paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Did or didn’t they believe in Freedom of Religion?
Comments are welcome whether one believes in a religion or no religion.
Regards
Comments are welcome whether one believes in a religion or no religion.
Regards
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why did the Meccans, Roman and Persian Emperors oppose Muhammad?
- Thread starter paarsurrey
- Start date
Gnostic Seeker
Spiritual
Because Muhammad opposed them as the ruling power. He went against the pagan leaders of Mecca, even though they held the reigns of power, as agreed by both the Byzantine and Persian establishment. The pagan leaders of Mecca as I understand it- invited Muhammad to debate with them about his new religion of Islam, and he wouldn't do so. Instead the Quran says not to dispute about your religion with polytheists, etc.
gnostic
The Lost One
Actually, there is no evidences to support either Byzantine or Persian emperors knowing anything about Muhammad or of him being a "prophet".
So how could they possibly oppose him?
There is a myth and Muslim propaganda that the Byzantine emperor had Muhammad's emissary murdered, the reason for the Battle of Mu'tah (629).
No such muder was ever committed by the Byzantines. The murder was possibly by a Ghassanid chief. We don't know if such murder took place, for we only have muslim sources about emissary's murder.
The Ghassanids were ally with the Byzantines, in previous battles against Persia.
According to Byzantine source, Muslims attacked the Ghassanids without provocation, so the Byzantines aided them against the Muslims.
To me, it sounded like the Muslim Arabs wanted to invade territory of pagan Arabs who were living in Byzantine protection, so it was Muhammad who was the aggressor against the Byzantines, not the other way around.
It is most likely the reason why Muhammad wanted to invade Syria, because of his defeat in Mu'tah, as retaliation against the Byzantine empire, but this invasion didn't take place till after Muhammad's death.
According to Muslim sources, Heraclius (Byzantine emperor) himself gathered an army to meet the Muslim attack, which is utterly ridiculous. Heraclius himself was never involved in this battle, and he certainly couldn't travel from Byzantium to Mu'tah in matter of days, unless he Heraclius and his army rode in the back of Buraq and flew there.
And the Muslim historians always exaggerated the enemy's numbers. There is no way for a local Byzantine vicarius can gather 200,000 men in such a short time.
Muhammad and Muslims always provided one-sided, and often exaggerated story to any war they were involved in. That's why I dont trust Muslim sources.
So how could they possibly oppose him?
There is a myth and Muslim propaganda that the Byzantine emperor had Muhammad's emissary murdered, the reason for the Battle of Mu'tah (629).
No such muder was ever committed by the Byzantines. The murder was possibly by a Ghassanid chief. We don't know if such murder took place, for we only have muslim sources about emissary's murder.
The Ghassanids were ally with the Byzantines, in previous battles against Persia.
According to Byzantine source, Muslims attacked the Ghassanids without provocation, so the Byzantines aided them against the Muslims.
To me, it sounded like the Muslim Arabs wanted to invade territory of pagan Arabs who were living in Byzantine protection, so it was Muhammad who was the aggressor against the Byzantines, not the other way around.
It is most likely the reason why Muhammad wanted to invade Syria, because of his defeat in Mu'tah, as retaliation against the Byzantine empire, but this invasion didn't take place till after Muhammad's death.
According to Muslim sources, Heraclius (Byzantine emperor) himself gathered an army to meet the Muslim attack, which is utterly ridiculous. Heraclius himself was never involved in this battle, and he certainly couldn't travel from Byzantium to Mu'tah in matter of days, unless he Heraclius and his army rode in the back of Buraq and flew there.
And the Muslim historians always exaggerated the enemy's numbers. There is no way for a local Byzantine vicarius can gather 200,000 men in such a short time.
Muhammad and Muslims always provided one-sided, and often exaggerated story to any war they were involved in. That's why I dont trust Muslim sources.
Last edited:
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Please provide your sources and their authenticity where Muhammad provided one-sided, and often exaggerated to any war he was involved in.
Regards
Hang on a moment...are you claiming there was no exaggeration in any war information provided in the Quran?
Pretty much ALL military figures provided from that period are hyperbolic and exaggerated by victors, so I'm not intending to pick on the Quran here, it's just a claim I had not directly heard before.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Exactly. Please quote with reference just one repeat ONE such instance from Quran.
Regards
It's not something I've ever studied, just an assumption based on other references from the same period. I'll have a hunt around and get back to you.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Um, don't waste a lot of time on this one Lewisnotmiller. Paarsurrey has specifically zeroed in one any portrayals as given in the Qur'an. You are not likely to find anything, from the era, that is at variance with the Qur'an. There is a very good reason for this and I'll leave it to you to figure out why that is.
Um, don't waste a lot of time on this one Lewisnotmiller. Paarsurrey has specifically zeroed in one any portrayals as given in the Qur'an. You are not likely to find anything, from the era, that is at variance with the Qur'an. There is a very good reason for this and I'll leave it to you to figure out why that is.
You're not suggesting the victor writes the history, are ya, YmirGF?
In truth, it's generally easier to disprove historical military records through logistical calculations than through source comparisons when talking as far back as this. Might not be possible in this case, since it would depend on specific claims, which holy books generally steer clear of, but I'll have a look. Paarsurrey has me interested, to be honest.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Um, don't waste a lot of time on this one Lewisnotmiller. Paarsurrey has specifically zeroed in one any portrayals as given in the Qur'an. You are not likely to find anything, from the era, that is at variance with the Qur'an. There is a very good reason for this and I'll leave it to you to figure out why that is.
You know English is not my mother tongue. I don't get you as to what you mean by the phrase colored by me in magenta.
Please elaborate in easy English.
Regards
gnostic
The Lost One
paarsurrey said:
Why should I always give you a source, when you don't provide one yourself?
When I provide one, you also tends to dismiss it, make excuses of being relevant, like the last time you said it is not contemporary. I am quite sick of your excuses and evasiveness.
But I will provide ones regardless, whether you provide one yourself.
The main Muslim sources about Muhammad and his so-called "battles", come from al-Waqidi (748 - 822) in Kitab al-Tarikh wa al-Maghazi ("Book of History and Campaigns"). There are other sources, written by Muslims.
A lot of his details, conflict with that of Byzantine source - Theophanes (c 758 - c 817) - who wrote the Chronicle.
I have already listed Muslim sources being exaggeration -
- Heraclius killing Muslim emissary sent by Muhammad.
- The Byzantines numbered 200,000 men in battle.
- Heraclius gather that army of that size, and went to Mu'tah. (Heraclius never led an army in Mu'tah.)
Beside all that, Heraclius had defeated the Persians 2 years earlier in the Battle of Nineveh (627), but it was very costly battle, so I doubted that Heraclius could muster 100,000 men let alone 200,000 men, to fight a few thousand Muslim Arabs.
Look them up yourself.
Do you care to cite a single Muslim source (more if you can say about the battle) to state otherwise?
Last edited:
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
It contains a typo and should read "Paarsurrey has specifically zeroed in on any portrayals as given in the Qur'an." What that means is that you referred to the Qur'an, no other sources, for the source text. My comment to lewisnotmiller was to give him an idea that you had narrowed the possibilities. My point to him, especially since virtually no non-Muslims wrote about the rise of Islam - at the time - that he is unlikely to find anything at variance to what is in the Qur'an.
Flankerl
Well-Known Member
Same reason the Islamic Caliphate opposed Genghis Khan Son of the Heaven and his successors.
The Mongol Empire just demanded subjugation as client states.
And what did the Muslims do? Behead the Mongol emissary.
What did the Muslims get for that? Burned cities as far as the eye could see.
And then the big shock: There was complete religious freedom in the Mongol Empire, something which Muslim countries don't even achieve some 800 years later.
Tells you something...
The Mongol Empire just demanded subjugation as client states.
And what did the Muslims do? Behead the Mongol emissary.
What did the Muslims get for that? Burned cities as far as the eye could see.
And then the big shock: There was complete religious freedom in the Mongol Empire, something which Muslim countries don't even achieve some 800 years later.
Tells you something...
gnostic
The Lost One
The Muslim empires and people were sore losers.flankerl said:
It seemed OK for them to conquer lands, introduce new law, tax people, make non-Muslims who don't convert into 2nd citizens, but when they themselves lose the wars and face the same measures of defeated people, they whine about it being unfair, and constantly rebelled against the superior invaders.
In fact, they are still doing it now. Israel won, and they constantly cause troubles.
Why is it right for them to rebel, when they lose, but are just as punitive against rebels as the Mongols, when they do win.
DawudTalut
Peace be upon you.
Due to potential threats to their typical power hungry mafia. (same conduct is being done to Ahmadiyya muslims these days).
Ethiopian king Najashi did not fear, on the other hand. He showed respect, because he was pious, may Allah bless him.
mahasn ebn sawresho
Well-Known Member
ThisconflictyouMuslims
You area new rangedo you explainthe Quranaccordingtoyour leader
And Muslims must decide in your faith or that they refuse you
This is notour problem
Because you agree with Muslims
In the Qur'an, and differ in mandate
You wantthe State toyour leader
You frdogodkm by force method
Otherwisewill notobtainwhatwanthim
mahasn ebn sawresho
Well-Known Member
Your thoughtsare correct
Theinvaderswillwritehistory pages
But the fact remains bright
When Islam came the Persian and Roman revolves in case of weakness and confusion
This enables the Bedouin from desert achieved some victories
These victories were in the Roman colonies
And also within the Persian Empire
Therefore, the Romans lost some colonies, but did not fight for this reason
Thathelpedthe Arab conquest
To Syria, Iraq and Egypt
Is thatthe Romanswere thecolonial power
When the Muslims came to think of the inhabitants of those territories they have editors
Therefore cooperated with the Muslims
But after a short time back in Islamic colonialism
The aabdaih change the geography of population
Gradually
Not at one time
ThealggharaketpopulationinIraqprovemy wordsmypresent
Because even the beginnings of the 19th century was the vast areas of Iraq free of Islamic presence
TheIslamicpresenceinthe Muslim ruler
And the tribute from the country and steal its blessings
But during the last century broke down those areas because many factors
The most recent was the collapse of Christianity from the last bastion of Mosul city alarkia and the expulsion of Christians from final
So there arestagesinthe spread of Islam
And also inflate the truth of Islam
And clarify that great empires were defeated before the Muslims
But these empires left the colonies
And delivered to the Muslim invaders
Shad
Veteran Member
Byzantium did not embrace any sort of freedom of religion concept we hold in modern times. It had various forms of religious tolerance up to a point. If a religious group became a military movement or a destabilizing factor it was considered a threat. However Heraclius, the Emperor at the time, was not as tolerant. Given the wars against Persia before his reign along with his victory he triggered period of Christian resurgence. State propaganda used the Alexander Legend as part of his victory over the East. Persia was forced accept tolerance of Christianity which would have been a boon in the eye's of religious authority(s). The Holy Cross was restored to Jerusalem as well. Such events can easily become a theological driven narrative history rather than a secular driven view dominate today. With the removal of this external threat to the Empire internal issues came to the forefront. There was the Monophyistism movement in the border areas which was an issue before the war. Syria, the Levant and Egypt had been occupied by Persia so Byzantium had nominal control at best. Given the above there is no reason to assume Heraclius would have even entertained the idea of Islam as credible. He had larger issues than a minor power rising in Arabia. Given his surprise at Umar's invasion of Syria in the following years he never took Islam seriously at this point. The Ghassanids were close allies of Heraclius following the wars, they also had no reason to accept the claims of a new prophet. They directly profited by the Persian Wars. They were paid well, gained land and were given an Imperial rank which gave the tribe overlord status overall Arab client tribes. If the tribes in Arabia had renewed treaties with Byzantium they would have been subjects of the Ghassanids. Islam would have been a direct challenge to the tribe's status.
The same reasons can be seen for those that reject the Ahmadiyya sect which you are a member of unless I am mistaken. Many are not convinced by claims put forward. Those with vested interest will protect this interest. Those that are prone to violence as a method of preserving said interest will do so. Human nature and corrupting influence of power.
Last edited:
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Actually the Ottoman empire mostly let localities freely practice and enforce their own religions. Of course there was taxation, tribute, and some rules that restricted some religious practices, but overall the Ottoman Empire was far more tolerant than many contemporary Islamic states/societies.