Australian Politics Forum - Muhammed the thief

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 48833 At my desk.	Re: Muhammed the thief Reply #45 - Jul 21^st, 2013 at 11:57am So how many Muslims did they actually kill? Who delivered this letter? Gabriel? Are you suggesting the Meccans declared war, then totally forgot about it while Muhammed went about robbing their caravans?
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Muhammed the thief
Reply #46 - Jul 21^st, 2013 at 12:17pm

freediver wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 11:47am:

Stop claiming that Muhammed set higher standards for warfare if you are so embarrassed about the reality.

The quranic verses of warfare are, to my knowledge, the first recorded legal restrictions on conducting war. The first time that killing of non-combatants is made unlawful, and that warfare is only allowed in self-defense (among others). Thats the context of the caravan raids - since the verses were revealed in the wake of these raids. I'm not embarrassed to talk about your so called collective punishment of the jews, but you did start this thread to talk about the caravan raids, so thats what I'm talking about. You can't accuse me of shying away from defending islam's position vis-a-vis the war with the jewish tribes in the other 50 thousand threads about those.

freediver wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 11:47am:

You are the one claiming Muhammed and his mates were persecuted, therefor they were at war, therefor it was OK to go round robbing caravans and lining their own pockets. Who was murdered? Who was tortured?

Oh so its a revisionist version of early muslim history is it? You could have said that from the start, rather than give us all the run-around and concoct this twisted logic about persecution not being warfare, and therefore the muslims don't have any right to engage in it.

I don't know the body count, I don't think anyone does. But the fact of the persecution is made clear by the migrations to Abysinnia and later Medina. Not to mention the attempted assassination of the prophet as he was attempting to flee Mecca.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48833
At my desk.

Re: Muhammed the thief
Reply #47 - Jul 21^st, 2013 at 12:31pm

Quote:

The first time that killing of non-combatants is made unlawful, and that warfare is only allowed in self-defense (among others).

LOL, from the man who built one of the biggest and fastest growing militant empires in history, who slaughtered 700 POWs in one go.

Quote:

Thats the context of the caravan raids

The context is Muhammed being a thief and crying about persecution to justify breaking his own rules. That's why you still won't give any details about this persecution and why is counts as a state of war and an excuse for highway robbery.

Quote:

Oh so its a revisionist version of early muslim history is it?

No Gandalf, I said what persecution? Give some details to show that it counts as a state of war and an excuse for highway robbery.

Quote:

I don't know the body count, I don't think anyone does.

Oh, how convenient for you. Don't you think Muhammed or his mates might have written down something about it, seeing as they were using it as their excuse for highway robbery? You know, just in case people later accused him of being a two faced hypocrite?

Quote:

But the fact of the persecution is made clear by the migrations to Abysinnia and later Medina.

The robbery happened after that right? Where is the 'ongoing war' you kept using as an excuse? Why can't the migrations be evidence of Muhammed trying to evade justice and continue robbing non-Muslims at will?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Muhammed the thief
Reply #48 - Jul 21^st, 2013 at 1:26pm

freediver wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 12:31pm:

That's why you still won't give any details about this persecution and why is counts as a state of war and an excuse for highway robbery.

I don't know the details FD. But I do know that a fair chunk of them were forced out of their homes and found refuge in a christian kingdom, while the remainder were subject to the equivalent of the wearing of the star of David. I do know that the Meccans chased them to Abysinnia, begging the king to hand them over (for God knows what treatment), but that the king recognised there was real persecution going on and continued providing refuge. And I do know they were all eventually forced to flee their homes and their properties were confiscated. Its pretty obvious that these facts don't point towards a manufactured persecution, but a real persecution.

freediver wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 12:31pm:

The robbery happened after that right? Where is the 'ongoing war' you kept using as an excuse?

Had the Meccans gave them back their property? Had they been given guarantees that they could freely worship at the Karbaa in Mecca? Were any guarantees given about the muslim's safety against the people who had only just kicked them out of their homes after sustained persecution? No on all counts. Therefore a state of war remained.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48833
At my desk.

Re: Muhammed the thief
Reply #49 - Jul 21^st, 2013 at 1:41pm

Quote:

Its pretty obvious that these facts don't point towards a manufactured persecution, but a real persecution.

I described it myself as persecution (which you seemed to think was wrong somehow). What is under question is whether it was a state of war that justifies Muhammed breaking Islamic law and robbing caravans to line his own pockets.

Quote:

Had the Meccans gave them back their property? Had they been given guarantees that they could freely worship at the Karbaa in Mecca? Were any guarantees given about the muslim's safety against the people who had only just kicked them out of their homes after sustained persecution? No on all counts. Therefore a state of war remained.

So my earlier description is correct? Muslims are always at war over past injustice until they feel they have received vengeance?

If a group of pagans decided that there was something in Mecca they wanted to worship (it is a historical pagan site after all), would that oblige modern Muslims to let them in? Failing that, would it be fair for the Pagans to take it as a state of war and start robbing Saudis on the highway as they passed under the "Muslims only" sign? After all, there is a historical injustice of Muhammed expelling pagans. Or is this yet another example of one rule for Muslims, one rule for everyone else?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Muhammed the thief
Reply #50 - Jul 21^st, 2013 at 1:49pm

freediver wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 1:41pm:

I described it myself as persecution (which you seemed to think was wrong somehow). What is under question is whether it was a state of war that justifies Muhammed breaking Islamic law and robbing caravans to line his own pockets.

Wait FD, you just finished asking me if it was real persecution, in response to my claim that armed resistance is legitimate against persecution. *NOW* your back to saying armed resistance is only legitimate in an actual war?? What is the reasoning here FD, honestly?? So I go back to my original question, which you tried to deflect with the "there was no real persecution" nonsense: does real persecution justify armed resistance?? Please for once try and answer that straight FD.

freediver wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 1:41pm:

So my earlier description is correct? Muslims are always at war over past injustice until they feel they have received vengeance?

How the hell is it past injustice? This was not muslims fighting because their ancestors generations ago faced persecution - its because those very same muslims *WERE* currently facing persecution and injustice. I ask again - had the Meccans addressed the injustices in any way? Had they returned them their property? Had anything changed at all to make them feel safe against Meccan aggression? The injustice was ongoing. If you believe that armed resistance is justified in response to oppression (which everyone does - including the geneva convention and the UN charter), you would not be describing these actions as banditry and thievery.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48833
At my desk.

Re: Muhammed the thief
Reply #51 - Jul 21^st, 2013 at 1:58pm

Quote:

What is the reasoning here FD, honestly?? So I go back to my original question, which you tried to deflect with the "there was no real persecution" nonsense: does real persecution justify armed resistance??

Does real persecution justify robbing caravans to line your own pockets? By this reasoning any theft by a Muslim could be counted as armed resistance if they feel persecuted. If is self service tripe. You are bending every definition to the point of absurdity.

Quote:

How the hell is it past injustice? This was not muslims fighting because their ancestors generations ago faced persecution - its because those very same muslims *WERE* currently facing persecution and injustice.

The only ongoing injustice was that they couldn't go back to Mecca - ironically enough the same persecution that Muslims are more than happy to impose upon every non-Muslim in the world, even though it has a long history as a pagan worship site.

If a group of pagans decided that there was something in Mecca they wanted to worship (it is a historical pagan site after all), would that oblige modern Muslims to let them in? Failing that, would it be fair for the Pagans to take it as a state of war and start robbing Saudis on the highway as they passed under the "Muslims only" sign? After all, there is a historical injustice of Muhammed expelling pagans. Or is this yet another example of one rule for Muslims, one rule for everyone else?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

True Colours

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2837
Gender: male

Re: Muhammed the thief
Reply #52 - Jul 21^st, 2013 at 2:20pm

freediver wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 11:57am:

So how many Muslims did they actually kill?

The initial seizure of property, blockade and boycott of the Muslims by Meccan pagans caused starvation amongst Muslims so that they were forced to eat grass and bark off trees. The Prophet's first wife passed away at this stage - she had once been one of the wealthiest women in Mecca. Many Muslims were tortured and killed by the pagans of Mecca. The pagans would even resort to sexual tortures killing a woman by spearing her private parts.

freediver wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 11:57am:

Who delivered this letter? Gabriel?

Quote:

...The Quraishites, mortified at the escape of the Prophet (God bless him and give him peace) along with his devoted companions, and jealous of his growing power in Madinah, kept a stringent watch over the Muslims left behind and persecuted them in every possible way. They also initiated clandestine contacts with Abdullah bin Uabi bin Salul, chief of Madinese polytheists, and president designate of the tribes ‘Aws and Khazraj before the Prophet’s emigration. They sent him a strongly-worded ultimatum ordering him to fight or expel the Prophet, otherwise they would launch a widespread military campaign that would exterminate his people and proscribe his women. [Narrated by Abu Da'ud]

His pride wounded and kingship no longer his, Abdullah bin Uabi bin Salul, a priori responded positively to his Quraishite co-polytheists. He mobilized his supporters to counteract the Muslims. The Prophet on hearing about this unholy alliance, summoned Abdullah and admonished him to be more sensible and thoughtful and cautioned his men against being snared in malicious tricks. [Narrated by Abu Da'ud] The men, on grounds of cowardice, or reason, gave up the idea. Their chief, however, seemingly complied, but at heart, he remained a wicked unpredictable accomplice with Quraish and the envious Jews. Skirmishes and provocations started to pave the way for a major confrontation between the Muslims and polytheists. Sa‘d bin Mu‘adh, an outstanding Helper, announced his intention to make a pilgrimage and headed for Mecca. There Omaiya bin Khalaf provided tutelage for him to observe the ritual circumambulation. Abu Jahl, an archenemy of Islam saw him in the Sacred Sanctuary and threatened he would have killed him if he had not been in the company of Omaiya. Sa‘d, fearlessly and defiantly, challenged him to committing any folly at the risk of cutting their caravans off. [Bukhari 2/563]

Provocative actions continued and Quraish sent the Muslims a note threatening to put them to death in their own homeland. Those were not mere words, for the Prophet received information from reliable sources attesting to real intrigues and plots being hatched by the enemies of Islam. Precautionary measures were taken and a state of alertness was called for, including the positioning of security guards around the house of the Prophet and strategic junctures. ‘Aishah [R] reported that the Messenger of God lay down on bed during one night on his arrival in Madinah and said: Were there a pious person from amongst my Companions who should keep a watch for me during the night? She (‘Aishah [R]) said: We were in this state when we heard the clanging noise of arms. He (the Prophet) said: Who is it? He said: This is Sa‘d bin Abi Waqqas. The Messenger of God said to him: What brings you here? Thereupon he said: I harboured fear lest any harm should come to the Messenger of God, so I came to serve as your sentinel. The Messenger of God invoked blessings upon him and then he slept. [Muslim 2/280; Bukhari 1/404]

- Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum

freediver wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 11:57am:

Are you suggesting the Meccans declared war, then totally forgot about it while Muhammed went about robbing their caravans?

As I asked earlier, what state were the British and Germans in for the 8 months following the declaration of war in which no military action took place? Was Britain at war on September 4 1939 even though no fighting had taken place?

Back to top

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Muhammed the thief
Reply #53 - Jul 21^st, 2013 at 3:57pm

freediver wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 1:58pm:

Does real persecution justify robbing caravans to line your own pockets?

the enemy caravans? Yes. Why not?

Or another way to put it: does real persecution justify striking the enemy where you can - in this case a critical supply line that is the lifeblood of your enemy's economy?

Out of interest, do you refer to the Syrian rebels ambushing SAA supply convoys and taking the supplies for themselves as bandits "robbing" to "line their own pockets"? No, I daresay you would call it a legitimate act of war.

freediver wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 1:58pm:

By this reasoning any theft by a Muslim could be counted as armed resistance if they feel persecuted.

By your reasoning, any insurgent force fighting the persecution of their people by ambushing and disrupting critical supply lines of their enemy is nothing but "banditry" and selfishly "lining their own pockets". For everyone else though, its a legitimate act of resistance to oppression.

freediver wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 1:58pm:

he only ongoing injustice was that they couldn't go back to Mecca

The hadeeth TC just posted disagrees with you.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

Baronvonrort

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 18257
Gender: male

Re: Muhammed the thief
Reply #54 - Jul 21^st, 2013 at 5:38pm

True Colours wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 2:20pm:

The initial seizure of property, blockade and boycott of the Muslims by Meccan pagans caused starvation amongst Muslims so that they were forced to eat grass and bark off trees.

Quote:

...The Quraishites, mortified at the escape of the Prophet (God bless him and give him peace) along with his devoted companions, and jealous of his growing power in Madinah, kept a stringent watch over the Muslims left behind and persecuted them in every possible way. They also initiated clandestine contacts with Abdullah bin Uabi bin Salul, chief of Madinese polytheists, and president designate of the tribes ‘Aws and Khazraj before the Prophet’s emigration. They sent him a strongly-worded ultimatum ordering him to fight or expel the Prophet, otherwise they would launch a widespread military campaign that would exterminate his people and proscribe his women. [Narrated by Abu Da'ud]

His pride wounded and kingship no longer his, Abdullah bin Uabi bin Salul, a priori responded positively to his Quraishite co-polytheists. He mobilized his supporters to counteract the Muslims. The Prophet on hearing about this unholy alliance, summoned Abdullah and admonished him to be more sensible and thoughtful and cautioned his men against being snared in malicious tricks. [Narrated by Abu Da'ud] The men, on grounds of cowardice, or reason, gave up the idea. Their chief, however, seemingly complied, but at heart, he remained a wicked unpredictable accomplice with Quraish and the envious Jews. Skirmishes and provocations started to pave the way for a major confrontation between the Muslims and polytheists. Sa‘d bin Mu‘adh, an outstanding Helper, announced his intention to make a pilgrimage and headed for Mecca. There Omaiya bin Khalaf provided tutelage for him to observe the ritual circumambulation. Abu Jahl, an archenemy of Islam saw him in the Sacred Sanctuary and threatened he would have killed him if he had not been in the company of Omaiya. Sa‘d, fearlessly and defiantly, challenged him to committing any folly at the risk of cutting their caravans off. [Bukhari 2/563]

Provocative actions continued and Quraish sent the Muslims a note threatening to put them to death in their own homeland. Those were not mere words, for the Prophet received information from reliable sources attesting to real intrigues and plots being hatched by the enemies of Islam. Precautionary measures were taken and a state of alertness was called for, including the positioning of security guards around the house of the Prophet and strategic junctures. ‘Aishah [R] reported that the Messenger of God lay down on bed during one night on his arrival in Madinah and said: Were there a pious person from amongst my Companions who should keep a watch for me during the night? She (‘Aishah [R]) said: We were in this state when we heard the clanging noise of arms. He (the Prophet) said: Who is it? He said: This is Sa‘d bin Abi Waqqas. The Messenger of God said to him: What brings you here? Thereupon he said: I harboured fear lest any harm should come to the Messenger of God, so I came to serve as your sentinel. The Messenger of God invoked blessings upon him and then he slept. [Muslim 2/280; Bukhari 1/404]

- Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum

Do you have a cite for those hadeeth?
If i search sunnah.com for exterminate the verse you quoted does not exist, the same for note,after not finding your verses i didnt bother with the other.
www.sunnah.com/search/exterminate
www.sunnah.com/search/note

Mohammad was a thief he even tried to steal the jewish religion, he made up some cock and bull story about being a jewish prophet, he even fasted on the jewish day of atonement and adopted many dietry and dress rules from the jews, the muslim prayer is a rip off of the way the ancient jews prayed,The jews did not accept Mohammad as their prophet so Mohammad started killing them and has hated them ever since.
This is covered in the Sira of Ibn Hisham amongst other books.

Mohammad robbed trade caravans that came from Syria he was a highway robber.
Muslims talk fluent bullshit about taking stuff back-they were previously in Mecca and the Islam delusion had not spread to Syria which is where these caravans originated from.
Gandalf claims it was attacking supply lines- The Islam delusion had not spread to Syria at this time,is Gandalf saying muslims were at war with a people they had never met, does that mean Islam really does divide the world into Dar al Islam and dar al Harb(land of war)?

Back to top

Leftists and the Ayatollahs have a lot in common when it comes to criticism of Islam, they don't tolerate it.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48833
At my desk.

Re: Muhammed the thief
Reply #55 - Jul 21^st, 2013 at 5:57pm

Quote:

The initial seizure of property, blockade and boycott of the Muslims by Meccan pagans caused starvation amongst Muslims so that they were forced to eat grass and bark off trees. The Prophet's first wife passed away at this stage

From starvation?

Quote:

Many Muslims were tortured and killed by the pagans of Mecca.

How many?

Quote:

By your reasoning, any insurgent force fighting the persecution of their people by ambushing and disrupting critical supply lines of their enemy is nothing but "banditry" and selfishly "lining their own pockets". For everyone else though, its a legitimate act of resistance to oppression.

The only way the oppression was ongoing was that they could not return to Mecca. Are you suggesting that banning someone from Mecca based on their religion counts as oppression that justifies theft and acts of war?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Baronvonrort

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 18257
Gender: male

Re: Muhammed the thief
Reply #56 - Jul 22^nd, 2013 at 8:46pm

From Ibn Hisham and Fiqh As Seerah P190

Quote:

Summer approached and it was high time for the Makkan trade caravans to leave for Syria.The people of the Quraish whose lives depended mainly on a mercantile economy consisting of summer caravans to Syria and winter caravans to ethiopia were now at a loss as to what route they would have to follow in order to avoid the backbreaking military strikes that the muslims successfully inflicted on the polytheists.

They held a meeting to discuss the chances of escaping the economic blockade and decided to go along a trade route across Najd to Iraq.
Safwan bin Omaiyah led the caravan,News of the meeting leaked out through the effects of wine and travelled fast to the Prophet in Medina.

The Prophet immediately mustered 100 horsemen under the leadership of Zaid bin Harinath al-Kalbi and despatched them to intercept and capture the caravan.
They took the polytheists by surprise.
The caravan was carrying silver and wares whose value amounted to 100,000 dirhams.
The booty was distributed among the muslim warriors after 1/5 had been set aside for the prophet.

Allah and his prophet get 20% of all war booty as per the Quran-www.quran.com/8/41

Mohammad was a highway robber.

Back to top

Leftists and the Ayatollahs have a lot in common when it comes to criticism of Islam, they don't tolerate it.

IP Logged

True Colours Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 2837 Gender:	Re: Muhammed the thief Reply #57 - Jul 24^th, 2013 at 1:38am Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2013 at 8:46pm: Allah and his prophet get 20% of all war booty as per the Quran-www.quran.com/8/41 The money was for giving away in charity to the poor, widows and orphans. The prophet did not keep riches for himself and died penniless.
Back to top	IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 21583
A cat with a view

Re: Muhammed the thief
Reply #58 - Jul 24^th, 2013 at 10:46am

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 2:34pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 2:05pm:

When did that war start?

When the Meccans started persecuting them and kicked them out of Mecca.

No,

the war

, against all mankind, started when ISLAM was first founded, by Mohammed.

Allah made it known to Mohammed that he, Allah, is the enemy of all ['unbelieving'] mankind, and that Mohammed and ISLAM would be the instruments which Allah would use to wage a merciless, never ending war upon all of mankind.

"....Lo! Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith."
Koran 2.98

"....those who reject Allah have no protector."
Koran 47.008
v. 8-11

Every moslem, in being a moslem, is pledging himself to engage in never ending warfare against Allah's enemies [i.e. all of 'unbelieving' mankind].

Ishaq: 204 - "'Men, do you know what you are pledging yourselves to in swearing allegiance to this man [Muhammad]?' 'Yes. In swearing allegiance to him we are pledging to wage war against all mankind.'"

But unless the moslems are overwhelmingly more powerful that those that they are fighting, moslems are too frightened to declare their state of war against their enemy.

Instead, moslems pretend to be virtuous and peaceful [and moslems 'bravely', openly, deny their true intentions]. Tongue

Coz, moslems, are Allah's brave, Holy Warriors. Tongue

Sure they are! LOL rapists [of young women], and murderers of women, children, and unsuspecting civilians.

Moslem Holy Warriors
throw acid in the faces of young women,
and moslem Holy Warriors bomb school buses,
and bomb schools,
and bomb civilian markets,
and bomb mosques,
and bomb the funerals of their enemies.

Coz, moslems, are Allah's brave, Holy Warriors. Tongue

Sure they are! LOL

They can't even declare their real intentions, the cowards.

SEE HOW Moslem Holy Warriors 'FIGHT' OTHERS.....

THE RELIGION OF PEACE

http://thereligionofpeace.com/i

+++

Quote:

Here, for example, are two very illuminating passages from the canonical Life of Mohammed by Ibn Ishaq, as translated by A. Guillaume, and a third passage, from the earliest known Muslim historian.

Ishaq: 204 - "'Men, do you know what you are pledging yourselves to in swearing allegiance to this man [Muhammad]?' 'Yes. In swearing allegiance to him we are pledging to wage war against all mankind.'"

Ishaq:231 - "Muslims are one ummah (community) to the exclusion of all men. Believers are friends of one another to the exclusion of all outsiders."

And here is Al-Tabari, a very early Muslim historian, in book 9, chapter or section 69, reporting words that Muslims believe to have been said by Mohammed himself - "Killing infidels is a small matter to us".

These texts are not fossils from a distant past. They are not dead letters. They are still 'live' and carry tremendous weight in the imagination and practice of many Muslims around the world.
...DDA

Google it.

n.b.
"Killing infidels is a small matter to us"

Back to top

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 21583
A cat with a view

Re: Muhammed the thief
Reply #59 - Jul 24^th, 2013 at 12:46pm

freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 7:27pm:

Quote:

Definitely not. The quran states very clearly that

if the enemy inclines towards peace

, then you must accept it.

Does the fact that the Meccans were not attacking Muhammed (despite him raiding their caravans) indicate that they were inclined towards peace? How can you reconcile this claim with your justification of the raids by referring to previous persecution of Muslims?

FD,

The fact that ISLAM forbids any enduring peace between moslems and 'disbelievers', gives the lie to the 'interpretation' of Koran 8.61, offered by moslems.

ISLAMS 'peace' may be lawfully enjoyed only between [fellow] moslems.

And regards the phrase from the Koran;
"if the enemy inclines towards peace"

....the word 'peace' in this form of words is code for 'seek to end hostilities, and convert' to ISLAM.

That phrase, or the form of words used, could more properly read;
"....if the enemy inclines towards ISLAM [indicates a willingness to embrace ISLAM], and offers to end hostilities, then you must accept him as a fellow moslem."

"And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah . Indeed, it is He who is the Hearing, the Knowing.
But if they intend to deceive you - then sufficient for you is Allah . It is He who supported you with His help and with the believers"
http://quran.com/8/61
v. 61-62

Back to top

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged

Poll
Question: Should Israel Take Compensation From Germany
No. Nazis stole stuff fair and square 0 (0.0%) No. It seems too Islamic 0 (0.0%) Yes. People have a right to compensation 5 (83.3%) No. Jews should let bygones be bygones 1 (16.7%) No. People should be free to persecute minorities 0 (0.0%) Total votes: 6 « Last Modified by: True Colours on: Aug 2^nd, 2013 at 4:05pm »