70 jawans killed in biggest Maoists/Naxal attack ever in India

[mhr123]

Mashallah :woot: Lekin kintu parantu ... I just did that exercise in the previous page of this very thread and you ran into a dead-end ... let me give you a brief summary in other words but based on logic...

To my post no. 146 kindly check ur reply on 147 ... i never came to dead end and all my posts were based on History and proper quotes.... I have replied to most of ur allegation on Jizya in my 146 no. post... plz read it again .

1. Muhammad is the most perfect muslim ( You better not have issues with this :D ) 2. His entire life is a model example for others to follow and in accordance with the Quran. 3. When he started preaching while still in Mecca 99.99% of Arabia was non-muslim 4. By the time he died a vast majority had become Muslim mostly thru force, war treachery etc. There is no evidence to show that all of Arabia had enemity with him and were at war. So the qestion of self-defense doesnt arise for Mohammad.

Answers as follows.. 1) Yah he was the most perfect muslim 2) Agreed 3) Don't Agree... when he started Preaching there were few people who were on true Abrahimic way and they were never called as non muslims... majority yes... but not 99.99% 4) U said there are no evidence to show Arabia had enemity with him.... BB just refer to what happened in the battle of Badr ( The First ever Battle)and what lead to the Battle .... it was the first time Muslims were faced by an Army and that too 3 times of its size ...this war was imposed on Muslims and there were no room to retrieve. Later on Battle of Uhad happened and so on ... Most these battles were imposed on Muslims... So better get ur facts right.

5. Which means that Mohammad was a agressor and used force to conquer and spread his word. These are the facts nobody disputes. Now what can we infer from them ? 1. He used violence to pursue his agenda. 2. At no point he is accused of deviating from the teachings of Quran 3. Which means the correct context behind the violent verses is not quite the same what the politically correct folks try to peddle and that violence is prescribed in the Quran.

You are just pointing Muhammad (Pbuh) to be an agressor w/o giving any proof to justify it... at least put up some facts so that we can try and reply u .

[mhr123]

Sry i didnt see this response earlier... i saw this thread being mentioned in another thread , then i realized u have given a reply.

I dont see any response to 155.

And the explanation given by u in the response also is no where close to what the verse explains.... all the way along u aren't proving anything just Internet gossips ...again u said in the above post that Muhammad (Pbuh) gave 4 mnths or have treaty otherwise get ready to face Massacre... where did u read the part in Bold...

Dont understand what you are saying ... Mohammad started a new religion that never existed before him.

Muhammad (Pbuh) never started the new religion ... it was the same religion which was brought by Noah , Moses , Abrahim , Ismaeel , Jeasus and other prophets ... the diff was religion bought by other prophet got completed on Muhammad (Pbuh) . All of them gave the reaching of monotheism . Most of the ruling related to Oness of God is mentioned in all the major scriptures that is why u can see the calls of Monothisim and lot of Abrahim culture are still followed by the Muslims.. prime example the Hajj ritual ...

The Battle of Badr is not a defensive war ... we can discuss that seperately. But the Quraish with whom that battle was fought against were not the only tribe ruling Arabia. The others were Banu Qainuqa, Banu Nadir, Banu Quraiza, Banu Mustaliq, Banu Jaun , the Jews of Khaibar and ofcourse the Pagan tribes. Did all of them have enemity with Muhammad ?

Well if it wasn't then what was it ... Did the muslims go and attack the people of Mecca or the Army under Abu Sufiyan along with other big names of Mecca (Abu Jahal , Omaiya) crossed the Makkan bordered and came all the way to badr to finish the Muslims and kill the prophet...

[Kriterion]

Mashallah :woot: Lekin kintu parantu ... I just did that exercise in the previous page of this very thread and you ran into a dead-end ... let me give you a brief summary in other words but based on logic...

1. Muhammad is the most perfect muslim ( You better not have issues with this :D )

yes correct. although there are some slight differences of opinion between shia muslims who take a more angelic view of Muhammad, Ali, and the rest of the family, and sunnis who argue that Prophets were not *perfect* in the literal sense, but as perfect as humans could be. 2. His entire life is a model example for others to follow and in accordance with the Quran. bingo. lets remember this bolded part. 3. When he started preaching while still in Mecca 99.99% of Arabia was non-muslim technically, when he started preaching arabia was 100% non-muslim. again tradition points to those such as Waraqa bin Nawfal (his wife's cousin) who were not Muslim in the textbook 2010 definition, but was what the quran refers to as "haneef". again a trivial point. 4. By the time he died a vast majority had become Muslim mostly thru force, war treachery etc. There is no evidence to show that all of Arabia had enemity with him and were at war. So the qestion of self-defense doesnt arise for Mohammad. this directly contradicts with what you wrote in #2 above. the quran - which was *written* by Muhammad - does not contain any reference to offensive warfare i.e declare war on people who were at peace with you until that declaration.

5. Which means that Mohammad was a agressor and used force to conquer and spread his word.

follows correctly from #4 above, but #4 follows incorrectly from #2...hence #5 is also incorrect. not to mention that secular historians and other academics (in addition to religious scholars of various stripes) all agree that the historical record indicates that the Meccans *attacked* the Muslims first via torture (bilal ibn rabah), murder (sumayya bint khabbab), and generalized physical abuse (Caliph Umar who beat his brother in law, Saeed, just prior to the former's conversion) as well as psychological abuse (Abu Jahl against Muhammad with the camel entrails, and against the daughter of Abu Bakr, Asma who was slapped actually). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Muslims_by_the_Meccans These are the facts nobody disputes. Now what can we infer from them ?

1. He used violence to pursue his agenda.

he used nothing to pursue his agenda for the first 13 years before the hijrah. but upon the death of his wife khadijah, and his uncle and sole worldy protector, abu talib, the muslims began to act in self defense.

2. At no point he is accused of deviating from the teachings of Quran

absolutely correct.

3. Which means the correct context behind the violent verses is not quite the same what the politically correct folks try to peddle and that violence is prescribed in the Quran.

so where are these supposed verses of "offensive jihad", these "kill peaceful disbelievers cuz they're disbelievers" verses? they're not in chapter 9, we went through that verse by verse and you raised no objection...could they be in chapter 8? or chapter 2? or chapter 5? where?

Yes I know this. But Kriterion doesnt believe in much in the Hadiths hence my use of only Koran and Tafsirs. (HE know doesnt seem to like the Tafsirs too ... and if he keeps discussing this with me he will eventually start diisowning parts of the holy book itself :P :D )

i only believe in hadiths/tafsir/seerah when it does NOT run counter to teachings from the quran. the hadiths are absolutely essential to practicing islam so long as they can be verified by using the quran and not just some random sheikh so and so.

[Kriterion]

Who wiped out those other tribes then ? (See post # 168 / 166 )

again, the Quran doesn't, even once, call for an an offensive or aggressive call to arms. where is the verse? muhammad, if he deemed violent conquest so integral to his faith would have at least made sure to make at least ONE mention of going out to subjugate the world, wouldn't he? i mean there at least a half dozen references to alms-giving. you would think bloodlust and conquest would at least be mentioned once, since its so important a concept.

[someone]

It really does not matter if according to your interpretation the books say that or not, it is just human psychology. When you see a person of your group, fighting for smth, you will automatic take that baised people which is why so many muslims support this jihad and moreover many more think 9-11 or any terrosists attacks a USA work

[mhr123]

The Jews and Christians never accepted this .. and they dont even today.

I doesn't matter if Jews or Christian never accepted it .. Jews never accepted Jesus , that doesn't means we Muslims don't accept Jesus (AS) and we accept Jesus (AS) as one the 5 most mightiest messenger sent by God. Likewise , Muhammad (Pbuh) is also accepted by us who came after Jesus (AS) as Jesus (AS) prophised of coming of him.

tell me what happened to the other tribes such as Banu Quraiza, Banu Mustaliq, Banu Qainuqa, Banu Nadir, Banu Jaun , the Jews of Khaibar ... that got wiped out by force. Did all of them have enemity with Muhammad ?

All these Tribes Banu Quraiza, Banu Mustaliq, Banu Qainuqa, Banu Nadir, Banu Jaun , the Jews of Khaibar have there own events which lead to war , if u read the actual history u would know the facts. As u said that they all were wiped out by force ... kindly provide evidence since ur the one who is claiming this fact... why don't u start with one tribe at a time who according to u was wiped out by force .. then i would provide u the evidence based on proper quotes.

[mhr123]

^^ will get back to ur post in the evening or tmrw.. having issues with my laptop... needs to format it seems :((

[Kriterion]

the Quran doesnt have the complete lifestory of Muhammad. So once again I ask who wiped out those tribes ?

i am not sure whether this is a concession on your part that Quran does NOT contain an exhortion for offensive warfare. nonetheless, the tribes you mentioned prove some interesting points, points which no Islamophobe, past or present, is able to disagree with. now the underlying assumption is this: Muhammad wrote the quran in a piecemeal fashion in order to "justify" his present action(s). based upon this assumption, the Quran paints a complete picture of all the major events during the 23 years of his preaching. yes, the quran does not mention his birth or his upbringing (except in very brief words not relevant to the present discussion), but those are not issues which are being debated. you are arguing about the various pagan and jewish tribes which were "wiped out" AFTER Muhammad began his Islamic mission. and this time period is covered by the Quran. now, if wiping out disbelievers is such an integral part of islam, one would imagine that Muhammad would not only make several references to it in the Quran. but the only references to warfare occur in a defensive context as per Surah 8, verses 60-62 and Surah 9, verses 1-30. one must also refer to the universally accepted timeline of events and rationalize it using causality. what is the universally accepted timeline of events as accepted by secular academics and historians? 610 Muhammad receives his first revelation/starts writing the Quran 610-613 Muhammad only preaches privately to close associates (Khadijah, Abu Bakr, Ali, etc)...Meccans remain ambivalent to Islam 613-622 Call to Islam is made public...Meccans begin to ridicule Islam as it grows and persecute muslims leading to the deaths of some and the torture of many (click for wikipedia article) [the important thing to note here is that this is regarded as the Meccan phase where the Quran's verses are "peaceful". hence any and all hostilities had to have been started by Meccans as referenced to in the Quran, and agreed upon by secular historians and Islamophobes alike. the Meccan response to Islam was a progressively severe one. it started out with non-chalance and then progressed to violent tyranny perpetrated by many famous individuals including Umayya bin Khalaf, Abu Jahl, and Umar bin Khattab who would later convert and become the 2nd caliph. Muhammad's pagan uncle, Abu talib, protected him against the Meccans, but Abu talib eventually died.] 617-619 Meccans, unable to assassinate Muhammad due to Abu Talib's protection, impose economic sanctions on Muslims (click)...results in the deaths of Muhammad's wife Khadijah...Abu Talib also dies in this time period, thereby ending Muhammad's immunity. 622 Most Meccan muslims having previously emigrated to Medina, Muhammad and Abu Bakr finally leave, Ali follows a few days later...this is known as the Hijrah. 622 Upon arriving in Medina, Muhammad draws up a mutual defense treaty with the pagan and jewish tribes of Medina, the Constitution of Medina (click for link) 625 Muhammad settles a dispute between the jewish tribes of Banu Nadir and Banu Qaynuqa 625-627 Muhammad expels the tribes of Banu Nadir and executes all military age males of Banu Qurayza and Banu Qaynuqa for breaching the terms of the defense treaty. [there are several important questions that need to be asked here regarding the tribes which you mentioned: 1) Muhammad initiated a treaty with the pagans and jews of medina. if he was bent on conquoring all non-muslims why did he create a treaty which included them in the Ummah? 2) the pagan and jewish tribes entered the treaty on their free will. if they didn't want to, why did they? Muhammad came to them, the Muslims having just fled Mecca with tails tucked between their legs, thus dispelling any notion that the tribes were coerced into a treaty for fear of Muhammad's attack. moreover the tribe of Banu Nadir were wealthy and traded in weapons and armaments, and possessed fortresses south of Medina. it is highly unlikely Muhammad would attack them with inferior money and arms. 3) if Muhammad broke the treaty, without any provocation from these tribes, it would be a direct violation not only of the future Surah 9, verses 1-10, but also the "peaceful" meccan verses which already existed. how would this look, to a person who is trying to win people over?] this is why the "violent" verses do not "supercede" or contradict the "peaceful" ones, because the "violent" verses only demand self defense, and come in the historic context of the Hijrah (see assumption above). 623-630 Various battles between the Meccans and Muslims of Medina...ends with the bloodless conquest of Mecca in 630...and Muhammad dies in 632 in Medina. [now it is alleged that the Muslims started the hostilities by raiding the meccan trading caravans and that the Meccans only then reacted by attempting to invade Medina at the Battle of Badr. however, this totally ignores the timeline of events - which i must emphasize again, is universally accepted by all academics and Islamophobes - that show that the Meccan persecution was the causus belli. the overwhelming majority of Muslims were poor and disenchfranchised. the few who were wealthy (abu bakr, later umar) spent great sums buying the freedom of muslim slaves such as Bilal bin Rabah. once these muslims were forced to flee to medina, they lived off begging from the Medina muslims community. raiding caravans was merely a compensation for 2 years of sanctions, 9 years of torture, forced expulsion from their homes and livelihoods, and the deaths of muslims such as Ammar bin Yasir and Summany bint Khabbab. the tribes which you have mentioned breached the terms of the constitution of mecca, which could be understandable had then been coerced into it. but they signed of their own free will.]

[Kriterion]

tell me what happened to the other tribes such as Banu Quraiza, Banu Mustaliq, Banu Qainuqa, Banu Nadir, Banu Jaun , the Jews of Khaibar ... that got wiped out by force. Did all of them have enemity with Muhammad ?

in addition to the above, some more points to ponder: 1) why is it so hard to imagine these people having enmity with one who is not of their own? even in the 21sth century, human beings rape, murder, and steal from each other. no religion is spared, no religion (asides from jainism and bahai - an abrahmic one) is innocent. why do u assume that jews or pagan arabs from 7th century middle east were perfect and committed no wrong? 2) again what is your source that these tribes were absolutely perfect people, especially given your (and others') assertions that abrahamic people are the world's most violent in comparison to all others? we have the sources (the Quran) which highlight if not Muhammad's exact actions, at least his most important thoughts. and even if Muhammad acted contrary to the Quran, we have no evidence that he did. all we have is Ibn Ishaq's word some 700 years later, or Bukhari's word some 150 years later. its a classic he said, she said situation. so where are your sources which no one else seems to have access to? 3) we see that all references to fighting in the Quran come in the DEFENSIVE context of the hijrah, since Muhammad wrote the quran reflecting the events of his own life (universally accepted fact by secular academics). so i plead with you for the umpteenth time: where are the Quranic exhortations to fight against Hindus, Christians, Jews, Atheists, Pagans, Buddhists, Sikhs, and all others without provocation? surely the Muhammad must have written about it since it was such an important concept to him, no? why leave it for Bukhari or Ibn Kathir to write it 100+ years after his death?

[Kriterion]

Lets take the Quraysh tribe of Mecca where Muhammad preached for many yrs these guys tolerated a lot of slander on their religion by Muhammad ... a current day analogy would be something like this : Suppose a man from any community of Mecca, or elsewhere in Saudi Arabia, or from anywhere in the world, goes to Mecca and declares in front of an assembly of Muslims that he has received revelations from the true God; that he is the true messenger; that Islam is false; that the Ka’ba is the sanctuary of his own God; and that Muslims should abandon their false creed and embrace his new religion. What do you think will happen to such a person ? Immediate death pretty much isnt it (even in this day and age) . Whereas absolutely nothing happened to Muhammad when he actually did those things. Is there any further proof needed about the tolerance of the Pagan tribes ?

freedom of religion should prevail as highlighted throughout the quran, most poignantly in surah kafirun ("unto you your religion, and unto me my religion") as well as surah 2:256 ("la ikraha fid deen (there is no complusion in religion..."). furthermore, how is the above "slander"? afterall isn't that what non-muslims believe anyways? further, isn't that part of the crux of your "argument"...that religious criticism should be allowed, particularily of islam? so how is Muhammad merely stating his beliefs in a totally non-insulting manner "slanderous"? did he accuse the quraysh religious pantheon of being a terrorist, or a rapist, or a pedophile, or a mysogynist?

I have done this many times ... the last time was in this thread itself. Not much I can do when you reject things like Tafseers and Hadiths that a vast majority of your own ulema dont question at all. Also please recall the discussion on the Kaa'ba idols and who destroyed them.

no you haven't. not once. the tafsir and the hadeeth does not = the quran. the quran's verses always come in the context of the hijrah and the Meccan persecution. the extrapolations of Ibn kathir and Bukhari, et al ARE NOT Muhammad's and come in lands and centuries far removed from Muhammad's. you are trusting a tertiary source over a primary one, which is any elementary student of logic would understand. your logical fallacy is that Ulema don't question it, thus it must be true. its based on the supposition that the ulema are infallible.

This is the crucial part in the story of the supposed Quraysh persecuation .. if they were after Muhammad why did it take them well over 10 yrs to come up with a plot to assasinate him ? How did Muhammad survive for those 10yrs if these guys were so ruthless (keep in mind he had no army at that time and very few followers) especially after his uncles Death ?

because Muhammad's uncle, Abu Talib was protecting the Muslim community for the first 8-9 years of Islam. once he died, the Quraysh wasted no time in organizing a plot. the delay was in securing immunity for the various clans involved, in order to make sure that Muhammad's own Hashemite clan would not seek revenge on their other Quraishi cousin clans.

Further more if they were hell-bent on killing Muhammad why would they not confront or at least question Ali and the female members of Muhammad’s and Abu Bakr’s families that were left behind after Muhammad’s supposedly "miraculous" escape to Medina. Instead, after Muhammad’s successful flight, Talha, who had already gone to Medina, returned to Mecca and took away the family members of Abu Bakr and Muhammad like nothing had happened. This does not make any logical sense. Also keep in mind that that Muhammad & Co migrated to Medina over a period of time and its hard to believe that the Quraysh hadnt gotten wind of it and tried to take advantage since he was protected by very few people. In any case he didnt even have a army at that time.

firstly, if it doesn't make logical sense, then it probably didn't happen. you are finally beginning to understand the workings of simple logical inference... why do you think muslims migrated over a period of time? do you agree that it is easier for small groups of people to slip out in the cover of darkness than a mass exodus of several hundred people? by the way, why is it difficult to believe talha came and took Abu Bakr's family to Medina? remember, and this is where a genuine knowledge of Islam beyond Fox News is important, that Abu Bakr's son, Abdur Rahman was at this time NOT MUSLIM...thus the family of Abu Bakr was spared. also, FYI, Ali was questioned about Muhammad...and he said "Muhammad is not here" which of course was the truth, and the Quraish could see that, because if they did not, why would they be asking of Muhammad's absence.

Theres plenty more inconsistencies in the supposed Quraysh persecution that lead to the Hijra but this should suffice.

then answer me this? why is that no secular academics have questioned this? why is it that no islamophobic sources have questioned this? the crux of the islamophobic arguement is that Islam was "peaceful" in mecca and became "violent" in medina when power was gained. your own islamophobes attest to this, as does everyone else. so what magical source do you have, that no one else possess? where u present there at that time?

Kriterion many thanks for replying ..... as for Hadith vs Quran ..... it appears you dont trust the Hadiths ..... If so then on what do you base your knowledge of Muhammad as a person? How do you know about him, his life, his companions, etc? Do you perform the rituals of obligatory prayers fasting, hajj etc? If you do how do you know that is the way Muhammad intended them to be. There are no descriptions of these rituals in the Quran. All these details are in the hadith which constitute the basis of the sunna. But you deny the authenticity of the hadith. So where do you get the important information that is missing in the Quran? (Which will then blow a big hole in the fundamental concept of Islam i.e the Quran is the most flawless and clear cut book that there ever was or wil be with answers to everything on Islam

its very simple. out of the 700,000 often self-contradictory hadeeths, we take as authentic the ones which do not contradict the Quran in any way shape or form. those that do (i.e "wage war on all disbelievers for no reason at all") are, or should be, summarily rejected as false. its a simple case of taking a primary source over a secondary or tertiary one.

[Kriterion]

Bossbhai: i have tried my best to answer all your questions, and apologize for the redundancy in my answers which stem from your repitition of the the same thing. now i would prefer if you answered three of my long-standing questions. 1) what quran verse is there or context is there for no holds barred, "offensive warfare"? 2) why do you view, or under what scholastic prinicple, do you hold that a tertiary source such as Ibn Kathir's tafsir of the 14th century is good summary of Muhammad's motives in the 7th century, especially when it contradicts with both the historical and textual context of Muhammad's time and the Quran? 3) If the Meccans did not persecute the Muslims first, then how do you explain the following: a) academic sources (see wiki links above) stating otherwise? b) why a man would leave his birthplace and home of 53 years as well as the sacred house of his religion, for any reason other than increased power? c) if there was increased power, why such a man would enter into a Defense Treaty with those non-believers in Medina? d) why you believe the pagan Arabs and Jews were so infallible when you have previously, in this very thread, argued that Abrahamic peoples are "violent" and "ruthless"? 4) you assert that Meccans didn't persecute muslims. fine. but where is your source to back it up. i am assuming you are less than 1400 years old, and didn't witness anything personally, which is itself based on teh assumption that you are unbiased and credible witness. so what source do you have? i have provided wiki links to everything, which i will do again for your convenience: Meccan persecution of Muslims...note that this link is not controversial and no one has tagged it for a dispute. please cite a source, explaining the alternate COD for Yasir bin Amir and Sumayya bint Khabbab. Constitution of Medina

[Kriterion]

Lets take the Quraysh tribe of Mecca where Muhammad preached for many yrs these guys tolerated a lot of slander on their religion by Muhammad ... a current day analogy would be something like this : Suppose a man from any community of Mecca, or elsewhere in Saudi Arabia, or from anywhere in the world, goes to Mecca and declares in front of an assembly of Muslims that he has received revelations from the true God; that he is the true messenger; that Islam is false; that the Ka’ba is the sanctuary of his own God; and that Muslims should abandon their false creed and embrace his new religion. What do you think will happen to such a person ? Immediate death pretty much isnt it (even in this day and age) . Whereas absolutely nothing happened to Muhammad when he actually did those things. Is there any further proof needed about the tolerance of the Pagan tribes ?

there a number of additional gross errors with such defense or argument. 1) the pagan arabs did indeed believe in Allah, or the single god of Abraham, due to their abrahamic descent and contact with Jews and Christians. thus the message of the Quran was not at all slander. the pagans took to various idols as intermediaries to Allah. thus they knew that Allah was the "real" god and that their idols were merely secretaries. the quran merely points out the idiocy of such limitations for a supposedly all-powerful diety. the quran is full of rhetorical questions, and constant exhortations of critical thinking (see above link several posts ago). it is far from a collection of slander. 2) even if it was slander, doesn't freedom of speech guarantee that? i mean thats the crticisim against muslims countries, and its justifiable. but shouldn't that cut both ways? if the murder of theo van goh was unjust, isn't the persecution of muslims unjust? 3) you say absolutely nothing happened to Muhammad? and i apoloize for beating a dead horse, but why then did the Muslims emigrate to Medina? would you voluntarily leave your house? did the KPs voluntarily leave Kashmir? 4) if Muhammad had power in Medina, why did not attack the jews and pagans straight away? why did he only write about defensive warfare in the Quran? remember that tafsirs and hadeeths came MUCH LATER on that the Quran.

[Kriterion]

well then can you show me where in quran it states that the Quraysh tried to assasinate Muhammad ?

i'm glad you asked. its difficult to wean many ignorant muslims away from the misbegotten idea that the hadeeth and tafsir are a equivalent resource to the quran. never thought it would be that hard to convince non-muslims! but we can see many references to ONLY defensive warfare (meaning the quraish tried to assassinate Muhammad before he declared war on them): And when those who disbelieve plot against thee (O Muhammad) to wound thee fatally, or to kill thee or to drive thee forth; they plot, but Allah (also) plotteth; and Allah is the best of plotters [surah 8, verse 30 - all of these occurred before the Hijrah]. we know that Muhammad *wrote* the quran as he went along, right? so suppose this event wasn't common knowledge. that the hostility of abu jahl, umar, etc was just made up. how could Muhammad dare to write something which anyone could see with their own eyes was not true. this isn't something theological or otherwiorldy. and if he did write it, how is that the Muslims around him didn't say "hey, we're not being persecuted, what is Muhammad takling about?". but let us assume that Meccan oppression was still somehow a figment of Muhammad's imagination, and that he somehow got Umar to confess to prersecutions he didn't do. let us imagine for arguments sake, that Muhammad was indeed a bloodaholic who wished to conquor as much of the known world as he could. lets imagine that he was ruthless and unnerving, and totally without conscience. lets see what he wrote in your favorite chapter, "the spoils of war" (surah # 8): And fight against them until there is no more oppression and all worship is devoted to God alone. And if they desist-behold, God sees all that they do; [surah 8, verse 39] AS FOR THOSE with whom thou hast made a covenant, and who thereupon break their covenant on every occasion, not being conscious of God, if thou find them at war [with you], make of them a fearsome example for those who follow them, so that they might take it to heart [surah 8, verses 56 and 57 - again illustrating warfare against ppl who break treaties (the tribes you mentioned above)]. But if they incline to peace, incline thou to it as well, and place thy trust in God: verily, He alone is all-hearing, all-knowing! And should they seek but to deceive thee [by their show of peace] - behold, God is enough for thee! He it is who has strengthened thee with His succour, and by giving thee believing followers [surah 8, verses 61 and 62 - peace is an obligation on muslims if the enemy wants it, even if they are only using it strategically. now what kind of conquorer defers declaration of warfare on his enemies?] O Prophet, say unto the captives who are in your hands: "If God finds any good in your hearts, He will give you something better than all that has been taken from you, and will forgive you your sins: for God is much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace. [surah 8, verse 70 - again, what type of Conquorer rewards honest POWs with forgiveness and grace?] all that is just from your favorite chapter, "the spoils of war", one of the "violent" medina chapters. moving onto chapter 9 (another staple of the islamphobes "argument"): But excepted shall be - from among those who ascribe divinity to aught beside God - [people] with whom you [O believers] have made a covenant and who thereafter have in no wise failed to fulfil their obligations towards you, and neither have aided anyone against you: observe, then, your covenant with them until the end of the term agreed with them. Verily, God loves those who are conscious of Him. [surah 9, verse 4 - again a conquorer who is upholding his treaties with those who uphold them with him] ...respecting no tie and no protective obligation with regard to a believer; and it is they, they who transgress the bounds of what is right! [surah 9, verse 10 - again only referring to treaty breakers] But if they break their solemn pledges after having concluded a covenant, and revile your religion, then fight against these archetypes of faithlessness who, behold, have no [regard for their own] pledges, so that they might desist [from aggression] [surah 9, verse 12 - again, for the 3rd time, it SPEFICIALLY MENTIONS disbelievers who break treaties.] now going to chapter 2, yet another "violent" medina chapter...perhaps here we will see the calls for offensive, anything goes warfare... AND FIGHT in God's cause against those who wage war against you, but do not commit aggression-for, verily, God does not love aggressors [surah 2, verse 190 - nope, just another call for defensive war only if you're attacked first (dang!)] And slay them wherever you may come upon them, and drive them away from wherever they drove you away - for oppression is even worse than killing. [surah 2, verse 191 - implication that Meccans drove the muslims out of Mecca] But if they desist-behold, God is much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace [surah 2, verse 192 - again, if they stop fighting, they are to be forgiven. again what kind of conquorer forgives those who attack him first?] Hence, fight against them until there is no more oppression and all worship is devoted to God alone; but if they desist, then all hostility shall cease, save against those who [wilfully] do wrong [surah 2, verse 193 - i guess this is just in case someone didn't get the first 50 times]. i think that should suffice for now. also bear in mind that while hadeeths/tafsir/seerah are the words of men who made inferences as to what Muhammad said - undoubtedly predicated by their own personal beliefs, enviornments, and agendas. these quran verses were *written* by muhammad himself. this is a primary source. ************************* 1) so now, why is it that Muhammad would engage in a defense treaty with the tribes of Medina, if he was really looking to wipe them out? especially a treaty in which he was bound to fight with them if they were attacked. why risk your own skin for people you supposedly hate? 2) where are the academic resources, the scholars, who are providing you with the alternate historical account of what happened? academia has established that columbus sailed to the new world, that washington was the US' first president, that Ghandi was a gujarati, and that the British invented cricket. to argue against these one would require some valid documentation, beyond a biased blogger.

[Kriterion]

does the Quran contain the entire life-story of Muhammad ? It doesnt AFAIK. Iam pretty sure you will agree too. So where are you going to fill the remaining blanks with ? The official method is to go to the Tafsirs + Hadeeth + Sira. Heck ... a lot of the Quran itself isnt meaningfull without further contextual elaboration from the Hadeeth. You try to reject things from the Hadeeth that hurt your modern sensibilities but Iam afraid you are a part of the teeny-weeny minority. Will elaborte more and provide more explanation and answer your other posts later over the weekend. But many thanks for the engrossing discussion.

you are correct, we may be a minority, but just take a gander at ********** or banglacricket's forums on religion and you'd be surprised at the number of right-minded muslims. based on that, one would well imagine that there are more moderate muslims than moderate hindus based on the number of people here who espouse the tenets of hindutva (and by hindutva, i mean broadly taking a hardline stance against non-hindus in india be the muslim, sikh, or christian). So, the quran doesn't cover all of Muhammad's life story. But is that really relevant? Do you really want to raise an issue about which breast Muhammad sucked milk from, the right, the left, or both? What is relevant is what Muhammad did after he "founded"/preached islam. isn't it? and in that regard, all the major incidents are mentioned. even if they were not, you claim that violence is THE main theme of islam. if so, shouldn't it be mentioned at least once, with or without contextual background in the Quran, if Muhammad indeed thought it so very very important?

he official method is to go to the Tafsirs + Hadeeth + Sira. Heck ... a lot of the Quran itself isnt meaningfull without further contextual elaboration from the Hadeeth. You try to reject things from the Hadeeth that hurt your modern sensibilities but Iam afraid you are a part of the teeny-weeny minority.

"official", but what is official? did Muhammad go to the tafseer/hadeeth/seerah? Did Abu Bakr, did Umar (regardless of whether they acted islamically or not)? of course not. Bukhari wrote his Sahih Hadith around 780, Muhammad died in 632. Ibn Ishaq wrote his seerah around 750, Muhammad died in 632. Ibn Kathir wrote his tafseer in 1400s, Muhammad died in 632. what makes more logical sense, regardless of what majority of muslims do? unless you believe the majority of muslims have superior logical acumen...your're not making a valid point at all. as for context, all the verses above already come with the context of self-defense. all other verses of warfare, are built around that context. like i said, you won't find "fight people who are at peace with you" in the quran. yes, much of islam relies on contextual extrapolation of the hadiths, but only so long as they don't contradict the Quran. so praying 5 times a day doesn't contradict the quran. declaring "holy war" on today's kafir-du-jour simply because they are not muslims is a clear violation of the Quran in ALL chapters, including the "spoils of war" and others, as shown above.

You try to reject things from the Hadeeth that hurt your modern sensibilities but Iam afraid you are a part of the teeny-weeny minority.

sensibilities, yes. modern sensibilities no. whats modern today, will not be modern 500 years from now. modernity is only embraced by weak-minded people. its just like the teenage girl who has to have the newest ipod, just because some other kids at school have it. chopping the limbs of thieves is also against "modern" sensibilites. yet i am in full favor of such justice partly because stealing is a scumbag thing to do, but mostly because the quran says it. don't have to go to a contradictory hadith or tafsir to dig that out. i am also in favor of whipping fornicators and adulterers with 100 lashes as per surah 24...and one will do well to note that the punishment applies equally to males, and there is no mention of stoning to deat in the quran.

[Kriterion]

No they werent. They were put on paper by his followers many years after his death ... pretty much the same methodology that was used to write his biography and the hadith. How can you say with a straight face that all these books except the quran was doctored ? The entire Islamic world of scholars holds the authors of these books ( i.e the Caliphs) in high esteem and there is not even a hint of wrong doing when it comes to these books.

OK, so suppose the quran was doctored. that means that you cannot say for any certainty what Muhammad said. thus you'd be guilty if libel or rumor-mongering by levelling accusations you cannot prove.

What happened to the Banu Qurayza after the battle of trench ?

see the verse about broken treaties...

Why would you have any problems with Hindus taking up arms against Islam considering all the death and destruction that has been wrecked on them over a millenia ? If Hindus retaliate and drive out Muslims wouldnt that be exactly the same thing your prophet did .. ( i.e "defensive" warfare ) ?

and this is precisely why i have absolutely no disagreements with your views about Islam/Muslims after the death of Muhammad. if hindus retaliate against Muslim aggression, muslims have only themselves to blame. as Malcolm X said, truth and justice don't care about the identity of people. neither does God. I only disagree with your historic revisionism of the time period of 610-632...a very narrow time period, but of utmost importance.

Can you tell me what happened to all the tribes I mentioned in an earlier post in detail ? After you are done with them you can then tell me what happened to these Jewish tribes such as Fadak, Kamus, Watih,Solalim, Wadi al-Kora etc. And then I would also like to know the circumstances in which Safiya became Muhammads wife without peeking into them evil Hadiths ?

again, its clear as day in the quran. those who break treaties, face war. those who don't live happily ever after. simple as that. the issue of safiya is another one which is mentioned clearly in surah 4, verses 22-24. i trust you can look it up in our quran resource of choice. if you need help understanding it, let me know, i'm here, as always. i anticipate you will infer, incorrectly, that the word "rape" is in there where the preceeding 2 verses will clearly indicate the world "marriage" instead. but now i'd like to hear your side of the story. what do you know about safiyya and more importantly what is your secular source?

There is plenty ... I have chronicled them before. you forget. The thing is you dont even need to look at these verses. Simple common sense will do. Just look at the demographic landscape before and after Muhammad. Not even the most rabid apologist will claim with a straight face that this sudden transition (over a period of roughly 10 yrs ) happened without any violence at all. So why does a prophet sent by no-less authority than God himself require so much violence to get his voice heard ? You very well know that you will never be able to answer that question without the aid of Cognitive Dissonance. .

my memory may be fuzzy (aging you see), but AFAIR, you haven't chronicled anything except to state, and re-state, and then state again how the quran has a chapter titled "spoils of war". and i have proceeded to quote from that chapter to show you that there at least 3 references to DEFENSIVE warfare in that chapter alone. so if there are plenty of verses of declarations of war against peaceful people in the quran, please show me the light. you never know, i may see the truth and convert to ranks of the wise and fight the great plague that is Islam.

( Heck the Meccans actually dared Muhammad to prove his Godly powers which he took as a insult and thats how the enemity started )

which cannot be true, since Muhammad himself claimed to be a mere mortal and never claimed any divine power at all. and this is where the hadiths contradict the quran, by alleging that Muhammad split the moon as a "miracle".

[mhr123]

^^ will get back to ur post in the evening or tmrw.. having issues with my laptop... needs to format it seems :((

Laptop is working fine .. back to business..

The problem here is that Mohammad needs the acceptance of the Christians and Jews not the other way round ... the Christians and Jews of his times never saw anything prophetic about him and his ways. Also it simply doesnt make sense to have subjugatory conditions attached to the Jizya if he considered them to be of the people of book.

It is not essential that Muhammad (PBUH) needs to be accepted by Jews and Christains. Jews never accepted Jesus (Aali Salam) to be the prophet and on the contrary the tried to crucify him , so this never had an impact on Jeasus (AS) prophet-hood. If u go for the records .. well there were many Jews Raabies who accepted Islam during the time of prophet (Pbuh). Ben Shalom later known as Al-Husayn ibn Salam was a Jewish rabbi in Yathrib [Madinah] who was widely respected and honored by the people of the city, even by those who were not Jewish. A lot of Jewish people followed his suit later on ... Al-Husayn ibn Salam was known to be on of the best scholar of Jewish literature , he had read about the last / final prophet in his scriptures .When he heard of the appearance of the Messenger (pbuh) he began to make inquiries about his name, his genealogy, his characteristics, his time and place and he began to compare this information with what is contained in there books. Later on after meeting him he became a Muslim ... There are many other Jewish knowledgeable scholars who knew him as a prophet ... some accepted him other rejected ... for this behavior the verse was reviled.

"Those to whom We have given the Book, know him (Prophet Muhammad) as they know their own sons. But a party of them conceal the truth while they know." (2:146)

Few reasons marked for rejecting the prophet by Jews were stated by few historians as follows : Their opposition "may well have been for political as well as religious reasons".Gerhard Endress, Islam, Columbia University Press, p.29 According to Watt, "Jews would normally be unwilling to admit that a non-Jew could be a prophet." The Cambridge History of Islam, pp. 43-44 Mark Cohen adds that Muhammad was appearing "centuries after the cessation of biblical prophecy" and "couched his message in a verbiage foreign to Judaism both in its format and rhetoric." Mark R. Cohen, Under Crescent and Cross: The Jews in the Middle Ages, p. 23, Princeton University Press As Muhammad taught that his message was identical to those of previous prophets (such as Abraham, Moses, and Jesus), the Jews were furthermore in the position to make some Muslims doubt about his prophethood; the Jews, according to Watt, could argue that "some passages in the Qur'an contradicted their ancient scriptures".The Cambridge History of Islam, pp. 43-44

Simple logic tells me that every single tribe cannot possible have enemity with Muhammad especially if the assumption is that he was the peace loving type. Muhammad made a living out of raiding the merchant caravans. This was the root cause of enemity with all these tribes. You can maybe make a case for the Meccans but not others. But few ruthless examples are below ... let me know if you need more. Volume 4, Book 52, Number 280 http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/052.sbt.html http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/muslim/019.smt.html http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/014.sbt.html

[Kriterion]

http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/MH_LM/from_the_beginning_of_revelation.htm That is a link used as a resource in that wiki article you posted about Meccan persecution of Muhammad ... a tidbit from there :

1) muhammad's "insults" were merely rhetorical questions...without with philisophical debate is impossible. again, one must go to the quran. just because the meccans were looking for any excuse to call something an "insult" doesn't give them the right to torture and kill people. the meccans didn't really care for the idols, since they themselves realized that the real god was Allah. the idols are just sticks and stones which they used as intercessors. God needs no intercessors. if that statement is insulting, the problem lies with the insulted for being such pansies. 2) the real motivation for Meccan persecution was mentioned in your link: economics. the meccans did not want people to convert to islam because it would remove the income they earned from pilgrims who visited the site. 3) so you've gone from arguing that meccans didn't persecute the muslims to now saying that they did persecute them, but were justified in doing so. is this correct? 4) if meccans are justified to kill people who question their religion, are other religions similarily justified? does this make sense? does this not contradict freedom of religion as enshrined in quran chapter 109 and chapter 2, verse 256? should i be killed because the question the tenets of the Mormon religion? should you be killed because you think abrahamic faiths are "violent"?

No treaties were broken by them ... even if they did ... they surrendered unconditionally. What happened afterwards ? Keep in mind we are discussing this event to contest 08:39 ... And fight against them until there is no more oppression and all worship is devoted to God alone. And if they desist-behold, God sees all that they do; [surah 8, verse 39]

how do you know? all we know is what the quran says. and the quran guarantees that war is only for those who break treaties or attack you first. simple as that. what you are alleging is that Muhammad wrote/said one thing (defensive war only), and then proceeded to do just the opposite (offensive war), with everyone watching. there is no way that everyone failed to see that contradiction.\ of course i take it that your argument is that offensive war is sanctioned in teh quran. but i don't see why your're delaying posting those verses. since i've already quoted defensive texts from the chapters you are most interested in (surahs 8 and 9):

Even this is not true and you know that. Just a simple read of chapter 9 tells you that. So does chapter 8 which is aptly titled Spoils of War. We have done this topic to death earlier. Let me know if you want to do that all over again.

So why does a prophet sent by no-less authority than God himself require so much violence to get his voice heard ?

because, he happenned to live in the most violent region of the world in the 7th century where there was no UN, there was international court of justice, and there was no Amnesty International. and even then, he made sure to only wage defensive warfare (again i'm waiting for the offensive verses). remember that you, as well as some others, stated that Abrahamic people are "violent" and the implication was that they are the most violent people on earth. "no other non-dharmic faiths can lay claim to such lofty high standards when it comes to non-violence." as well as one from lurker: "I would put Eastern philosphies on rank 1(you can subdivide into which comes first), Abrhaminical religion, all of them, would form the later rung." so by your own logic/admission...7th century arabia was no utopic paradise.

dont see it .. http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/c...n/004.qmt.html

it mentions that women who are POWs can be married and that the marriage must be in "honest wedlock" with dowries and the works. safiyya was a POW who converted to Islam after her tribe's men were executed for aiding the Quraish at the Battle of the Trench. moral of the story: if you're going to double-cross someone, make sure you're gonna win first. can't blame anyone if i act in my self interest at some risk, but forget to cover my *****. there are those who argue that safiyya's was a sham conversion to save her life. but then what explains the fact that safiyya is held in high regard by muslims as a great scholar of islam? remember that abu sufyan also converted to islam, but many musims regard his conversion as one done simply to save his skin. abu jahl, when asked to choose between forgiveness and execution, chose to lose his head, aleggedly even issuing orders to his muslim executioner "when you cut my head, cut it from close to the shoulder, so that when people see my head they know it was the head of a General." hate on abu jahl all you want for being a murderer of muslims, but at least the man had steel cajones.

[Kriterion]

Not true .... heres the very first line from that tidbit : Muhammad did take the initiative of attacking their gods.

completely false. (quranic verse please????) in fact, the quran even demands muslims to debate with disbelievers in a way that is good, and to refrain from insulting other religions because then they will insult the true religion.

Quite opposite to the "to you be your religion and to me be mine"

yet this is exaclty what the quran says in surah 109, verse 5..."lakum deenukum, wa liya deen."

[Kriterion]

but lets assume for arguments sake that Muhammad did insult the Meccan "gods" which were just sticks and stones. does this validate wholesale persecution of a community? i could understand just picking on Muhammad, but what about yasir bin amir? or bilal bin rabah? so does this mean that you should be punished for "insulting" islam? i hope you realize the pandora's box you are opening by justifying the Quraish of meccan (and their allies of Banu Nadir, Qurayza, Qaynuqa, et al)...

[Kriterion]

In order to better organize this ongoing discussion, let me provide a quick recap of my understanding of your position. i will also summarize my own views. Bossbhai Summarized: - the quran contains verses demanding offensive warfare (no evidence yet presented) - the hadith/tafsir/seerah contain Muhammad's endorsement of offensive war - the hadith/tafsir/seerah are equivalent resources to the quran, since the clergy endorses it - abrahamic peoples are violent, or at least more violent than dharmic peoples...but the meccan pagan arabs and jews were perfectly peaceful people who would never have attacked Muslmims, despite the fact that they had engaged in inter and intra-tribal warfare from time immemorial, and buried their daughters alive. - OK, fine meccans persecuted Muhammad, but he desevered it because he criticized their religion...freedom of religion either should not exist at all, or just shouldn't exist for Muslims (unclear which one you support). Kriterion Summarized: - the quran is the supreme source of islam, as it represents the direct thoughts of Muhammad (explained below). - the hadeeth/tafseer/seerah are valid auxillary texts, but only so long as they support the Quran (since thats what auxillary means) since they were not written by Muhammad, and many of them contradict the quran's teachings. ask ANY scholar of islam this, and they will agree. - the quran only contains permission to wage defensive war. this means that you can attack only in three instances 1) if you are attacked first 2) if someone is aiding your direct enemies 3) you fight on behalf of oppressed people against their enemies, even if they haven't attacked you (i.e injustice against one is injustice against ALL). - surah 8, and 9, as well as surah 2 all support my claims. - Muhammad made a treaty with pagan/jewish tribes of Medina upon arriving, if he was a conquorer he would have declared war on them straight away or waged war on them after defeating the Meccans at Badr. But he did not. - Muhammad's conquest of Mecca in 630 occurred without bloodshed - and since when do people conquor their "hometowns"? this is proof positive that he was chased out against his will. since neither money nor arms awaited him in Medina. - freedom of religion and religious disagreement are enshrined by the quran. they apply to muslims and non-muslims alike. thus the Meccans had no right to persecute Muslims for questioning and converting out of the Meccan religion.