• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

"Religion of Peace?"

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Ibn Humayd- Salamah- Ibn Ishaq: The Messenger of God proclaimed God’s message openly and declared Islam publicly to his tribesmen. When he did so, they did not withdraw from him or reject him in anyway, as far as I had heard, until he spoke of their gods and denounced them. When he did this, they took exception to it and united in opposition and hostility to him, except for those of them whom God had protected from error by means of Islam. The latter were few in number and practiced their faith in secret. His uncle Abu Talib was friendly to him, however, and protected him and shielded him from them. The Messenger of God continued to do God’s work and to proclaim his message, undeterred by anything. When Quraysh saw that he would not give them any satisfaction, they objected to his departing from their ways and denouncing their gods, and seeing that Abu Talib protected him, shielded him from harm, and would not hand him over to them, a number of the nobles of Quraysh, consisting of such men as ‘Utbah b. Rabi‘ah, Shaybah b. Rabi‘ah, Abu al-Bakhtari b. Hisham, al-Aswad b. al-Muttalib, al-Walid b. al-Mughirah, Abu Jahl b. Hisham, al-‘As b. Wa’il and Nubayh and Munabbih, the sons of al-Hajjaj, went to Abu Talib and said, "Abu Talib, your nephew has reviled our gods, denounced our religion, derided our traditional values and told us that our forefathers were misguided. Either curb his attacks on us or give us a free hand to deal with him, for you are just as opposed to him as we are, and we will deal with him for you." Abu Talib gave them a mild answer and declined courteously, and they left him. The Messenger of God continued as before, proclaiming the faith of God and summoning people to it.

After this, Muhammad was estranged from the Quraysh, and they withdrew from him and harbored a secret hatred for him. They talked about him frequently amongst themselves and urged one another against him. Eventually they went to Abu Talib once again. "Abu Talib," they said, "we hold you in respect among us on account of your age, your nobility and your standing. We asked you to forbid your nephew to attack us, but you did not do so. By
God, we can no longer endure this vilification of our forefathers, this derision of our traditional values and this abuse of our gods
. Either you restrain him or we shall fight both of you over this until one side or the other is destroyed," or words to that effect. Then they left. This breach and enmity with his tribe weighed heavily on Abu Talib, but he could not reconcile himself to surrendering the Messenger of God to them or deserting him.

Muhammad b. al-Husayn- Ahmad b. al-Mufaddal- Asbat- al-Suddi: A number of men of the Quraysh gathered together with a number of other shaykhs of the Quraysh, and said to one another, "Let us go to Abu Talib and speak to him about Muhammad, so that he will give us justice against him and order him to desist from reviling our gods and we will leave him to the god whom he worships for we fear that this old man may die and we may do something which the Arabs will reproach us for and say, ‘They let him alone until his uncle died, and then they laid hands on him.’"

They sent one of their number, whose name was al-Muttalib, to Abu Talib to ask permission for them to enter. He said, "Here are the shaykhs and nobles of your tribe asking permission to visit you." He told him to ask them to come in, and when they had done so they said, "Abu Talib, you are our elder and our chief, so give us justice against your nephew and order him to desist from reviling our gods, and we will leave him to his god."

Abu Talib sent for the Messenger of God, and when he came in he said, "Nephew, here are the shaykhs and nobles of your tribe. They have asked for justice against you, that you should desist from reviling their gods and they will leave you to your god." "Uncle," he said, "shall I not summon them to something which is better for them than their gods?" "What do you summon them to?" he asked. He replied, "I summon them to utter a saying through which the Arabs will submit to them and they will rule over the non-Arabs." Abu Jahl said from among the gathering, "What is it, by your father? We would give you it and ten like it." He answered, "That you should say, ‘There is no deity but God.’" They took fright at that and said, "Ask for anything rather than that!" But he said, "If you were to bring me the sun and put it into my hand, I would not ask you for anything other than this."

They rose up to leave in anger and said, "By God, we shall revile you and your god who commands you to do this!" "The chiefs among them hurried about, exhorting; Go and be staunch to your gods! This is a thing designed…" to the words "naught but an invention." (The History of al-Tabari: Muhammad at Mecca, translated and annotated by W. Montgomery Watt and M. V. McDonald [State University of New York Press, Albany 1988], Volume VI, pp. 93-95. Al-Tabari.
"as far as I had heard, until he spoke of their gods and denounced them. When he did this, they took exception to it and united in opposition and hostility to him"

As one could see:
There is no mention of any attack on the Meccans, Muhammad only exercised his right of religion without harming attacking anybody, instead Muhammad and his followers were persecuted.
 
Last edited:

Notanumber

A Free Man
A warning for all you non-veggies, do not buy your meat from Ayatollah Khomeini or a neighbouring village.


Who was it that said, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam”, “Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance”, and “The sweetest sound I know is the Muslim call to prayer”?

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk must be turning in his grave over what is happening in Turkey.

Voltaire could see through Islam all those years ago but most western politicians act as if they should have gone to Specsavers.

At least Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi and Zakir Naik spoke the truth.


Who was it that said, “If they had gotten rid of the apostasy punishment, Islam wouldn’t exist today. Islam would have ended since the death of the prophet. Opposing apostasy is what kept Islam to this day”?

We should be thankful to see the backs of Obama and Cameron and hope that their replacements are up to the job!
 

hughwatt

Member
Ok, so you fear Muslims, you consider them all the "enemy", noted.

Now, could you post the verses of the Koran that say all non-believers should be killed?(#698).

In post #694 I quoted you and replied, "I never said that." You responded: "You said that every Muslim is a potential terrorist, putting "every" in all caps no less. You made your view of Muslims clear." (#698). I did say every Muslim is a potential terrorist (if they obey the Koran, Hadith and Sunnah), but I never said I "fear Muslims" and I "consider them all the "enemy." You "noted" what you read into.

Do not twist my words. I provided verses and provided clear explanation that said verses concerned their self defense against enemies that attacked them first.

Secondly, surah 2:190 states "And fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you BUT be not aggressive. Surely Allah loves not the aggressor.

Again it is about defense, which you will ignore, again.
Do you know the context of surah two? Here's a hint:

Surah 2:146 Those to whom We gave the Scripture know him as they know their own sons. But indeed, a party of them conceal the truth while they know [it]..159 Indeed, those who conceal what We sent down of clear proofs and guidance after We made it clear for the people in the Scripture - those are cursed by Allah and cursed by those who curse,.161 Indeed, those who disbelieve and die while they are disbelievers - upon them will be the curse of Allah and of the angels and the people, all together,.163 And your god is one God. There is no deity [worthy of worship] except Him, the Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful..165 And [yet], among the people are those who take other than Allah as equals [to Him]. They love them as they [should] love Allah . But those who believe are stronger in love for Allah . And if only they who have wronged would consider [that] when they see the punishment, [they will be certain] that all power belongs to Allah and that Allah is severe in punishment.

Where is the "self-defense?" Quote the verse(s) which say Muslims were being attacked and only sought to defend themselves against the aggressors.


I provided you with the verses before and after 9:29 that CLEARLY show it was talking about self defense. Some of the verses I provided CLEARLY show that they were not to harm non-believers that kept their oaths of peace. I provided verses that CLEARLY show that non-believers who asked for protection where to be given protection. Good job on ignoring everything that clearly debunks your position!
You gave your opinion with no supporting Islamic sources to back it up.

I said something which you chose to skip:

Whether or not the polytheists were right in their idolatry, tell me, what right did Muhammad have to force them or anyone through violence to submit to Islam?

You also added proof Islam uses violent means against apostates thus making a mockery of surah 2:256 "There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion." Before we get there read surah 2:193: "Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah . But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors."

How is it "self-defense?" The polytheists refuse(d) to worship Muhammad's god and he as their ruler. Even if they had entered into a treaty with Muhammad and no longer wanted to keep the treaty where does it say the polytheists took up arms and attacked the Muslims leading to "self-defense?" How is this not a contradiction of surah 2:256 which Muslims often use to prove "There is no compulsion in religion?"

Whether or not the polytheists were right in their idolatry, tell me, what right did Muhammad have to force them or anyone through violence to submit to Islam?
To which you came back with:

You have yet to show any evidence of this.


Surah 9.5 And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

Surah 9.29 Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.
 

hughwatt

Member
"as far as I had heard, until he spoke of their gods and denounced them. When he did this, they took exception to it and united in opposition and hostility to him"

As one could see:
There is no mention of any attack on the Meccans, Muhammad only exercised his right of religion without harming attacking anybody, instead Muhammad and his followers were persecuted.
When Muhammad offended them and their customs he was only exercising "his right of religion (of peace)" towards non-Muslims?
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
When Muhammad offended them and their customs he was only exercising "his right of religion (of peace)" towards non-Muslims?
Don't you believe that it is one's basic right recognized by the UN human rights?:

~ to have a religion of one's choice
~ to express it openly
~to promote and propagate it

The above are all peaceful measures.

And this is exactly what was Muhammad doing. It is therefore wrong to state that Muhammad was offending anybody.

Regards
 

Notanumber

A Free Man
Unfortunately, some Muslims do bad things in the name of Islam. I wish they didn’t, but will Islam allow them to change their ideology to a better one?
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Not necessarily, Paar. Promotion can be by the sword.
But Muhammad did not use any sword to promote his religion in Mecca and he did not believe that religion spreads with sword/torture/compulsion. He gave valid arguments in favor of the religion he believed, instead they- the Meccans persecuted, tortured women and other converts to Muhammad's religion. Even Muhammad along-with his new followers were restricted in a place called Shib Abi Talib for three years where they were denied food and water and milk to the children.
Why support the Meccan tyrants, please?

Regards
 

Notanumber

A Free Man
This brave Imam tries to introduce some humour into a very distasteful subject.


WARNING – you may want to skip some sections regarding the mistreatment of children.
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
There is no reformation in Islam.
Bill Warner, PhD, is wrong. Islam's reformation, most truly reformation of all revealed religions, has been started with the advent of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 1835-1908, the Promised Messiah in his Second Coming, the Mahdi and the End-Time Reformer of all revealed religions . It is program of three hundred years.

Regards
 

The Emperor of Mankind

Currently the galaxy's spookiest paraplegic
Don't you believe that it is one's basic right recognized by the UN human rights?:

~ to have a religion of one's choice
~ to express it openly
~to promote and propagate it

The above are all peaceful measures.

And this is exactly what was Muhammad doing. It is therefore wrong to state that Muhammad was offending anybody.

Regards

Ignoring the fact that the concept of human rights didn't exist back then, Muhammad did not respect the freedom of religion of the Meccans; he took over their temple and coerced them into accepting Islam by banning non-Muslims from the site.
 
Top