1. 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!

Shocking Reveals about Prophet Mohammed!

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by Surya Deva, Oct 22, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Surya Deva

    Surya Deva Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2006
    Messages:
    2,572
    Ratings:
    +170
    Shocking Reveals about Prophet Mohammed!

    During my research on Islam especially recently due to discussions on it I have come across some very shocking stuff on Mohammed which I did not know before. I need to share this with others and discuss its veracity, because if it is true it thearetens to rewrite the history of Islam completely and will force any impartial reader to view Islam in a new light.

    This is a very large article and goes on for 8 pages. The article is very well written, providing for every claim it makes extensive evidence, some of which is conclusive(I will only cite part of it here, and give links at the end) The claims it makes are

    1) Arabia had a Hindu past. The so-called Pagan religion that was being practiced in Arabia was none other than Hinduism. Hinduism was being practiced in Arabia from as early as 1800BCE, and was still in vogue during the life and times of Mohammed. The remains of it can still be seen in temples that have survived demolition by Muslims and the Kabba where Hindu rituals are still practiced(See, Is it true Kabbha was a Hindu temple?)

    - "Aya muwarekal araj yushaiya noha
    minar HIND-e
    Wa aradakallaha
    manyonaifail jikaratun"

    "Oh the divine land of HIND (India)
    (how) very blessed art thou!
    Because thou art the chosen
    of God blessed with knowledge"

    "Wahalatijali Yatun ainana sahabi
    akha-atun jikra Wahajayhi yonajjalur
    -rasu minal HINDATUN "

    "That celestial knowledge which like
    four lighthouses shone in such
    brilliance - through the (utterances of)
    Indian sages in fourfold abundance."

    "Yakuloonallaha ya ahal araf alameen
    kullahum"
    Fattabe-u jikaratul VEDA bukkun
    malam yonajjaylatun"

    "God enjoins on all humans,
    follow with hands down
    The path the Vedas with his divine
    precept lay down."

    "Wahowa alamus SAMA wal YAJUR
    minallahay Tanajeelan
    Fa-e-noma ya akhigo mutiabay-an
    Yobassheriyona jatun"

    "Bursting with (Divine) knowledge
    are SAM &YAJUR bestowed on creation,
    Hence brothers respect and
    follow the Vedas, guides to salvation"

    "Wa-isa nain huma RIG ATHAR nasayhin
    Ka-a-Khuwatun
    Wa asant Ala-udan wabowa masha -e-ratun"

    "Two others, the Rig and Athar teach us
    fraternity, Sheltering under their
    lustre dispels darkness till eternity"

    This poem was written by Labi-Bin-E- Akhtab-Bin-E-Turfa who lived in Arabia around 1850 B.C. This verse can be found in Sair- Ul-Okul which is an anthology of ancient Arabic poetry. It was compiled in 1742 AD under order of the Turkish Sultan Salim.


    2) Mohammed was born to a family of Shiva Worshippers(His grandfather and uncle were Shiva worshippers) but he hated the religion and would publically insult it. This made him very disreputable wth the Meccans!

    His uncle, Umar-Bin-E-Hassham was also a famous Meccan poet and one of his poems can be found in the Sair- Ul-Okul


    Kafavomal fikra min ulumin Tab asayru
    Kaluwan amataul Hawa was Tajakhru
    We Tajakhayroba udan Kalalwade-E Liboawa
    Walukayanay jatally, hay Yauma Tab asayru
    Wa Abalolha ajabu armeeman MAHADEVA
    Manojail ilamuddin minhum wa sayattaru
    Wa Sahabi Kay-yam feema-Kamil MINDAY Yauman
    Wa Yakulum no latabahan foeennak Tawjjaru
    Massayaray akhalakan hasanan Kullahum
    Najumum aja- at Summa gabul HINDU

    The man who may spend his life in sin
    and irreligion or waste it in lechery and wrath
    If at least he relent and return to
    righteousness can he be saved?
    If but once he worship Mahadeva with a pure
    heart, he will attain the ultimate in spirituality.
    Oh Lord Shiva exchange my entire life for but
    a day's sojourn in India where one attains salvation
    .
    But one pilgrimage there secures for one all
    merit and company of the truly great.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Riverwolf

    Riverwolf Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    26,350
    Ratings:
    +3,282
    Religion:
    Anglo-Saxon(esque) Heathenry
    ...What does any of that have to do with anything? So Mohammad was born to worshipers of Shiva, the God of destruction(right?). Arabia had Hindu followers in it.

    Why is this shocking? I didn't know any of this (did you double-check and triple-check your sourcess?), but none of it surprises me.
     
  3. Surya Deva

    Surya Deva Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2006
    Messages:
    2,572
    Ratings:
    +170
    3) Mohamemd was considered schizophrenic and widely ridiculed by the Meccans. He claimed he was the prophet of god the Allah, who was originally a Hindu Goddesss!!! and was invited by the Meccans to prove it in debate and when he failed he would have fits of rage. The Meccans eventually lost this paitence and Mohammed fled Mecca for Medina

    From the Article:

    When Muhammad first started preaching his "new" religion the Meccans tolerated it as they had tolerated many such propounders of "new" religions before. However they were startled out of their tolerance when the small band of Islamists started to publicly ridicule the Vedic heritage of the Meccans and threatened to break down the idols, which were the pride of Mecca. At first they proceeded in a calm manner to Muhammad's uncle Abu Talib and told him that his nephew had "cursed our gods, insulted our religion, mocked our way of life and accused our revered forefathers of error. We request you to restrain him."

    But Muhammad continued insulting the Vedic heritage of the Meccans. He considered his epileptic fits as periods of divine revelation and his bitter invectives against the Vedic religion grew stronger. The Arabs of Mecca were now convinced that Muhammad was a lunatic who deserved only pity. This charge stung Muhammad to such an extent that he retorted bitterly "By him who holds my life in his hand, I bring you slaughter". and came up with revelations such as:

    "And they will see which one of you is demented. Therefore obey not your rejectors who would have you compromise; Neither obey you each feeble oath-monger,detractor, spreader of slander, hinderer of the good, an aggressor, malefactor, greedy therewithal, intrusive. We shall brand him on the nose!" (Quran 68:5-6, 68:8-13

    In the spirit of their Vedic culture , they invited Muhammad to an open debate. It was soon obvious from the debates that Muhammad could not present arguments in a logical manner. He would lose his temper and resort to violent and insulting answers to the questioners. Soon after he claimed a divine revelation that instructed him not to participate in open debate, to evade questions, and if questioned by unbelievers to retire! (Quran 6:68-70)

    Now the Meccans were amused that a man like Muhammad who was distinguished neither by birth or education should go around proclaiming himself to be a prophet. When he started producing revelations about Moses and Jesus having performed miracles, they asked Muhammad to do the same. Unlike Moses and Jesus however, Muhammad could not produce a single miracle. Instead he came up with a revelation that the Meccans were not likely to believe in a miracle even if it were shown to them!

    Now the Meccans were convinced about the falsity of Muhammad's claims. Their faith in their Vedic deities was absolutely unshaken. Moreover they were enraged by the fact that Muhammad had taken their principal god Allah (Durga) and made her into the jealous deity of his new religion. They met him and said:

    "Muhammad either you will stop cursing our gods or we will curse this Allah of yours."

    Muhammad then threw a challenge to the Meccans to produce revelations such as his. The challenge was accepted by Al Nadr B. Harith, a Meccan chief who said
    "I can tell better stories than him...In what respect is Muhammad a better story teller?"

    Al Nadr proceeded to tell several stories in verses, which were even better than the verses of the Quran. Muhammad was enraged and never forgave Al Nadr for this defeat. Later on Muhammad had Al Nadr brutally executed.

    The knowledgable Meccans had by now realized that Muhammad was only stealing things that he had learned from the Jews and the Christians. He was taking Biblical lore and conveniently twisting it to conform with his own "divine" religion. Moreover it was obvious that Muhammad was coming up with "holy verses" whenever the occasion demanded for his convenience. The incident that confirmed their suspicion was the Satanic Verses which say:

    "Have Ye thought of Al-Lat and Al-Uzza and Manat the third, the other, these are the Gharaniq whose intercession is approved."(Quran 53:19-27)

    The Satanic Verses of the Quran clearly state that Al-Lat and Al-Uzza and Manat (Alla = Durga, Oorja = Shakti (life-force) and Somnath = Shivji) are exalted and their intercession is approved. The Meccans were overjoyed that Muhammad had finally endorsed the Vedic deities, but because of the pressure of his followers, Muhammad had to withdraw the verses.
     
  4. Surya Deva

    Surya Deva Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2006
    Messages:
    2,572
    Ratings:
    +170
    4) Mohammed became a dacoit/bandit! He apprehended people, looted them and killed them and became wealthy from the booty. His followers increased with his reign of terror and eventually he had control of all of Medina. After that he laid seige on Mecca and brought about a wave of death and destruction

    From the Article

    It is no secret what the Prophet did after this "migration" to Medinah. The story has been documented in detail by his biographers, - surprise raids on trade caravans and tribal settlements, the use of plunder thus obtained for recruiting an ever growing army of greedy desperados assassinations of opponents, expropriation, expulsion and massacre of the Jews of Medinah, attack and enslavement of the Jews of Khybar, rape of women and children, sale of these victims after rape, trickery, trachery and bribery employed to their fullest extent to grow the numbers of his religion Islam which ironically was supposed to mean "Peace"! He organised no less than 86 expeditions, 26 of which he led himself.

    Dr. Magoliouth refers that:

    "Muhammad's career as tyrant of Medinah is that of a robber chief, whose political economy consists in securing and dividing plunder, the distribution of the latter was carried out on principles which fail to satisfy his follower's sense of justice. He is himself an unbridled libertine and encourages the same passion in his followers. For whatever he does he is prepared to plead the express authorization of the deity (Allah). It is however impossible to find any doctrine which he is not prepared to abandon in order to secure a political end. At different points in his career he abandons the Unity of God and his claim to the title of Prophet. This is a disagreeable picture for the founder of a religion and it cannot be pleaded that it is a picture drawn by an enemy...", this is the character attributed to Muhammad in the biography by Ibn Ishaq.

    Muhammad had started preaching about how Judgement would come and bring destruction to the Non-believers. The Meccans however were not cowed down by mere threats. They challenged Muhammad to hurry up and bring down the Doom upon them. They said:

    "You have disputed with us and multiplied disputation with us. Now bring down upon us that wherewith you threaten us, if you are truthful O Allah! If this indeed be the Truth from you, rain down stones on us or bring us some painful Doom...Our Lord! Hasten us for our fate before the Day of Reckoning...When will it come to port? When will the promise be fulfilled if you are truthful? When is the Day of Judgement?.."

    The Meccans threw this challenge again and again. Muhammad had to wriggle out of the situation somehow. He came up with another convenient revelation:

    This first act of desecration was followed by innumerable raiding expeditions and the successive history of loot, plunder, rape and destruction that Muhammad went on to create in Medinah.

    One of the first such encounters was the ambush of Nakhla. A Quraish caravan carrying nothing but dried raisins and skins was making its way from the town of Taif to Mecca. The little convoy was escorted by only four men. They had set out to do business during one of the four sacred months. Rejeb was one of the months which was considered auspicious for trade in Arabia. Any form of warfare or violence was strictly abhorred. The Arabs being men of honor, never violated this rule, and thus the sacred months were the time when most people set out on their caravans to trade. The Muslims mercilessly murdered the hapless UNARMED merchants and plundered all their goods as booty, of which Muhammad got one fifths.

    Many more such raids would follow to satisfy the Prophet's bloodlust. He fed his bitterness and vengefulness with the sight of his murdered victims. After the Battle of Badr, the Prophet sent his servant to search the field for one of his strongest opponents, Abu Jahal. When the servant found Abu Jahal's corpse, he cut off the head and threw it down at the feet of Muhammad, who cried out in ecstasy:

    "Rejoice! The head of the enemy of God! Praise God, for there is no other but he!"

    The Prophet then ordered a great pit to be dug and had the bodies of the "unbelievers" dumped into it after the Muslims had unceremoniously hacked them into pieces. As the bodies were thrown into the pit, an excited Muhammad screamed"
    "O People of the Pit, have you found that what God threatened is true now? For I have found that what my Lord promised was true! Rejoice O Muslims!"

    One of the prisoners taken was the defiant Al Nadr Ibn al Harith, who had earlier taken Muhammad's challenge of telling better stories than him. Muhammad ordered Ali to strike off Nadr's head in his presence, so he could watch the beheading of the man who had insulted him. Another prisoner Uqba ibn Abi Muait was decapitated in front of the Prophet, upon seeing him, the prisoner cried out:

    "O Prophet, who will look after my children if I should die?"
    "Hellfire", replied Muhammad coldly as the blade came down and spattered his clothes with Uqba's blood.
    Upon his return to Medina, a number of the Vedic poets of Medina composed poems that talked of the Prophet's cruelty. It was the poets who acted as the conscience of society at that time and had the most freedom of expression. Muhammad was infuriated at the criticism. The most popular poet was Asma Bint Merwan, a married woman with five children. One night as she lay in her bedroom suckling her newborn child, a group of Muslims broke into the house to plunge their swords into the breast of the woman. The newborn infant was hacked to pieces. Soon afterwards an elderly poet, Abu Afek, who was respected for his distinguished sense of fairness, met the same fate.
    Living with a Jewish tribe called Beni Al Nadheer, was an Arab by the name of Kaab Ibn Ashraf of the Tribe of Tai. Kaab is obviously the Sanskrit word Kayva which means poetry . Kaab was true to his Vedic name, a renowned poet who had composed a lament for the Leaders of Quraysh who had been massacred in the battle of Badr. One day the Prophet proclaimed:
    "Who will rid me of Kaab Ibn Al Ashraf?"
    A certain Muhammad Bin Maslama replied that he would do it, adding "we shall have to tell lies to do it". The Prophet immediately gave him the divine authority to lie as necessary. Muhammad Maslama bribed the foster brother of Kaab, a man called Silkan who had openly become Muslim. The following night Kaab was visited by his loving foster brother and spent a pleasant evening reciting poetry. Needless to say, after dark, Kaab was dragged out of his bed screaming, and stabbed repeatedly by Muhammad Maslama, Silkan and two other devout Muslims, in full view of his family. Such was the example of tolerance set by the Prophet of God.

    On another occasion , the tribe of Beni Quraidha was besieged and when they refused to convert to Islam, the Prophet meted out another merciful sentence.A huge trench was dug around the main market of Medina. The men were rounded up & their hands tied behind them. Then one by one, they were led to the trench and forced to kneel. They were offered one last chance to convert to Islam & upon their refusal, had their heads chopped off. As soon as one head would roll off, the headless body would be dumped into the ditch, until the pile of bodies, heads and blood had filled up to the brim. Yet, none of the Jews chose to compromise their religion. Eight Hundred innocent Jews were beheaded bloodily in this manner, for the simple reason that they chose to retain their fundamental human right, to choose their God. Helpless women & children screamed as they watched their fathers, husbands & sons die. Later they too were tied up & bundled off as slaves. The Prophet forced the Jewess Raihana Bint Amr to convert and marry him, hours after he had murdered her father, brothers and clansmen before her very eyes. To this day Muslim scholars claim, that Raihana willingly chose Islam and wifehood with the Prophet.
     
  5. Surya Deva

    Surya Deva Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2006
    Messages:
    2,572
    Ratings:
    +170
  6. Surya Deva

    Surya Deva Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2006
    Messages:
    2,572
    Ratings:
    +170
    It's shocking to me because I had no idea Mohammed's family were Shiva worshippers and Kabbah was a Shiva temple. Nor did I know Arabia was Hindu! I've always thought Hinduism was only in India, this really changes history as I know it....

    The import of the article is not that Arabia had Hindu followers, but that Arabia was mainly Hindu. The so-called Pagan religion of Arabia was Hinduism.

    The veracity of the article is open to debate really. But the evidence it presents is certainly compelling. The most compelling in establishing the Hindu nature of Pre-Islamic Arabia is the fact that Arabia itself is a Sanskrit name, and many Arabic words are Sanskrit, including the names of Arabic deities. Not to mention that the Kabbah is a Shiva temple.
     
  7. Alizée

    Alizée Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2008
    Messages:
    138
    Ratings:
    +15
  8. K.Venugopal

    K.Venugopal Immobile Wanderer

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2007
    Messages:
    1,664
    Ratings:
    +280
    Religion:
    Hinduism
    If these are claims (and I am wont to concede they are only claims till widespread proof and acceptance is available for the claims) can you please tell me what were the religions that were prevalent at the time of Mohammad? Were there no other religions apart from Judaism and Christianity at that time in Arabia? What was the religion of the idol worshipers? Could it not have been Hinduism? No other religion is more closely identified throughout history with idol worship as Hinduism. Of course, it may not have been called Hinduism at that time.

    By the way, did you call Suraj stupid and ignorant because you feel he does not know anything about Islam? Is not knowing anything about Islam the definition of stupid and ignorant?
     
    #8 K.Venugopal, Oct 23, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 24, 2008
  9. Sui

    Sui Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2008
    Messages:
    87
    Ratings:
    +14
    1. I think it is somewhat far-fetched to say that Arabia had a Hindu past, as the religion practiced before Muhammad (pbuh) seems to be like a Bedouin paganism with a variety of traditions and beliefs, as well as some Abrahamic teachings. Although I don't find it illogical that Hinduism perhaps influenced the culture and beliefs of pre-Islamic Arabia since trade was very common with India.

    2. I disagree with theclaim that Muhammad (pbuh) went around spewing insults at the Makkans, however I am not surprised by the influcences of Hinduism in poetry and such, if in fact that is what it is.

    3. Allah is not and never was a Hindu goddess. The people of Makkah recognized Allah as the supreme God. Although with the influence of idolotry, the Arabs began to associate deities with Allah. Perhaps the goddess being referred to is Al-Lat who was widely worshipped and commonly mistaken as the "female version" of Allah.

    In any case, the history between Muhammad (pbuh) and the Makkans put in this article is full of errors, but for now I'd particularly like to correct the verses of the Quran that have been misused here.

    "And [one day] thou shalt see, and they [who now deride thee] shall see, which of you was bereft of reason. Verily, thy Sustainer alone is fully aware as to who has strayed from His path, Just as He alone is fully aware of those who have found the right way. Hence, defer not to [the likes and dislikes of] those who give the lie to the truth: they would like thee to be soft [with them], so that they might be soft [with thee]. Furthermore, defer not to the contemptible swearer of oaths, [or to] the slanderer that goes about with defaming tales, [or] the withholder of good, [or] the sinful aggressor, [or] one who is cruel, by greed possessed. Is it because he is possessed of worldly goods and children that, whenever Our messages are conveyed to him, such a one says, 'Fables of ancient times'? [For this] We shall brand him with indelible disgrace!” (68:5-16)

    These verses are made out to seem so full of violence and hatred. Most people today don't want anything to do with dishonest, cruel, greedy people. What's wrong with such a thing being commanded in the Quran? Especially in a time where the mockery and spite toward Muhammad (pbuh) was particularly harsh.

    “Now, whenever thou meet such as indulge in [blasphemous] talk about Our messages, turn thy back upon them until they begin to talk of other things and if Satan should ever cause thee to forget [thyself], remain not, after recollection, in the company of such evildoing folk, for whom those who are conscious of God are in no wise accountable. Theirs, however, is the duty to admonish [the sinners], so that they might become conscious of God. And leave to themselves all those who, beguiled by the life of this world, have made play and passing delights their religion; and grievous suffering awaits them because of their persistent refusal to acknowledge the truth.” (6:68-70)

    That says nothing about evading questions. These verses are commands to not keep sitting around with people who vehemently deny, distort, and mock the Quran.

    Muhammad (pbuh) was sent only as a warner and as a mercy. Miracles were performed by Moses and Jesus (pbut) and yet many people did not believe them. Who is to say that the Makkans would believe Muhammad (pbuh) if he performed his own miracle? Islam teaches that some miracles were done by the Prophet (pbuh), through the power of God of course, but that the greatest one is the Quran. If people doubt the Quran, what is stopping them from being skeptical about other evidences?

    Al-Nadr was full of anti-Islamic poetry; no one has ever been able to create anything that has surpassed the eloquency of the Quran. On the other hand it is true that Al-Nadr was executed, though not because Muhammad (pbuh) “was enraged and never forgave” him. For more details:

    Refuting lies about Islam: Allegation that Muhammad killed the poet Al-Nadr bin al-Harith

    Where would Muhammad (pbuh) have learned about the Jewish and Christian beliefs? The most he knew before Islam was that there is Allah the One God. I’m aware of several claims on this subject. One is that Muhammad (pbuh) learned the Quran from a Christian blacksmith who lived near Makkah. However he had broken Arabic and it makes no sense that the beautiful eloquency of the Quran would come from such a lack of knowledge in the Arabic language. Other claims include that he learned the Quran from Jews and Christians outside Arabia, or that he learned it from the Christian cousin of his wife Khadija (ra). If I remember correctly, Muhammad (pbuh) only made two or three trips outside of Arabia, all of which were before the age of 25 and contact with religious people was very limited. Not to mention Quranic revelations did not begin until the age of 40. As for the claim of his wife’s cousin, he died like 3 years after the first revelation, and the revelations lasted about 23 years total. He surely didn't read it; he was illiterate and there was no Arabic version of the OT or the NT until many years after the Prophet's (pbuh) death. Therefore, what sort of Biblical lore did he have to twist?

    What a strange translation this is. Look here:

    “Have you, then, ever considered [what you are worshipping in] Al-Lat and Al-Uzza, as well as [in] Manat, the third and last [of this triad]? Why - for yourselves [you would choose only] male offspring, whereas to Him [you assign] female: that, lo and behold, is an unfair division!” (53:19-22)

    There is a claim with this verse that the Quran exhalted these three deities, which is surely out of place in a chapter that condemns idols and rejects their intercession. Furthermore, this claim comes on the basis of reports on the authorities of Waqidi and Tabari, both of whom have been deemed unreliable.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Sui

    Sui Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2008
    Messages:
    87
    Ratings:
    +14
    4.
    There's the first problem here, using a quote from Ibn Ishaq's work. He also has been deemed unreliable due to his technique (or lack thereof) in establishing a valid chain of authority of the stories he used.

    Now, as for the history stated here. It is somewhat wrong. Yes, an attack was carried out on the caravan, but not by order of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Here I will type up a part of one of my books, "Muhammad" by Yahiya Emerick (pgs.156-158), about this event:

    Bold moves needed more reliable intelligence gathering, however, so Muhammad sent out a patrol under the command of 'Abdullah ibn Jahsh with a sealed letter to be opened only upon reaching an appointed place. Together with his patrol of eight men, he rode for two days and then opened the document. He was told prior to leaving not to force any of his men to go with him farther after that. The note simply said, "As soon as you read this paper, proceed to Nakhlah between Mecca and Ta'if. Find out for us where the Quraysh are moving and what they are doing." All of the men agreed to follow these orders except for two who decided to scour the hills around Mecca searching for some of their camels that the Quraysh had seized earlier. Both men were intercepted and captured. They were ignominiously taken to Mecca and held as prisoners.

    Meanwhile, 'Abdullah led his six remaining men to the appointed location and set up observation posts overlooking the main road to Yemen. In the late afternoon, they spotted a small caravan of donkeys with only a few attendants minding it. Their instructions were to observe and not to engage any enemy targets; moreover, it was the last day of one of the traditional sacred months when the Arabs observed a general truce. Should they attack such an easy treasure trove or wait? 'Abdullah convinced his men to move on the caravan, and in the process they killed one man and took two others prisoner. A fourth man escaped to Mecca and sounded the alarm, but no pursuit could overtake the captured booty now. As 'Abdullah led his prisoners and their donkeys northwards, the Meccans spread the news far and wide that the Muslims had violated the great sacred month, a convention that had been honored in Arabia since time immemorial. Despite their public appearance of outrage, wt they really hoped to get out of the situation were valuable propaganda points. This incident could help them discourage many Arab tribes from entering into treaties with Muhammad, for how could the tribes trust a man who broke with tradition?
    When 'Abdullah returned to Medina he was greeted with disappointment by the Prophet, who knew full well the position of custom among the Arabs. He scolded the men saying, "I did not instruct you to fight during the sacred months." He then ordered the captured caravan to halt and took no part in the offical division of the booty, even though the Qur'an officially allotted one fifth of any spoils taken to be given to him to support to cause of Islam. The two detainees were lodged in a local dwelling under guard, and the baggage was squestered to await further consideration. 'Abdullah soon found himself the object of scorn from his peers for taking such a bold move without permission.

    Indeed, the impending public relations disaster made the Muslims appear off-balance. When the Arabs heard the news of the violation, many questioned the motives of Muhammad and his followers. That Muhammad did not order the attack mattered little; the voices of dissent and anger all along the Hijaz were not interested in the details. The Jews of Medina seized upon this incident as well, hoping it would foment a war between the Muslims and Mecca that would likely spell disaster for Muhammad. The Muslims themselves were also feeling uneasy and did not know how to interpret what happened. The attack had taken place around the time of sundown, and according to the custom of the day, sunset was the official calendar end of a day, so it might have occurred technically during the first day of the next month, one that was not sacred. Only guidance from the Prophet would still their misgivings.

    A few days afterwards, in the mosque Muhammad recited the following revelation (Quran 2:217)...thus the answer was given that because the Quraysh ahd done far worse to the Muslims, fighting back in a sacred month was no great sin. The Muslims felt their side had been vindicated, and 'Abdullah was reinstated in the good graces of the community. The Prophet then accepted his share of the booty to be used to support the mosque and its functions. The detractors of the Muslims failed to come up with a convincing counter-argument to this new explanation.

    A short time later, a delegation arrived from Mecca asking for the return of their two captured men. The prevailing custom in those days was to pay a ransom for someone's freedom. Rather than accept a monetary offer, however, Muhammad said, "We will not accept your ransom for the two captives unless you return our two men whom you have captured, namely Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas and 'Utbah ibn Ghazwan. If you kill them, we will likewise kill your two men." The Meccans agreed to these terms, and soon the two Muslims who had been taken while looking for their camels arrived in Medina. Of the two Meccan captives, one returned home, and the other converted to Islam and decided to stay in Medina.


    Concerning this atrocity, it is found once again within the work of Ibn Ishaq, which is not convincing at all. Once the battle was over, all the Makkans were buried together and Muhammad (pbuh) addressed the deceased as such (according to the aforementioned book - pg. 171):

    "People of the grave! 'Utbah, Shaybah, Umayyah, and Abu Jahl! Have you now found that what your Lord promised is true? I have found what my Lord promised me, have you?"


    Everything stated here about decapitation and such makes no sense, because mutilation of corpses is prohibited in Islam, contrary to what was practiced in pre-Islamic Arabia. What about after the Battle of Uhud where the Makkans mutilated the bodies of the dead Muslims? Look here:

    Human Rights in Islam: Rights Of Enemies In War

    I was not aware of the poets Asma bint Merwan and Abu Afek, but after doing some research on the subject, I think this is a good place to look:

    The Killing of Abu 'Afak and 'Asma' bint Marwan

    I personally only have general knowledge of the fate of Banu Qurayza, so I'm directing you to the following link:

    New Light on the story of Banu Qurayza
     
  11. Surya Deva

    Surya Deva Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2006
    Messages:
    2,572
    Ratings:
    +170
    It is quite surprising to me as well. I know that Mahabharata refers to places outside of India that were part of the Indian empire such as Ghandar(Modern day Afghanistan) so it is entirely possible that even beyond Arabia the Indian empire stretched.

    This should not be too surprising though, because India was the equivalent of a superpower then, and its influence spread all around the world. Here are some positives proofs that Arabia was a part of the Indian empire and the religion of Hinduism(some are restated evidences given earlier)

    1. Arabia, or Arabasthan in arabic is actuallly a Sanskrit word Aravstan(land of horses) and is full of Sanskrit place names: Afghanistan, Tajiksthan etc Makha-Medini means the land of Fire-Worship in Sanskrit.

    Where you find foreign place names you can be sure of foreign occupation e.g., London shows us Rome occupied it. Nagaland in India shows that the British occupied it.

    2. There were Indian kings ruling in Arabia even during the life and times of Mohammed, and just before then. Arabic literature testifies this. A piece written by Jirrham Bintoi who lived 165 years before Mohammed says this:

    Original Arabic:

    Itrasshaphai Santul
    Bikramatul phehalameen Karimun
    Bihillahaya Samiminela
    Motakabbenaran Bihillaha
    Yubee qaid min howa
    Yaphakharu phajgal asari
    nahans Osirim Bayjayholeen
    Yaha sabdunya Kanateph natephi
    bijihalin Atadari Bilala masaurateen
    phakef Tasabahu. Kaunni eja majakaralhada
    walhada Achimiman, burukan, Kad, Toluho
    watastaru Bihillaha yakajibainana
    baleykulle amarena
    Phaheya jaunabil amaray Bikramatoon"
    - (Sair-ul-Okul, Page 315)

    English translation:

    Fortunate are those who were born
    during King Vikram's reign, he was
    a noble generous, dutiful ruler devoted
    to the welfare of his subjects. But at
    that time, We Arabs oblivious of divinity
    were lost in sensual pleasures. Plotting
    & torture were rampant. The darkness of
    ignorance had enveloped our country.
    Like the lamb struggling for its life
    in the cruel jaws of a wolf, we Arabs
    were gripped by ignorance. The whole
    country was enveloped in a darkness as
    intense as on a New moon night. But the
    present dawn & pleasant sunshine of
    education is the result of the favor of
    that noble king Vikram whose benevolence
    did not lose sight of us foreigners as we
    were. He spread his sacred culture amongst
    us and sent scholars from his own land
    whose brilliance shone like that of the sun
    in our country. These scholars & preceptors
    through whose benevolence we were once again
    made aware of the presence of god, introduced
    to his secret knowledge & put on the road to
    truth, had come to our country to initiate us
    in that culture & impart education."

    The above suggests that Arabia was a part of Vikramadiyya(a famous Indian king) empire. There is more evidence to corroborate this as Vikramadiya was married to a Bhalkan pricess.

    There is an account of Mohammed in the Bukhari Haidth of being gifted a jar of pickles by a neighbouring Indian king. This suggests Indian kings were ruling Arabia during his times too.

    The most compelling evidence, however, is the fact that the epicentre of Arabian religion, the Kabba was a Hindu temple, whose chief deity was Lord Shiva. This can be known from Mohammed's uncle, Umar-Bin-E-Hassham who was a chief priest at the temple. He wrote:

    Original Arabic:

    Kafavomal fikra min ulumin Tab asayru
    Kaluwan amataul Hawa was Tajakhru
    We Tajakhayroba udan Kalalwade-E Liboawa
    Walukayanay jatally, hay Yauma Tab asayru
    Wa Abalolha ajabu armeeman MAHADEVA
    Manojail ilamuddin minhum wa sayattaru
    Wa Sahabi Kay-yam feema-Kamil MINDAY Yauman
    Wa Yakulum no latabahan foeennak Tawjjaru
    Massayaray akhalakan hasanan Kullahum
    Najumum aja- at Summa gabul HINDU

    English

    The man who may spend his life in sin
    and irreligion or waste it in lechery and wrath
    If at least he relent and return to
    righteousness can he be saved?
    If but once he worship Mahadeva with a pure
    heart, he will attain the ultimate in spirituality.
    Oh Lord Shiva exchange my entire life for but
    a day's sojourn in India where one attains salvation.
    But one pilgrimage there secures for one all
    merit and company of the truly great.

    To seal it the fact that the Kabba temple does not fit with Islamic theology at all. All its rituals are very similar to Hindu rituals, and it contains as its chief idol a black stone that looks like a Shiva Lingam an has a Sanskrit name is conclusive. There is only one culture we know of in that time that worshippied such objects, Hinduism.
     
    #11 Surya Deva, Oct 25, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 25, 2008
  12. Surya Deva

    Surya Deva Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2006
    Messages:
    2,572
    Ratings:
    +170
    3. The fact that many of the Arabic deities found in the Kabba are direct translations of their Hindu Deities:

    Arabic Name: Sanskrit Name: English translation

    Al-Ozi or Ozza Oorja Divine energy
    Kabar Kuber God of wealth
    Manat Somnath Lord Shiv
    Madan Madan God of love
    Manaph Manu First Man
    Bajar Vajra Indra's thunderbolt
    Al-Sharak Shukra Venus
     
  13. Surya Deva

    Surya Deva Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2006
    Messages:
    2,572
    Ratings:
    +170
    I can only go off what the article says. According to this article the Meccans complained to the Mohammed's uncle himself of insulting their religion, and were peeved off that Mohammed took their chief god Allah and turned her into a jealous deity of his religion.

    We do know that the Arabians had some 360 gods of which Allah was one of them. Allah was the moon god, whose symbol was the cresent moon symbol. The Quran says that Allah had three daughters: Al-Lat, Al-ozza and Manat. From above we can clearly see that Al-ooza is Hindu Oorja and Manat is none other than Somanath(Soma = moon + Nath = lord, moon god(aka Shiva) The word Allah is in fact a Sanskrit word, whose synonyms are Akka and Amba(mother goddess) It seems what Mohammed had done is taken the goddess Allah(Al-ila) and changed its gender into male, or the gender was already male in pre-Islamic Arabia.

    Mohammed revealed this verse to convert the Meccans by mentioning their gods, but his followers objected(because it was agaisnt Islamic theology) so Mohammed removed the verse(satanic verse)

    Read this article for more information: http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/skm30804.htm
     
    #13 Surya Deva, Oct 25, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 25, 2008
  14. Surya Deva

    Surya Deva Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2006
    Messages:
    2,572
    Ratings:
    +170
    This could be true. However, I would like you to demonstrate that Ibn Ishaq's work is unreliable. I constantly hear Muslims telling me such and such Haidith is fake, and such and such is genuine, and it usually is based on the increduility of accepting that Mohammed did something they cannot accept to be true. I am sure you can appreciate that I require more than that to believe what they say. Until then I am going to accept every Haidth as possibly true.

    I reviewed the events of the counter-account given. They go something like this:

    1. Mohammed sends out his followers with a letter not to be opened till a certain point

    2. His followers arrive at the point, openthe letters, which contains instruction for them to 'observe the enemies'.

    3. His followers end up apprehending the caravan, killing its merchants and looting it

    4. The public are shocked by what has happened, especially in their holy month, and Mohammed becomes the target of disdain and can no longer be trusted by the Arab tribes, which Mohammed seeks to convert.

    5. Mohammed denies responsibility and reprimands his follower and chief Abdulla(a sort of slap on the wrist) and tells that he will not take a share of the booty, which he is entitled to because the Quran says so(which incidentally he has revealed)

    6. But then a few days later Mohammed gets another revelation that justifies that he can take a share of the booty, and in fact he is also allowed to fight in the holy month(because Muslims are better than them) and the killing of innocents done by Abdulla were OK.

    Something really struck me when reviewing the counter-account.

    1) Mohammed actually sent out his followers with instructions for a hostile purpose
    2) The Quran actually contains instructions on how to divide booty and for giving ransom
    3) Mohammed progressively revealed verses to the conveniance of the situation
    4) Mohammed took shares in booty stolen from innocent people, apprehended by his followers, who often killed them.

    The original claim was that Mohammed became a bandit-leader/decoit, and became rich and his followers grew from plundering, killing and looting the people of Medina. The counter-account you gave actually proves this claim to be true. If what you gave is the best Muslim apology for what happened, then I am sorry, it does very strongly suggest that Mohammed was far from a noble and holy man. We normally do not associate sending out missions to plunder and loot people and kill to be noble acts.
     
  15. Surya Deva

    Surya Deva Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2006
    Messages:
    2,572
    Ratings:
    +170
    I can understand why such verses would find their way into the Quran, because of mockery and harsh treatment of Mohammed. Only it does raise some doubts on the authority of the Quran. Do you not find it interesting that Allah is revealing verses to Mohammed based on events happening in his own life, on his own conveniance? If the Quran is really a book based on Mohammed's life and Allah really is just a god serving Mohammed every want and worry, what value does it have to others?

    I think the Meccans would have been asking the same questions. Before them is a man who has taken their god Allah and turned him into his own personal god, is declaring himself to be the new prophet, and is basically telling them to worship him. If that is not going to attract ridicule and spite, what is? Think about even today men who do things like that get treated even worse, they are locked away and put in straight jackets.

    Again I can understand why such verses would find themselves into the Quran, but with the same reservations I expressed above. Mohammed was invited to debates by the Meccans who had a tradition of holding debates(derived from a old Hindu tradition) to prove that he was the prophet. He could not prove it, and he became angry and frustrated. The Quran was almost like his personal journal, in which he 'revealed' his frustrations. This is just another example.

    Even today people who are deemed nutters get scrutanized by society and end up frustrated and must express that frustration in some outlet(e.g., journal) From the Meccan perspective Mohammed was the modern day 'nutter' Although it sounds like they did give him a chance to prove his claims in an open debate, in modern day, people who are considered nutters are seldom given any chances to prove themselves.

    I read the counter-account given on the Islamic blog. I'm afraid I have to question its credibility as it kept on mentioning, "How kind and merciful Islam was" while at the same time reporting how people were executed, giving terms on paying ransoms etc.... Not really my idea of "kind"

    I hope you can understand to someone who is not biassed to Mohammed the killing of Al-Nadr just seems like petty revenge. Al-Nadr accepted Mohammed's challenge of producing verses just like him. He did, and the Meccans ajudged his verses to be even better. You say that Al-Nadr failed to produce verses as eloquent as Mohammed, but eloquence is a really subjective thing, one might say Al-Nadr is more eloquent and another might say Mohammed is more eloquent. But the fact is the Meccans considered Al-Nadr better. It is also true that Mohammed was an illiterate and Al-Nadr was educated and literate, so one would expect Al-Nadr to be more eloquent and will side with the Meccan unanimous judgement.

    Anyhow, what Al-Nadr proved that making up verses like Mohammed was doing, could be done by anyone. Mohammed then later had him executed. It's a bit obvious whats going on here and consistent with what we already know about Mohammed's psychological profile.

    I don't think I need to spend too much time on this one because the explanation is simple. Jewish and Christian people had contact with Arabia. The stories of Jesus and Abraham were common place. In fact even as far as India Jesus was well known by 2AD.

    I do want to say something on Quran and how it was composed though later.
     
    #15 Surya Deva, Oct 25, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 25, 2008
  16. YmirGF

    YmirGF Bodhisattva

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2005
    Messages:
    29,092
    Ratings:
    +14,862
    Religion:
    Beyond the Light
    Um, Tariq, I would expect that Suraj incurred the wrath of Allah long before he began posting here on RF. It is with great amusement that I read your chiding his comments with lightly veiled threats of Divine retribution.

    In regards to the duel, don't you find it odd that instead of tackling what the man was saying, the representative of the religion of peace would propose a duel... and then kill the man? It is certainly an effective way to silence a critic, I'll give you that, but it isn't what I would expect from a spiritual being.
     
  17. Azakel

    Azakel Liebe ist für alle da

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,401
    Ratings:
    +507
    This sound like a threat to me right here. Too late for what. Is your god going to do something to him. I find it funny when people get all up tight that someone is saying something about there religion that they believe is hateful or a lie, yet they turn around and will do the same thing to that person and other religious believe.
     
  18. Surya Deva

    Surya Deva Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2006
    Messages:
    2,572
    Ratings:
    +170
    I can see why it doesn't make sense because it is prohibited somewhere in the Quran. However, this does not mean that it did not happen, it means that what happened was in contradiction to the Quran. It has already been established that Mohammed did go against previous reveals in the Quran, and then later he would get new reveals contradicting the previous one. The problem for an impartial reader is how can one take the authority of something so inconsistent seriously?

    As for beheadings, it is a well known Muslim way of execution and punishment. It can't be that against Islam if it is so common and still practiced today.

    I appreciate you did research, but could you perhaps research outside of what Islam scholars say as well? I really must question the credibility of something which begins with:

    "The vulgar Christian missionary, Silas, has accused Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) of killing Abu 'Afak and 'Asma' bint Marwan."

    I have reviewed the article as honestly as I can. I am afraid it kind of boils down to what I said earlier. The Hadiths which mention Mohammed doing bad thing are denied to must be false, and the Hadiths which mention Mohammed doing good things are irrefutably true. A look at the arguments:

    This is an appeal to authority fallacy. If a historical event which has not been agreed on by "reliable Muslim specialists" then it hasn't happened. The event happening is not contingent on agreement by "reliable Muslim specialists" A more honest methodology is to find convergence between events reported, the stronger the convergence, the likely it is. The second is to examine the credibility of the one giving the account and have a valid hypothesis for why they would give false testimony. The third is to examine the likiliness of the testimony. An example for the latter if the claim was that Hitler killed a jew, then the likiliness for that is very high going by the accounts surrounding him.

    The testimony that Mohammed had Abu Afak and Asma Bint Merwan murdered for opposing him is reported by his own historians(allied to his cause) thus there is no valid hypothesis that they are lying. There is convergence of reportings in both cases as two sources report them. And thirdly it is not an unlikely event that somebody opposing Mohammed or Islam would be killed, given the fact that there are countless accounts of this happening throughout the various Hadiths and it is fully consistent with the character of a bandit/dacoit.

    I will take a look at the arguments given in the article:

    I find it very interesting how the author of this paper unceremoniously rejects the testimony without even analysing it. He gives a few lines and considers it null and void. This to me betrays the author is trying to brush things under the carpet. I need to drag it back from underneath the carpet then.

    The fact is there is a testimony recorded by an Islamic historian Iban Ishaq which records Mohammed murdering a very old Jewish man. The author says that because there is no "chain of reporters" that we should dismiss this testimony. However, history does not require a 'chain of reporters' history can be recorded by one historian who simply tells what happened. A lot of ancient history does not have "chains of reporters" We need reason to believe why Iban Ishaq would give false testimony before rejecting it. Otherwise it is as good as any other testimony.
     
  19. tariqkhwaja

    tariqkhwaja Jihad Against Terrorism

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2008
    Messages:
    1,133
    Ratings:
    +70
    The primary method is a duel of rationality and reasoning. But as in the case of several Prophets a point comes when a egos of the opponents seal their hearts and they refuse to listen to reason. Which is okay as well. But when those opponents make every effort to lash out against and drown the voice of truth then God aides His chosen Prophet. Thus it happened in the case of Pharoah. Thus it happened in the case of Noah's people. And thus it happened for so many opponents of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). And in the case of the opponents of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (like General Zia ul Haq of Pakistan who incurred God's wrath and died in a plane bombing the cause of which no one knows to this day).

    I just hope Suraj here hasn't reached that point. I can't say as I am not Divinely guided. But I can only tell him to watch himself.
     
  20. Surya Deva

    Surya Deva Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2006
    Messages:
    2,572
    Ratings:
    +170
    Tariq I have informed my family of the death threat you just gave me, and if anything happens to me, your I.P will be traced down by my local auhorities.

    I think you have just proven to everybody on RF the link between terrorism and Islam, and I feel sorry for other Muslims who had to see you say that.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...