U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Islam
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 07-18-2016, 07:57 AM
 
2,050 posts, read 662,470 times
Reputation: 204

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Khalif View Post
Your understanding of the Qur'an (not Koran) is very poor. It is self-evident in your question about the day of the furqan. It was not the day of "salvation" نَجاة but the day of furqan يَوْمَ الْفُرْقَانِ (yawma alfurqani). The day when truth from falsehood was distinguished, the day was criterion on which truth of Muslims was distinguished from falsehood of the kuffar. The same way the Qur'an is criterion revealed with which to distinguish truth from falsehood and good from evil. The standard to distinguish is in God's revelations such as the Torah and the Qur'an. It is an attribute of the revelations. Perhaps it is a little too much above your understanding level.
What is the standard
Are there standards
(On a scale)
Such as the scale of a meter
The Kilo
Ton and
And Fahrenheit
You laugh at the people in the translation
Alfrckan the word independent
It is a view that the Quraish were wrong
Quraish were defending their honor and their money from thieves Muslims
Quraish was on the right
This balance of sharing different standard

 
Old 07-18-2016, 11:00 AM
 
3,167 posts, read 1,039,481 times
Reputation: 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by mahasn sawresho View Post
It is a view that the Quraish were wrong
Quraish were defending their honor and their money from thieves Muslims
Quraish was on the right
Your idol worshipping Quraish friends were wrong in expelling Muslims from Mecca and looting all their property in their homes in Mecca. Your friends were the thieves who began stealing from the Muslim homes soon after their hijrah to Madina.
 
Old 07-18-2016, 01:02 PM
 
1,601 posts, read 752,279 times
Reputation: 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khalif View Post
Your idol worshipping Quraish friends were wrong in expelling Muslims from Mecca and looting all their property in their homes in Mecca. Your friends were the thieves who began stealing from the Muslim homes soon after their hijrah to Madina.
Actually, it was Muhammed who was stealing from caravans. And it was Muhammed who made trouble in Mecca.

The Truth:

According to Muslim historians, the Meccans were actually quite tolerant of Muhammad preaching his new religion. Mecca was an open society where different religions were respected. Polytheists, Jews and Christians lived and worshipped side-by-side, especially during the holy months, when pagan pilgrims would travel long distances from beyond the city to perform their rituals at the Kaaba.

Muhammad brought on the resentment of the local people not by preaching Islam, but by breaking with Meccan tradition and cursing other religions:
When the apostle openly displayed Islam as Allah ordered him, his people did not withdraw or turn against him, so far as I have heard, until he spoke disparagingly of their gods. When he did that, they took great offence and resolved unanimously to treat him as an enemy. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 167), "[Muhammad] declared Islam publicly to his fellow tribesmen. When he did so, they did not withdraw from him or reject him in any way, as far as I have heard, until he spoke of their gods and denounced them." (al-Tabari Vol.VI, p.93)
Although asked to stop, Muhammad continued to stir up trouble by “condemning” the local religion, causing the Meccans great anxiety:
[The Meccans] said they had never known anything like the trouble they had endured from this fellow. He had declared their mode of life foolish, insulted their forefathers, reviled their religion, divided the community and cursed their gods (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 183)."We [the Meccans] have never seen the like of what we have endured from this man [Muhammad]. He has derided our traditional values, abused our forefathers, reviled our religion, caused division among us, and insulted our gods. We have endured a great deal from him." (al-Tabari, Vol.VI p.101)
Not only was this an insult to the people and their traditions, but it also threatened the local economy, which depended on the annual pilgrimage. Still, they were so eager to live at peace, that they offered Muhammad money if he would stop stirring up trouble:
They decided to send for Muhammad and to negotiate and argue with him... When he came and sat down with them, they explained that that they had sent for him in order that they could talk together. No Arab had ever treated his tribe as Muhammad had treated them, and they repeated the charges... If it was money he wanted, they would make him the richest of them all; if it was honor, he should be their prince; if it was sovereignty, they would make him king. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 188)
Further proof that the Meccans did not have a problem with Islam existing side-by-side with their own religion is found in the episode known as the Satanic Verses. According to Muslim historians, Muhammad briefly agreed to their demand to cease disparaging the local gods and recognize the rights of others to their religion:
When [the Meccans] heard that, they rejoiced. What he had said about their gods pleased and delighted them, and they gave ear to him… When he came to the prostration and finished the chapter, he prostrated and the Muslims followed their prophet in it, having faith in what he brought them and obeying his command. Those mushrikūn of Quraysh and others who were in the mosque also prostrated on account of what they had heard him say about their gods. In the whole mosque there was no believer or kāfir who did not prostrate. (al-Tabari, the Tarikh Vol. 1)
The Meccans were clearly relieved that the unprecedented tension over religious beliefs was broken. They rejoiced by praying alongside the Muslims at the Kaaba. They accepted the Muslims once Muhammad accepted them.

Unfortunately the period of peace and brotherhood was short-lived. Muhammad soon reneged on his words after his own people began to question the contradiction between his previous claims and his new-found tolerance for other faiths. This incident, particularly his about-face, had the effect of ratcheting up the tension and hostility all the more.

Myth: Muhammad was Persecuted for Preaching Islam
 
Old 07-18-2016, 01:03 PM
 
1,601 posts, read 752,279 times
Reputation: 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khalif View Post
Your idol worshipping Quraish friends were wrong in expelling Muslims from Mecca and looting all their property in their homes in Mecca. Your friends were the thieves who began stealing from the Muslim homes soon after their hijrah to Madina.
The Truth:

After his eviction by the Meccans, Muhammad and his Muslims found refuge many miles away in Medina where they were not being bothered by their former adversaries. Despite this, Muhammad sent his men on seven unsuccessful raids against Meccan caravans before finally finding one - whereupon they murdered the driver and plundered the contents. This particular caravan was especially vulnerable because the attack came during the holy months, when the merchants were least expecting it due to the generally agreed upon rule that the tribes of the area would not attack each other during that time:
[A Muslim raider] who had shaved his head, looked down on them [the Meccan caravan], and when they saw him they felt safe and said, "They are pilgrims, you have nothing to fear from them." (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 424)
The shaved head caused the Muslims to look like pilgrims rather than raiders, which instilled a false sense of security in the drivers. However, Islam was a different sort of religion than what the Meccans were used to:
[The Muslim raiders] encouraged each other, and decided to kill as many as they could of them and take what they had. Waqid shot Amr bin al-Hadrami with an arrow and killed him... (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 425)
According to Ibn Kathir, the Muslims living in Mecca did not dispute that their brethren in Medina had killed, captured and stolen from the Quraish, but they were reluctant to accept that this had occurred during the sacred months:
The Quraysh said that Muhammad and his Companions violated the sanctity of the Sacred Month and shed blood, confiscated property and took prisoners during it. Those who refuted them among the Muslims who remained in Makkah replied that the Muslims had done that during the month of Sha`ban (which is not a sacred month). (Ibn Kathir)
Faced with losing face by admitting his error, Muhammad went into his hut and emerged with a convenient and timely revelation "from Allah" that provided retroactive permission for the raid (and, of course sanctioned the stolen possessions for his own use):
They ask you concerning the sacred month about fighting in it. Say: Fighting in it is a grave matter, and hindering (men) from Allah's way and denying Him, and (hindering men from) the Sacred Mosque and turning its people out of it, are still graver with Allah, and persecution is graver than slaughter (Quran 2:217)
Notice that the Quran does not say that the Meccans were guilty of killing Muslims, only that they were "persecuting" them by preventing them from the 'sacred mosque' (the Kaaba). The killing of the Meccan driver by the Muslims was the first deadly encounter between the two adversaries. This is of acute embarrassment to contemporary Muslim apologists, who like to say that Islam is against killing for any reason other than self-defense.

For this reason, there has arisen the modern myth that the Muslims of that time were simply "taking back" what was theirs - rather than exacting revenge and stealing. Contemporary apologists like to say that Muhammad and his followers were basically robbed by the Meccans on their way out of town. (The 1976 movie, "The Message," perpetuates this misconception as well).

Apologists are somewhat vague as to how property theft justifies killing (particularly on the part of someone they otherwise like to portray as the paragon of virtue); nor do they attempt to explain how the particular victims of subsequent Muslim raids (usually the caravan drivers and laborers) were directly responsible for this supposed theft. This is the least of their problems, however. There is there no evidence to support the misconception that the Muslims were "taking back what was theirs"; in fact, it is specifically contradicted by the early historical record.

The event of the first attack on Meccan caravans is detailed quite well by Muhammad's biographer, Ibn Ishaq/Hisham, but nowhere does he mention the contents of the caravan as being Muslim property. In fact Ishaq explicitly describes the goods as belonging to the Meccans:
A caravan of Quraish carrying dry raisins and leather and other merchandise of Quraish passed by...” (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 424)
Note also that the cargo plundered from the caravan included raisins, which would have long since perished had they been from grapes grown and dried by the Muslim before they left Mecca nearly a full year earlier. Moreover, a fifth of the loot was given to Muhammad as war booty, which would not have been the case if it rightfully belonged to another Muslim (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 425).

Most of the Muslims living in Mecca had few assets to begin with, having been drawn largely from the lower rungs of the social ladder, but those who did would have had several years to liquidate their assets or transport them to a new location. As the instigator of the discord, Muhammad was the only Muslim literally forced to flee Mecca in the dead of night, but even his business affairs were sewn up on his behalf by Ali, his son-in-law:
Ali stayed in Mecca for three days and nights until he had restored the deposits which the apostle held. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 335)
So, if the Muslims at Medina weren't trying to recover stolen goods, why were they plundering Meccan caravans? Muhammad explains the real reason for the looting and the killing:
“If you have killed in the sacred month, they have kept you back from the way of Allah with their unbelief in Him, and from the sacred mosque, and have driven you from it when you were its people. This is a more serious matter with Allah then the killing of those of them whom you have slain. ‘And seduction is worse than killing.’ They used to seduce the Muslim in his religion until they made him return to unbelief after believing, and that is worse with Allah than killing.” (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 426)
Thus, the justification for killing the Meccans and stealing their goods is purely religious. The only thing stolen from the Muslims was their ability to enter the sacred mosque (ie. complete the Haj ritual at the Kaaba). The innocent caravan drivers were fair game for Muhammad’s deadly raids simply because Muslims felt “kept back from the way of Allah” by the “unbelief” of the Meccan leadership. This is all the more apparent by the next major episode in which Muhammad sent his men to plunder caravans, which precipitated the Battle of Badr:
When the Apostle heard about Abu Sufyan coming from Syria, he summoned the Muslims and said, “This is the Quraish caravan containing their property. Go out to attack it, perhaps Allah will give it as a prey.” (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 428)
In this case the Meccans were returning to Mecca from a business trip to Syria. Any goods they were carrying would have been purchased from the Syrians.

Over the next nine years, the principle source of income for Muslims was wealth forcibly extracted from others. The targets of misfortune expanded well beyond the Meccans. By the time Muhammad died, his men were finding excuse to raid and steal from many other Arab tribes, Jews and even Christians. Like the mafia, a protection racket gradually evolved where other tribes were allowed to live peacefully provided they paid tribute to Muslim rulers.

Myth: Muhammad Raided Caravans to Retrieve Stolen Property
 
Old 07-18-2016, 01:04 PM
 
1,601 posts, read 752,279 times
Reputation: 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khalif View Post
Your idol worshipping Quraish friends were wrong in expelling Muslims from Mecca and looting all their property in their homes in Mecca. Your friends were the thieves who began stealing from the Muslim homes soon after their hijrah to Madina.
"Our Prophet (peace be upon him) and his peope were constantly harassed and attacked by the polytheists after the hijra to Medina."

The Truth:

This myth owes its origin to the need Muslim apologists have to justify the more violent passages of the Quran’s second chapter, which was “revealed” shortly after Muhammad arrived in Medina following the hijra.

Passages from this chapter encourage believers to violence within the context of ending “tumult,” "oppression," and "persecution." Contemporary Muslim readers usually apply their personal definitions to these terms and assume that the Muslims in Medina must have been under attack at the time.

Unfortunately, what Muhammad meant by “persecution” is well-defined within the historical record, and it is quite different from the popular modern-day view. In fact, it was the Meccans who were generally acting in their own defense during this time.

Historians do not record any act of aggression by the Meccans against the Muslims during the time at which the second sura was narrated by Muhammad. There were no armies marching against them, nor any plans for such. The Meccans had no influence in this far-away town, and Muslims were not under persecution at the time by any stretch of the term as it is popularly understood today.

According to the sequence of events in the Sira (biography), the Meccans were quite content with leaving Muhammad alone following his eviction (even though he had made a pledge of war against them). Common sense also tells us that had the Muslims been under actual attack then it would not have been necessary to inspire them to war. If someone has broken into your home and is in the process of savaging your family, you do really need a formal command from Allah telling you to act in self-defense?

Muhammad's pride was hurting from his ouster, and his credibility as Allah's chosen messenger was damaged. He wanted revenge. He used "revelations" from Allah to redefine persecution in order to convince his followers that they were under it. He wanted them to believe that the mere fact that the Meccans had evicted him from to Medina and prevented a return was grounds for marching back with a vengeful army (ie. 2:193 – “persecution is worse than slaughter”).

But it was entirely reasonable for the Meccans to evict Muhammad and prevent his return. In the first place, the prophet of Islam had declared himself to be an armed revolutionary against them. What town would invite a sworn enemy back within its own gates? (Indeed, the Meccans were foolish enough to do exactly that a few years later and paid for it with the loss of their city and way of life).

The second reason that the Meccans did not want Muhammad anywhere near their town was that Islam was intolerant of other faiths and demanded sole possession of the Kaaba, the common worship area. In other words, it wasn’t that the Meccans had a problem with Muslims circling the Kaaba, it was that Muslims wanted to bar everyone else from doing so. This is confirmed in the Quran (Sura 9:18-19), which ordered the eviction of anyone at Mecca who refused to convert to Islam following the city's capture by Muhammad in 630.

Against this reality, the words of Sura 2 take on a different meaning:
“And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers… And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah (Sura 2:191, 193)
Although apologists are fond of claiming that this passage is limited to matters of self-defense, the actual historical context firmly contradicts this. Instead the verse is a justification for aggression in the cause of advancing Islamic rule.As we have pointed out, Muhammad and his Muslims were not under attack by the Meccans. They were not being slaughtered, hence the obvious distinction in the verse between “persecution” and slaughter.

“Persecution” thus means that Muslims living 300 miles away in Medina were simply barred from visiting Mecca and thus entering the “sacred mosque” (the Kaaba). Muhammad was trying to convince his people that this (non-lethal) policy was justification for attacking and slaughtering the Meccans in the name of religion.

[Note: There is evidence from the Sira that Muslims were allowed to conduct pilgrimages from Medina during these years - with the exception of Muhammad. This makes the justification for warfare all the thinner.]

The only possible reason for marching on Mecca at the time would have been to capture the Kaaba and evict the pagans (note "until religion is for Allah". Within its true context, the passage is therefore a manifesto for aggressive warfare against the Meccans, not a case of the Muslims being under real persecution so many miles away.

There is obvious irony in the fact that the “persecution” spoken of by Muhammad in this verse (to justify slaughter) is exactly the same sort of persecution that the Muslims were planning to impose on their adversaries… and did. To this day, anyone who is non-Muslim is forbidden to enter the city of Mecca merely on that basis.

Additional Notes:

Chronology according to Muslim historians:

There is absolutely no record of Meccan aggression against the Muslims at Medina in the first three years after their arrival in 622.

Muhammad ordered the first raids against the Meccans a year after the hijra in February of 623, which eventually proved deadly. There is no record of Meccan aggression during this time.

Word of an impending Muslim attack on a particularly rich caravan, prompted the Meccans to send an army out in defense, where they were goaded into battle and routed by the Muslims at Badr in March of 624.

The Meccans avenged their loss at Badr (and the hostages that were cruelly executed by Muhammad) by routing the Muslims at Uhud, near Medina, in March of 625. If their ultimate objective had been to kill Muhammad and his followers, then they surely would have invaded the defenseless city and defeated them. They obviously did not have any interest in doing this.

Muhammad behaved himself with the Meccans for one year, choosing to support himself instead by evicting local Jewish tribes and confiscating their property. Then he began attacking caravans in April of 626.

After a year of renewed Muslim aggression, the Meccans responded by sending an army to Medina a year later in April of 627, where they failed in a siege that is known as the 'Battle of the Trench.'

As can be seen, the historical record provides absolutely no evidence that the Muslims were being oppressed or threatened in any way by the Meccans, and fully supports the view that it was the latter who were acting in self-defense. The Meccans had no interest in Muhammad and simply wanted to live in peace and pursue their commerce. At each turn, the prophet of Islam unnecessarily harassed them with deadly and provocative actions that eventually forced battles on several occasions.

Myth: The Muslims were Persecuted at Medina
 
Old 07-18-2016, 11:59 PM
 
2,050 posts, read 662,470 times
Reputation: 204
Quote:
Originally Posted by juju33312 View Post
"Our Prophet (peace be upon him) and his peope were constantly harassed and attacked by the polytheists after the hijra to Medina."

The Truth:

This myth owes its origin to the need Muslim apologists have to justify the more violent passages of the Quran’s second chapter, which was “revealed” shortly after Muhammad arrived in Medina following the hijra.

Passages from this chapter encourage believers to violence within the context of ending “tumult,” "oppression," and "persecution." Contemporary Muslim readers usually apply their personal definitions to these terms and assume that the Muslims in Medina must have been under attack at the time.

Unfortunately, what Muhammad meant by “persecution” is well-defined within the historical record, and it is quite different from the popular modern-day view. In fact, it was the Meccans who were generally acting in their own defense during this time.

Historians do not record any act of aggression by the Meccans against the Muslims during the time at which the second sura was narrated by Muhammad. There were no armies marching against them, nor any plans for such. The Meccans had no influence in this far-away town, and Muslims were not under persecution at the time by any stretch of the term as it is popularly understood today.

According to the sequence of events in the Sira (biography), the Meccans were quite content with leaving Muhammad alone following his eviction (even though he had made a pledge of war against them). Common sense also tells us that had the Muslims been under actual attack then it would not have been necessary to inspire them to war. If someone has broken into your home and is in the process of savaging your family, you do really need a formal command from Allah telling you to act in self-defense?

Muhammad's pride was hurting from his ouster, and his credibility as Allah's chosen messenger was damaged. He wanted revenge. He used "revelations" from Allah to redefine persecution in order to convince his followers that they were under it. He wanted them to believe that the mere fact that the Meccans had evicted him from to Medina and prevented a return was grounds for marching back with a vengeful army (ie. 2:193 – “persecution is worse than slaughter”).

But it was entirely reasonable for the Meccans to evict Muhammad and prevent his return. In the first place, the prophet of Islam had declared himself to be an armed revolutionary against them. What town would invite a sworn enemy back within its own gates? (Indeed, the Meccans were foolish enough to do exactly that a few years later and paid for it with the loss of their city and way of life).

The second reason that the Meccans did not want Muhammad anywhere near their town was that Islam was intolerant of other faiths and demanded sole possession of the Kaaba, the common worship area. In other words, it wasn’t that the Meccans had a problem with Muslims circling the Kaaba, it was that Muslims wanted to bar everyone else from doing so. This is confirmed in the Quran (Sura 9:18-19), which ordered the eviction of anyone at Mecca who refused to convert to Islam following the city's capture by Muhammad in 630.

Against this reality, the words of Sura 2 take on a different meaning:
“And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers… And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah (Sura 2:191, 193)
Although apologists are fond of claiming that this passage is limited to matters of self-defense, the actual historical context firmly contradicts this. Instead the verse is a justification for aggression in the cause of advancing Islamic rule.As we have pointed out, Muhammad and his Muslims were not under attack by the Meccans. They were not being slaughtered, hence the obvious distinction in the verse between “persecution” and slaughter.

“Persecution” thus means that Muslims living 300 miles away in Medina were simply barred from visiting Mecca and thus entering the “sacred mosque” (the Kaaba). Muhammad was trying to convince his people that this (non-lethal) policy was justification for attacking and slaughtering the Meccans in the name of religion.

[Note: There is evidence from the Sira that Muslims were allowed to conduct pilgrimages from Medina during these years - with the exception of Muhammad. This makes the justification for warfare all the thinner.]

The only possible reason for marching on Mecca at the time would have been to capture the Kaaba and evict the pagans (note "until religion is for Allah". Within its true context, the passage is therefore a manifesto for aggressive warfare against the Meccans, not a case of the Muslims being under real persecution so many miles away.

There is obvious irony in the fact that the “persecution” spoken of by Muhammad in this verse (to justify slaughter) is exactly the same sort of persecution that the Muslims were planning to impose on their adversaries… and did. To this day, anyone who is non-Muslim is forbidden to enter the city of Mecca merely on that basis.

Additional Notes:

Chronology according to Muslim historians:

There is absolutely no record of Meccan aggression against the Muslims at Medina in the first three years after their arrival in 622.

Muhammad ordered the first raids against the Meccans a year after the hijra in February of 623, which eventually proved deadly. There is no record of Meccan aggression during this time.

Word of an impending Muslim attack on a particularly rich caravan, prompted the Meccans to send an army out in defense, where they were goaded into battle and routed by the Muslims at Badr in March of 624.

The Meccans avenged their loss at Badr (and the hostages that were cruelly executed by Muhammad) by routing the Muslims at Uhud, near Medina, in March of 625. If their ultimate objective had been to kill Muhammad and his followers, then they surely would have invaded the defenseless city and defeated them. They obviously did not have any interest in doing this.

Muhammad behaved himself with the Meccans for one year, choosing to support himself instead by evicting local Jewish tribes and confiscating their property. Then he began attacking caravans in April of 626.

After a year of renewed Muslim aggression, the Meccans responded by sending an army to Medina a year later in April of 627, where they failed in a siege that is known as the 'Battle of the Trench.'

As can be seen, the historical record provides absolutely no evidence that the Muslims were being oppressed or threatened in any way by the Meccans, and fully supports the view that it was the latter who were acting in self-defense. The Meccans had no interest in Muhammad and simply wanted to live in peace and pursue their commerce. At each turn, the prophet of Islam unnecessarily harassed them with deadly and provocative actions that eventually forced battles on several occasions.

Myth: The Muslims were Persecuted at Medina
Thank you for this wonderful information
Because it contributes to the dissemination of correct thought
All Muslims believe in and they believe that Muhammad was a persecutor
While the fact that Muhammad was Mnzoja of Khadija, one of the masters of Quraish
The uncle of the masters of Quraish was his uncle's son TOEFL clerics Alnnssary
Quraish was gracious with Mohammed

After the death of Khadija
And his uncle Abu Talib and his cousin Ibn Nawfal
Protection has become to him a few
For these emigrated to Madinah
Including the descent of disease states and fighting his battles on his own tribe and uncles

For this reason, I believe that the Quraysh were superior to Muhammad
Because she did not kill captives
While Mohammed his orders from God to kill prisoners
So Ivavh deployment task so that the Muslims know they can not afford to falsifying the facts of history
 
Old 07-19-2016, 01:24 AM
 
3,167 posts, read 1,039,481 times
Reputation: 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by mahasn sawresho View Post
Thank you for this wonderful information
Because it contributes to the dissemination of correct thought
All Muslims believe in and they believe that Muhammad was a persecutor
While the fact that Muhammad was Mnzoja of Khadija, one of the masters of Quraish
The uncle of the masters of Quraish was his uncle's son TOEFL clerics Alnnssary
Quraish was gracious with Mohammed

After the death of Khadija
And his uncle Abu Talib and his cousin Ibn Nawfal
Protection has become to him a few
For these emigrated to Madinah
Including the descent of disease states and fighting his battles on his own tribe and uncles

For this reason, I believe that the Quraysh were superior to Muhammad
Because she did not kill captives
While Mohammed his orders from God to kill prisoners
So Ivavh deployment task so that the Muslims know they can not afford to falsifying the facts of history
mahasn sawresho,

Despite knowing very well that Abu Talib had protected Muhammad from persecution of Meccans, before hijrah, you still regard copy and paste from juju as "wonderful information". The "wonderful information" is from this Islam hating site:

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/p...on-medina.aspx

Which information you find so wonderful in this Islam hating site?
 
Old 07-19-2016, 10:19 AM
 
2,050 posts, read 662,470 times
Reputation: 204
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khalif View Post
mahasn sawresho,

Despite knowing very well that Abu Talib had protected Muhammad from persecution of Meccans, before hijrah, you still regard copy and paste from juju as "wonderful information". The "wonderful information" is from this Islam hating site:

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/p...on-medina.aspx

Which information you find so wonderful in this Islam hating site?
Why do not you accept the truth as it is
This useful information helps to know Islam
Why be afraid of the truth
Islamic history
He wrote of Muslims
war and peace
It is one of the most important elements of history
War with the Quraysh
Is a war between the Arabs in Saudi Arabia
Arab tribes
Do you think that the Quraish was unfair
No my friend
Quraish they believed in freedom
Mohammed has declared war on his uncle Abu Wahab
The Koran was revealed in the state
Specifically revealed in the damn uncle Mohammed
Perish the hands of the father of a flame
And Allah has not filled not work so damning that poor creature
Do you know why Allen say that no grievance Muhammad Quraish
Really kill his brother and his cousin
It can kill all the world
This is the reality of Islam
Fighting between brothers and cousins
He then moved to fight strangers
And to this day the same path does not change and why
The fact disappear and the argument that we antagonize
Islam
But this argument is to mute mouths and hide the truth
 
Old 07-19-2016, 05:28 PM
 
3,167 posts, read 1,039,481 times
Reputation: 289
You are talking nonsense again!

Do you know why Muhammad had to go to Madina from Makkah?

The Father of Flame was going to kill Muhammad during the night he left for Madina (then Yasrib). It was his idol worshiping uncle who had declared war on Muhammad. In the end, it was the nasty uncle who lost. He died in Badr trying to kill Muhammad. He rotted there and even his sons wouldn't go close to him because of the stench.

Were your ancestors idol worshipers?
 
Old 07-19-2016, 10:06 PM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,585,301 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khalif View Post
You are talking nonsense again!

Do you know why Muhammad had to go to Madina from Makkah?

The Father of Flame was going to kill Muhammad during the night he left for Madina (then Yasrib). It was his idol worshiping uncle who had declared war on Muhammad. In the end, it was the nasty uncle who lost. He died in Badr trying to kill Muhammad. He rotted there and even his sons wouldn't go close to him because of the stench.

Were your ancestors idol worshipers?
Because of Muhammad's altered states of consciousness experiences he was misled [by wife and others] to believe he was the prophesized messenger.
This was the fundamental false premise that led to all other false claims that results in untold range of evils unleashed upon mankind since 1,400 years ago and will be worse in the future with the possible extinction of the human species by SOME evil prone Muslims.

The fact is many of Muhammad's close relatives who knew him since a baby till 40 years of his adult life are familiar with Muhammad inside out, i.e. the good, the bad and ugly deeds and aspects of his life.
This is why there is no way for his uncles [and others, relatives, tribes] to believe Muhammad could be the chosen one from Allah.

His uncle Abu Wahab knew Muhammad all his life [when he was in the crib] was convinced [an ordinary relative would be] was fake. The point is, based on a false premise, Muhammad insulted the religions of his uncles, relative, friends and tribes. Since religion is SO existential sensitive a subject it is obvious those who feel their religion was insulted will be VERY offended. This is why Abu Wahab [whose impulse control was not so good] lashed out at Muhammad like what many Muslims are doing when they felt offended.

All the tit-for-tat that result in fighting and all sort of evil can be traced to that ultimate root cause [the first spark] which was the false premise which Muhammad was misled by his wife and others to believe [falsely] he was the prophesized messenger from his experience of those altered states of consciousness which actual frightened him.

If Muhammad had experienced those frightening altered states of consciousness in the present, his wife would have sent him to see a psychiatrist and get cured by some psychiatric treatment.

Note such experiences of altered states of consciousness are researched in depth by various fields of knowledge especially the psychiatric, psychology, etc. and the Religious and Spirituality community.
If one were to focus on those frightening altered states of consciousness that Muhammad experienced one would have a greater understanding of the roots of how Islam came about.

Here are some basics on altered states of consciousness;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altere..._consciousness

Quote:
Altered states of consciousness may be caused either accidentally or intentionally:
Accidental and Pathological
Intentional: Recreational
Meditation
Listening to specific brainwave entrainment, such as a Binaural beat


ASC may be caused by psychoactive drug or intoxication,[9][note 1] which may be either accidental or pathological, but can also be intentional.

Sometimes two or more causes lead to altered state of consciousness, for example a psychiatric disorder and consumption of psycho-active substances.

Emotions influence behavior that alters the state of consciousness. Emotions can be influenced by various stimuli.[10][note 2]

Altered states of consciousness can be assessed by observations and imaging of the brain such as computed tomography scan (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or electroencephalography (EEG) which records the electrical brain wave activity. Imaging is most important to make a diagnosis when patient’s history is unobtainable and the physical examination is not dependable. (Dandan, 2004)
Note this which I post regularly on the claim of divinity due to brain disorders;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIiIsDIkDtg

I expect most Muslims will run away from and deny the above facts and knowledge. But if they are more spiritually matured they should face and understand the above truths of human nature.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Islam
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top