Muslim man sets 11yr old girl on fire

Not open for further replies.
And? Vietnam has no Buddhists? Please do not respond until you learn sufficient English to communicate. :mad:

When you understand enough english to reply, do so.

Never said, That Vietnam had no Buddhist, what I said is that the picture wasn't that old, it was taken in Vietnam, and that is was a Vietnam era picture.

Ask yourself: Did Mohammad murder other humans? Did he command his followers to commit murder? We both know the answer and there you go.

Mohammad's god could had accomplished every one of It's goals without murdering other humans - but it murdered them anyway. I feel especially sorry for that poor scared singing slave-girl who Mohammad had the pleasure of having her head chopped off.

Your god was happy to command It's servant, Mohammad, to murder people when It didn't have to. In doing so, your god signaled It's violent nature to It's followers. By Mohammad committing himself to murder in It's name - through his actions he then showed that murdering people is acceptable to your God.

It's of absolutely no surprise then that you have many fellow Mohammadians murdering one another. How else do you explain the Muslims in Indonesia trying to chop the heads off other Indonesian Muslims just because they have a slightly different belief. Hell, even the government in Indonesia is going to ban these fellow Muslims from practicing their form of Islam.

The actual actions of Mohammad himself, show that Islam promotes religious intolerance and religious violence. Mohammad murdered the polytheists in Mecca. There you go. So it still happens to this day because this is a fundamental aspect of your God, it's prophet.

In short Mohammad himself committed or commanded other people to commit murder so of Mohammadians are still acting accordingly.

Summary, worship a murdering intolerant God, have a murdering intolerant Prophet, and expect some people who dedicate their lives to these ideologies to sometimes murder.

LMAO... Michael seems like your knowledge is limited to lol. You can go worship silas as much as you want but the simple truth is that you believe in forgery of silas, I am not suprise, people like you love to believe those specail interest internet sites over anything else. lol. Please go ahead and beleive what you wish and take silas as the authority on islam. :D:D Just too funny.
You really don't under stand fanatics do you?
There are fanatics and then there are religious fanatics.

The fact remains that Islam forbids the killing of innocents,
And here's the qualifier and the basic and fundamental flaw with Mohammedism. It is justifiable to murder other human beings and just so long as they are not innocent and that's exactly what this Muslim man thought he was doing. And, honestly, because your God allowed Mohammad to murder and command the murder of a singing slave girl, well then, maybe It is OK with this murder as well.

Serial killers are psychopaths, and, probably there is a connection between psychopaths and religous fundamentalists.

I was people watching the other day, which can be fun when the people you're watching are recruiters for Scientology. When I noticed was that when someone stated they were Christian (or religous, but mainly Xian) then the Scientologists really worked to recruit them. BUT, if someone said they were non-religous or atheists then they actually turned them away. You see, they know that some people, like some people here, are genetically prone to believe in this bullshit and so that's who they target.
Or, they have had bad experiences with atheists.

Though, in my experience, they also do not bother with Muslims.
LMAO... Michael seems like your knowledge is limited to lol. You can go worship silas as much as you want but the simple truth is that you believe in forgery of silas, I am not suprise, people like you love to believe those specail interest internet sites over anything else. lol. Please go ahead and beleive what you wish and take silas as the authority on islam. :D:D Just too funny.
Actaually I ran across that on an Arabic News site:

Arab Islamic News

"Abdullah ibn Khatal used to be a Muslim. The Prophet once sent him to collect zakah from people who lived far away. He traveled with another man and a servant of his who was a Muslim. At one stage on the way they stopped. He gave the servant orders to slaughter a big goat and prepare food for him while he himself went to sleep. When he woke up, he discovered that the servant had not done anything. He killed his servant and, fearing the Prophet’s punishment, reverted to idolatry. He also had two slave girls who used to sing for him and for his companions songs full of abuse of the Prophet. The Prophet’s instructions specified that the two slave girls should also be killed. The man was killed as he was actually holding on to the coverings of the Kaaba. Abu Barzah Al-Aslami and Saeed ibn Hurayth Al-Makhzumi killed him along with one of his slave girls. The other managed to flee until someone sought a special pardon for her from the Prophet, which he granted."

Here is an English Translation by
Alfred Guillaume of the original Historical work of Muhammad ibn Ishaq ibn Yasar who himself was (and is) considered a scholar and historian and whom many credit with witting the oldest Biograph of Mohammad.

Another was Abdullah Khatal of B. Taym b. Ghalib. He had become a Muslim and the apostle sent him to collect the poor tax in company with one of the Ansar. He had with him a freed slave who served him. (He was a Muslim.) When they halted he ordered the latter to kill a goat for him and prepare some food, and went to sleep. When he woke up the man had done nothing, so he attacked and killed him and apostatized. He had two singing-girls Fartana and her friend who used to sing satirical songs about the apostle, so he ordered that they should be killed with him.

So, skywalker, here was have an instance when your prophet, under the authority of your God, commanded that two young singing girls have their heads chopped off and for one of them - she was indeed murdered! Was that acceptable behavior skywalker?

You can see, this Muslim man wasn't doing anything more or less heinous than what your own Prophet was purported to have done. Ergo, this man similarly deemed this young girl a non-innocent and murdered her. If Mohammad had done this you'd think, yup, it's fine. All of you Muslims would.
How do we know that?
Because you're about to tell us
(1) it was OK for Mohammad to command the murder of these two young singing slave girls or
(2) try to say the story is false (which doesn't matter it's accepted Islamic lore - that is, for 1400 year Muslims have seen nothing wrong with Mohammad's actions)
(3) ignore the question altogether

- but what you are NOT going to do is say it was immoral and wrong AND that right there is proof enough of a fundamental flaw in Islam.

Go ahead tell us,

Last edited:
Oh please Ibn Ishaq's work is missing and Guillame has translated bits written [accurately or not] who knows? by his protege.

Ibn Ishaq who died in 151 A.H., that is 145 years after the event in question, was severely criticized by his peers for relying on highly exaggerated Jewish stories. He was also harshly criticized for presenting forged poetry attributed to famous poets. Some of his contemporary scholars, such as Malik, called him "a liar." However, his work was later copied by others without critical examination. This is an example of hearsay used by dubious reporters for propaganda purposes.

So its probably Jewish slander.
OK, SAM, then here's the easy part, let's see if you are less psychopathic compared with the Muslims man who murdered his 11 year old niece.

Condemn the actions in story.

That is, you can say the story is false, as you have, but also, clearly condemn the actions of the false story of Mohammad.

Thank you,
I condemn that Michael raped and murdered the young child. This is an incident that did not happen, however, I roundly condemn it since the validity of the story does not matter.


btw, I feel a sense of deja vu. Apparently you have an interest in promoting refuted stories as true.

What is this agenda?
What is this agenda?
The story has been accepted as true for 1500 years. I quoted it off an Islamic Arbaic website.

I'm asking you to clearly condemn the actions in the story of Mohammad.

Last edited:
I'm still waiting for the other member's who participated in this thread to also clearly condemn this story.

NOTE: I am asking that you condemn the actions in the story, not the story.
The story has been accepted as true for 1500 years. I quoted it off an Islamic Arbaic website.


Considering I posted that Ishaq's contemporaries accused him of forgery and called him a liar, that is a deliberately misleading statement Michael and highly dishonest of you.
And as we have discussed MANY times, what I am talking about is accepted Islamic TRADITION. For Christ's sake SAM, there isn't any contemporary evidence for Mohammad or even the contemporary existence of Mecca let alone this story!

So, what we are talking about is a history of almost one and half millennia where this was considered acceptable behavior. Sure, I'm happy to see modern Islamic apologists condemning it, but that isn't going to erase 1500 years of tradition.

So, again, I understand you condemn the story, not, could you clearly condemn the actions in the story?

I think this fit VERY well within this thread. It comes to heart of what is and is not ethically acceptable.
And, isn't that sad, that such a heinous story could be so easily accommodated into and accepted as Islamic tradition and history - THAT says something in and of itself, and it's something you just might want to think about. There were no alarm bells going off because it's accepted that Mohammad murdered people under the authority of your God.

Which is also pathetic, as your God can do anything it certainly get create a message that propagates itself without any need of murdering people or coercing them via taxing their beleif.

Remember SAM, when you first came to this site YOU were of the mind that murdering polytheistic Arabs and destroying their historical religous statues was fine. Hell, is it any wonder that they blew those Buddhist statues to smithereens?

THINGS don't happen in a vacuum.

Not open for further replies.