Why did the Meccans, Roman and Persian Emperors oppose Muhammad?

[lewisnotmiller]

Exactly. Please quote with reference just one repeat ONE such instance from Quran.
Regards

Hey, if the limitation is that the reference is from the Quran itself (rather than hadiths, etc) then I doubt there is any easily provable exaggerations about battles. I'm obviously not touching the issue of angels.
This isn't particularly informative, though, since there are very limited battle descriptions in the book, and nothing with any sort of logistical information allowing accurate measurement against estimates.

I might be missing something, that's based on about half hours effort only...lol

I could extend my search outside the Quran, but would only do so if I had a clear idea what you'd accept as a legitimate Islamic source.

 

[paarsurrey]

Hey, if the limitation is that the reference is from the Quran itself (rather than hadiths, etc) then I doubt there is any easily provable exaggerations about battles. I'm obviously not touching the issue of angels.
This isn't particularly informative, though, since there are very limited battle descriptions in the book, and nothing with any sort of logistical information allowing accurate measurement against estimates.

I might be missing something, that's based on about half hours effort only...lol

I could extend my search outside the Quran, but would only do so if I had a clear idea what you'd accept as a legitimate Islamic source.

Quran is the only source that existed in the time of Muhammad, other writings came 250/300 years after him, they are to be rejected if they state something that differs with Quran.

Thanks for your effort.

Regards

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Quran is the only source that existed in the time of Muhammad, other writings came 250/300 years after him, they are to be rejected if they state something that differs with Quran.

Thanks for your effort.

Regards

Well...not sure they'd say something different.
Thing is, the Quran doesn't say much in terms of detail about Badr (for example). If a hadith had more detail (and I don't know if they do) would you accept that?

 

[gnostic]

The Qur'an was written by half-wit imbecile. There is nothing about the Qur'an to show any intelligence, just ego of power-hungry small-man (Muhammad).

I don't know how anyone can be fooled by poorly written con-job.

 

[paarsurrey]

Well...not sure they'd say something different.
Thing is, the Quran doesn't say much in terms of detail about Badr (for example). If a hadith had more detail (and I don't know if they do) would you accept that?

If some specific point in the detail differs with Quran,only that point will be rejected. It is not only for Hadith, it is good for any-other supporting or non-supporting discipline of knowledge (Torah,Gospels, History etc).

Regards

 

[Shad]

If some specific point in the detail differs with Quran,only that point will be rejected. It is not only for Hadith, it is good for any-other supporting or non-supporting discipline of knowledge (Torah,Gospels, History etc).

Regards

That is not how history works. You do not get to declare which text is correct then use it as comparison. You must establish if each text is acceptable or not. Also you have to keep in mind it is Islamic tradition that the Quran was unified text. A tradition which started 2 to 3 centuries after the events of the Quran and this topic. The fact is Islamic tradition is unreliable as a written tradition in Islam's first centuries. Oral tradition has a record of being unreliable. Byzantium on the other hand had centuries of written traditions which make it sources a little more reliable. There is also the fact that Islamic history is often from a theological view with a theological purpose over that of history. You are also cherry picking Hadith while ignoring the system of transmission Muslims used to authentic Hadith. You are in no position to dictate what is acceptable or not nor to overthrow the Science of Hadith. You only highlight the issue of looking at history through the lens of religion. Your bias is present and you only reinforce this bias rather than challenging it. However since challenging your bias means challenging your religious views you will be unable to do so. This makes your input on history useless.

 

[paarsurrey]

That is not how history works. You do not get to declare which text is correct then use it as comparison. You must establish if each text is acceptable or not. Also you have to keep in mind it is Islamic tradition that the Quran was unified text. A tradition which started 2 to 3 centuries after the events of the Quran and this topic. The fact is Islamic tradition is unreliable as a written tradition in Islam's first centuries. Oral tradition has a record of being unreliable. Byzantium on the other hand had centuries of written traditions which make it sources a little more reliable. There is also the fact that Islamic history is often from a theological view with a theological purpose over that of history. You are also cherry picking Hadith while ignoring the system of transmission Muslims used to authentic Hadith. You are in no position to dictate what is acceptable or not nor to overthrow the Science of Hadith. You only highlight the issue of looking at history through the lens of religion. Your bias is present and you only reinforce this bias rather than challenging it. However since challenging your bias means challenging your religious views you will be unable to do so. This makes your input on history useless.

I am not giving any input on History. I am not a Historian. I am just ascertaining and explaining the truth of the events that happened . Quran describes the events that happened to Muhammad with 100% accuracy, history is never that accurate.

Muhammad was a truthful and peaceful person appointed a prophet/messenger by G-d, the world should have accepted him as such. The Meccans opposed Muhammad all through the 13 years he spent in Mecca after declaration of his prophet-hood. He should have been accepted by Meccans and allowed right of freedom of religion, right of freedom of speech, freedom of opinion and right of freedom of procession etc as is admissible to any person. Why deny Muhammad the human rights?

Regards

 

[Shad]

I am not giving any input on History. I am not a Historian. I am just ascertaining and explaining the truth of the events that happened . Quran describes the events that happened to Muhammad with 100% accuracy, history is never that accurate.

Muhammad was a truthful and peaceful person appointed a prophet/messenger by G-d, the world should have accepted him as such. The Meccan opposed Muhammad all through the 13 years he spent in Mecca after declaration of his prophet-hood. He should have been accepted by Meccans and allowed right of freedom of religion, right of freedom of speech, freedom of opinion and right of freedom of procession etc as is admissible to any person. Why deny Muhammad the human rights?

Regards

You are presenting what you think is history. You are taking a role of a historian by claiming which sources are valid or not. Since you admit to not being a trained historian yourself this is just you presenting your bias. The rest of your response is religious rhetoric made 2 to 3 centuries after Islam started. It has no bearing on this thread and is useless. You need your 2 to 3 century old tradition, which you dismissed earlier to even say the Quran is accurate, that the prophet is truthful or peaceful. You are cherry picking what you consider fact or not. Heck even modern secular Islamic scholarship disagrees with you these days. However such is life for one that lives by an ideology first and foremost. The ideology is more important than anything else.

 

[paarsurrey]

You are presenting what you think is history. You are taking a role of a historian by claiming which sources are valid or not. Since you admit to not being a trained historian yourself this is just you presenting your bias. The rest of your response is religious rhetoric made 2 to 3 centuries after Islam started. It has no bearing on this thread and is useless. You need your 2 to 3 century old tradition, which you dismissed earlier to even say the Quran is accurate, that the prophet is truthful or peaceful. You are cherry picking what you consider fact or not. Heck even modern secular Islamic scholarship disagrees with you these days. However such is life for one that lives by an ideology first and foremost. The ideology is more important than anything else.

I never said that I am writing history.
I just mention that Quran gives 100% accurate account of events that happened to Muhammad. History is not 100% accurate and for events happened to Muhammad it certainly is not.

I will happily use and support all the knowledge sources available in sciences, arts, religions etc,to the extent they don't differ with Quran.

Why should one leave the 100% accurate and absolute Knowledge source to less accurate and relative sources?

Regards

 

[gnostic]

I am not giving any input on History. I am not a Historian. I am just ascertaining and explaining the truth of the events that happened . Quran describes the events that happened to Muhammad with 100% accuracy, history is never that accurate.

Islamic traditions - both the Qur'an and hadiths are also poorest sources, to narrate any event that supposedly took place about any prophet, including that of Muhammad.

If you're going to talk of events that happened to Muhammad as being "accurate", then you are talking of history. OTHERWISE, if it isn't history, then it is myth or fiction.

There is no 3rd option, paarsurrey. Either it is myth or history.

You can't redefine history or accuracy, differently to actual definitions of history and accuracy, to suit your personal agenda.

I am really sick of both Muslims and Christians, who tried to redefine word's definitions to suit their respective personal agendas.

You previously posted that the Qur'an is not history book, and I do agree with you in that. That because I viewed the Qur'an as a myth, including what the Qur'an write about Muhammad, myths created by Muhammad himself and his followers. That's because the Qur'an is not accurate about anything.

The Qur'an are even worse than Torah or the gospels when in come to recording events.

I have read the Qur'an from the cover to cover, and I found the scriptures to be terribly disorganised, and tends to exaggerate events.

 

[gnostic]

The Qur'an is an utter joke when it come to accuracy.

The Qur'an is full of myths and pseudo-history. It is even less reliable than the gospels.

 

[paarsurrey]

1. 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.
2. If a religious group became a military movement or a destabilizing factor it was considered a threat.
3. However Heraclius, the Emperor at the time, was not as tolerant.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Syria, the Levant and Egypt had been occupied by Persia so Byzantium had nominal control at best.
8. Given the above there is no reason to assume Heraclius would have even entertained the idea of Islam as credible.
9. 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.
10. The Ghassanids were close allies of Heraclius following the wars, they also had no reason to accept the claims of a new prophet.
11. 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.
12. 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.

Thanks for the points. I have numbered them for further discussion.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

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...

Genghis Khan

Did Genghis Khan claim to be a prophet/messenger of G-d like Moses or Jesus? Please

Regards

 

[gnostic]

Did Genghis Khan claim to be a prophet/messenger of G-d like Moses or Jesus? Please

You quoted Flankerl's reply, but only focus on just one name - Genghis Khan - and not on the context of Flankerl's post.

No, Khan didn't claim to be a prophet. You are attacking strawman. When did Flankerl ever brought up Moses or Jesus. And Flankerl is Jewish, so I doubt very much that he or she would even consider Jesus to be a prophet, let alone Muhammad.

Flankerl wrote about the Islamic caliphates, not about Muhammad or about any other prophets. And the similarities between Genghis Khan and that of the caliphates (or even Muhammad, my view, not Flankerl's) is that they went to war over the death of an emissary.

I'd suggest that you re-read what Flankerl was actually writing about, instead of attacking strawman. Stop trying to change subject, paarsurrey!

My view, not Flankerl's, is that Muhammad invaded Byzantine territory and attacked Byzantine ally - the Ghassanids - over the death of a emissary. So Muhammad was actually the one who was the aggressor, not the Byzantine emperor.

 

[Flankerl]

Did Genghis Khan claim to be a prophet/messenger of G-d like Moses or Jesus? Please

Regards

"I have not become Lord thanks to my own bravery and strength, I have become Lord thanks to the love of our mighty father Tengri. I have defeated my enemies thanks to the assistance of our father Tengri. I have not become Khan thanks to my own all-embracing prowess. I have become Lord thanks to the love of our father Khan Tengri. I have defeated alien enemies thanks to the mercy of our father Khan Tengri."

Tengrism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


But then again you see everything out of an Islamic POV and will completely ignore how Tengrism worked.

 

[paarsurrey]

"I have not become Lord thanks to my own bravery and strength, I have become Lord thanks to the love of our mighty father Tengri. I have defeated my enemies thanks to the assistance of our father Tengri. I have not become Khan thanks to my own all-embracing prowess. I have become Lord thanks to the love of our father Khan Tengri. I have defeated alien enemies thanks to the mercy of our father Khan Tengri."

Tengrism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


But then again you see everything out of an Islamic POV and will completely ignore how Tengrism worked.

You get me wrong.
I like the following from the Wikipedia link:

“We believe that there is only one God, by whom we live and by whom we die, and for whom we have an upright heart. But as God gives us the different fingers of the hand, so he gives to men diverse ways to approach Him.”

Do they have some scripture given by G-d?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

You quoted Flankerl's reply, but only focus on just one name - Genghis Khan - and not on the context of Flankerl's post.

No, Khan didn't claim to be a prophet. You are attacking strawman. When did Flankerl ever brought up Moses or Jesus. And Flankerl is Jewish, so I doubt very much that he or she would even consider Jesus to be a prophet, let alone Muhammad.

Flankerl wrote about the Islamic caliphates, not about Muhammad or about any other prophets. And the similarities between Genghis Khan and that of the caliphates (or even Muhammad, my view, not Flankerl's) is that they went to war over the death of an emissary.

I'd suggest that you re-read what Flankerl was actually writing about, instead of attacking strawman. Stop trying to change subject, paarsurrey!

My view, not Flankerl's, is that Muhammad invaded Byzantine territory and attacked Byzantine ally - the Ghassanids - over the death of a emissary. So Muhammad was actually the one who was the aggressor, not the Byzantine emperor.

Moses or Jesus

Flankerl believes in Moses and I mentioned "or".

I liked Flankerl's response, nevertheless.

Regards

 

[Harikrish]

I never said that I am writing history.
I just mention that Quran gives 100% accurate account of events that happened to Muhammad. History is not 100% accurate and for events happened to Muhammad it certainly is not.

I will happily use and support all the knowledge sources available in sciences, arts, religions etc,to the extent they don't differ with Quran.

Why should one leave the 100% accurate and absolute Knowledge source to less accurate and relative sources?

Regards

When you are talking about events that happened in the past you are talking about its chronological and historical significance.

You cannot use the Quran to learn to perform heart surgery, you cannot use the Quran to learn calculus. You cannot use the Quran as a substitute for science classes. The Quran is the creation of an illiterate Arab who claims the angel Gabriel spoke to him in a cave. It is the recitation of this imagined conversation.

How can it be from God when the language is distinctive Arabic. Islam advocates a justice system that is barbaric and primitive and banned in civilized countries.

The prophet Mohammad was a camel trader. His worldview was the oppression, suppression of the poor and the fact he indulged in the slavery business exploiting the people he conquered makes Islam the religion he created designed to enslave the underprivileged. It is happening today. The countries with the highest Muslim population are the poorest. If you are looking for young girls under 6 go to a muslim country. If you are looking for young boys go to a Muslim country. If you don't want to see ugly women go to a Muslim country, there they cover their ugly faces not to offend tourists.

 

[Flankerl]

You get me wrong.
I like the following from the Wikipedia link:


Do they have some scripture given by G-d?

Regards

No that's not how Mongolian Shamanism works.

 

[Shad]

I never said that I am writing history.
I just mention that Quran gives 100% accurate account of events that happened to Muhammad. History is not 100% accurate and for events happened to Muhammad it certainly is not.

I will happily use and support all the knowledge sources available in sciences, arts, religions etc,to the extent they don't differ with Quran.

Why should one leave the 100% accurate and absolute Knowledge source to less accurate and relative sources?

Regards

It is your religious ideological view about the Quran. not that of history. You are invoking God into a subject which rejects the concept as a plausible historical significance. Religion plays a role but no honest history says "God did it" when it comes to looking at history. The subject was about history not the religion itself.

There are many issues with the Quran. For example the Quran talks about some of it's opponents are farmers. However Mecca has never had a history of agriculture so this makes no sense. Modern scholarship is starting to place Islam in Northern Arabic not the Hejaz for such reasons. The idea of Mecca and Medina as seems to have started during the Umayyad dynasty following it's civil war with the Zubayrid Caliph. The Zubayrid Caliph is the first mention of Mecca and Medina which is only absorbed by the Umayyad's after their victory. This is the first state level reference to Islam and the Prophet. It is highly suspicious that a state supposedly formed by this figure barely mentions him or his location until decades after the state formed during a time of civil war. It seems more like political and religious propaganda than anything else. Beside the Quran only mentions Mecca once and it is in a cryptic fashion. It is the later Islamic records which emphasize Mecca and Medina rather than the Quran itself. Modern scholarship is starting to drop the traditionalist view and looking at the tradition itself. Many are finding these traditions are not accurate history while many pieces of work are rationalizations and created narratives used to explain the Quran since the text itself lacks a proper environment context.