Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 
Send Topic Print
the pagan boycott of Muhammed (Read 2969 times)
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48833
At my desk.
the pagan boycott of Muhammed
Apr 5th, 2014 at 12:52pm
 
For some reason Muslims keep bringing this up, for example here:

True Colours wrote on Apr 4th, 2014 at 7:30pm:
The Muslims were in difficult financial circumstances at this time due to the pagans earlier having seized their property, and enforcing an economic boycott...


Why is this economic boycott always presented as a criticism of the pagans and a justification for whatever evil deeds Muhammed did in response? Is usually listed alongside claims that the early Muslims were tortured, though thankfully the recent criticism of that little lie seems to have sunk in.

An economic boycott is one of the noblest methods of collective action you can get. To me this is just another example of the pagans taking the moral high ground compared from Muhammed, who for example, liked to slaughter pagans en mass if they refused to convert to Islam. It shows that far from reforming a backwards culture, Muhammed imposed one on a culture that already had some progressive ideals and sophisticated institutions for resolving conflict.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Stratos
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 4725
Re: the pagan boycott of Muhammed
Reply #1 - Apr 5th, 2014 at 1:01pm
 
Assuming TC is right in his statement, surely you would think the far greater issue is the one of property theft, not boycott.

Back to top
 

Pete Waldo wrote on Jan 15th, 2014 at 11:24pm:
Thus killing those Canaanite babies while they were still innocent, was a particularly merciful act
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48833
At my desk.
Re: the pagan boycott of Muhammed
Reply #2 - Apr 5th, 2014 at 1:12pm
 
Of course it is, but that does not mean we cannot discuss the boycott. Or is that how Muslims propagate lies - as a rider to the truth?

To be honest, I have not seen evidence of either the boycott, or the theft, or the torture that Muslims claim happened at the same time. This is all trotted out in response to say, Muhammed tortuting a Jew to get at the Jew gold, or Muhammed's campaign over several years prior to becoming a miltary dictator, of robbing caravans heading into Mecca (ie "stealing it back").

We can have a thread on each one if you'd like. I'm sure Gandalf won't mind. I could probably bump the old threads on the theft and torture by Muhammed, if you want proof that we consider those things more important.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
True Colours
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2837
Gender: male
Re: the pagan boycott of Muhammed
Reply #3 - Apr 5th, 2014 at 3:13pm
 
The following comes from the book Ar-Raheeq al-Makhtoom, a biography of Prophet Muhammed. It uses hadeeth as its sources. It describes how the pagans persecuted Prophet Muhammed and his followers when they went public with their monotheistic beliefs:

Persecutions

At the beginning of the fourth year of the Call...[the pagans] decided to organize a full-scale opposition campaign. They called for a general meeting and elected a committee of twenty-five men of Quraish notables with Abu Lahab, the Prophet’s uncle, as a chairman. Following some lengthy deliberations, they reached a decisive decision to take measures deemed to stop the tidal wave of Islam through different channels. They were determined to spare no effort, in combatting the new faith. They decided to malign the Prophet of God (God bless him and give him peace) and put the new converts to different sorts of torture using all available resources. It was easy to put the resolutions relating to the new converts who were deemed weak into effect. As for the Prophet, it was not easy to malign him because he had such gravity, magnanimity and matchless perfection of character that deterred even his enemies from committing any act of folly against him...

...Abu Lahab himself took the initiative in the new series of persecutions, and started to mete out countless aspects of harmful deeds, hatred and spite against Muhammad. Starting with flinging stones at him, forcing his two sons to divorce their wives Ruqaiya and Umm Kulthum, the Prophet’s daughters, [and] gloating over him on his second son’s death calling him ‘the man cut off with offspring’,...His wife, Umm Jameel bint Harb...also her share in this ruthless campaign. She proved that she was not less than her husband in the enmity and hatred she harboured for the Prophet. She used to tie bundles of thorns with ropes of twisted palm-leaf fibre and strew them about in the paths which the Prophet was expected to take, in order to cause him bodily injury...

...Abu Lahab and his household used to inflict those shameful examples of torture and harassment in spite of the blood relation that tied them for he was the Prophet’s uncle and both lived in two contiguous houses. Actually, few of the Prophet’s neighbours abstained from maligning him. They even threw the entrails of a goat on his back while he was performing his prayers...

...Al-Bukhari, on the authority of Ibn Mas‘ud, narrated that once when the Prophet was prostrating himself while praying in Al-Ka‘bah, Abu Jahl asked his companions to bring the dirty foetus of a she-camel and place it on his back. ‘Uqbah bin Abi Mu‘ait was the unfortunate man who hastened to do this ignoble act. A peal of laughter rose amongst the infidels...

...Whenever Abu Jahl heard of the conversion of a man of high birth with powerful friends, he would degrade his prudence and intellect, undermine his judgement; and threaten him with dire consequences if he was a merchant. If the new convert was socially weak, he would beat him ruthlessly and put him to unspeakable tortures. [Ibn Hisham 1/320]

The uncle of ‘Uthman bin ‘Affan used to wrap ‘Uthman in a mat of palm leaves, and set fire under him. When Umm Mus‘ab bin ‘Umair heard of her son’s conversion, she put him to starvation and then expelled him from her house. He used to enjoy full luxurious easy life, but in the aftermath of the tortures he sustained, his skin got wizened, and he assumed a horrible physical appearance. [Rahmat-ul-lil'alameen 1/57; Talqeeh Ahl-al-Athar p.60]

Bilal, the slave of Omaiyah bin Khalaf, was severely beaten by his master when the latter came to know of his conversion to Islam. Sometimes a rope was put around his neck and street boys were made to drag him through the streets and even across the hillocks of Makkah. At times he was subjected to prolonged deprivation of food and drink; at others he was bound up, made to lie down on the burning sand and under the crushing burden of heavy stones. Similar other measures were resorted to in order to force him to recant. All this proved in vain. He persisted in his belief in the Oneness of God...

...Another victim of the highhandedness of Quraish was ‘Ammar bin Yasir, a freed slave of Bani Makhzoum. He, along with his mother and father, embraced Islam in its early phase. They were repeatedly made to lie on the burning sand and were beaten severely. ‘Ammar was at times tossed up on embers...

...Sumaiyah, ‘Ammar’s mother was bayoneted to death by Abu Jahl himself, and thus merited the title of the first woman martyr in Islam. ‘Ammar himself was subjected to various modes of torture and was always threatened to sustain severe suffering unless he abused Muhammad...

...Fakeeh Aflah...The oppressors used to fasten his feet with a rope and drag him in the streets of Makkah...

...Khabbab bin Al-Aratt...experienced exemplary torture and maltreatment. The Makkan polytheists used to pull his hair and twist his neck, and made him lie on burning coal with a big rock on his chest to prevent him from escaping. Some Muslims of rank and position were wrapped in the raw skins of camels and thrown away, and others were put in armours and cast on burning sand in the scorching sun of Arabia...

...Even the women converts were not spared...

...Abu Bakr, a wealthy believer, purchased and freed some of those she-slaves, just as he did with regard to Bilal and ‘Amir bin Fuheirah...
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
True Colours
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2837
Gender: male
Re: the pagan boycott of Muhammed
Reply #4 - Apr 5th, 2014 at 5:03pm
 
The following part tells of the boycott devised against the Prophet Muhammeds tribes Banu Hashim and Banu Mutallib when they decided to protect him from attack:

Quote:
General Social Boycott


...A Pact of Injustice and Aggression

The pagans of Mecca held a meeting in a place called Wadi Al-Muhassab, and formed a confederation hostile to both Bani Hashim and Bani Al-Muttalib. They decided not to have any business dealings with them nor any sort of inter-marriage. Social relations, visits and even verbal contacts with Muhammad (God bless him and give him peace) and his supporters would discontinue until the Prophet was given up to them to be killed. The articles of their proclamation, which had provided for merciless measures against Bani Hashim, were committed to writing by an pagan, Bagheed bin ‘Amir bin Hashim and then suspended in the Kabah. The Prophet invoked God’s imprecations upon Bagheed, whose hand was later paralysed. [Za'd Al-Ma'ad 2/46]

Abu Talib wisely and quietly took stock of the situation and decided to withdraw to a valley on the eastern outskirts of Mecca. Banu Hashim and Banu Al-Muttalib, who followed suit, were thus confined within a narrow pass (Shi‘b of Abu Talib), from the beginning of (the month of) Muharram, the seventh year of Muhammad’s mission till the tenth year, viz., a period of three years. It was a stifling siege. The supply of food was almost stopped and the people in confinement faced great hardships. The idolaters used to buy whatever food commodities entered Makkah lest they should leak to the people in Ash-Shi‘b, who were so overstrained that they had to eat leaves of trees and skins of animals. Cries of little children suffering from hunger used to be heard clearly. Nothing to eat reached them except, on few occasions, some meagre quantities of food were smuggled by some compassionate Meccans. During ‘the prohibited months’ — when hostilities traditionally ceased, they would leave their confinement and buy food coming from outside Mecca. Even then, the food stuff was unjustly overpriced so that their financial situation would fall short of finding access to it...



when the Muslims of Mecca decided to flee to the safety of Madina, the pagans would steal all their belongings and sometimes even their wives and children:

Quote:
The Vanguard of Migration


The first one to migrate was Abu Salamah, a year before the Great ‘Aqabah Pledge. When he had made up his mind to leave Mecca, his in-laws, in a desperate attempt to raise obstacles, detained his wife and snatched his son and dislocated his hand. Umm Salamah, after the departure of her husband and the loss of her son spent a year by herself weeping and lamenting. A relative of hers eventually had pity on her and exhorted the others to release her son and let her join her husband. She then set out on a journey of 500 kilometres with no help whatsoever. At a spot called At-Tan‘im, ‘Uthman bin Talhah came across her and offered to give her a ride to Madinah. She, along with her son, joined Abu Salamah in the village of Quba’, a suburb of Madinah. [Ibn Hisham 1/468]

Another instance of the atrocities of the polytheist Meccans, as regards migration, is Suhaib. This man expressed his wish to migrate and of course this was a source of indignation to the disbelievers. They began to insult him claiming that he had come into Mecca as a worthless tramp, but their town was gracious enough and thanks to them he managed to make a lot of money and become wealthy. They gave orders that he would not leave. Seeing this, he offered to give away all his wealth to them. They eventually agreed to release him on that condition. The Prophet heard this story and commented on it saying:

"Suhaib is the winner, after all." [Ibn Hisham 1/477]



Back to top
« Last Edit: Apr 5th, 2014 at 5:11pm by True Colours »  
 
IP Logged
 
Pete Waldo
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 503
U.S.
Gender: male
Re: the pagan boycott of Muhammed
Reply #5 - Apr 5th, 2014 at 7:43pm
 
freediver wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 12:52pm:
For some reason Muslims keep bringing this up, for example here:

True Colours wrote on Apr 4th, 2014 at 7:30pm:
The Muslims were in difficult financial circumstances at this time due to the pagans earlier having seized their property, and enforcing an economic boycott...


Why is this economic boycott always presented as a criticism of the pagans and a justification for whatever evil deeds Muhammed did in response?


I guess the Arab League Boycott of Israel then, would more than sufficient justification for the Israeli Jews to conquer, and subjugate Arab Muslims and their governments in Arab League member states, to Israel and Judaism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_League_boycott_of_Israel

I wonder why they didn't? Oh that's right, the Israeli's are Yahweh's moral, faithful, peaceful people, and specifically not imperialistic conquerors - at least not for about the last 2,500 years or so.

...

If the Muslims put down their weapons today there would be no more violence. If the Israeli Jews, Christians and other non-Muslim Israelis put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel.
http://www.zionismchristian.com/palestine_palestinians.htm

freediver wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 12:52pm:
Is usually listed alongside claims that the early Muslims were tortured, though thankfully the recent criticism of that little lie seems to have sunk in.

An economic boycott is one of the noblest methods of collective action you can get. To me this is just another example of the pagans taking the moral high ground compared from Muhammed, who for example, liked to slaughter pagans en mass if they refused to convert to Islam. It shows that far from reforming a backwards culture, Muhammed imposed one on a culture that already had some progressive ideals and sophisticated institutions for resolving conflict.


I don't wonder though if Muhammad was more laughed out of Mecca through embarrassment, since he skulked off shortly after so many of Muhammad's followers left his anti-religion, as a result of Muhammad telling his tall tale about riding around on a flying donkey-mule one night from Mecca, to Jerusalem, up to the "paradise" of his overactive imagination and back to Mecca by morning.
http://www.brotherpete.com/muhammads_night_journey.htm
Back to top
« Last Edit: Apr 5th, 2014 at 8:06pm by Pete Waldo »  

Truth can never be told so as to be understood and not be believed. ~ William Blake
WWW  
IP Logged
 
True Colours
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2837
Gender: male
Re: the pagan boycott of Muhammed
Reply #6 - Apr 5th, 2014 at 9:00pm
 
Yeah that all makes sense - except you left out the part about Israel stealing nearly all the land of Palestine, which kind of makes a boycott justified don't you think?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pete Waldo
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 503
U.S.
Gender: male
Re: the pagan boycott of Muhammed
Reply #7 - Apr 5th, 2014 at 9:25pm
 

There is no "land of Palestine". The term was created by 2nd century Roman ruler Hadrian in efforts to insult the Jews he had vanquished, and erase the name of Israel - the name God gave the land - forever. Hadrian's term - that Satan put on that pagan ruler's lips - is a fraud that only serves to obscure who the actual parties are that are in conflict in Israel. Helps YOU obscure who the actual parties are that are in conflict.
http://www.zionismchristian.com/palestine_palestinians.htm

True Colours wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 9:00pm:
Yeah that all makes sense - except you left out the part about Israel stealing nearly all the land of Palestine, which kind of makes a boycott justified don't you think?


If the modern history of Israel had begun in 1948, perhaps - but it didn't. The Israelis were restored to their land in the early 19th century, after 1200 years of Muslim occupation had rendered Israel a physically and spiritually desolated, desertified, depopulated, barren wasteland, as recorded by so many that traveled there in the 19th century.
http://www.zionismchristian.com/history_of_modern_zionism.htm#desolation_of_isra...

Restored to rule over their land in 1948, and rule over Jerusalem in 1967, just as Daniel prophesied - right to the year - in two parallel, and thus mutually confirming, problems that span 2500 years:
http://www.zionismchristian.com/daniel_prophesied_modern_zionism.htm

There is no question there are two distinct sides involved.
Israeli Muslim Gentiles
VS
Faithful Israeli Jews
Secular Israeli Jews
Israeli Christian Gentiles
Israeli secular Gentiles
http://www.zionismchristian.com/palestine_palestinians.htm

Anti-Zionists include Nazis, skinheads, Muslims, communist Soviets, David Duke and the KKK, Jeremiah Wright and his buddy Louis Farrakan and his Nation of Islam, George Soros and his Center for American Progress as well as other antisemites of all stripes.

Matthew 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/christian_zionism.htm#anti_zionism
Back to top
« Last Edit: Apr 5th, 2014 at 9:54pm by Pete Waldo »  

Truth can never be told so as to be understood and not be believed. ~ William Blake
WWW  
IP Logged
 
True Colours
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2837
Gender: male
Re: the pagan boycott of Muhammed
Reply #8 - Apr 5th, 2014 at 9:55pm
 
Pete Waldo wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 9:25pm:
If the modern history of Israel had begun in 1948, perhaps - but it didn't. The Israelis were restored to their land in the early 19th century, after 1200 years of Muslim occupation...


Untrue. Muslims allowed Jews to return to Palestine in the 7th century after they had been banned by Christians from visiting the area for centuries.

It was the British who handed Palestine to the Jews in 1948 as part of the deal for Jewish finance in WWI - a sordid deal that would mean the dispossession of Palestinians from their ancestral homes. Totally unethical robbery by the Jewish and British of the Palestinians.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 95220
Gender: male
Re: the pagan boycott of Muhammed
Reply #9 - Apr 5th, 2014 at 9:56pm
 
Stratos wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 1:01pm:
Assuming TC is right in his statement, surely you would think the far greater issue is the one of property theft, not boycott.



That depends, I guess, on whether that boycott included killing traders, siezing their goods and preventing desert tribes from.any way of getting food or water.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: the pagan boycott of Muhammed
Reply #10 - Apr 6th, 2014 at 8:26am
 
It is interesting to look at the boycott in the context's of FDs previous claim that "arab society was based on genuine equality".

The boycott was instigated and enforced by a tiny council of elite Quraysh, while the bulk of the Quraysh population had no say, and little enthusiasm for the boycott. In fact the boycott had to be enforced upon a reluctant population, and there are numerous accounts of individuals being punished for violating the boycott.

In the end the boycott fizzled out - there were too many violations of the boycott, and the council quietly abandoned it. But not before it had created an irreversible rift between the muslims and non-muslims, and from that point Muhammad started to make contingency plans to leave Mecca.

For the Quraysh, the quiet rebellion of the masses against the boycott was a portent of things to come. Once Muhammad and his small following moved to Medina, they could not stop a steady flow of defectors from the class of underprivileged, moved by the social justice message of Muhammad and fed up by the brutal and autocratic rule of the Quraysh elite. By the time Muhammad moved against Mecca, the Quraysh were left with a skeleton force, and as it turned out, most of them were ready to abandon the Quraysh cause, and Mecca was taken without bloodshed.
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: the pagan boycott of Muhammed
Reply #11 - Apr 6th, 2014 at 9:56am
 
Quote:
It is interesting to look at the boycott in the context's of FDs previous claim that "arab society was based on genuine equality".

The boycott was instigated and enforced by a tiny council of elite Quraysh


Quote:
They called for a general meeting and elected a committee of twenty-five men


How many centuries did Muslims rule the area for before they managed something like this?

TC, were those quotes from The Sealed Nectar? Please include a link when you quote from other articles.

This looks like the most extreme example given:

Quote:
The uncle of ‘Uthman bin ‘Affan used to wrap ‘Uthman in a mat of palm leaves, and set fire under him. When Umm Mus‘ab bin ‘Umair heard of her son’s conversion, she put him to starvation and then expelled him from her house. He used to enjoy full luxurious easy life, but in the aftermath of the tortures he sustained, his skin got wizened, and he assumed a horrible physical appearance. [Rahmat-ul-lil'alameen 1/57; Talqeeh Ahl-al-Athar p.60]


I tried googling those sources and could not find them for some reason. For one of them, this forum even came up on the first page of google results.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Apr 6th, 2014 at 10:04am by freediver »  

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: the pagan boycott of Muhammed
Reply #12 - Apr 6th, 2014 at 10:04am
 
freediver wrote on Apr 6th, 2014 at 9:56am:
How many centuries did Muslims rule the area for before they managed something like this?


Something like what? Calling general meetings and electing a committee? They managed that from the very beginning FD.
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: the pagan boycott of Muhammed
Reply #13 - Apr 6th, 2014 at 10:04am
 
For example?
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: the pagan boycott of Muhammed
Reply #14 - Apr 6th, 2014 at 10:41am
 
well lets see, "general meetings" are called at the mosque every Friday, and many other times.

All sorts of decisions are made through consultation and election during those meetings.

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
 
Pages: 1 2 
Send Topic Print