolute.)

          The Fifth Way: Argument from Design
          This states that everything does something because something drives it to do so. Therefore, we are all marionettes with God pulling the strings. (To which I reply, who is pulling God’s strings?)

          So, as you can see, all of Aquinas’s arguments are essentially the same. He creates a rule and assigns God as the only exception to each rule, thereby proving he exists. But this is a flawed assertion. By saying that God is the exception to the rule, it fully nullifies the rule as being absolute. Therefore, if God is the exception to the rule, the rule is not a rule and therefore the rule does not exist and this list is basically void.

        3. Logan
          Logan at |

          I’m quite sure you understand why St. Thomas presents God as he does, an exception to the rule. From a purely naturally logic standpoint that which was before time, before Creation, is the closest we can have at understanding what it is and the proofs of St. Thomas are a wonderful way to understand it.

          The questions you ask, for lack of a better word, childish. Why? Because if the closest we can understand the closest thing to the initiator of our Universe (God) we could never, through pure logic or anything else, understand anything before that because we could never see beyond the initial thing of causing what is, to us, above our natural universe as it is only in our natural universe our senses and minds work correctly.

          Basically, it’s not just some religious deciding God is perfect and absolute because He is God, rather it is the only logical understanding and the highest we could attain to.

        4. Heavens_Joke
          Heavens_Joke at |

          Let me start by providing a little insight into my person. My father is a minister and I was raised in the church. I spent 6 days a week at church. My entire social life was church. I attended every bible study, every event, every reach out program. I was a member of every club and group and even attended a private christian school. As such, I can say that my atheism was not born of ignorance. I understand your belief fully and have no desire to convince you to change it. However, I do not share your belief, and I do not agree with your assertions of speculation as hard evidence.

          That being said, you clearly did not understand what I was presenting with my previous comment. I was not asking questions expecting an answer. I was merely pointing out that Aquinas’s arguments (while very good and valid arguments) are not at all proof of the existence of God, but rather speculation. You can choose to contest me on that, but it is not an opinion, it is a fact. Aquinas presents questions that could have any number of answers but he chooses the answer he wants it be. The answer could be anything from God to Krishna to Gaia to Zeus to The Flying Spaghetti Monster. No one knows. So by presenting these unanswered questions as definitive evidence of the existence of God is not only wrong, it is foolish and damaging.

        5. Logan
          Logan at |

          For some reason I couldn’t directly reply to your latest comment so allow me to do it here.

          Rather funny enough, my life seems to have been the complete opposite than yours. But I eventually found faith, not lost it.

          Anyhow, you argue that any number of gods should be able to fulfill the prescriptions he laid out. While even in Zeus’ mythology he isn’t made out to be the creator of the universe (I’ll forgive this oversight) the point of Aquinas’ proofs wasn’t to prove the existence of the Judeo-Christian God, it was to establish the understanding of a deistic God as a kind of flat understanding that God exists and this is how we must have the few attributes He has.

          If anyone gives you his proofs as evidence as the God understood by faith by Christianity then he is mistaken. We cannot immediately understand this same Creator-God is the same that died for our sins, that takes faith which is separate from the logic to understand that a God exists.

        6. Heavens_Joke
          Heavens_Joke at |

          I don’t personally believe it to be any of those that I mentioned, including Zeus, I was just making a point. My allegiance is to science. I believe that there is a logical, scientific explanation for everything. Just because we do not know what it is yet, does not mean that it must be a deity. Again, not trying to sway your faith or convince you that you are wrong. Simply stating that the idea of a personification of perfection blinking everything into existence does not makes sense to ME.

        7. Logan
          Logan at |

          I understand your qualms, but St. Thomas’ proofs were based on logic, of course we do not (and probably cannot) have scientific proof of the Deity. The closet we can come to that is from the initiation of Creation itself (Big Bang).

          I agree, just leaping to “God did it” will not have any good for science, miracles aside which I’m quite you don’t believe in (one of my favorites is the Miracle of Lanciano, I encourage you to look that up).

          The reason believers find the reason that God created the universe compelling by using the Big Bang is partly because science cannot truly ever know what is before Creation because all that we know and understand would be reserved to what we already participate in. Anything above or beyond this reality is incomprehensible to ever find out completely, there really cannot ever be an scientific part of “What is” outside of Creation because we could never observe and test absolute nothingness dissolute of anything.

          Anyhow, I understand your qualms. God bless.

        8. CBomb
          CBomb at |

          Your bridge misses you.

        9. CBomb
          CBomb at |

          Your bridge misses you, Heaven’s Joke.

    2. Shell Harris
      Shell Harris at |

      Agreed, I have removed this entry.

      Reply
    3. alamelu
      alamelu at |

      Muhammad was not God, he was a real person who once walked the Earth.
      He was a “messenger” of God and insisted he’s the final messenger sent by God.

      Reply
      1. Logan
        Logan at |

        No, before this list was revised the number one was God Himself. If somebody thought Muhammad was God then he must have a low conception of God.

        Reply
  6. Seth
    Seth at |

    Being against Israel is an uncommon pin prick of light in the darkness of modern society. Even if Dahl was against it for the wrong reasons, just being against Israel doesn’t make someone bad.

    Reply
  7. anonymous
    anonymous at |

    This site has lost credibility.Mohammad didnt order the killing of those men.When that Jewish stronghold was captured,the Jewish tribe in question.Banu Quraiza,surrendered andagreed to accept the decision of Sa`ad bin Muaz,who had been an ally to the jews for a long time.Upon consultation with the Jews,a law from the Old testament was applied,which stated that all able bodied men were to be killed,and all women and children were taken as slaves,with the property of the Jews taken as ransom of war,as is still the norm.All of the aforementioned `killing` was done with the acceptance of the Jews.As for the `rape` of the girl,there is no such credible account of any such matter.The girl in question was Aisha,daughter of Abu Bakr,one of the Prophet`s most trusted and beloved companions.It was common practice at that time for yung girls to be wed at very young ages so as to provide ease of life to them and lessen any burden on the girl`s family.Women of all captured tribes were taken as slaves.

    Reply
  8. Khaled
    Khaled at |

    I’ve been following this website for at least 5 years now, this is the only time I felt that I should comment. I have a problem with putting Mohammed in the light you have.
    1-ur claim is a recreation of attributing the spread of Islam to the sword and it is not new at all, ever since medieval times the different christian kingdoms had to give an explanation about how they were not able to hold the east. ill give you examples: no Muslim army went to Indonesia, neither were any of the wars or battle Mohammed engaged in a start of a war but a reaction. Even the mongols who actually invaded and brutally exterminated Muslim cities ended up accepting Islam. you should keep in mind that back then the Arab lands were Roman or Persian ruled, i.e The Muslim army fought the Roman and Persian army and never the civilians in the cities to be conquered. I am Syrian, and even though you would guess it that I am Muslim because of my name ( even though ‘Khaled’ is actually not a muslim name, many christians also carry it) but if Islam was spread by the sword, these christian Khaleds in Syria wouldnt have existed today dont you think?
    2- as for the 6 year old girl, where is your evidence? it is a misrepresentation of what you heard about Aisha. which firstly, no trusted source ever mentioned her age (guess what, it was not an important issue) but the hype around it is spread by (you guessed it) the same people who spread the islam is a warlike religion ideas. even if she was too young, it was different times you can get over it, to put it more in prespective, research how old Mary was ( an extremely revered personality in Islam) when she gave birth to Jesus, and also, how old she was when she got married ( yes she did, i know that much)

    Reply
    1. Khaled
      Khaled at |

      As for the Jews of Medina, research constitution of Medina and marvel around the fact that 1500 years old constitution in a Muslim governed city gave the Jews the freedom to be judged by their own laws. The case of the Jews of Medina is much like a modern traitor of the state case. a case which many ‘modern’ states still react to with capital punishment.

      Reply
    2. 5minutes
      5minutes at |

      I addressed these issues above.

      Reply
      1. Khaled
        Khaled at |

        5minutes, saying ‘it is a known historical record’ before a statement does not really make it a ‘known historical record’ and anyways, known by who? not me… how about this for sounding credible. it is a ‘known historical record’ that aliens live among us. refute this, i will bring you sources as credible as your sources about mohammed.

        Reply
        1. 5minutes
          5minutes at |

          What I mean by “known historical record” is that it’s reported by independent groups, by those whom Mohammed conquered, and by Mohammed himself. It’s also, again, part and parcel with what a 7th century tribal leader from Arabia (or just about anywhere else) would do in order to maintain his tribe’s power and position.

        2. Khaled
          Khaled at |

          yeah i know what u meant, u did not understand me though. I am asking for your sources, and I am challenging you that I will bring you more credible sources on aliens living among us.

        3. 5minutes
          5minutes at |

          How about Nancy Pelosi?

        4. Khaled
          Khaled at |

          you make it too easy… you did not give a source, you mentioned someone. Nancy Pelosi i cant say i know her opinions, however she is neither a theologist, nor muslim, nor even remotely likely to have read the quraan. in keeping with our challenge, I will counter your example with Canada’s former defence minister, Paul Hellyer. He has cred (at least more than ur example) bcuz he had control over vast Canadian land as the number one militiary man in Canada.( that includes all radars etc.), if there were any aliens that have landed on this vast piece of land called Canada and started living among us, the man who would know about it if any is him… anyways, Paul Hellyer says Aliens live among us, and he has much more credo on that matter than Nancy Pelosi on Islam

        5. Khaled
          Khaled at |
    3. Logan
      Logan at |

      Islam’s sword did help it spread, that is undeniable (the Qur’an even says to kill the unbelievers [pagans] until they convert though it also says no compulsion in religion which is a bit contradictory) but they would also enforce a tax on Jews and Christians and not completely kill them as the Qur’an says they should (enforce a tax).

      Consummating a marriage with a 9 year old is outright terrible and even if they didn’t mention much against it back then that still doesn’t excuse an old man having relations with a girl not even with two digits in her age. It’s pedophilia.

      No one knows the Blessed Virgin Mary’s age as Scripture doesn’t say. It can only be speculated. And Scripture doesn’t say she ever had relations after she had birthed the Lord Jesus hence the early Christian belief of her perpetual virginity.

      Reply
      1. Khaled
        Khaled at |

        my friend Logan. where does the Quraan say such a thing. keep in mind i know in order to answer that you will look it up on google and come up with a verse taken out of context ( i know because I read my book from page to page every once in a while and i know exactly which verse you will come up with… in case you are interested, ill explain the verse further) .

        the tax issue, like in every state , civilians pay tax for the state to function, muslims paid tithe (zakaat,, a requirement in islam) others paid tax(jizya). this ‘tax’ was nothing new as it was already being paid to the previous rulers.

        spreading islam by the sword… if you would say spreading the muslim empire by the sword it would be more agreeable, nowhere was anyone held and threatened for his life if he didnt convert, if that was the case, how do you explain christian communities continiuosly existing on muslim held land?

        You are right about Virgin Marys age, it can only be speculated, but the same for Aisha(there actually are sources which claim she was 16 u know, only these sources are not interesting to the muslim hating westerner). however, the bible does say Virgin Mary was betrothed to Joseph, consummated or not ( i think it was consummated, only after Jesus birth, otherwise his birth wouldn’t be a miracle). and it is pedophelia only in yours and my own 21st century mindset.

        please man, the difference between me n u ( and muslims and christians for that matter) is that I acknowledge christianity as a great religion, we muslims do believe christianity was at one point gods law on earth, the same with judaism. however christians on the other side, dont acknowledge islam and the fact that a few prosecuted people were able in record breaking time to establish an empire surpassing in size any other empire the world has ever seen therefore cannot be attributed to divine, good, or even correct practices because it would not fit with the patriarchys version of ‘muslims are lost, and god is on our side’. therefore the result is ‘they spread religion by the sword, they are pedophiles’ and other misconceptions to satisfy the average man looking for answer on ‘doesnt it seem like they r on to something?’ so please man, these things only widen the gap between us.

        Reply
        1. 5minutes
          5minutes at |

          I’ll help with your first point… but not really.

          The primary verses of the Quran that speak of killing the unbelievers and heretics and treating Christians and Jews with disdain or violence are from Quran 9, a chapter that is known both as Surah At-Tawba (“The Repentance”) or al-Bara’ah (“The Ultimatum”). It was introduced just prior to the Battle of Tabouk, a battle unrecorded anywhere except among Arab sources that… kinda just didn’t happen. Mohammed’s army marched up to fight the Byzantines and found nothing. As a result, other Arab groups felt that Mohammed’s army was more powerful than the absent Byzantines and joined up with his group, and set the stage for 350+ years of war between the Muslim tribes and the Byzantine Empire.

          This chapter is basically the pep talk from Mohammed to his armies, prior to the battle. In other words: while it is violent and merciless, it is not intended to be a general order of the Islamic faith.

          HOWEVER… this is one interpretation. Because of the lack of a central theological authority within the Islamic faith, there are many, many possible interpretations, some of which line up with Logan’s claims.

        2. Logan
          Logan at |

          The verse seems to be that Muhammad had made an alliance with a group of polytheists so God charges him that once the terms of alliance are fulfilled he is to kill them until they either start believe or have a willingness to start hearing his word.

          http://quran.com/9

          The tax was mentioned to answer your question how Christians could survive the sword of Islam. Yes, I had meant the initial Islamic Empire, but if it was blessed by God then how do you understand Genghis Khan’s empire? Was it also blessed by God since it grew so large so quickly?

          It comes to my mind that the usual reports of Aisha’s age that Westerners use are also the ones Muslims generally accept as correct. Tell me, why would Muhammad consummate (have relations with) a 9 year old? It is terrible unlikely she would get pregnant which is what it is for. Muslims will contest that girls have gotten pregnant earlier but these are only exceptional and noteworthy because they far exceed what the norm is for a woman to become pregnant.

          Islam is not accepted by Christians because it is in opposition to Christians’ claims since the start as recorded by the Apostles and their disciples (the Apostolic Fathers) and their disciples and so forth. Muslims cannot satisfactorily answer why God abandoned humanity to the point that even His Word to mankind was corrupted. It presents God as uncaring.

        3. CBomb
          CBomb at |

          Over a year, Khaled… still waiting to see your response to these two folk…

  9. Logan
    Logan at |

    Yes, the chapter is 9 and the context seems to be Muhammad had entered into an alliance with a group of polytheists and God told him once the terms are expired they must kill their previous allies until they convert or surrender in order to hear his message.

    http://quran.com/9

    Yes, I just mentioned the tax because you wondered how Christians could survive if Islam were spread by the sword. The tax allowed them to live. I was an answering your objection.

    I had meant the initial Islamic Empire. Yes, it is very impressive what they could do. An empire’s religion spreads easily to the populace to adopt it for power and other authority or power, and I wouldn’t suggest suggesting an idyllic past where no one was forced to convert, those polytheists who trusted Muhammad might disagree.

    Yes, I know Aishia could have been older but I believe it had generally been the popular opinion by Muslims that she was a child so that was adopted by Westerners. Yes, it’s pedophilia by today’s standards but you’d have to wonder why he’d have relations with such a young girl when it’s very unlikely she’d be unable to even get pregnant. Yes, Muslims will show that even younger girls have gotten pregnant but the exceptional shouldn’t be applied to the standard.

    Obviously Christians wouldn’t accept Islam when it speaks against what Christians can trace as their belief since the Apostles of Jesus through 2000 years. Even the Apostolic Fathers and Early Church Fathrrs agree. When did Christianity get corrupted? How could God’s religion even be corrupted, did He stop caring then care again?

    The fact the Islamic Empire was founded so quickly shouldn’t let you think it was God’s Providence unless you’d think the Mongol Empire which exceeded the Islamic Empire and in a short time was also truely blessed by God.

    Reply
  10. Hakeem
    Hakeem at |

    I am sure that list has been prepared by some Jew because of the the fact that list shows anti-semetism from some famous people and non-sense against Prophet Muhammad. Regarding Aisha, many scholars believe she was actually atleast 14 years old when Muhammad married her unless some can come forward with her birth certificate!. The verse from Surah Baqarah of killing the polythiests was revealed at the time of war and was applicable at that time when Muhammad and his fellow muslims returned to Mecca since the polythiests killed and tortured early muslims. The Quran was revealed in a period of 23 years..”one step at one time”. Prophet Muhammad was rediculed by the people at that time throughout his life and he escaped many death traps. God than revealed the verse in the Quran which stated that “There awaits a terrible torment for those who redicule Me and My Messenger”

    Reply
    1. Logan
      Logan at |

      Hakeem, “prepared by some Jew,”? The author’s religious or ethnic identity has no leaning on the contents of the article.

      On the age of Aisha it seems to me that Muslims cannot get her age correct for when she was married or when the marriage was consummated, any number seems to fly into the air but there is evidence that she was 6 at the year of her marriage and 9 at the marriage’s consummation.

      http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/childbrides.htm

      http://www.wikiislam.net/wiki/Aisha_Age_of_Consummation#Proof_One

      http://www.muhammadanism.com/Hadith/Topics/Marriage.htm

      As the Qu’ran is supposed to be held by Muslims as God’s Final Message to Humanity it seems silly to include topics that applied only to a specific period of Muhammad’s life and person and not just to humanity at large.

      Anyhow, all this aside, Islam paints a uncaring God Who decides to supposedly abandon humanity and lest His sole message to humanity become corrupted until He finally decides to re-introduce it to humanity through an illiterate man in the desert but this re-introduction also includes things that only apply to Muhammad and his life. It’s very nonsensical. How can God be so unjust as to deprive Scripture or let it be corrupted when that is the sole way to know God? Yet, we still have writings from the early Church since the time of the disciples of the original Apostles of Jesus Christ that confirm what is written in the Bible and the Qu’ran cannot reveal when Scripture was supposedly corrupted.

      This goes without mentioning the silliness that Muhammad promises those who follow him which includes purified spouses after death. What need would we have for spouses after death?

      http://quran.com/3/15

      Reply
    2. Mac
      Mac at |

      Grow up and keep your threats to yourself Hakeem.

      Reply
  11. Alan
    Alan at |

    There was nothing ‘surprising’ about Jimmy Savile’s dark side. I don’t think I knew anyone over the age of about 12 who didn’t think he was deeply creepy or didn’t suspect that there was something unpleasant going on behind that facade.

    Reply
  12. WGF
    WGF at |

    Dude… Brace yourself for angry and unrelenting comments on number 3.

    Reply
  13. Cha
    Cha at |

    That’s not Churchill. That’s an actor who played him

    Reply
  14. Muhammed
    Muhammed at |

    As Salaamalaikum Wa Rehmatullaahi Wa Barakaatuh
    (Mean’s Peace be upon all of you and blessings).

    You had mentioned about our beloved Prophet Muhammed Messenger of Allaah (Sallallaahoalayhay Wa Sallam); Did you check your fact’s? Islam was laid on the basis of perseverance, peace, understanding and harmonious living in the society and submitting with free will to Almighty Allaah Subhana Wa Taala. Such a blasphemous accusation would create a widening rift and further be an unsuccessful attempt to tarnish Islamic history.

    The tradition’s, the time, the tribal way’s of that era; a lot of factor’s are taken into account before portraying what really would have eventualized. Freedom of speech does not acquiesce one to disregard sentiment’s etc. and carry on with whatever a single person opine’s.

    Reply

Leave a Reply