Who is Prophet Muhammad?
10152513693601104Who is Prophet Muhammad (s)?
When a man has a billion and a half followers,
His status in history isn't debated,
A question to be asked then,
why is the greatest man, when great men are rated..
the one that you don't know…
His name is the most popular in the world, (true prophet— their prophecies must come true)
His fame, encompasses the globe,
His message, was to worship God alone,
His method, was mercy to friend and foe,
Why is it that you don't know?
He was the orphan, Prophet and shepherd,
sent to revive hearts— lifeless as deserts,
Ties of kinship that were severed,
His forbearance could not be measured,
And he is so loved..
you would love him too..
if you only knew..
He was the father who's face lit up when his daughter entered the room,
would stand and seat her where he was seated,
He was the husband who would move an army ahead so he could foot race his wife,
and smile charmingly when defeated,
He was the prophet who told us that heaven is at the feet of our mother,
And to be equal in our love of ourselves and our love of our brother,
His companions were Arab, Jewish, Persian, Roman and Black,
He told us were the same, for we all came from Adam, in fact,
if there was any difference it would simply be,
the one higher in the sight of God, is the one with more piety,
He is the most documented figure in history,
His walk, his talk, his statements his thoughts,
How he loved and fought, what he was and was not,
Everything that he taught,
is there for you to read..
He was the man who had the world at his feet
But would go days without food to eat,
Loved the poor, and the meek,
God was all that he would seek,
Enrich your heart, and find out about the best person that you don't know
#Muhammad ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam (peace and blessings of Allāh be upon him) By Ammar AlShukry Who WAS Prophet Muhammad?
First of all, he is DEAD. Therefore the title of the thread should be "Who WAS Prophet Muhammad?" and Not "Who IS ..." Typo there, unless Muslims want to tell us that Muhammad came back as a zombie like Jesus did. {:1_550:}
Secondly - Muhammad was an orphan. He did not have a proper family like most of us did. His father died and his mother died after giving birth to him. This is WITH ASSUMPTION that his father actually married his mother properly and his birth was not a result of some contract his mother had with him like most Arabic women do at that time. Therefore, his status as a genuine child and NOT a ba$tard is questionable.
He was raised by others (not with love but as a burden that being passed around) including by his maternal grandfather. Therefore, he never had any normal family environment and knew what normal family was like. Unlike Moses who was raised by the Pharoah (and had some attachment to his foster brother) and Jesus who actually had his mother, step father and step siblings, Muhammad did not knew a normal family setting.
Thirdly - the story how two men had meet him, open his chest up and clean his heart could be an indication of a sexual abuse at the hand of strangers. This could indicate an end of his "innocent" and where he started to look upon the society which he was living in with discontent and hatred.
Fourth - the story of him solving the issue of four tribes and the Stone which they all wanted to carry to Kaabah is an indication how he looked down on the society which he was living in (as corrupted, lowly and stupid society which he felt deattached).
Fifth - It is fact that he did not learn to read and write, even so he could have done so easily (after all, his maternal grandfather was Quraisy's important person so how hard could it be for him to arrange education for his grandson). This shows that Muhammad did not possess the willingness to "bow down" to someone else (like a teacher) in order to obtain education. It is a mark of arrogance, pride and overconfidence in oneself that he could able to go about life without such education (a trait which MANY Muslims here in Malaysia seems to share).
Sixty - It is fact that Muhammad was cunning in business and loves to travel and interact with others. Muslims hide the fact that he was in trade and was on the move from Egypt to Afghanistan for fifteen years of his life (from the age 25 to 40 years old). He did what most other Arabs at that time did not - learn from other races like the Christians and Jews about their belief and started to believe that he was special because he too someone chosen by God (as the prophets of the past).
What is interesting here was that there is no indication that he had learned any Spiritual practice from anyone and that meditation is not something Arabs do often, and yet, at age of 40 years old, he had frequented the nearby Hira Cave to do just that. This could indicate that Muhammad had learned to do that from some other source (maybe the Christian monks) and his overconfidence (that he could able to master it) had made him attempt such dangerous feat, without knowing that it is possible for an uninitiated to fall into the Darkness if they attempt such feat unsupervised (Muhammad could be too proud to allow others to watch over him).
Seventh - His encounter with "Jibrail". Not sure whether he had imagined it or if his foolish attempt to meditate had allowed "it" to come and approach Muhammad. Unlike Moses who encountered Spirit of God and left unshattered, it is obvious that whatever Muhammad had encountered in that dark hole called Cave of Hira was something that scared him. Therefore, we can conclude that whatever it was, it was not Spirit of God.
More to come later. Who was Muhammad - Part 2
Was Muhammad a prophet? Personally, I don't think so. Each prophets had been tested by God intensely and they had passed their test in order to lead their people. Even then, there was specific task which God had given to each Prophets who had rose. Moses were given the task of freeing his people and lead them to the Promised Land. He was not instructed to spread the Word of God to anyone else (outside his tribe). Daniel was tested in the cave of the lions. Jesus was tested for 40 days and 40 nights in the desert.
What was Muhammad's test?
What was Muhammad's tasks?
Who gave him the right to wage war when other prophets before him did not?
Who gave him the right to create a book and called it Word of God when others before him did not?
If one were to compare him (Muhammad) with other prophets before him, they could know that all he did was OPPOSITE to what others before him had done. Moses did not attack the Pharoah or the people of Egypt even so he had a large number of people with him. He let God handle it. Jesus did not wish for the destruction of those who had killed him. Nor did Daniel asked for God to smite those who had thrown him into the lions.
And yet, Muhammad had created an army of Muslims as soon as he had settled in Madinah and started to harass the Meccans. It was an odd move considering that if he was smarter and wiser, he could have known that continuing to be peaceful (as he did in Mecca) could have eventually won Muslims over. The Quraisy could have seen the errors of their ways and choose to accept Islam, especially if a large number of people started to leave Mecca. Furthermore, Muhammad had accepted to return any Quraisy who had went to Madinah without approval of their master or family. It did not stop him from helping them establish their own base or town outside these two cities (Mecca and Madinah) thus creating a new town for Muslims which could be used to spread Islam. This could be smarter and more peaceful solution. Any good prophet who had guidance of God could have done this.
But what did Muhammad do? He took the easy way out - war. He abuse others who had abused him in Mecca as if he was stricken by notion of revenge (for what they did). It is possible that it was notion of revenge that drove Muhammad toward his action. He had came to hate the society which he was living in with discontent because of that one incident (involving two strangers who came and open his chest, as he claimed - but in truth, could have been a story of how he was sexually abused).
The abuse and rejection of Islam by Quraisy when he was in Mecca could have been a serious blow to his ego and pride. Maybe he had considered himself as a brilliant intellect when compared to others around him. And it is true that he was a brilliant man, as he had proven in business and in problem solving skills. He could have seen the Meccans as a lowly society whom he probably consider beneath him. He probably thinks that since they are lowly society with lack of intellect (when compared to him) they should accept Islam if he pull a stunt like standing on a hill and claiming that there is a horde behind him.
The fact that they had rejected his Islam then and there could have been a serious blow to his pride and ego to the point that it only increased his discontent toward the Quraisy and everything they stood for. In a way, I can say that he had taken revenge by wiping the Quraisy of their heritage, belief, history and way of life. An ultimate destruction of a people is when they have lost their identity and embrace a foreign and unknown belief system. His ultimate victory could be seen as when the Quraisy who he hated all his life were on their hands and feet, asking him for opinions and ways to conduct their daily lives. Sephiroth replied at 18-1-2015 03:48 PM
Who was Muhammad - Part 2
Was Muhammad a prophet? Personally, I don't think so. Each prophets had ...
Yadda ..... yadda ..... yadda ..... yadda.
Instead of mindless assertions , a bit of evidence to backup your diatribe would be good. So far nothing but mindless diatribe from you.
Typical of a hater and a Hindu supremacist in the like of 'meenachi sepiroth'
sam1528 replied at 18-1-2015 07:12 PM
Yadda ..... yadda ..... yadda ..... yadda.
Instead of mindless assertions , a bit of evidence t ...
Go and ask Obelisk on prove about Muhammad and how that warmongering Arab is potrayed first. The way Muhammad was described as if he (Muhammad) came and screw each of your (Muslims) mothers to produce donkeys like you who continued to kiss his rear end even after 1,400 years.
Muhammad was a SICK LONELY CORRUPTED LITTLE boy when he was growing up (because he never knew what real family is like) and he grew up as CORRUPTED, TWISTED EGOMANIAC who looked at others around him with discontent and hatred. That is your so-called prophet. {:1_541:}
Edited by sam1528 at 18-1-2015 11:30 PM
Sephiroth replied at 18-1-2015 08:30 PM
Go and ask Obelisk on prove about Muhammad and how that warmongering Arab is potrayed first. The way Muhammad was described as if he (Muhammad) came and screw each of your (Muslims) mothers to produce donkeys like you who continued to kiss his rear end even after 1,400 years.
Muhammad was a SICK LONELY CORRUPTED LITTLE boy when he was growing up (because he never knew what real family is like) and he grew up as CORRUPTED, TWISTED EGOMANIAC who looked at others around him with discontent and hatred. That is your so-called prophet. http://mforum.cari.com.my/static/image/smiley/default/mad0216.gif
LOL , me to ask 'obelisk'? Why are you trying to run from your own argument?
You need to provide historical proof that Prophet Muhammad(saw) was a war monger as it is your claim. We had this argument before an you came up short , no evidence but full of curses (typical of a hater and a supremacist hindu). I want evidence and data backing up your argument. Else you are just farting thru your mouth , which you always do. Don't believe me? This is the thread that you were shitted on and ended up in cursing others , typical of a hater and a supremacist hindoo)
LOL , corrupted and twisted? Ok then , provide the evidence. BTW , what about you are kissing the rear of your idols?
Let me see , you will try your best to run .... mark my words folks.
by Samseng 1528
Let me see , you will try your best to run .... mark my words folks.
I don't know what you think this thread is for BUT IT IS NOT TO ENTERTAIN YOUR STUPIDITY. :shakehead3:
I am here to counter that mime (Obelisk) nonsense about Muhammad being such a great guy when all Muhammad was was one sick puppy. {:1_550:}
So if you think I should entertain you - THAT IS YOUR MISCONCEPTION. I don't have to entertain your misconception. :shakehead3: Edited by sam1528 at 19-1-2015 07:21 PM
Sephiroth replied at 19-1-2015 09:23 AM
by Samseng 1528
I don't know what you think this thread is for BUT IT IS NOT TO ENTERTAIN YOUR STUPIDITY. http://mforum.cari.com.my/static/image/smiley/default/3shakehead.gif
I am here to counter that mime (Obelisk) nonsense about Muhammad being such a great guy when all Muhammad was was one sick puppy. http://mforum.cari.com.my/static/image/smiley/default/icon_rolleyes.gif
So if you think I should entertain you - THAT IS YOUR MISCONCEPTION. I don't have to entertain your misconception. http://mforum.cari.com.my/static/image/smiley/default/3shakehead.gif
In other words - you have NOTHING.
When asked for evidence , you run (as usual). Typical of a hater and a supremacist hindoo.
by Samseng1528
In other words - you have NOTHING.
I have NOTHING FOR YOU. :shakehead3: Sephiroth replied at 20-1-2015 08:42 AM
by Samseng1528
I have NOTHING FOR YOU. http://mforum.cari.com.my/static/image/smiley/default/3shakehead.gif
You have NOTHING for anybody except crude language , curses and BS.
Typical of a hater and a supremacist Hindoo in the like of you
When did Islam began?
Many believe that Islam began in Mecca when Muhammad first was preaching his message. While this is true in term of Islamic teaching, true Islam which we have today began with the hijrah in 622 AD. Before this year, Muhammad was nothing more than a loud-mouth loner in midst of a larger community who was openly rejected (and even riddiculed) him. The little numbers of followers he had was not from the wealthy or powerful classes but from smaller group of people like slaves, servants and regular people who was interested at his notion of equality.
Up to 620 AD, the political situation in Madinah (at that time, known as Yathrib) were in a dangerous condition. There were strife and fighting between Jewish Community and the Arabic community which went as far as 100 years and had not left out. A delegate from Medinah arrived at Mecca, seeking Muhammad as a neutral outsider to solve this blood feud before it excelled into an open warfare. The interesting thing here is, Muhammad was not chosen because people of Madinah believe he was a Prophet. They choose Muhammad because they believe he could be a fair person to solve their political problem without further blood shed. In another word, even the delegates did not believe Muhammad was a prophet nor interested in Islam.
Muhammad took this oppurtunity to instruct those who had followed Islam in Mecca to leave the city and migrate to Madinah. This was done when the delegation (consists of the twelve tribes) had agreed to accept and protect Muhammad in return of his assistance in solving the problem. Once Muhammad reached Madinah, his true self came out.
He created the Constitution of Medina which has specified rights and duties of all its citizens and relationship between different communities in Medina. Muhammad also adopted some of the rituals which were followed by Jews like praying for three times a day. Before that, the Muslims were praying twice - in the morning and in the evening. With the new adoption, Muslims had their current five-times a day prayers. Muhammad modified the direction which Jews praying to (toward the Temple of Soloman in Jerusalem, as did the Christians) and turn it toward the Kaabah in Mecca (a practise which was alien to Jews and Christians alike). Muhammad relabelled Jews and Christians as "People of the Book" (a term which Muslims uses to this day) and expected Jews and Christians to give their undying and total loyalty toward Muhammad and Islam. However, there was only a few converts who left Christianity and Judaism to Islam, which made Muhammad question their willingness and loyalty.
Question here is :- Did Muhammad do his part as he had promised - when he agreed to become a mediator between Jews and the Arabs?
Answer is :- NO. All Muhammad did was use the situation to his advantage, move his people into a new area where they could be accepted and slowly convert the locals (through political and social changes). His muslim brethens quickly adjusted themselves in the more peaceful environment of Medina (if compared to Mecca) and prospered through Muhammad's political system which in favored Islam. Muhammad did not bring peace to anyone but continued to divide Jews, Christians and the Arabs with Islam in the middle.
Today, we will find similar strategy which Muslims applied whenever they reached a non-Muslim community. They will latch themselves to the more peaceful society by claiming to be peaceful themselves. They will improve themselves in term of economy to the extend that they could become self-sufficient enough to support themselves. And when they are strong enough to maintain a community within a community, they could demand "equal rights" to those of non-Muslims in the region which slowly grows to the point that they could influence non-muslims to convert.
Sephiroth replied at 22-1-2015 10:31 AM
When did Islam began?
Many believe that Islam began in Mecca when Muhammad first was preaching h ...
LOL , another copy paste from some hate site.
Don't you ever employ any logical thinking? If the people of Madinah(Yathrib) converted to Islam , that means they acknowledged the prophethood of Prophet Muhammad(saw). Islam is a continuation of Judaism , therefore the many similarities.
Equal rights? Any citizen of any country has the right to demand for equal rights , be them minority. You are contradicting yourself here. You have been harping for equal rights for people like you despite knowing that you are the minority. Nobody said you are wrong and go against you. Can you just for once think with your brains instead from your rear end?
Edited by Sephiroth at 23-1-2015 09:24 AM
Muhammad - Peaceful and Forgiving?
Muslims could like to make us (non-Muslims) believe that Muhammad was a great man of peace and willing to forgive so many. This was due to the bad experience he and his followers had endured at the hands of the Quraisy in Mecca earlier (before migrating to Medina in 622).
However, Muhammad was not peaceful nor forgiving person as Muslims want us to believe. He was a ego-maniac and a revengeful man who took all the abuse he could and bid his time to return them to his abusers.
After Muhammad and his followers had moved to Medina, they have settled down there. However, they were people without wealth or position in Medina and many of them had nothing to support their family with. Muhammad knew if this could continue, what happened in Mecca earlier could repeat again here in Medina, especially since both cities are connected through trade and the hands of Quraisy (and their wealth) are long and easy to influence the people of Medina against Muslims. Furthermore, the representatives of the twelve tribes had offered to protect him, they said nothing about supporting Muslims. This means Muhammad needs to find a way to support his clan as quickly as possible.
So, he turned toward becoming a bandit as means to support his people. The first step was to morally encourage his people to follow him and fight. This was due to the fact that, while many of them are his followers and Muslims, they still have family relationship with those who were in Mecca. Which means IF he were not careful, his raids could lead to dead of relatives of his followers and that could lead to splinter groups within Muslims. Furthermore, many have came to a conclusion that Islam is a religion of peace. A sudden act of attacking others (in what appears to be bandit raids) could look bad on Muhammad as his role as a prophet.
Therefore, Muhammad produced Surat Al-Haj 22:39 and 22:40 :
Sahih International
Permission has been given to those who are being fought, because they were wronged. And indeed, Allah is competent to give them victory.
Sahih International
those who have been evicted from their homes without right - only because they say, "Our Lord is Allah ." And were it not that Allah checks the people, some by means of others, there would have been demolished monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques in which the name of Allah is much mentioned. And Allah will surely support those who support Him. Indeed, Allah is Powerful and Exalted in Might.
Source : http://quran.com/22/39-40
Muhammad was careful not to target any other caravans except those of Quraisy. There are several factors on why he could choose that :-
1. As an act of revenge toward the treatment he had suffered at the hands of Quraisy.
2. He knows that some in Mecca could feel the same way about the loved ones who had left for Medina with Muhammad, and these Meccans could try to reason with their leaders to call out for truce and discussion.
3. As means of economic substance for his tribe (the Muslims). He and his people do not own wealth or land to support themselves.
4. As means of reducing Quraisy's economic strength. If other races knew that it could be dangerous to have business with Mecca (due to these raids), then they could find elsewhere to trade - including Medina.
One could wonder why the tribes in Medina did not stop Muhammad as his action could lead to warfare between the tribes of Mecca and Medina. It is possible that Muhammad was indirectly stealing trades from other races and "bringing it" to Medina, which could increase in wealth. Mecca could become weaker while Medina grew stronger and people of Medina tolerated this due to their newfound wealth. Sephiroth replied at 23-1-2015 09:21 AM
Muhammad - Peaceful and Forgiving?
Muslims could like to make us (non-Muslims) believe that Muham ...
LOL , another silly copy paste without any thought nor critical thinking whatsoever.
Prophet Muhammad(saw) raided the caravans because the Meccans were selling their (the muslims) property when the muslims emigrated to Madinah. This is a historically valid fact
When they had emigrated to Madinah, their land, wealth and property were seized, wives detained and the socially humble in rank brutally tortured. Quraish also schemed and made attempts on the life of the first figure of the Call, Muhammad . Due to their acknowledged temporal leadership and religious supremacy among the pagan Arabs, given the custodianship of the Sacred Sanctuary, the Quraishites spared no effort in enticing the Arabians against Madinah and boycotting the Madinese socially and economically. A state of war virtually existed between the Makkan tyrants and the Muslims in their abode.
The question here , why shouldn't Prophet Muhammad(saw) not raid the caravans to recover what is rightfully theirs?
To approach this in another manner. There is already a state of war between the muslims in Madinah and the pagan (like you) Quraish. Raiding of the caravans is an age old tactic by the inferior army , known as Commerce Raiding. The Americans in their war of independence resorted to such. Commerce raiding is known in French as guerre de course (“war of the chase”) and in German as handelskrieg (“trade war”).
Commerce raiding was accepted by the United States and the world as a valid form of warfare, and it was only with the advent of submarines that things began to change.The Oxford Companion to American Military History explains:
The term GUERRE DE COURSE describes a form of maritime warfare aimed at disrupting seaborne commerce…t is usually rendered as “commerce raiding” in English. Operationally, guerre de course resembles blockades in that it is primarily a form of economic warfare, in which combat with enemy ships is at best a secondary consideration…
Guerre de course, in contrast, is usually adopted by countries too weak to attempt such continuous, large-scale operations ; or unwilling to risk the kind of fleet action that may be necessary to impose or break a blockade. It is conducted by individual ships (naval warships or privately owned ships armed with guns and authorized by government letters of marque to engage in legal privateering) or small squadrons. These operate in hit-and-run fashion along oceanic shipping lanes…Strategically, guerre de course respresents an alternative to operations directed against the main naval forces of the enemy. Guerre de course in the form of privateering was widely employed by Americans in the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812.
This is about more than 6 times I have explained what is Commerce Raiding. Are you just too thick to understand?
The Battle of Badr
The Battle of Badr was fought on Saturday, March 13th 624 in the Hejaz region of the western Arabia. Even so the Muslims did fought several skirmishes with Quraisy forces, this battle is considered one of the first of three major battles which Muslims have to fight before they could march into Mecca. The Quraisy outnumber Muslims 3 to 1 and the Quraisy were expecting an easy victory over the Muslims.
Between the late 623 to 624, Muslims have increased in bandit raids toward Quraisy caravans as means of supporting themselves economically. In September 623, Muhammad himself had lead 200 men on an unsuccessful raid against an armed caravan. Please note that Muhammad was UNSUCCESSFUL in his raid. As the retaliation toward Muslim bandits and their chief bandit Muhammad, the Quraisy had decided to throw their own raids to steal back what was stolen from them by the Muslims. In January 624, the Muslims had ambushed a Meccan caravan near Nakhlah, 40 kilometers from Mecca and killed ONE of the guards (Ibn al-Hadrami). This incident had occurred on month of Rajab or a sacred month of truce to Meccans in which fighting was prohibited.
Muslim forces was lead by Muhammad, who was accompanied by Abu Bakar, Umar, Ali, Hamza, Mus'ab ibn Umair, Az-Zubair bin Al-Awwam, Ammar ibn Yasir and Abu Dharr al-Ghifari, 70 camels and two horses. Most of the Muslims had to walk toward their destination. Their goal was for Islam and for economy purpose in mind.
The Quraisy forces included Amr ibn Hisham, Walid ibn Utba and Umaiyah ibn Khalaf. These are some of the best nobles in Quraisy community. However, their main problem was that they were divided in purpose. Some of them were out to protect their economic interest (by getting rid of the Muslim bandits), some wanted to avenge Ibn al-Hadrami who was killed during Rajab month, some were expecting an easy victory and some were shamed by others into joining the battle, which means they had no interest in warfare.
By the time Muhammad found out about the large Quraisy army heading his way, he had to make some quick decision. He called his war council to decide what to do. He had only two choice - to stand and fight or to run. Many of his men were Ansars or new recruits (from Medina) who had pledged to protect Medina and therefore, has the right to turn and walk away. If they did that, then Muhammad's forces will be cut in half. However, Sa'd ibn Ubadah (who was leader of the Ansars) had pledge to fight, roping other Ansars to follow him. Now the important question remains - whether they will fight or run.
It is possible that Muhammad had no choice in the matter. IF he were to turn around and run back to Medina, he could have saved himself and Muslims. However, it could dealt a more serious blow to the Muslims than what the Quraisy could have given to them. If he were to run, then people could ask him why his Allah did not grant them victory as he (Allah) had mentioned in the pervious two surahs which he produced. Therefore, by his own words (Surah Al-Haj 29 and 30 which were mentioned earlier), Muhammad had NO CHOICE but to move forward and meet the Quraisy in battle.
In a desert warfare, water is the key of winning the war. The person who controls water will control the course of event. Muhammad knows this and therefore, took control of the first well that they came across (from the East). Muslim scholars wanted Muslims to believe that Muhammad was a brilliant strategist who won the battle (of Badr) due to his cunningness, but the truth was, it was Hubab ibn al-Mundhir who actual hero in this battle. He confronted Muhammad and asked him whether the decision to capture the first well was Allah's suggestion or was it Muhammad's. Muhammad told him it was Muhammad's decision and Hubab suggested that they moved forward closer to the Quraisy tents, cutting off their water supply. Muhammad agreed and they moved closer to the Quraisy tent, capturing the well and block the Quraisy from accessing other wells.
The day of the battle, it didn't start with all out-war, which was a mistake on Quraisy part. Even so Quraisy army had larger forces, they were divided in purpose and had certain level of empathy toward their enemies, the Muslims which consists of their former brethen. One can say that Muslims did not die on that day because the Quraisy were more tolerant than Muslims can ever be. Instead, they started the war with a duel of three champions versus three champions.
Hamza had fought and killed his opponent, Utba ibn Rabi'ah, Ali killed his opponent, Walid ibn Utba and Ubayda had wounded his opponentShaybah ibn Rabi'ah who eventually died due to his wound. Note that this was a turning point for Muslims as it had demoralized the Quraisy forces to see three of their best men die before them. It is also important to note that this victory was largely due to Muhammad's men and NOT Muhammad himself. The full-scale battle broke out and lasted several hours. However, due to their individual purpose, lost of leaders and lack of water, the Quraisy was defeated in battle and turn to run away.
The battle was a turning point for Muslims, and the events which followed had helped Muslims in many ways. Muhammad's main opponent in Mecca was Abd-Allah ibn Ubayy and his position had been weakened due to failure of the larger number of Quraisy in defeating the Muhammad's forces. Therefore any future challenge by him toward Muhammad was limited to skirmish and politicial steps. This allowed Muhammad a larger advantange in strenghtening his hold on other tribes around Mecca and Medina.
Another benefit of Battle of Badr was the rise of Abu Sufiyan. The death of Amr ibn Hashim and other nobles in the battle had allowed this (perviously unknown chief) to raise to power among the Quraisy. Abu Sufiyan was a power-hungry chief who wanted to see himself and his descendant in greatness and it was him who pushed forward for peaceful surrender of Mecca when Muhammad came to take control of the city six years later. Muhammad had rewarded him with a title of a high-ranking official in Muslim empire and his son, Muawiya eventually found the Umayyad Caliphate.
Sephiroth replied at 26-1-2015 10:03 AM
The Battle of Badr
The Battle of Badr was fought on Saturday, March 13th 624 in the Hejaz region...
Can you now explain just how it is to your skewed thinking that the muslims (and Prophet Muhammad(saw)) been labelled a bandit?
By all accounts of history , the meccans seized the property of the muslims who fled to Yathrib (Madinah). They raided the caravans to retake what is rightfully theirs. Why do you label them bandits?
Raiding caravans is what we term being 'Commerce Raiding' , which has been explained earlier in case you are just too thick to read let alone understand. What is wrong with it?
Oops , you would run away as expected.
Edited by Sephiroth at 10-2-2015 10:49 AM
Periods of Fear for Muhammad.
Most of the militancy form of Verses we will find in Al Quran (used frequently by terrorists and denied equally frequently by secular muslims) comes from a brief period of time between the period just BEFORE Battle of Badr (March 624) to conquest of Mecca (630). In that period of six years, Muhammad had faced more fear for his well-being than he could during the time in Mecca.
Christians and Jews believed that Muhammad was able to solve their political problems by being a neutral and fair person, however they found out that instead of solving their problems, Muhammad started to preach a new belief system that undermines both Christianity and Judaism itself. Muhammad rejected the notion of Jesus being Son of God even so he could admit to Jesus's miracle birth. And Muhammad's actions of absorbing some of the practice of Jews (like fasting) while rejecting their belief system had made Jews skeptical of a non-jewish prophet.
Muhammad tried to reason with their skepticism by stating that Abraham himself was a non-Jews. Problem here was Jews did not find to be a rational explanation. Being Jews had nothing to do with being born Jewish. It had everything to do with following the belief system, culture and tradition. But Muhammad - coming from an Arabic background - did not understand this and equalize being Jew is equal to being in a certain race. He could not understand that Abraham was a Jew - just as Moses were - because they followed the Way taught to them by God on Mount Sinai and NOT by being born into a specific belief system.
The continued rejection of the Jews (especially in Medina) had frustrated Muhammad enough to consider them as his enemies. Muhammad had two of the pagans of Medina - Asma binti Marwan and Abu 'Afak was killed because they WROTE POEMS against Muhammad.
Note : Readers should take note of this - Anyone who said that actions of killing those cartoonists in Paris recently was not part of Islam, they are sadly mistaken. Such actions had occurred even during Muhammad's time and Muhammad did not condemn such actions as being against Islam.
Muhammad expelled one of the three main Jewish tribes, Banu Qaynuqa from Medina for political and religious reasons. The religious reason was simple enough - the Jews did not accept Muhammad as a prophet. As for political reasons, Muhammad believed that they were secretly communicating with enemies of Islam outside Medina. It is possible that Muhammad starting to be paranoid and looked upon everyone who was not a Muslims with suspicious eyes.
After the Battle of Badr which had increase Muslims' prestige as a new clan as well as Medina's position as a trading posts, Muhammad started to make mutual-aid alliances with number of Bedoiun tribes around Medina, especially the northern part of Hejaz. Sephiroth replied at 6-2-2015 10:22 AM
Periods of Fear for Muhammad.
Most of the militancy form of Verses we will find in Al Quran (used ...
LOL , yet again - another pull from the rear end type of cut and paste argument.
Where is your data and studies? You are just farting from your mouth ..... again
To cite actual studies done by Arizona University (Center for Strategic Communication)
The most frequently cited Qur’anic verses identified in this study suggest that Islamist extremists favor content that falls within three core thematic categories: exhortations (e.g. 12:21, 63:8, 3:102), battle imperatives (9:14, 4:75, 22:39), and affirmations of faith (e.g. 8:17, 4:104, 3:139). These thematic categories correspond with our observation regarding the surprising verse selection from Surat at - Tawbah
. Extremists do not favor the “Verse of the Sword,” which encourages all - out war against unbelievers. Instead they appear to invoke specific verses of the Qur’an that support a promise of deliverance.
The following conclusion by Prof Pape describes you to a tee (you being delusional)
The idea that Islamic fundamentalism is on the verge of world domination and poses a realistic threat to impose Islamic law in the
United States and Europe is pure fantasy. Some radicals may harbor such delusions. Some fearmongers may use such delusions
to whip up hysteria. But they are delusions nonetheless (pp. 244 - 245) (Pape, R. (2005).Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism.New York: Random House.
LOL , killing of Abu Afak and Asma Marwan? LOL you are referencing Christian (whom you despise) sources without even thinking. The following is a response from Sami Zaatari :
So as you can see the sources make it very clear that these 2 not only mocked the prophet and insulted him, they also INSTGATED their people to attack and harm the Muslims! Hence these people were not mere poets writing mocking poems, they were inciting violence and hatred against the Muslims! They were inciting their people to rise up to fight and kill the Muslim population, and this made them direct enemy combatants because they were inciting violence against the Muslims. Therefore as we can see, there is nothing wrong in what was done against them, they brought it on themselves, you don’t have to hold a sword to be an enemy or an enemy combatant, inciting violence and instigating violence is just as bad and is the exact same thing. Even in today’s world men who preach ‘hate’ and incite violence will be arrested and imprisoned.
Don't you ever think and reason? Why don't you come up in public and instigate a war or Hindus into harming the Chinese or Muslims. What do you think would happen to you?
Can you use your brains to reason out at least for once? Appears that you are just thinking from your rear end. LOL .... too bad , so sad
Therefore as we can see, there is nothing wrong in what was done against them, they brought it on themselves, you don’t have to hold a sword to be an enemy or an enemy combatant, inciting violence and instigating violence is just as bad and is the exact same thing.
And this, folks is why Paris shooting had occurred. Because Muslims then and now have no problem using violence even against those who criticize in non-violence way as did those poets. Sephiroth replied at 6-2-2015 02:44 PM
And this, folks is why Paris shooting had occurred. Because Muslims then and now have no problem ...
Meenachi Sepiroth is trying her best to be stupid here.
The context of the article is about Asma and Afak instigating war against the muslims. Somehow meenachi Sepiroth in her perverted mind think that it is the same like the murder involving Charlie Hebdo. Then she try to twist the context to fit her Islamophobe thinking. The question here , can you now go public and incite the Hindus to start harming the others in this country. Do you know what would happen to you?
By the way , it is again double standards in the so called freedom of speech : The original Charlie Hebdo cartoon (published in July 2013, days after the military coup in Egypt. It caused outrage at the time because of its cruelty and insensitivity.It shows an Egyptian protestor being shot through a copy of the Quran he is holding. The text says, “The Quran is shit, it doesn’t stop bullets.”) :
http://i0.wp.com/electronicintifada.net/sites/electronicintifada.net/files/styles/large/public/charlie-hebdo-le-coran-cest-de-la-merde.jpg?resize=239%2C304
A cartoon by a 16 year old in his facebook after the incident (The text says “Charlie Hebdo is shit. It doesn’t stop bullets.”) :
http://i2.wp.com/www.loonwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/charlie-hebdo-cest-de-la-merde.jpg?resize=238%2C303
Guess what? The kid got arrested
LOL , that is what you are - a hypocrite , a religious bigot and a racist in addition to being a Hindoo supremacist.
Pages:
[1]
2