freediver wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2013 at 3:19pm:


Thats not my understanding of the situation. Badr was less than a year after the migration. There were then 3 separate battles in which the Quraysh attempted to break the growing muslim power - all inconclusive. Then there was the battle of the trench in 627, in which the Quraysh were once again forced to retreat without a decisive result. So thats 5 separate battles in less than 4 years - 5 separate occassions in which the Quraysh attempted to break the muslims.

That to me doesn't sound like sitting back watching them grow stronger year after year.

True Colours wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2013 at 4:04pm:




True_Colours,

- MANY, MANY PEOPLE ARE COMING TO REALISE, THAT MOSLEMS ALWAYS WERE, AND ARE, TERRIBLE OPPRESSORS AND BLATANT DECEIVERS.


TERRIBLE OPPRESSORS - wherever the moslem community are stronger than the non-moslems.

BLATANT DECEIVERS - wherever the non-moslems are politically stronger than the moslem community.i


"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. "
Koran 9.29





Abraham Lincoln

FD your attempts to portray the Meccans as the victims after persecuting then chasing out the muslims from their homes and property (a fact that you don't even deny) is amusing to say the least.

freediver wrote on Apr 9^th, 2014 at 6:47pm:


Of course you don't - because you only look up the incriminating things about islam.

Anyway, I have a distinct memory of TC giving you detailed evidence of this some time ago.

But here you go - I'll give you a wiki article that took me 2 seconds to find:

Quote:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_in_Mecca#Persecution

freediver wrote on Apr 9^th, 2014 at 7:57pm:


Well the fact that they were driven out of their homes and had their properties confiscated should sound some alarm bells I would have thought.

freediver wrote on Apr 9^th, 2014 at 7:57pm:


It is not just a moral argument - though Muhammad was on perfectly solid ground there. It is also cold practicalities. The muslims were born and raised in a mercantile community, and knew no other livelihood. They were then kicked out of that community, and found refuge in an agricultural community. They had no experience in agriculture, and in any case, all the best agricultural land had already been taken up. They needed a livelihood and a source of income. They found it in the age old arab tradition of caravan raiding.

Quote:


And justified it by insisting they were merely stealing back what the Meccan's stole from them, even though they had know way of knowing who they were stealing from, and in all liklihood stole just as much from from non-Meccan traders and owners, or Meccans who had done them no wrong.

If Muslims actually admitted that Muhammed was forced into a life of highway robbery by circumstances, it might be a bit easier to swallow. Instead, Muhammed built a religion out of hypocrisy and cynical self justification. He enacted cruel punishments for people who did the same thing he did. He created an ideology that permits Muslims to get away with anything by playing the victim card. And the fact is, Muhammed did not steal to put food in his mouth. He made himself rich and powerful by thieving. It was a mixture of slaughtering Medina Jews and robbing Meccan caravans by which Muhammed built the beginnings of his new empire.

He never actually stopped stealing. As soon as he was in a position to do so, he switched from robbing to rape and pillage. He was "forced" to rape and pillage by circumstance and build a massive military empire out of self defense. At every step of the way, it was someone else's fault and he was merely defending himself.

Quote:


Yes TC we are familiar with this convenient excuse. The Meccans declared war (even though there is no evidence for it and it makes no sense historically) therefor Muhammed was completely justified spending years stealing everything he could, without even a thought for whether it even belonged to the Meccans. If it was going to Mecca or from Mecca, he stole it. This is just like Abu's absurd claim that the west has been "at war" with the Muslim world for over a century. This is the problem with the spineless apologetics that is written into Islamic ideology. Abu's claim, though absurd, is no less absurd that the cynical self-justifications and hypocrisy of Muhammed. By Islamic reckoning, Muslims are perfectly justified in making a career stealing whatever they can from "the west", lying, etc. And of course, it is all the west's fault.

Muhammed's example to Muslims is that they can get away with anything because they are Muslims, and they are never responsible for for the crap they bring on themselves because they can always blame it on someone else.

Most of them try to justify it by saying Muhammed was stealing back what the Meccans took from them - ie that it was not really stealing at all.

There is a difference between stealing to feed yourself and stealing to grow rich and powerful enough to upgrade to rape and pillage.

You claim that they were mercantilists and not farmers. Why did they not simply practice the same trade in Medina that they used to in Mecca? Too busy stealing?