ISIS is repeating what Mohammed did a 1400 years back.

[RAYYAN]

One has to use extreme caution when pushing against the status quo. Muhammad sought to unseat those in power. Didn't they have every right to attack him?

No they don't have the right to attack him physically because He was not. also the attach happened after He left the city for them by driving an army to where He was present.

I'm not terribly interested in nit-picking over what a given sura was all about as I am far more interested in the big picture. Far too much distortion creeps into the discussion when we argue over what a couple of scant lines means. The backstory is often far more important.

yesterday you told me that I should know what you are talking about if I know History, now, you are talking about the Big picture not specifically about that battle...... Ha! after all, seems like YOU don't know the history!

Even in Medina he remained a clear and present danger. Is this so hard to understand?

for a reason..... see below

What a strange notion. I didn't know that if you stole something from me that gave me the right to steal something from you. Most instructive thinking, really.

First, He is not steeling, Muslims are taking a tiny portion of what was taken from them, second, 1400 years ago, living in a tribal society, where there is no law, what do you expect him to do when Muslims are striped off their wealth?
today in 2015, I sue you and get what is mine. I think it is you who is having hard time to understand the situation now and 1400 years ago.

 

[icehorse]

Hey RAYYAN,

You said:

I think it is you who is having hard time to understand the situation now and 1400 years ago.

I'm not sure I understand you here... One of the problems I have with religions like Islam and Christianity is that they claim to be perfect, unalterable, and timeless. Are you saying differently here?

 

[RAYYAN]

Hey RAYYAN,

You said:

I'm not sure I understand you here... One of the problems I have with religions like Islam and Christianity is that they claim to be perfect, unalterable, and timeless. Are you saying differently here?

Hi Ice.
I am talking about the situation (Highlighted) not religion sorry for the confusion. for example
in 2015 - If someone stole my money, I go to the police and take what is mine
1400 years ago, if that happened, I have to rely on my muscles and the muscles of my tribe because there was no law

 

[RAYYAN]

Islam is coming to the world since the beginning of the spread of terrorism
Review and viewed the history of Islam
Are wars and invasions and the blood
Islam is going on and will remain with terrorism
But it can get rid of it when the Muslim able to think freely and refuses to declare membership of a terrorist to the devil

Don't have a heart attack........ wow

 

[YmirGF]

No they don't have the right to attack him physically because He was not. also the attach happened after He left the city for them by driving an army to where He was present.

Muhammad most certainly was trying to supplant the authority of those who ruled Mecca. Replacing authority is what Islam is all about.

yesterday you told me that I should know what you are talking about if I know History, now, you are talking about the Big picture not specifically about that battle...... Ha! after all, seems like YOU don't know the history!

*sigh* The background, which is interesting given that the only accounts we have are from Muhammad's fanatical followers. Even with this elevated portrayal of events we can see that this was hardly a one-sided persecution of the early Muslims.

Muhammad was born in Mecca around 570 CE into the Quraish tribe. In 622, to escape persecution of Muslims by the Meccans, Muhammad and many of his followers migrated from Mecca to the neighboring city of Medina. This migration is called the Hijra.[6]

Following the Hijra, tensions between Mecca and Medina escalated and hostilities broke out in 623 when the Muslims began a series of raids on Quraishi caravans in order to put economic pressure on Mecca, since its chiefs were plotting and gaining allies against Medina. Since Medina was located just off Mecca's main trade route, the Muslims were in an ideal position to do this. Even though many Muslims were Quraish themselves, they believed that they were entitled to such raids because the Meccans had expelled them from their property, homes and tribes, a serious offense in hospitality-oriented Arabia.[7] The Meccans obviously took a different view. Their caravans had always been under protection since many tribes saw them as the "Custodians" or "Keepers" of "The House of God"[8] and they saw the Muslim raids as banditry at best, as well as a potential threat to their livelihood and prestige.[9]

In late 623 and early 624, the Muslim ghazawāt grew increasingly brazen and commonplace. In September 623, Muhammad himself led a force of 200 in an unsuccessful raid against a large caravan. Shortly thereafter, the Meccans launched their own "raid" against Medina, although its purpose was just to steal some livestock which belonged to the Muslims.[10] In January 624, the Muslims ambushed a Meccan caravan near Nakhlah, only forty kilometers outside of Mecca, killing one of the guards and formally inaugurating a blood feud with the Meccans.[11] Worse, from a Meccan standpoint, the raid occurred in the month of Rajab, a truce month sacred to the Meccans in which fighting was prohibited and a clear affront to their pagan traditions.[9]

for a reason..... see below

but... not especially good reasons for someone who was supposedly a "prophet" from god almighty.

First, He is not steeling, Muslims are taking a tiny portion of what was taken from them, second, 1400 years ago, living in a tribal society, where there is no law, what do you expect him to do when Muslims are striped off their wealth?

One would expect a bit more in the way of nobility from a "prophet" of god. To think he used the same tactics or plunder is hardly something to champion. It's rule by thuggery. The inescapable problem here is that Muhammad brought the Battle of Badr on himself and his followers through his own self-righteous actions.

today in 2015, I sue you and get what is mine. I think it is you who is having hard time to understand the situation now and 1400 years ago.

Oddly, I`d expect a genuine prophet of god to be a peace-maker, not a tribal warlord. Though, to be fair to Muhammad, things did get rather peaceful once all opposition had been eliminated - other that their continued penchant for poisoning their Kalif de jour.

 

[RAYYAN]

Muhammad most certainly was trying to supplant the authority of those who ruled Mecca. Replacing authority is what Islam is all about.

No, He was not. He wanted to have the right of practicing his religion and He never aimed for power. it is in the Quran that He wanted to be left alone to practice his religion.

"For you is your religion, and for me is my religion" (Quran 109:6)

*sigh* The background, which is interesting given that the only accounts we have are from Muhammad's fanatical followers. Even with this elevated portrayal of events we can see that this was hardly a one-sided persecution of the early Muslims.

As I said, It has to do with Pagans in Arabia and very little to do with Jews who worked in the background. your link doesn't provide anything new

but... not especially good reasons for someone who was supposedly a "prophet" from god almighty.

One would expect a bit more in the way of nobility from a "prophet" of god. To think he used the same tactics or plunder is hardly something to champion. It's rule by thuggery. The inescapable problem here is that Muhammad brought the Battle of Badr on himself and his followers through his own self-righteous actions.


Oddly, I`d expect a genuine prophet of god to be a peace-maker, not a tribal warlord. Though, to be fair to Muhammad, things did get rather peaceful once all opposition had been eliminated - other that their continued penchant for poisoning their Kalif de jour.

Funny! are you saying what he did is wrong, or you are saying as a Prophet, it is expected better from him? which is which?
as for a Prophet is expected better from him, go back to history and read 10 years later, when He took over Mecca, what He did with the people who harmed him, drove him out of his home, executed many of his followers,.....etc. He let them go. that is what a Prophet does.

but as for that stage, beginning of Islam, If he kept quite for what Meccans do, it would look like it was weakness, and no, He is not a weak person, basically, He wants to show that Muslims don't take "shi*" from anyone anymore. I encourage you to read what the meccans did for the first 13 years of Islam, how many they killed and how many they torchured.

Do you think He brought war on himself with the Meccans! why don't you say, the meccans brought war on themselves when they did what they did with the Muslims? why do you blind fold that part? who started?

Edit:
One more thing, before moving to madina, when some Muslims migrated to Ethiopia hiding, which is another continent, The Meccans sent to the king of Ethipia to give them back those Muslim immigrants........... can you tell me who is looking for trouble!

 

[YmirGF]

No, He was not. He wanted to have the right of practicing his religion and He never aimed for power. it is in the Quran that He wanted to be left alone to practice his religion.

Which is a pretty weird thing to ask from one who was relentlessly proselytizing, exhorting people to avoid their destruction by following him.

"For you is your religion, and for me is my religion" (Quran 109:6)

Which sounds nice in the marketing brochures, but Muhammad actively wanted people to abandon Judaism, Christianity and Paganism and adopt Islam. You can't really have it both ways. If he sincerely believed this little bit of codswallop he never would have bothered people to become Muslims by following him and Islam.

As I said, It has to do with Pagans in Arabia and very little to do with Jews who worked in the background. your link doesn't provide anything new

Okie dokie...

Funny! are you saying what he did is wrong, or you are saying as a Prophet, it is expected better from him? which is which?
as for a Prophet is expected better from him, go back to history and read 10 years later, when He took over Mecca, what He did with the people who harmed him, drove him out of his home, executed many of his followers,.....etc. He let them go. that is what a Prophet does.

Strangely, I don't consider Muhammad to be a "prophet" by ANY yardstick. What I am saying is that Muhammad brought the problems and persecution on himself and his followers.

but as for that stage, beginning of Islam, If he kept quite for what Meccans do, it would look like it was weakness, and no, He is not a weak person, basically, He wants to show that Muslims don't take "shi*" from anyone anymore. I encourage you to read what the meccans did for the first 13 years of Islam, how many they killed and how many they torchured.

Sadly, what you have to keep in mind is that the history we have from that period was written by his fanatical followers. It is a tad bit biased a presentation and considering how much unseemly stuff they left in to tell us about tells me that things were a lot hairier than what the texts are telling us.

Do you think He brought war on himself with the Meccans! why don't you say, the meccans brought war on themselves when they did what they did with the Muslims? why do you blind fold that part? who started?

Obviously, Muhammad brought it all on himself and his followers, though, to be fair, I don't expect ANY Muslim to ever agree with that suggestion. I'm good with your utter rejection, but then again, you are biased and have an emotional investment in distorting the truth to make it sound as if it were all love, peace and beards.

One more thing, before moving to madina, when some Muslims migrated to Ethiopia hiding, which is another continent, The Meccans sent to the king of Ethipia to give them back those Muslim immigrants........... can you tell me who is looking for trouble!

I don't see any particular problem with this. Think of it like the American CDC hunting down people who may have been infected with Ebola. You can't blame them for wanting to stamp out an infestation.

 

[RAYYAN]

I feel we are going in circles, so I will respond to few points only

Which sounds nice in the marketing brochures, but Muhammad actively wanted people to abandon Judaism, Christianity and Paganism and adopt Islam. You can't really have it both ways. If he sincerely believed this little bit of codswallop he never would have bothered people to become Muslims by following him and Islam.

Yes, it is true, He wanted them to be Muslims, I want the whole world to be Muslims but We can't force anyone to do so.
is that wrong?

Sadly, what you have to keep in mind is that the history we have from that period was written by his fanatical followers. It is a tad bit biased a presentation and considering how much unseemly stuff they left in to tell us about tells me that things were a lot hairier than what the texts are telling us.

So how did you know the fact was otherwise if there is no other source except Muslim fanatics!

I don't see any particular problem with this. Think of it like the American CDC hunting down people who may have been infected with Ebola. You can't blame them for wanting to stamp out an infestation.

Sorry, it is not Ebola, it is a scape of these people to a new land to practice their religious freedom. your analogy is not right.
and what made Meccans responsible for the world?

 

[YmirGF]

Yes, it is true, He wanted them to be Muslims, I want the whole world to be Muslims but We can't force anyone to do so.
is that wrong?

It is quite wrong if you are pretending to respect other religious traditions. As a rule, Muslim have no issue with proclaiming the supremacy of Islam over all other religions and also don't miss many opportunities to call aspects of other religions into question or accuse them of being blatantly false. And Muslims wonder why the early inhabitants of Mecca got cheesed off with Muhammad?

So how did you know the fact was otherwise if there is no other source except Muslim fanatics!

Given that there are no other accounts indicates that all opposition to Muhammad was eliminated, period, full stop. He was very effective in silencing his critics who may well have told us a far different story. Sadly, what we are left with is the whitewashed version of the conquerors.

Sorry, it is not Ebola, it is a scape of these people to a new land to practice their religious freedom. your analogy is not right.
and what made Meccans responsible for the world?

I never thought you would agree, but I see it as a very fitting comparison.

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

I have no clue what you are trying to say!

And then

Don't have a heart attack........ wow

How do you understand this
Note that what is provided by the states of the Koran and also from the history of Islam

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

I know all this and it is Islamic History 101 for me but thank you.
The above mentioned verse has nothing to do with Christians, very little to do with Jews and the whole conflict was with Pagans in Mecca. It's true He was a thread for their Religion, trade,....etc. but so what! all He did was telling them they are wrong and advice them to follow him, in his point of view, He is telling the truth and asking people to follow him for their own benefit, regardless of how true that was, don't you think it is the right thing to do?

after 13 years, He left the city for them and started breaching else where, but they didn't leave him alone and followed him with all the harm they could, and decided to fight him in his new place and that is what 8:12 is all about.

Youmust have to know
Islam is the two stages
The first is the stage of Mecca
And all the states of Mecca states are borrowed from the Bible and Torah
With some changes in the translation of the original Hebrew into Arabic
At this stage, the followers of Muhammad does not exceed the number of fingers or a little more
The reason is that what was announced by Mohammed was known in Mecca
Because Alencranih was in Mecca and had a priest and pastor of this paper is the son of Nawfal
But after the death of the Rev. Muhammad migrated to Medina
Here began the second phase
It is a sword and terror stage
Wyatt Medina canceled and copied all states Mecca
And the spread of Islam after they came down states fighting
States in fighting terrorism
Islam spread
Even this fact know you viewed burner and copied in Koran

 

[morphesium]

Hi Ice.
I am talking about the situation (Highlighted) not religion sorry for the confusion. for example
in 2015 - If someone stole my money, I go to the police and take what is mine
1400 years ago, if that happened, I have to rely on my muscles and the muscles of my tribe because there was no law

There were great civilizations (indus valley or harappa civilization) even before 400AD, where there were much advanced law and legal systems, much better than those existed during the times of Muhammed.

 

[RAYYAN]

There were great civilizations (indus valley or harappa civilization) even before 400AD, where there were much advanced law and legal systems, much better than those existed during the times of Muhammed.

Yes, but not in Arabia.
You know we are talking about Arabia right?

 

[jeager106]

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

Go here ^^^ for facts about Islamic violence that happens EVERY day.
Hers is but a mere snippet of information about Islamic violence in the
month of September 2015.
Jihad Report
September, 2015

Jihad Attacks:
187

Countries:
27

Allah Akbars:
31

Dead Bodies:
1580

Critically Injured:
243

 

[icehorse]

There were great civilizations (indus valley or harappa civilization) even before 400AD, where there were much advanced law and legal systems, much better than those existed during the times of Muhammed.

This is an excellent point. Most people living 1400 years ago had extremely limited world views, simply based on the state of education and transportation at the time. If Muslim's claims were focused on advances that Muhammad made in his local geographic area, given his extremely limited view of world history, such claims would be more palatable.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Yes, but not in Arabia.
You know we are talking about Arabia right?

Lmao. There's a certain unintended irony in this post.

 

[Britedream]

@RAYYAN
Pleasure to read your post Rayyan, well thought, and to the point.

For the Islamic civilization, is so obvious, well known, and couldn't be denied, but by ignorants, the following is a link for PBS documentary that signifies the case.

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

Yes, but not in Arabia.
You know we are talking about Arabia right

I want to give you information about Arabs
Torah , a Jewish book and a reference to Arabs
She was referring to the folks inhabiting deserts
These Arabs they do not know civilization
For further reading of the Torah
2. The civilizations in Mesopotamia and in Syria , Palestine and Iran
Arab people do not know the meaning of civilization
After the collapse of the Chaldean and Assyrian Empire Iranian Persian empire emerged
And Romania
And also the Pharaonic civilization in Egypt
After 600 years from the date of the birth of Christ
Mohammed came from the desert Arabs
It does not have any civilization
History did not hear about any Arab civilization before Islam
But spread to Islam happened during the invasion of Iraq , Egypt, Syria and also Iran
And the back of the term Islamist
So the Islamic civilization is the civilization of truth in those civilizations destroyed by Islam and spent them gradually over a thousand four hundred years ago
To prove we speak
Arabs and Muslims have gone to Spain
They have managed to occupy parts of it
But the Europeans were able to expel the invaders and colonizers of Arabs and Muslims
That is why they could not eliminate the Romanian civilization in Europe
That is why the term Islamic civilization is a false term
Because the Muslims and the Arabs have made to the world civilization murder , terrorism and the spoils
It is known that the spoils of war is one of the teachings of the Koran
I hope you review the state of the Koran for dividing the spoils of war
And aggression
Five parts of the booty is the Messenger
The other four parts are shared by Muslims Fighters

 

[icehorse]

Hey Britedream,

Certainly we should give credit where credit is due, and there is no doubt that for several centuries Islam flourished intellectually.

But the video you linked to glossed over important bigger contexts. For example, between the founding of Islam and the crusades, Islam perpetrated over 300 years of conquest, most of it quite violent. Taken from this context, the Crusades - while awful - were a tiny counter punch against an ocean of Islimic conquest.

The second point to remember is that around the time of the Crusades, Islam began to lose the idea of separating scholarship from faith. A leader of the idea that scholarship should be in service of faith was al-Ghazali. Some have said that al-Ghazali's influence hastened the end of "the golden age", and that Islam has never recovered.

 

[Britedream]

Hey Britedream,

Certainly we should give credit where credit is due, and there is no doubt that for several centuries Islam flourished intellectually.

But the video you linked to glossed over important bigger contexts. For example, between the founding of Islam and the crusades, Islam perpetrated over 300 years of conquest, most of it quite violent. Taken from this context, the Crusades - while awful - were a tiny counter punch against an ocean of Islimic conquest.

The second point to remember is that around the time of the Crusades, Islam began to lose the idea of separating scholarship from faith. A leader of the idea that scholarship should be in service of faith was al-Ghazali. Some have said that al-Ghazali's influence hastened the end of "the golden age", and that Islam has never recovered.

Thank you IceHorse,
Please allow me to give you my input on your post.

1- if you go back to the link, and listen again, you will see that the documentary admits that Islam conquest was by the power of ideas, and not by the sword.

2- Then the documentary went on to prove it by showing how scientist from different Faiths got to gather for The sake of knowledge under The Ambarella of Islam.
3. After that it went to show you how the muslims did not retaliate for the massacre that the Christian did.

Why is that happening, that is answered by the documentary title "The empire of faith".

So the Documentary is testifying, all that is due to islam.

Muslims are human and they do mistakes, but you can not blame a religion based on the mistakes of some of it's followers.