Prophet Muhammad Was a Muslim Nationalist (David Wood)

Following the New Zealand Mosque Attack, the ethno-nationalism and white nationalism of terrorist Brenton Tarrant are under well-deserved scrutiny. However, consistency is important, so we must address other relevant forms of nationalism, not simply the version involved in the NZ shooting. Muhammad, the self-proclaimed prophet of Islam, was a Muslim nationalist (i.e., someone who believed that only Muslims could be part of his nation). In Sahih Muslim 4594, Prophet Muhammad said: “I shall certainly expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula, until I leave only Muslims there.” How can people condemn various forms of nationalism associated with the Christchurch terror attack while praising Muhammad’s Muslim nationalism? David Wood discusses the issue.

PATREON: David Wood is creating EPIC videos | Patreon
PAYPAL: PayPal.Me
TWITTER: https://twitter.com/Acts17
MINDS: Acts17Apologetics (@Acts17Apologetics) | Minds
BITCHUTE: DavidWoodVideos
WEBSITE: http://www.acts17.net

#Muhammad #Nationalism #DavidWood

The British Government recently rejected an Iranian ex-Muslim’s application for asylum by insisting that if she really believed in Jesus, she wouldn’t care about her safety: - YouTube

I’m a white nationalist

but I’m not white

“Whoever kills a non-Muslim living under Muslim rule will not smell the fragrance of Paradise, even thought its fragrance may be detected from a distance from over 40 years”
-al-Bukhari (3166).
I wish Peace on everyone reading this comment :point_up::heart:

To call Mohammed an ethno-nationalist is not logically consistent.
Islam is about forced racemixing.
By marrying non-muslim women of subjugated people or raping fermale captives or helding them as sex slaves.
Or it is the other extrem: marriages between cousins.

The european Idea of ethno-nationalism is kind of an opposition against those bad expieriences with the southern and eastern muslim neighbours.
That does not mean that marriages between people of different races must be bad.
If love is the reason, I see no problem with that.
I just dont like the idea to make that the norm.
If power is the reason, I have my doubts.
Like Tecumseh and Tenkskatawa, who opposed race mixing and subjugation under puritan settlers, who
called indian traditions heathen and condamned them.
They where not much better than muslims, or black hebrew israelites, who just imitate this old testament ridden puritan sect of early american settlers.

Not all christians of euroean descent were and are like that. Many of them appreciate other cultures, als well as their own traditions.
That is more new testament like.

Muhammad was a sociopath. Only other sociopaths can detect other sociopaths and fight the. David wood is a sociopath and fits the categories to fight other sociopaths.

A great presentation exposing the hypocrisy and inconsistencies.

when you say that he is a Muslim nationalist and you say that he is white dose that mean he is not brown or anything or he is not Muslim. Anyway thanks for your time love your videos very informative. Thank you and bye.

Ummm…what?

The Prophet Muhammad's Relationship With Non Muslims - YouTube if someone wanna know how the profhet Muhammed treath a jew watch this video

Firstly you read the shia Islam books
Not the Sunni Muslims books

And Sunni Muslim’s books not truly

Because muslims are think about Jews and Christians they are our brothers
And these you give references of Sunni Muslim’s this is totally wrong

Sound More Like Trump

Mr. Wood, your channel was recommended to me by a Christian youtuber. I watched several videos of yours and I never knew there was such a Christian channel dedicated to Islam so much, and as a Muslim I want to thank you for this. Sir, you’re flattering us.

@acts17apologetics Hi David i am currently speaking to a man i met on the streets he is muslim i need your advice on where to start is there anyway we can message privatley on here? he is keen to meet with me and discuss the bible and quran

The Awfully Unromantic Taj Mahal
India sulked when the Obamas skipped the Taj Mahal during their recent visit here. But really, I’m tired of famous people posing with that marble tomb as their endorsement of the idea that it somehow is the ultimate icon of romance. Because the story of how and why Emperor Shah Jahan built this monument for his deceased wife, Mumtaz Mahal, is anything but romantic.

India sulked when the Obamas skipped the Taj Mahal during their recent visit here. But really, I’m tired of famous people posing with that marble tomb as their endorsement of the idea that it somehow is the ultimate icon of romance. Because the story of how and why Emperor Shah Jahan built this monument for his deceased wife, Mumtaz Mahal, is anything but romantic.

The Taj, which took twenty-two years to complete, was built with the labour of twenty-two thousand slaves. The colossal expenditure of building it (over $1 billion now), which included dragging the marble and precious stones from all corners of the globe, was also extracted from the Emperor’s subjects - the impoverished villagers and shopkeepers, in the form of imposed and oppressive taxes. That history lives on, as even today the Taj’s luxurious, white autocracy stands apart from the miles of crowded, grey squalor of the towns and lives that surround it.

But the real lies are the stories of romance woven around the life and death of the woman believed to be buried here. Mumtaz Mahal, was Shah Jahan’s third wife, and was engaged to him when she was merely 14. In their 19 years of marriage, she bore 14 children, enduring a pregnancy almost every year, till she died giving birth to her fourteenth. She died of postpartum haemorrhage because of the multiple, back-to-back pregnancies she was forced to endure.

It’s absurd that many view this form of lethal, reproductive labour, as indication of Mumtaz’s “favourite” wife status. To be the number one pick of a man’s harem, surely is not any woman’s idea of romance. And Shah Jahan in his lifetime had collected 2000 women in his harem! But if indeed, Shah Jahan shared that special intimacy with Mumtaz, then wouldn’t he have noticed her body, visibly, weakening and crumbling, right before his eyes, with each successive pregnancy? Or was she only a detached vagina and womb, a sex toy to him, and not a real person whose body, health and welfare would register in his consciousness in any way? Indeed, if this is love then India still has plenty of it. India, even today, accounts for the highest number of maternity related deaths (17%), largely due to the same reasons - early, multiple and consecutive childbirths, where women are denied birth control, or ownership and choice of over their own bodies.

Harems and their treatment of women, constitute some of the darkest chapters of women’s history. They reduced women to collectible objects, to be literally stabled like horses, by men who owned them just for sexual entertainment, and a sense of testosterone power. Though many associate harems, or zenanas, with the Muslim period in India, the fact is they existed in India among the Hindus, long before the arrival of Islam. King Tamba of Benaras in the 6th century BC had 16000 wives in his harem.

Of course a King was entitled to his pick of any girl or woman in the kingdom whether or not she was willing. But claiming and cloistering them in his harem, was one way of maintaining sexual exclusivity. To ensure that exclusivity, harems were rigidly guarded by trusted servants who checked veiled guests to ensure they weren’t men in disguise. Women in the particularly large harems experienced such sexual frustration that they’d attempt to liaise with whichever men they could access - the guards, the servants, visiting physicians, and even the sons of other queens. That’s why the guards were often eunuchs or were men from poor families who had been specially castrated for the job! Women in the harem also frequently engaged in lesbian sex or sneaked in fruits and vegetables to use as dildos to overcome their sexual ennui (The Kamasutras, transl A. Daniélou, 1994).

The regimented institutionalisation of the monarch’s harem was maintained through a strict internal hierarchy of its inmates. The position of the queens in the pecking order was determined by a number of factors: their origins, looks, preference by the king, and even caste. Though a king could have sex with a lower-caste wife, she was still too “impure” and unfit to tend to his bathing or other personal needs (Laws of Manu 9.85). The children she bore, similarly could not have the same claim to the king’s title and wealth as the sons of the upper-caste queens. Queens were not just ranked in the harems, but were kept in control through promotions and demotions depending on their actions and behaviour (Laws of Manu 9.80). If a queen disobeyed the King or senior queens, was rude, or could not bear children, she’d face demotion, and the humiliation of having a younger queen given seniority over her. The punishment meted out to a woman for infidelity was to be torn to pieces by street dogs (Laws of Manu 8.572).

But what I find more interesting is that even as we today continue to romance the Taj, Indian women writers in the late 19th and early 20th century had outright denounced its representative harem culture and its custom of sequestering women. Rokeya Sakhawat Hossain in her landmark play Sultana’s Dream (1905) suggested the creation of an equivalent system for men to be called a ‘murdana’ where men would be kept in isolation, and controlled. Pandita Ramabai (1858-1922), a teacher and women’s rights activist, said it was a terrible “cruelty” on women, and it treated them like “prisoners.” And in Sarat Chandra Chattopadhyay’s 1931 novel Sheshprashna (The Final Question), the female protagonist, Kamal, who along with questioning social norms that physically and psychologically bind women, also challenges people’s idealisation of the Taj Mahal as an epitome of a man’s timeless love for a woman, and asks how being Shah Jahan’s favoured wife, made Mumtaz his soulmate. For could the Taj Mahal change the fact, that she was still, only, the pick of a harem?

Unbelievable facts about Shah Jahan

The name of Taj mahal immediately strikes our mind with the heights of love and essence of love. Love is the second name of shah jahan and mumtaz. Shah jahan constructed Taj for his beloved Mumtaz as she died in her 14th child birth. But we are unaware from the facts of the beautiful monument and the people related to it. Here are some unknown and uncommon facts of that era and great emperor Shah Jahan and his beloved Mumtaz.
Taj Mahal was not built and designed to entomb a second person other than Mumtaz Mahal. Aurangzed decided to bury his father’s body next to Mumtaz Mehal instead of building another monument for is father.
Shah Jahan was laid next to his beloved wife Mumtaz in Taj Mahal also called as Mumtaz Mehal.
There was no state funeral for Shah Jahan after being a great king also.
Shah Jahan was imprisoned by his younger son Aurangzeb as he was afraid that his father won’t give him the throne. Rather the throne would be given to his elder brother. Therefore for the greed of occupying the throne , Shah Jahan was house arrested by his younger son.

Shah Jahan’s sons apparently fought a battle called the battle of Samugarh against each other for the crown.

Shah Jahan married mumtaz sister after her death. This is really wondering if he loved her truly.

Mumtaz was his 4th wife and he was already married 7 times.

Mumtaz had married another man who was apparently killed by shah jahan so that he can marry mumtaz.

Full name of Shah Jahan as an emperor was "Shahanshah Al-Sultan al-'Azam wal Khaqan al-Mukarram, Malik-ul-Sultanat, Ala Hazrat Abu’l-Muzaffar Shahab ud-din Muhammad Shah Jahan I, Sahib-i-Qiran-i-Sani, Padshah Ghazi Zillu’llah, Firdaus-Ashiyani, Shahanshah-E-Sultanant Ul Hindiya Wal Mughaliya.
Mumtaz was killed when she was delivering her 14th child

The starting point to define love or otherwise can be to first look at the eternal symbol of love, The Taj Mahal. Emperor Shah Jahan built Taj Mahal for Empress Mumtaz Mahal. Mumtaz was Shahjahan’s 4th wife out of his 7 wives. Have always wondered at the entrepreneurship of our king’s to handle multiple wives for in all practicality, handling even one in the present age is a herculean task. Shah Jahan killed Mumtaz’s husband to marry her. In other words, he was dating Mumtaz for a long time and finally murdered the poor husband to satisfy his hunger (Lust).
Ever heard the word morality? Making babies, as we all know, is our favorite sport. This mastery was achieved by the great Emperor Shah Jahan with ravishing ferocity by keeping his beloved pregnant all the time. The poor lady, for the sake of love, endured this pain for almost fifteen years but finally ran out of luck (breath) and died during her 14th delivery. To give final ending to his love, Shah Jahan married Mumtaz’s sister and built Taj Mahal in the memory of his “beloved” wife Mumtaz. Looking at the character of the king, he for sure must have been dating Mumtaz’s sister. Empress Mumtaz must be turning in her grave visualizing her husband’s encounters with her sister. Just wonder where the hell was love in all this?

Story:

We All Know Taj Mahal As Symbol Of Love But The Other Lesser
Known Facts are:

  1. Mumtaz Was Shahjahan’s 4th Wife Out Of His 7 Wives

  2. Shahjahan Killed Mumtaz’s Husband To Marry Her !

  3. Mumtaz Died In Her 14th Delivery !

  4. He Then Married Mumtaz’s Sister !

Question Arises Where The Hell Is The Love…

Analysis:

Shah Jahan, the Prince of Khurram, met Arjumand Banu Begum when
he was only 15 years old and fell in love with her at first sight. They were
engaged in 1607 and got married after a five year period of struggle over
family feuds in 1612. The intervening years brought Shah Jahan two other wives
as he had to to marry Akbarabadi Mahal and Kandahari Mahal only for political
reasons. That is how Mumtaz became his third wife, not fourth. Mumtaz was only
married to Shah Jahan, the fact that Prince Khurram is another official name of
Shah Jahan could have misled people to believe Mumtaz had a husband earlier.

According to the official court chronicler Qazwini, the
relationship of Shah Jahan with his other wives “had nothing more than the
status of marriage. The intimacy, deep affection, attention and favor which His
Majesty had for the Cradle of Excellence exceeded by a thousand times what he
felt for any other.” Shah Jahan loved Arjumand Banu Begum’s appearance and
character so much that he gave her the title Mumtaz Mahal which means Jewel of
the Palace. He also built the Taj Mahal, one of the wonders of the world in her
memory, where her remains after death were buried. It showcases all her
memories of life in a beautiful artistic way. But yes, Mumtaz died an
accidental death, while giving birth to her 14th child. And Shah Jahan did not
marry after the death of Mumtaz, definitely not the sister of Mumtaz. After
Mumtaz’s death, Shah Jahan was inconsolable and spent the rest of his years in
mourning, and construction of Taj Mahal in her memory, as a symbol of love. Later
when he died, his body was also buried beside Mumtaz in Taj Mahal. The story of
Shah Jahan and Mumtaz is indeed a story of eternal love, and Taj Mahal is a
symbol of love.

However, another legend states that Taj Mahal was actually a
Hindu temple of Shiva named ‘Tejo Mahalaya’ which was seized by Shah Jahan and
renamed as Taj Mahal. This story was brought into light by an Indian Professor
P.N. Oak, the writer of “Taj Mahal: The True Story”, a book that was
published in 1965. He even filed a petition in the Indian court seeking
permission to break open the cenotaphs, and tear down brick walls in the
basement chambers of Taj Mahal to prove his theory. But, his petition was
rejected as there was no hardcore evidence to support the claim. More proofs
are required to justify that Taj Mahal was actually Tejo Mahalaya. Opening the
hidden chambers for investigation could uncover more facts. Many researchers
still continue to believe Oak’s theory, and the legend lives on.

So funny how people miss the point that Islam can’t be “nationalistic” or anything else.
All comments here fit perfectly to the Saudis and you’re a hypocrite if you think that the Saudi Kings family represents Islam. Even their political system doesn’t make any sense in any law of Islam. Saudis are so greedy, its unbelievable. They use slaves til this date and will use them to earn money. Just like capitalism. But capitalism is a bit more humane (only if you’re in a first world country).
Don’t be hypocrites

Muslims and non muslims here kindly try to go via this book (by an ex muslim )

I’m from Algeria and hate islam