Muhammad’s life at Mecca was model of a peaceful person

[Corthos]

...And you doubt the power of necromancy?!

 

[paarsurrey]

Muhammad’s life at Mecca was model of a peaceful person

THE FAITHFUL PERSECUTED

Most of these slave-converts remained steadfast in outer as well as inner professions of faith. But some were weak. Once the Holy Prophet (sa) found ‘Ammar (ra) groaning with pain and drying his tears. Approached by the Prophet (sa, ‘Ammar ra said he had been beaten and compelled to recant. The Prophetsa asked him, "But did you believe at heart?" ‘Ammar(ra) declared that he did, and the Prophet (sa) said that God would forgive his weakness. ‘Ammar's(ra) father, Yasir (ra), and his mother, Samiyya (ra), also were tormented by disbelievers. On one such occasion the Prophet(sa happened to pass by. Filled with emotion, he said, "Family of Yasir (ra), bear up patiently, for God has prepared for you a Paradise." The prophetic words were soon fulfilled. Yasir(ra) succumbed to the tortures, and a little later Abu Jahl murdered his aged wife, Samiyya (ra), with a spear.
Page-15
https://www.alislam.org/library/books/Life-of-Muhammad.pdf​

One could see that the Meccans persecuted,tortured and killed Muslims and did not allow the right of freedom of religion, right of freedom of speech, right of free thinking and all human right were denied by them to Muslims.
Regards

 

[Shad]

Post #169
One could see that the Meccan did not allow the right of freedom of religion, right of freedom of speech, right of free thinking, all human right were denied by them to Muslims.
Regards

Many of those never existed in those days. You create a strawman to knockdown, nothing more.

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
Post #169
One could see that the Meccan did not allow the right of freedom of religion, right of freedom of speech, right of free thinking, all human right were denied by them to Muslims.
Regards

Many of those never existed in those days. You create a strawman to knockdown, nothing more.

Are "right of freedom of religion, right of freedom of speech, right of free thinking," these wrong that one is so averse to them?
Regards

 

[Shad]

paarsurrey said: ↑
Post #169
One could see that the Meccan did not allow the right of freedom of religion, right of freedom of speech, right of free thinking, all human right were denied by them to Muslims.
Regards

Are "right of freedom of religion, right of freedom of speech, right of free thinking," these wrong that one is so averse to them?
Regards

Never said that. You are putting forward a strawman made on the expectation that these "rights" should of been supported by the Meccans. What if the Meccan never allowed for any of these rights? Then Mo brought persecution upon himself by violating law or custom. It is a flawed argument. It would be like going to China, speaking out against communism then complaining about "rights" that do not exist in China when the government arrests me for breaking the law. You are projection a modern set of rights on to the past which is just using a set of anachronisms to argue a non-existent point.

Sure I like the idea of these rights but this does not make your argument any better as I realize one is a set of modern idea not ideas from 7th century Arab

 

[paarsurrey]

Muhammad’s life at Mecca was model of a peaceful person

THE FAITHFUL PERSECUTED

Zinbirara, a woman slave, lost her eyes under the cruel treatment of disbelievers. Abu Fukaihra, Safwan bin Umayya's slave, was laid on hot sand while over his chest were placed heavy and hot stones, under pain of which his tongue dropped out. Other slaves were mishandled in similar ways. These cruelties were beyond endurance. But early believers bore them because their hearts were made stout by assurances received daily from God. The Qur’an descended on the Prophet(sa), but the reassuring voice of God descended on all believers. Were not this so, the Faithful could not have withstood the cruelties to which they were subjected. Abandoned by fellow-men, friends and relations, they had none but God with them, and they cared not whether they had anyone else. Because of Him, the cruelties seemed nothing, abuse sounded like prayers and stones seemed like velvet.
Page-15
https://www.alislam.org/library/books/Life-of-Muhammad.pdf​

One could see that the Meccans persecuted,tortured and killed Muslims and did not allow the right of freedom of religion, right of freedom of speech, right of free thinking and all human right were denied by them to Muslims.
Regards

 

[gnostic]

Mecca was Prophet's own home. So, actually, he was going back to his hometown.

It was home to buch of people, not just his.

It wasn't his to take, unless he think it is his kingdom and that he have rights to rule it.

It bloody arrogant that he would think it his home, and no one else's.

So, actually, he was going back to his hometown. Where he and his followers were deprived of their rights, prosecuted, killed and displaced just because they worshipped God. So, maybe the example you give, instead should start like, "if you are persecuted and forced out of your house, and you come back with a force which can set justice..." And in this case, would you prefer the idolworshippers to have objected the force of justice?

If it was peaceful, then he wouldn't need to go into Mecca with an army. He had 10,000 armed warriors; that's a threatening move, not a peaceful one.

And if it was peaceful, then how do explained the death of some of the leaders, after he entered the city? Were they executions or simply retaliation?

Taking revenge on people, is not a peaceful act.

And I don't recall the leaders of Mecca that were executed, ever getting trials. They were summarily executed without any. That's not justice.

When two poets (Khaled bin Sufyan & Abu Rafi) were assassinated in 624, because of the satires they wrote, Muhammad he did condone the murders by not taking any actions (eg arrests, trials) against his closest friends and followers (Abdullah ibn Unais & 'Abdullah ibn 'Atik). Where are the justice in that?

Assassination is muder, whether the assassin do it for money, or for political or religious agenda. And Muslims are so proud of these assassinations, because they did for Muhammad.

There are not. It would seem that different rules applied to Muslims than to non-Muslims. So murderers don't have to worry about being tried and convicted for murders as long as Muslims are murdering non-Muslims.

And as for the title of the thread and about what brother gnostic said. Prophet Muhammad (s.a.a) was a model of peace both in Mecca and Madinah.

For months, in 623 - 624, he raided and robbed merchant caravans. That's not a role model of peace; he would be role model for pirates and brigands. How is robbing merchants ever peaceful?

If a person today was to rob you in alley, would you call such an act peaceful?

What did the merchants ever did to Muhammad?

Even within the city, he acted like a tyrant. He was supposed to act as a mediator (624) between two feuding clans or tribes. Mediation involved not taking side, getting both sides to compromise and settle their differences. What did Muhammad do instead?

He favour one side because the other side wouldn't accept him as a prophet, and they were banished from their homes, properties and wealth taken. His decree only caused further problems. This is hardly act of mediator, let alone a just person. Muhammad is a trouble maker, causing strife and division in his new home.

Sorry, but if your idea...and Muslims' ideas in general...of what is peace and justice is the same as that of Muhammad, then it is not the world I would like to live in.

 

[paarsurrey]

@gnostic friend.
Muhammad’s life at Mecca was model of a peaceful person

THE FAITHFUL PERSECUTED

The free citizens who believed were not less cruelly treated. Their elders and chiefs tormented them in different ways. ‘Uthman(ra) was a man of forty, and prosperous. Yet when the Quraish resolved upon general persecution of Muslims, his uncle, Hakam, tied him up and beat him. Zubair bin al-‘Awwam (ra), a brave young lad who later became a great Muslim general, was wrapped up in a mat by his uncle, smoked from underneath and tortured by suffocation. But he would not recant. He had found Truth and would not give it up.
Page-15-16
https://www.alislam.org/library/books/Life-of-Muhammad.pdf​

One could see that the Meccans persecuted,tortured and killed Muslims and did not allow the right of freedom of religion, right of freedom of speech, right of free thinking and all human right were denied by them to Muslims.
Regards

 

[NewChapter]

Meccans did not allow Muhammad and his followers to practice freely Islam- the Revealed Religion of their choice.

Those who speak for freedom of religion and freedom of speech must take notice of this.

There was absolutely no planning for violence or to use force or sword on the side of Islam/Quran/Muhammad.

Anybody could comment whether belonging to a religion or no religion.

Regards

So "beat your wife" (Koran 4:34) was not a Meccan revelation?

Tell me, why exactly must one beat his wife?

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
Meccans did not allow Muhammad and his followers to practice freely Islam- the Revealed Religion of their choice.
Those who speak for freedom of religion and freedom of speech must take notice of this.
There was absolutely no planning for violence or to use force or sword on the side of Islam/Quran/Muhammad.
Anybody could comment whether belonging to a religion or no religion.

So "beat your wife" (Koran 4:34) was not a Meccan revelation?
Tell me, why exactly must one beat his wife?

One's comments are not related to the context of my post one was commenting. Wives were not to be converted to Islam forcibly in Mecca or in Medina. One is simply wrong.
Regards

 

[NewChapter]

One's comments are not related to the context of my post one was commenting. Wives were not to be converted to Islam forcibly in Mecca or in Medina. One is simply wrong.
Regards

I was commenting about your saying that Mohammed was a peaceful person at Mecca. If he beat his wives he was not a peaceful person at Mecca.

 

[paarsurrey]

I was commenting about your saying that Mohammed was a peaceful person at Mecca. If he beat his wives he was not a peaceful person at Mecca.

Muhammad never beat his wives in Mecca or in Medina. His behaviour with his wives was exemplary.
Regards

 

[NewChapter]

Muhammad never beat his wives in Mecca or in Medina. His behaviour with his wives was exemplary.
Regards

Koran 4:34:

Noble Qur'an translation
...As to those women on whose part you see ill-conduct...beat them (lightly, if it is useful)...

Yusuf Ali translation
...As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct...beat them (lightly)...

EDIT - for those who don't know the parentheses mean that the words in them are not a part of the original text.

 

[paarsurrey]

Koran 4:34:
Noble Qur'an translation
...As to those women on whose part you see ill-conduct...beat them (lightly, if it is useful)...
Yusuf Ali translation
...As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct...beat them (lightly)...
EDIT - for those who don't know the parentheses mean that the words in them are not a part of the original text.

We are discussing here what did Muhammad do in Mecca. So it is off-topic here. Please
I had separately discussed Quran 4:34 , please search it , read it, and comment it there.
Regards

 

[NewChapter]

We are discussing here what did Muhammad do in Mecca. So it is off-topic here. Please
I had separately discussed Quran 4:34 , please search it , read it, and comment it there.
Regards

I can't find it, but how is it off-topic if you are saying that Mohammed was peaceful and I am saying that the Koran told him to be violent and beat his wife?

 

[paarsurrey]

I already answered in Post #192. Please
Regards

 

[NewChapter]

I already answered in Post #192. Please
Regards

The Koran still told him to beat his wife even if the circumstances never came where he had to do it as per the Koran's directions.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Jesus never raided caravans, or raised an army to fight another army.

Jesus' ministry also didn't last as long, either. It's easy to say you're peaceful if you haven't had the time to do anything.

They knew that
Abraham was a monotheistic Teacher.

Technically henotheistic. True monotheism wasn't invented yet.

What is your take on Muhammad's smashing of the idols in relation to being peaceful and not forcing religion?

If God truly wants the idols gone, He is free to knock them down Himself, as in the story of the Philistines and Dagon and such. Humans shouldn't be necessary.

Jesus has always turned the other cheek.

Only physically. Verbally, on the other hand...

They are like our Christian YEC but more violent, the lack of reason and logic is ingrained/brainwashed in my opinion.

I respect their honesty, really. I feel Christian fanatics in the US are just as bad but are too lazy to do it, though with the rise of Trump's candidacy, they now feel free to do all the things they use to justify calling Muslims evil.

Jesus: Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone opens to me, I will come in...

Muhammed: Behold I stand at the door and knock. If no one answers, I will break it down and come in anyway.

Jesus: I will come like a thief in the night. If you are not prepared for me, you will be destroyed....

As I said earlier, we must not confuse Jesus' lack of time to commit such acts as the same thing as not WANTING to...

Muhammad (saw) was able to establish peace and tranquility amongst a people who were well-removed from such a concept and at the same time, never attacked and harmed an innocent person. Neither, man, woman, or child.

How many people did Hitler PERSONALLY kill? I mean, I'm not of the opinion that the Prophet Muhammad cannot defend himself or his followers, but to see loads of violence (in defense or not) and call him peaceful is stretching the definition of peaceful to the snapping point.

[29:49] And thou didst not recite any Book before it, nor didst thou write one with thy right hand; in that case the liars would have doubted.

Why ignore his left hand?

 

[Corthos]

Technically henotheistic. True monotheism wasn't invented yet.

Hmmm... That's debatable...

 

[paarsurrey]

@gnostic friend.
Muhammad’s life at Mecca was model of a peaceful person

THE FAITHFUL PERSECUTED

Abu Dharr (ra), of the tribe of Ghaffar, heard of the Prophet(sa) and went to Mecca to investigate. The Meccans dissuaded him, saying that they knew Muhammad(sa) well and that his Movement was only a selfish design. Abu Dharr(ra) was not impressed; so he went to the Prophet(sa), heard the Message of Islam straight from him and was converted. Abu Dharr(ra) asked if he could keep his faith secret from his tribe. The Prophet (sa) said he could do so for a few days. But as he passed through the streets of Mecca he heard a party of Meccan chiefs abuse the Holy Prophet (sa) and make vile attacks. No longer could he keep his faith secret, and he declared at once: "I bear witness that there is no God but Allah, and that there is no one like Allah; and Muhammad (sa) is His Servant and Prophet (sa)." This cry raised in an assembly of disbelievers seemed to them an effrontery. They rose in wrath and belaboured him until he fell down senseless. The Prophet's (sa) uncle ‘Abbas (ra), not a convert yet, passed by and began to remonstrate on behalf of the victim. "Your food caravans pass through Abu Dharr's (ra) tribe," he said, "and angered at your treatment, his people can starve you to death.".
Page-16
https://www.alislam.org/library/books/Life-of-Muhammad.pdf

One could see that the Meccans persecuted,tortured and killed Muslims and did not allow the right of freedom of religion, right of freedom of speech, right of free thinking and all human rights were denied by them to Muslims.
Regards