http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caravan_raids

The Caravan raids refer to a series of raids which Muhammad and his Companions participated in. The raids were generally offensive[1] and carried out to gather intelligence or seize the trade goods of caravans financed by the Quraysh, (such thefts were rationalized as being legitimate actions because many Muslims left their possessions behind when they migrated from Mecca).[2][3] The Muslims declared that the raids were justified and that God gave them permission to defend against the Meccans' persecution of Muslims.[4][5]

Background

The Islamic prophet Muhammad's followers suffered from poverty after fleeing persecution in Mecca and migrating with Muhammad to Medina. Their Meccan persecutors seized their wealth and belongings left behind in Mecca.[citation needed]

Beginning in January 623, some of the Muslims resorted to the tradition of raiding the Meccan caravans that traveled along the eastern coast of the Red Sea from Mecca to Syria.[citation needed] Communal life was essential for survival in desert conditions, as people needed support against the harsh environment and lifestyle. The tribal grouping was thus encouraged by the need to act as a unit. This unity was based on the bond of kinship by blood.[clarification needed][6] People of Arabia were either nomadic or sedentary, the former constantly traveling from one place to another seeking water and pasture for their flocks, while the latter settled and focused on trade and agriculture. The survival of nomads (or bedouins) was also partially dependent on raiding caravans or oases; thus they saw this as no crime.[7][8]

Earliest Quran verse about fighting

According to William Montgomery Watt, the Quran verse 22:29[9] was the earliest verse commanding Muslims to fight. However, he says there was a "disinclination" among the Muslims to follow the command to fight, but they were given an incentive, after the Muslims were told that God prefers fighters to those who sit still and remain at home, and that for fighters there is a reward in paradise (Jannah).[10]

...

Permission to fight

Up to this point the Muhammad told people to endure insults and abuse.[clarification needed] Because of being persecuted and economically-uprooted by their Meccan persecutors, Muhammad claimed that God gave him permission to fight the Meccans.

The permission to fight was given in many stages during Muhammad's prophetic mission:

* At first, the Muslims were only allowed to fight the Meccan Quraysh, because they were the first to oppress the Muslims in Mecca. Muslims were allowed to seize their goods, but not those tribes which the Muhammad made a treaty with.
* Then Muhammad and the Muslims were allowed to fight pagan tribes that allied with the Quraysh.
* Then Muhammad and the Muslims were allowed to fight the Jewish tribes of Medina, when these tribes violated the Constitution of Medina and their pact with the Muslims.
* Subsequently, Muhammad and the Muslims were allowed to fight the "People of the Book" (Christian and Jews). If the People of the Book paid a poll tax (jizya), then the Muslims were forbidden to fight them.
* Muslims were required to make peace with any polytheist, Jews or Christians who embraced Islam, and were required to embrace them as fellow Muslims.[43]

Myth- Prophet Muhammad Launched Raids on Innocent Merchants

Did Prophet Muhammad attack innocent trade caravans to loot them?

During the time of the Prophet, Arabs largely earned their living by trade with nations in the north then known as Syria, now divided into many smaller countries. The trade routes from Mecca towards north passed near Medina. Arabs also conducted local trade from one town to another.

Critics allege that Prophet Muhammad began raiding the camel caravans of Arab traders travelling between Mecca and other Arab towns and oases. Some critics claim that Prophet Muhammad organized as many as eighty-two raids, personally leading over twenty, and cite the Qur’an 2:217 [1] as the “justification.”

We begin by presenting the full verse in question: “Fighting is ordained for you, though it is repugnant to you; but it may be that you dislike a thing while it is good for you, and it may be that you like a thing while it is bad for you. Allah knows all things, and you know not.” [2]

In this verse, the Holy Qur’an is reminds Muslims that, due to the Meccan’s massive hostilities against them, their thriteen years of non-violent resistance in Mecca and peaceful emigration 240 miles away unfortunately has not changed the hostile behavior of the Meccans. Therefore, the Muslims should be ready to fight even though they do not wish to fight. Of course, the Muslims did not wish to fight. That is exactly why they bore persecution patiently for thirteen years and migrated to a different region altogether—to avoid fighting. The verse is a commentary on human nature. These Muslims had suffered for over a decade in Mecca, left all their homes, properties, belongings, and ancestries to emigrate, all for the sake of peace. Now, war pursued them once more. It is completely reasonable to believe that some Muslims were tired of the persecution, suffering, and running. They simply wanted peace—but the Qur’an admonished them to remain firm because God knew the consequences of their acquiescence to Meccan aggression. Commenting on this situation, the Prophet Muhammad reassured the Muslims, “O ye Muslims! you should not desire to fight the enemy, and remain desirous of the peace and security of God.  If however, contrary to your desire, you are compelled to fight an enemy then demonstrate steadfastness.” [3]

This is a universal principle. Sovereign governments throughout history and even today enact mandatory drafts to ensure that their nation remains secure against attack. Critics who find objection with this verse should also declare that all nations that obligate fighting for the security of their citizens are behaving unjustly.

Turning specifically to the issue of the alleged plundering raids, history records elicit facts contrary to what critics fabricate:

Āṣim bin Kulaib relates from his father that an Anṣārī Companion narrates that, we set out on a Ghazwah with the Holy Prophet.  On one occasion, the people were struck by severe hunger and became very much distressed (since they had no provisions with them).  Upon this they caught a few goats from a flock, slaughtered them and began cooking them.  Our pots were boiling with their meat when the Holy Prophet arrived.  The Holy Prophet immediately upset our pots with his bow and angrily began grinding the pieces of meat beneath his feet and exclaimed, ‘Plunder is no better than carrion.’” [4]

History is clear. Let alone during times of prosperity, even in the face of severe hunger, Prophet Muhammad forbade plunder of any sort. In another famous tradition, Prophet Muhammad commanded the Muslims,

O ye Muslims! go forth in the name of Allāh and perform Jihād with the intention of protecting religion.  But beware! do not embezzle the wealth of spoils and do not deceive a people.  Do not mutilate the enemy dead, do not kill women and children [5], nor religious recluses[6]; and do not kill the elderly.  Create peace in the land, and treat the people with benevolence, for surely, Allāh loves the benevolent.” [7]

Once again, Prophet Muhammad, in word and deed, explains that the purpose of fighting is to protect religious freedom—not wealth, power, or terror. He specifically forbade Muslims from harming innocents, condemned violence, and implored benevolence.

Islamic history scholar Hadrat Mirza Bashir Ahmad details the purpose of the raids that were undertaken by the Prophet, and demonstrates that they were not unjust, but a just form of defense that nations even today employ.

So you agree that Muhammed carried out all those raids? What exactly are you disagreeing with?


Quote:

O ye Muslims! go forth in the name of Allāh and perform Jihād with the intention of protecting religion.  But beware! do not embezzle the wealth of spoils and do not deceive a people.

Other Muslims have explained that deception is a natural part of this Jihad, and that it was permitted to take all the opponents possessions as spoils of war. Can you explain this apparent contradiction?


Quote:

Once again, Prophet Muhammad, in word and deed, explains that the purpose of fighting is to protect religious freedom—not wealth, power, or terror. He specifically forbade Muslims from harming innocents, condemned violence, and implored benevolence.

So they robbed caravans in the name of freedom of religion?

The more I look into this, the more I think Islam's rise was due to a combination of brutal violence and complete lack of reason. It is like the stereotypical South American drug lord being the scariest and most violent to fight his way to the top. If a person is genuinely crazy and dangerous, you give them a wide berth, and this is the image Muhammed projected. While it may seem ludicrous from our position of safety, it would be quite a thing to face if such a man was actually in a position to slaughter every man in your tribe, take all your possessions and take every woman as a sex slave. What is even scarier is that modern educated people so readily adopt all the crazy excuses and justifications for Muhammed's brutality and violence. The mind boggles at what they could use Muhammedan 'logic' to justify today, if they were given the chance.

the rest of the article:


Quote:

The fourth strategy [to protect Muslims from the mischief of idolaters] employed by the Holy Prophet was that he began to intercept the trade caravans of the Quraish which travelled from Makkah to Syria passing by Madīnah en route.  The reason being that firstly, these caravans would spark a fire of enmity against the Muslims wherever they travelled.  It is obvious that for a seed of enmity to be sown in the environs of Madīnah was extremely dangerous for the Muslims.  Secondly, these caravans would always be armed and everyone can appreciate that for such caravans to pass by so close to Madīnah was not empty of danger.  Thirdly, the livelihood of the Quraish primarily depended on trade.  Therefore, in these circumstances, the most definitive and effective means by which the Quraish could be subdued, their cruelties could be put to an end and they could be pressed to reconciliation, was by obstructing their trade route.  As such, history testifies to the fact that among the factors which ultimately compelled the Quraish to incline towards reconciliation, the interception of these trade caravans played an extremely pivotal role.  Hence, this was an extremely sagacious strategy, which yielded fruits of success at the appropriate time.  Fourthly, the revenue from these caravans of the Quraish was mostly spent in efforts to eliminate Islām.  Rather, some caravans were even sent for the sole purpose that their entire profit may be utilized against the Muslims.  In this case, every individual can understand that the interception of these caravans, was in its own right, an absolutely legitimate motive. Various prejudiced Christian historians … have raised the allegation that, God-forbid, the Holy Prophet and his Companions would set out for the purpose of plundering the caravans of the Quraish.  We would like to inquire of these people who are an embodiment of justice and equity, that do your nations, who you consider to be the epitomes of civility and nobility, not obstruct the trade routes of enemy nations?  When they receive news that a trade vessel belonging to such and such enemy nation is passing by so and so place, do they not immediately dispatch a naval company in its pursuit so as to destroy it, or employ a strategy to subdue it and take possession of its wealth?  Then for this reason can your leaders be labelled as robbers, pillagers and plunderers?  Verily, if the Muslims intercepted the caravans of the Quraish, its purpose was not to take possession of the wealth of their caravans.  Rather, military tactics demanded that the trade route of the Quraish be obstructed, because there was no better means by which they could be brought to their senses and pushed to reconciliation.  To assert that in the interception of these caravans, the Muslims were given teachings of pillage and plunder, is a grave injustice and far from equity. [8] The above-mentioned authentic references should clarify to any fair-minded reader that Prophet Muhammad did not engage in any injustice regarding war. He certainly did not in any capacity raid innocent trade caravans. On the contrary, he demonstrated extreme restraint and benevolence. - See more at: http://www.muhammadfactcheck.org/muhammadfactcheck/6-prophet-muhammad-launched-raids-on-innocent-merchants/#sthash.kb0DQRIG.dpuf

When wars are started, bad things happen. Yet the greatest war crime of all - the "supreme crime" - as Justice Jackson stated at the Nuremburg war trial - is the act of aggressive war itself. All other war crimes spawn from, and are secondary to this. So when war is forced upon you - as it was to The Prophet, you don't take up the fight with kid gloves. You seek to destroy your enemy. About the first thing you seek to interrupt and destroy is the enemies economy, to deny them the wealth and resources they need to wage war on you.

Still, islam was the first religion/legal system that laid down some ground rule for lawful combat: no killing of non-combatants, no disproportionality, and no random destruction of property.

Quote:

Still, islam was the first religion/legal system that laid down some ground rule for lawful combat: no killing of non-combatants, no disproportionality, and no random destruction of property.

;D

The "no desruction of property" rule was to increase the spoils of war right?

What article is that the "rest" of?

Are you saying that these caravan raids were in the context of an actual war? I have not seen any mention of it. Most Muslims use past persecution to justify the theft, not the context of war.

Is Islam always at war, by default, until Muslims decide they have obtained revenge for every perceived past injustice and destroyed every possible "seed of enmity" towards them?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 12:01pm:

When wars are started, bad things happen.....

Yet, ISLAMISTS [moslems] throughout history have always whined and whined and whined, about their own 'victimhood', when ISLAMISTS [moslems] suffer, from the conflicts which ISLAMISTS [moslems] initiated - as a consequence of the ISLAMISTS [moslems] own intended relio-political conquest of other peoples.

e,g,
Syria, today.
Thailand, today.
Burma, today.
and on, and on, and on....


Yet gandalf claims to understand; "When wars are started, bad things happen....."

Bad things are going to happen, gandalf.

Particularly when Muhammed was involved.

freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 12:08pm:

Quote: Still, islam was the first religion/legal system that laid down some ground rule for lawful combat: no killing of non-combatants, no disproportionality, and no random destruction of property. ;D The "no desruction of property" rule was to increase the spoils of war right? What article is that the "rest" of? Are you saying that these caravan raids were in the context of an actual war? I have not seen any mention of it. Most Muslims use past persecution to justify the theft, not the context of war. Is Islam always at war, by default, until Muslims decide they have obtained revenge for every perceived past injustice and destroyed every possible "seed of enmity" towards them?

If your smart enough to find a story about Prophet Mohamed which 99% of muslims have not heard of before or studied then surely you can research your own questions.

Do you agree that Muhammed engaged in highway robbery to finance his political ambitions? (if I can google your answer please let me know)

freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 12:42pm:

Do you agree that Muhammed engaged in highway robbery to finance his political ambitions? (if I can google your answer please let me know)

Prophet Mohammed doesn't speak from his own desires, everything was revealed to him by his creator.

Mohammed wouldn't do a action contrary to islam, and I support whatever was revealed to him.

Are you trying to say I need to google your answer?

Are you saying that highway robbery is not contrary to Islam?

freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 12:57pm:

Are you trying to say I need to google your answer?

No, he's asking you to substantiate your own bullshit accusations.

Do you want me to substantiate my claims that Muhammed engaged in banditry?  If not, which claims do you think are BS?

freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 1:06pm:

Do you want me to substantiate my claims that Muhammed engaged in banditry?

yup.


freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 1:06pm:

which claims do you think are BS?

There's quite a selection there - including:


freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 12:08pm:

Most Muslims use past persecution to justify the theft

freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 12:00pm:

Islam's rise was due to a combination of brutal violence and complete lack of reason

freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 12:00pm:

If a person is genuinely crazy and dangerous, you give them a wide berth, and this is the image Muhammed projected

freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 12:00pm:

modern educated people so readily adopt all the crazy excuses and justifications for Muhammed's brutality and violence.

So you don't think the opening post substantiates the claims of banditry?

shockresist wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 12:52pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 12:42pm: Do you agree that Muhammed engaged in highway robbery to finance his political ambitions? (if I can google your answer please let me know) Prophet Mohammed doesn't speak from his own desires, everything was revealed to him by his creator. Mohammed wouldn't do a action contrary to islam, and I support whatever was revealed to him.

Was it gabriel or allah that gave revelations to Mo?
Could we say gabriel is the servant of Mohammad's imaginary friend in the sky called allah?
Why does allah need gabriel to give Mo his message,was he incapable of doing it?

So how many wives is a muslim allowed to have, why was Mo allowed to have more wives than any other muslim is that an example of his behaviour being contrary to Islam?

Quote:

The prophet used to go round (have sexual relations with) all his wives in one night,and he had 9 wives. www.sunnah.com/bukhari/67/6

Mohammad's highway robbery is documented in "Sirat rasul allah by Ibn Ishaq" which is the earliest biography of profit Mo.

freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 1:19pm:

So you don't think the opening post substantiates the claims of banditry?

Nope - unless you interpret "banditry" as a legitimate act of war to cut the supply lines of the enemy - which forbade the of killing women, children and the elderly and other non-combatants. I certainly don't interpret 'banditry' in that way.

So what war was going on at the time?

umm.. the war with the Meccans which they started?

Is that a trick question?

When did that war start? Any idea why there is no mention of it in the wiki article on the caravan raids?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 1:44pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 1:19pm: So you don't think the opening post substantiates the claims of banditry? Nope - unless you interpret "banditry" as a legitimate act of war to cut the supply lines of the enemy - which forbade the of killing women, children and the elderly and other non-combatants. I certainly don't interpret 'banditry' in that way.

So robbing trade caravans is considered cutting supply lines of the enemy?

Abu claimed muslims were taking back their belongings!

From Sirat rasul allah by Ibn Ishaq-

Quote:

The apostle of allah heard that Abu Sufyan- whom he had missed at al-Ushayra- was returning from Syria with a large caravan of merchandise, accompanied by 30-40 men. Then he addressed the muslims saying Go forth against this caravan:it may be that allah will grant you plunder

Allah the most merciful of those who show mercy allows muslims to steal from non muslims, as long as allah gets his 20% of all war booty.
www.quran.com/8/41

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 1:36pm:

shockresist wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 12:52pm: freediver wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 12:42pm: Do you agree that Muhammed engaged in highway robbery to finance his political ambitions? (if I can google your answer please let me know) Prophet Mohammed doesn't speak from his own desires, everything was revealed to him by his creator. Mohammed wouldn't do a action contrary to islam, and I support whatever was revealed to him. Was it gabriel or allah that gave revelations to Mo? Could we say gabriel is the servant of Mohammad's imaginary friend in the sky called allah? Why does allah need gabriel to give Mo his message,was he incapable of doing it? So how many wives is a muslim allowed to have, why was Mo allowed to have more wives than any other muslim is that an example of his behaviour being contrary to Islam? [quote]The prophet used to go round (have sexual relations with) all his wives in one night,and he had 9 wives. Mohammad's highway robbery is documented in "Sirat rasul allah by Ibn Ishaq" which is the earliest biography of profit Mo.

Both Gabriel and Allah spoke to Mohamed.

God also spoke directly to moses aswell.

That is Gods wisdom why sometimes he used angels to relay mesaages, other times he spoke directly to his prophets.He is God the most powerful and he can do what he pleases.

Previous prophets had many wives.Solomon had hundreds of wives.

freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 2:05pm:

When did that war start?

When the Meccans started persecuting them and kicked them out of Mecca.

You're not answering the question shocky. Are you trying to say that Muhammed broke Islamic law because Moses did?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 2:34pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 2:05pm: When did that war start? When the Meccans started persecuting them and kicked them out of Mecca.

What year was that?

Do you share Abu's belief that "the west" has been at war with the Muslim world for a century?

If a person persecutes a Muslim, does that mean they are at war with the muslim forever more - until the Muslim is satisfied he has had revenge? And in that time "anything goes" because in the Muslim's mind they are at war, regardless of whether they are actually at war?

How pervasive is this "always at war" mentality in Islam?

freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 2:36pm:

You're not answering the question shocky. Are you trying to say that Muhammed broke Islamic law because Moses did?

I mentioned moses in the context of communication between God and his prophets.

You seriously need to put some glasses on.

My apologies. It was Solomon who you offered as an excuse for Muhammed breaking Islamic law. Can you explain how that justifies it?

The Muslims were simply taking their own possessions back.

The pagans of Mecca had kicked the Muslims out of the city and stolen all their possessions.

When the Muslims learnt that the pagans of Mecca were sending a caravan of their belongings off to sell in the north, they decided to reclaim their belongings.

When Jews try to regain property stolen from them by Nazis, are the Jews stealing? They are still doing this 70 years later.

Quote:

When Jews try to regain property stolen from them by Nazis, are the Jews stealing? They are still doing this 70 years later.

Yet another example of incomprehensible moral equivalence from Muslims.

If the Jews started holding up the autobahn at gunpoint and stealing cars, they could not justify this by citing the holocaust. Apparently common sense does not apply to Muhammed.

Do you have any evidence that it was their property they were "stealing back"?

freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 2:38pm:

Do you share Abu's belief that "the west" has been at war with the Muslim world for a century?

No, thats silly. The US is basically at war with anyone who has aspirations for independent economic development - they don't discriminate by religion. Some muslim nations have bore the brunt of this, but many others have benefited. Ironically, if you look at the list of islamic regimes the US has supported, its heavilly skewed towards the "crazy" islamists - ul-Haq in Pakistan, the salafist-dominated Gulf monarchies, the mujahideen in Afghanistan, and of course more recently the, the islamist rebels in Libya and Syria.


freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 2:38pm:

If a person persecutes a Muslim, does that mean they are at war with the muslim forever more - until the Muslim is satisfied he has had revenge?

Definitely not. The quran states very clearly that if the enemy inclines towards peace, then you must accept it. Islam encourages forgiveness and reconciliation - so long as the other party is sincere about ending hostilities.


freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 2:38pm:

And in that time "anything goes" because in the Muslim's mind they are at war, regardless of whether they are actually at war?

No, and I doubt Abu ever said that, because I have seen his posts about quranic prescribed restrictions in fighting. If islam is crystal clear about one thing - it is on the rules of warfare, and to not commit what we would term today war crimes.


freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 3:11pm:

f the Jews started holding up the autobahn at gunpoint and stealing cars, they could not justify this by citing the holocaust.

The Germans have paid billions to the jews in compensation.

Quote:

Definitely not. The quran states very clearly that if the enemy inclines towards peace, then you must accept it.

Does the fact that the Meccans were not attacking Muhammed (despite him raiding their caravans) indicate that they were inclined towards peace? How can you reconcile this claim with your justification of the raids by referring to previous persecution of Muslims?


Quote:

No, and I doubt Abu ever said that, because I have seen his posts about quranic prescribed restrictions in fighting.

Actually, this was in reference to you using the previous persecution as justification for the raids, and claming that it meant Muhammed was at war with the Meccans even though he was not actually at war with them.


Quote:

If islam is crystal clear about one thing - it is on the rules of warfare, and to not commit what we would term today war crimes.

;D

So, no slaughtering of POWs then? Unless of course you you want to execute them all, in which case you must merely find them guilty by association?


Quote:

The Germans have paid billions to the jews in compensation.

You completely missed the point there Gandalf. Think about it.

freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 2:45pm:

My apologies. It was Solomon who you offered as an excuse for Muhammed breaking Islamic law. Can you explain how that justifies it?

Not to sure what your smoking but what are you talking about?

What islamic law are you talking about?

freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 7:27pm:

Does the fact that the Meccans were not attacking Muhammed

You can stop there, because as far as I know the attacks/persecution was ongoing, up to and during the caravan raids. The picture you are attempting to frame of there being no hostilities, and the muslims merely being fueled by a distant memory of a long ago persecution - is nonsense.


freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 7:27pm:

How can you reconcile this claim with your justification of the raids by referring to previous persecution of Muslims?

I don't, because I don't


freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 7:27pm:

You completely missed the point there Gandalf. Think about it.

No, I think you missed the point. You were trying to draw some sort of moral equivalence to the caravan raids by the muslims, and the ridiculous scenario of jews committing banditry on German highways. The *point* that you missed is that such action is completely redundant given the jews capacity to extract substantial recompense through the courts and their considerable political clout.

freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 7:27pm:

Does the fact that the Meccans were not attacking Muhammed

Hostilities never ceased. The Meccan pagans sent a letter saying that they they were going to kill all the Muslims - a declaration of war.

Quote:

Not to sure what your smoking but what are you talking about?

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 1:36pm:

So how many wives is a muslim allowed to have, why was Mo allowed to have more wives than any other muslim is that an example of his behaviour being contrary to Islam? Quote: The prophet used to go round (have sexual relations with) all his wives in one night,and he had 9 wives. www.sunnah.com/bukhari/67/6

shockresist wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 2:27pm:

Previous prophets had many wives.Solomon had hundreds of wives.

Quote:

You can stop there, because as far as I know the attacks/persecution was ongoing, up to and during the caravan raids.

I thought you said it was a war? Can you give some examples? Why does the wikipedia article make no mention of it, beyond the persecution that lead them to leave Mecca?


Quote:

The picture you are attempting to frame of there being no hostilities, and the muslims merely being fueled by a distant memory of a long ago persecution - is nonsense.

I'm sure they were still very bitter about it all.


Quote:

The *point* that you missed is that such action is completely redundant given the jews capacity to extract substantial recompense through the courts and their considerable political clout.

So highway robbery is only permissable to those without political clout?


Quote:

Hostilities never ceased. The Meccan pagans sent a letter saying that they they were going to kill all the Muslims - a declaration of war.

Sounds convenient. Did Gabriel deliver it?

freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 10:10pm:

I thought you said it was a war? Can you give some examples? Why does the wikipedia article make no mention of it, beyond the persecution that lead them to leave Mecca?

The early muslims were harassed, beaten and frequently murdered. A large portion of them sought refuge in Abysinnia, where they were protected by the christian king there. In response, the Meccans barred the remaining muslims from all commercial and social interractions in the city. When Muhammad was overseeing the evacuation of his people to Medina, the Meccans tried to assassinate him.

Are these acts of war in your book?

According to your wiki article, the caravan raids started almost the same time as the hijra - (623 AD). Thus clearly its a continuation of the same hostilities started by the Meccans.

It doesn't sound like war to me Gandalf. It sounds like persecution and theft. It is hardly surprising that Muslims like Abu believe the west has been at war with the Muslim world for over a century, when Muhammed himself threw the term around so liberally to justify the blatant hypocrisy of violating his own rules. It is hardly surprising that other Muslims do such extreme things as part of whatever war they have projected onto the world. Islam justifies just about anything, because Muhammed himself was a walking hypocrite machine whose contribution to the world seems limited to making up excuses for anything Muslims do and dreaming up excuses to kill and punish non-Muslims.

It was not until one of the later raids that one of the Muslims show an arrow. He is described as the first Muslim to shoot an arrow in the name of Islam. Yet you expect us to believe it was part of an ongoing war, when that arrow itself was not part of a war or even a successful attempt at theft.

Good rant FD - I just described the systematic persecution the muslims suffered under the Meccans, and not content to merely brush off the muslim retaliatory reaction as unjustified (based on the bizarre logic that its mere "persecution" and "theft"), you then launch an extraordinary tirade about the 'hypocrisy' and aggression of the prophet. On what possible grounds would you describe the fighting by a leader of a group of people against the systematic persecution they suffered, being robbed and booted out of their homes, against their oppressors as hypocritical?

He was not fighting against the people who persecuted him or acted unjustly towards individual Muslims. He was not fighting against persecution in general. He was robbing caravans. I don't see any difference between that and a Muslim group today who feels persecuted robbing a bank. Or discarding any other Islamic law on the grounds that persecution is the same thing as an actual war - and there is no shortage of Muslims who believe that. Muhammed's lack of moral spine is reflected in the actions of muslim extremists and general dirtbags today.

The caravans were Meccan, they were the lifeblood of the Meccan economy. So yeah, actually it was fighting against the people who oppressed him.

When war is forced upon you, you strike the enemy in the most effective way you can. At that stage the muslims didn't have the strength to take on the armies of Mecca directly, so they launched a classic asymmetric warfare against the enemies supply lines. When this sort of warfare happens today, most people see this as legitimate resistance to oppression. The difference of course is that the muslims were restrained by strict rules of warfare.


freediver wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 10:10am:

don't see any difference between that and a Muslim group today who feels persecuted robbing a bank.

Then you have a severely distorted way of seeing things. The correct analogy would be Syrian rebels (persecuted, forced from their homes) fighting the Assad regime (the oppressors) by attacking supply convoys coming in and out of the country. Note that we (the west) cheer on such attacks.


freediver wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 10:10am:

Or discarding any other Islamic law on the grounds that persecution is the same thing as an actual war

So tell me, do you think the Syrian protestors had the right to pick up arms and start an asymetrical campaign against the people who had been murdering and forcing them out of their homes? I mean it wasn't at that stage "an actual war" right?

Quote:

The caravans were Meccan, they were the lifeblood of the Meccan economy. So yeah, actually it was fighting against the people who oppressed him.

So if a modern Muslims felt like they were being oppressed by Jews or Americans, it would be valid under Islamic law for them to strike at the 'lifeblood' of the Jewish or American economy?


Quote:

When war is forced upon you

Can you clarify how the Meccans forced war upon the Muslims? From your descriptions it sounds like they weren't even aware there was a war going on. It was just Muhammed and his mates robbing caravans because they felt persecuted.


Quote:

When this sort of warfare happens today, most people see this as legitimate resistance to oppression. The difference of course is that the muslims were restrained by strict rules of warfare.

Right, like no mass execution POWs unless you can make up an excuse? Not taking the women home as sex slaves? Not enslaving the children? Not forcing mass migration? No ethnic cleansing? If anything Muhammed lowered the standards of the time. Islam was a step down, even by 7th century tribal Arab standards.


Quote:

The correct analogy would be Syrian rebels

No Gandalf. They are actually at war. Muhammed was just pretending there was a war on so he could rob caravans. The correct analogy would be Syrians robbing banks to line their own pockets before the war actually started, then using persecution of other Syrians to justify it. Even that is a poor analogy because they were living within the Syrian state.

You still refuse to explain how they were actually persecuted. Given that you are using that as an excuse for Muhammed's thievery, don't you think you should give some more details?

freediver wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 11:16am:

So if a modern Muslims felt like they were being oppressed by Jews or Americans, it would be valid under Islamic law for them to strike at the 'lifeblood' of the Jewish or American economy?

If they were persecuted, systematically murdered and tortured, and then forced to flee their homes? Is that even a serious question?? Answer this straight FD - you ignored it last time - do you believe armed resistance is justified/legitimate in the face of this sort of oppression? Its just such a no-brainer to me.


freediver wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 11:16am:

Can you clarify how the Meccans forced war upon the Muslims?

By persecuting and kicking them out of their homes. Is *ANY* of this getting though FD?


freediver wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 11:16am:

Right, like no mass execution POWs unless you can make up an excuse? Not taking the women home as sex slaves? Not enslaving the children? Not forcing mass migration? No ethnic cleansing? If anything Muhammed lowered the standards of the time. Islam was a step down, even by 7th century tribal Arab standards.

Lets stick to the caravan raids - ie the topic of this thread - shall we?


freediver wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 11:16am:

No Gandalf. They are actually at war.

They weren't when the persecution started - I did mention that. Please explain to me any qualitative difference between the persecution suffered by the Syrian rebels which prompted them to take up arms against their oppressors, and the persecution of the muslims that prompted them to take up arms against their oppressors.


freediver wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 11:16am:

Muhammed was just pretending there was a war on so he could rob caravans.

The murders and tortures and being hounded out of the city was a figment of his imagination was it? I would love to understand your thought processes on this FD. Again, please try and provide a straight answer to this - do you consider armed resistance to oppression - real oppression like murdering, torture, chasing you out of your homes - as legitimate?

Quote:

Lets talk about the caravan raids shall we?

You are the one who brought it up Gandalf. Stop claiming that Muhammed set higher standards for warfare if you are so embarrassed about the reality.


Quote:

They weren't when the persecution started - I did mention that. Please explain to me any qualitative difference between the persecution suffered by the Syrian rebels which prompted them to take up arms against their oppressors, and the persecution of the muslims that prompted them to take up arms against their oppressors.

You are the one claiming Muhammed and his mates were persecuted, therefor they were at war, therefor it was OK to go round robbing caravans and lining their own pockets. Who was murdered? Who was tortured?

freediver wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 8:39am:

It doesn't sound like war to me Gandalf. It sounds like persecution and theft. It is hardly surprising that Muslims like Abu believe the west has been at war with the Muslim world for over a century, when Muhammed himself threw the term around so liberally to justify the blatant hypocrisy of violating his own rules. It is hardly surprising that other Muslims do such extreme things as part of whatever war they have projected onto the world. Islam justifies just about anything, because Muhammed himself was a walking hypocrite machine whose contribution to the world seems limited to making up excuses for anything Muslims do and dreaming up excuses to kill and punish non-Muslims. It was not until one of the later raids that one of the Muslims show an arrow. He is described as the first Muslim to shoot an arrow in the name of Islam. Yet you expect us to believe it was part of an ongoing war, when that arrow itself was not part of a war or even a successful attempt at theft.

Are you an idiot or just a complete liar?

North Korea and South Korea are technically at war, when was the last time a shot was fired?

Britain declared war on Germany on 3rd September 1939. Britain blockaded Germany's sea routes. So when did Britain join the war upon their declaration of war or when they saw military action 8 months later?

Just about every historian in the world agrees that Britain joined the war with their declaration on Sep 3 1939.

The Quraysh sent more than a declaration of war when they sent a letter declaring that they would kill every single Muslims.

So when does a war begin FD, with the first shot or with declarations of war?

So how many Muslims did they actually kill?

Who delivered this letter? Gabriel?

Are you suggesting the Meccans declared war, then totally forgot about it while Muhammed went about robbing their caravans?

freediver wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 11:47am:

Stop claiming that Muhammed set higher standards for warfare if you are so embarrassed about the reality.

The quranic verses of warfare are, to my knowledge, the first recorded legal restrictions on conducting war. The first time that killing of non-combatants is made unlawful, and that warfare is only allowed in self-defense (among others). Thats the context of the caravan raids - since the verses were revealed in the wake of these raids. I'm not embarrassed to talk about your so called collective punishment of the jews, but you did start this thread to talk about the caravan raids, so thats what I'm talking about. You can't accuse me of shying away from defending islam's position vis-a-vis the war with the jewish tribes in the other 50 thousand threads about those.


freediver wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 11:47am:

You are the one claiming Muhammed and his mates were persecuted, therefor they were at war, therefor it was OK to go round robbing caravans and lining their own pockets. Who was murdered? Who was tortured?

Oh so its a revisionist version of early muslim history is it? You could have said that from the start, rather than give us all the run-around and concoct this twisted logic about persecution not being warfare, and therefore the muslims don't have any right to engage in it.

I don't know the body count, I don't think anyone does. But the fact of the persecution is made clear by the migrations to Abysinnia and later Medina. Not to mention the attempted assassination of the prophet as he was attempting to flee Mecca.

Quote:

The first time that killing of non-combatants is made unlawful, and that warfare is only allowed in self-defense (among others).

LOL, from the man who built one of the biggest and fastest growing militant empires in history, who slaughtered 700 POWs in one go.


Quote:

Thats the context of the caravan raids

The context is Muhammed being a thief and crying about persecution to justify breaking his own rules. That's why you still won't give any details about this persecution and why is counts as a state of war and an excuse for highway robbery.


Quote:

Oh so its a revisionist version of early muslim history is it?

No Gandalf, I said what persecution? Give some details to show that it counts as a state of war and an excuse for highway robbery.


Quote:

I don't know the body count, I don't think anyone does.

Oh, how convenient for you. Don't you think Muhammed or his mates might have written down something about it, seeing as they were using it as their excuse for highway robbery? You know, just in case people later accused him of being a two faced hypocrite?


Quote:

But the fact of the persecution is made clear by the migrations to Abysinnia and later Medina.

The robbery happened after that right? Where is the 'ongoing war' you kept using as an excuse? Why can't the migrations be evidence of Muhammed trying to evade justice and continue robbing non-Muslims at will?

freediver wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 12:31pm:

That's why you still won't give any details about this persecution and why is counts as a state of war and an excuse for highway robbery.

I don't know the details FD. But I do know that a fair chunk of them were forced out of their homes and found refuge in a christian kingdom, while the remainder were subject to the equivalent of the wearing of the star of David. I do know that the Meccans chased them to Abysinnia, begging the king to hand them over (for God knows what treatment), but that the king recognised there was real persecution going on and continued providing refuge. And I do know they were all eventually forced to flee their homes and their properties were confiscated. Its pretty obvious that these facts don't point towards a manufactured persecution, but a real persecution.


freediver wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 12:31pm:

The robbery happened after that right? Where is the 'ongoing war' you kept using as an excuse?

Had the Meccans gave them back their property? Had they been given guarantees that they could freely worship at the Karbaa in Mecca? Were any guarantees given about the muslim's safety against the people who had only just kicked them out of their homes after sustained persecution? No on all counts. Therefore a state of war remained.

Quote:

Its pretty obvious that these facts don't point towards a manufactured persecution, but a real persecution.

I described it myself as persecution (which you seemed to think was wrong somehow). What is under question is whether it was a state of war that justifies Muhammed breaking Islamic law and robbing caravans to line his own pockets.


Quote:

Had the Meccans gave them back their property? Had they been given guarantees that they could freely worship at the Karbaa in Mecca? Were any guarantees given about the muslim's safety against the people who had only just kicked them out of their homes after sustained persecution? No on all counts. Therefore a state of war remained.

So my earlier description is correct? Muslims are always at war over past injustice until they feel they have received vengeance?

If a group of pagans decided that there was something in Mecca they wanted to worship (it is a historical pagan site after all), would that oblige modern Muslims to let them in? Failing that, would it be fair for the Pagans to take it as a state of war and start robbing Saudis on the highway as they passed under the "Muslims only" sign? After all, there is a historical injustice of Muhammed expelling pagans. Or is this yet another example of one rule for Muslims, one rule for everyone else?

freediver wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 1:41pm:

I described it myself as persecution (which you seemed to think was wrong somehow). What is under question is whether it was a state of war that justifies Muhammed breaking Islamic law and robbing caravans to line his own pockets.

Wait FD, you just finished asking me if it was real persecution, in response to my claim that armed resistance is legitimate against persecution. *NOW* your back to saying armed resistance is only legitimate in an actual war?? What is the reasoning here FD, honestly?? So I go back to my original question, which you tried to deflect with the "there was no real persecution" nonsense: does real persecution justify armed resistance?? Please for once try and answer that straight FD.


freediver wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 1:41pm:

So my earlier description is correct? Muslims are always at war over past injustice until they feel they have received vengeance?

How the hell is it past injustice? This was not muslims fighting because their ancestors generations ago faced persecution - its because those very same muslims *WERE* currently facing persecution and injustice. I ask again - had the Meccans addressed the injustices in any way? Had they returned them their property? Had anything changed at all to make them feel safe against Meccan aggression? The injustice was ongoing. If you believe that armed resistance is justified in response to oppression (which everyone does - including the geneva convention and the UN charter), you would not be describing these actions as banditry and thievery.

Quote:

What is the reasoning here FD, honestly?? So I go back to my original question, which you tried to deflect with the "there was no real persecution" nonsense: does real persecution justify armed resistance??

Does real persecution justify robbing caravans to line your own pockets? By this reasoning any theft by a Muslim could be counted as armed resistance if they feel persecuted. If is self service tripe. You are bending every definition to the point of absurdity.


Quote:

How the hell is it past injustice? This was not muslims fighting because their ancestors generations ago faced persecution - its because those very same muslims *WERE* currently facing persecution and injustice.

The only ongoing injustice was that they couldn't go back to Mecca - ironically enough the same persecution that Muslims are more than happy to impose upon every non-Muslim in the world, even though it has a long history as a pagan worship site.

If a group of pagans decided that there was something in Mecca they wanted to worship (it is a historical pagan site after all), would that oblige modern Muslims to let them in? Failing that, would it be fair for the Pagans to take it as a state of war and start robbing Saudis on the highway as they passed under the "Muslims only" sign? After all, there is a historical injustice of Muhammed expelling pagans. Or is this yet another example of one rule for Muslims, one rule for everyone else?

freediver wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 11:57am:

So how many Muslims did they actually kill?

The initial seizure of property, blockade and boycott of the Muslims by Meccan pagans caused starvation amongst Muslims so that they were forced to eat grass and bark off trees. The Prophet's first wife passed away at this stage - she had once been one of the wealthiest women in Mecca. Many Muslims were tortured and killed by the pagans of Mecca. The pagans would even resort to sexual tortures killing a woman by spearing her private parts.




freediver wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 11:57am:

Who delivered this letter? Gabriel?

Quote:

...The Quraishites, mortified at the escape of the Prophet (God bless him and give him peace) along with his devoted companions, and jealous of his growing power in Madinah, kept a stringent watch over the Muslims left behind and persecuted them in every possible way. They also initiated clandestine contacts with Abdullah bin Uabi bin Salul, chief of Madinese polytheists, and president designate of the tribes ‘Aws and Khazraj before the Prophet’s emigration. They sent him a strongly-worded ultimatum ordering him to fight or expel the Prophet, otherwise they would launch a widespread military campaign that would exterminate his people and proscribe his women. [Narrated by Abu Da'ud] His pride wounded and kingship no longer his, Abdullah bin Uabi bin Salul, a priori responded positively to his Quraishite co-polytheists. He mobilized his supporters to counteract the Muslims. The Prophet on hearing about this unholy alliance, summoned Abdullah and admonished him to be more sensible and thoughtful and cautioned his men against being snared in malicious tricks. [Narrated by Abu Da'ud] The men, on grounds of cowardice, or reason, gave up the idea. Their chief, however, seemingly complied, but at heart, he remained a wicked unpredictable accomplice with Quraish and the envious Jews. Skirmishes and provocations started to pave the way for a major confrontation between the Muslims and polytheists. Sa‘d bin Mu‘adh, an outstanding Helper, announced his intention to make a pilgrimage and headed for Mecca. There Omaiya bin Khalaf provided tutelage for him to observe the ritual circumambulation. Abu Jahl, an archenemy of Islam saw him in the Sacred Sanctuary and threatened he would have killed him if he had not been in the company of Omaiya. Sa‘d, fearlessly and defiantly, challenged him to committing any folly at the risk of cutting their caravans off. [Bukhari 2/563] Provocative actions continued and Quraish sent the Muslims a note threatening to put them to death in their own homeland. Those were not mere words, for the Prophet received information from reliable sources attesting to real intrigues and plots being hatched by the enemies of Islam. Precautionary measures were taken and a state of alertness was called for, including the positioning of security guards around the house of the Prophet and strategic junctures. ‘Aishah [R] reported that the Messenger of God lay down on bed during one night on his arrival in Madinah and said: Were there a pious person from amongst my Companions who should keep a watch for me during the night? She (‘Aishah [R]) said: We were in this state when we heard the clanging noise of arms. He (the Prophet) said: Who is it? He said: This is Sa‘d bin Abi Waqqas. The Messenger of God said to him: What brings you here? Thereupon he said: I harboured fear lest any harm should come to the Messenger of God, so I came to serve as your sentinel. The Messenger of God invoked blessings upon him and then he slept. [Muslim 2/280; Bukhari 1/404] - Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum

freediver wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 11:57am:

Are you suggesting the Meccans declared war, then totally forgot about it while Muhammed went about robbing their caravans?

As I asked earlier, what state were the British and Germans in for the 8 months following the declaration of war in which no military action took place? Was Britain at war on September 4 1939 even though no fighting had taken place?

freediver wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 1:58pm:

Does real persecution justify robbing caravans to line your own pockets?

the enemy caravans? Yes. Why not?

Or another way to put it: does real persecution justify striking the enemy where you can - in this case a critical supply line that is the lifeblood of your enemy's economy?

Out of interest, do you refer to the Syrian rebels ambushing SAA supply convoys and taking the supplies for themselves as bandits "robbing" to "line their own pockets"? No, I daresay you would call it a legitimate act of war.


freediver wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 1:58pm:

By this reasoning any theft by a Muslim could be counted as armed resistance if they feel persecuted.

By your reasoning, any insurgent force fighting the persecution of their people by ambushing and disrupting critical supply lines of their enemy is nothing but "banditry" and selfishly "lining their own pockets". For everyone else though, its a legitimate act of resistance to oppression.


freediver wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 1:58pm:

he only ongoing injustice was that they couldn't go back to Mecca

The hadeeth TC just posted disagrees with you.

True Colours wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 2:20pm:

The initial seizure of property, blockade and boycott of the Muslims by Meccan pagans caused starvation amongst Muslims so that they were forced to eat grass and bark off trees. Quote: ...The Quraishites, mortified at the escape of the Prophet (God bless him and give him peace) along with his devoted companions, and jealous of his growing power in Madinah, kept a stringent watch over the Muslims left behind and persecuted them in every possible way. They also initiated clandestine contacts with Abdullah bin Uabi bin Salul, chief of Madinese polytheists, and president designate of the tribes ‘Aws and Khazraj before the Prophet’s emigration. They sent him a strongly-worded ultimatum ordering him to fight or expel the Prophet, otherwise they would launch a widespread military campaign that would exterminate his people and proscribe his women. [Narrated by Abu Da'ud] His pride wounded and kingship no longer his, Abdullah bin Uabi bin Salul, a priori responded positively to his Quraishite co-polytheists. He mobilized his supporters to counteract the Muslims. The Prophet on hearing about this unholy alliance, summoned Abdullah and admonished him to be more sensible and thoughtful and cautioned his men against being snared in malicious tricks. [Narrated by Abu Da'ud] The men, on grounds of cowardice, or reason, gave up the idea. Their chief, however, seemingly complied, but at heart, he remained a wicked unpredictable accomplice with Quraish and the envious Jews. Skirmishes and provocations started to pave the way for a major confrontation between the Muslims and polytheists. Sa‘d bin Mu‘adh, an outstanding Helper, announced his intention to make a pilgrimage and headed for Mecca. There Omaiya bin Khalaf provided tutelage for him to observe the ritual circumambulation. Abu Jahl, an archenemy of Islam saw him in the Sacred Sanctuary and threatened he would have killed him if he had not been in the company of Omaiya. Sa‘d, fearlessly and defiantly, challenged him to committing any folly at the risk of cutting their caravans off. [Bukhari 2/563] Provocative actions continued and Quraish sent the Muslims a note threatening to put them to death in their own homeland. Those were not mere words, for the Prophet received information from reliable sources attesting to real intrigues and plots being hatched by the enemies of Islam. Precautionary measures were taken and a state of alertness was called for, including the positioning of security guards around the house of the Prophet and strategic junctures. ‘Aishah [R] reported that the Messenger of God lay down on bed during one night on his arrival in Madinah and said: Were there a pious person from amongst my Companions who should keep a watch for me during the night? She (‘Aishah [R]) said: We were in this state when we heard the clanging noise of arms. He (the Prophet) said: Who is it? He said: This is Sa‘d bin Abi Waqqas. The Messenger of God said to him: What brings you here? Thereupon he said: I harboured fear lest any harm should come to the Messenger of God, so I came to serve as your sentinel. The Messenger of God invoked blessings upon him and then he slept. [Muslim 2/280; Bukhari 1/404] - Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum

Do you have a cite for those hadeeth?
If i search sunnah.com for exterminate the verse you quoted does not exist, the same for note,after not finding your verses i didnt bother with the other.
www.sunnah.com/search/exterminate
www.sunnah.com/search/note

Mohammad was a thief he even tried to steal the jewish religion, he made up some cock and bull story about being a jewish prophet, he even fasted on the jewish day of atonement and adopted many dietry and dress rules from the jews, the muslim prayer is a rip off of the way the ancient jews prayed,The jews did not accept Mohammad as their prophet so Mohammad started killing them and has hated them ever since.
This is covered in the Sira of Ibn Hisham amongst other books.

Mohammad robbed trade caravans that came from Syria he was a highway robber.
Muslims talk fluent bullshit about taking stuff back-they were previously in Mecca and the Islam delusion had not spread to Syria which is where these caravans originated from.
Gandalf claims it was attacking supply lines- The Islam delusion had not spread to Syria at this time,is Gandalf saying muslims were at war with a people they had never met, does that mean Islam really does divide the world into Dar al Islam and dar al Harb(land of war)?

Quote:

The initial seizure of property, blockade and boycott of the Muslims by Meccan pagans caused starvation amongst Muslims so that they were forced to eat grass and bark off trees. The Prophet's first wife passed away at this stage

From starvation?


Quote:

Many Muslims were tortured and killed by the pagans of Mecca.

How many?


Quote:

By your reasoning, any insurgent force fighting the persecution of their people by ambushing and disrupting critical supply lines of their enemy is nothing but "banditry" and selfishly "lining their own pockets". For everyone else though, its a legitimate act of resistance to oppression.

The only way the oppression was ongoing was that they could not return to Mecca. Are you suggesting that banning someone from Mecca based on their religion counts as oppression that justifies theft and acts of war?

From Ibn Hisham and Fiqh As Seerah P190


Quote:

Summer approached and it was high time for the Makkan trade caravans to leave for Syria.The people of the Quraish whose lives depended mainly on a mercantile economy consisting of summer caravans to Syria and winter caravans to ethiopia were now at a loss as to what route they would have to follow in order to avoid the backbreaking military strikes that the muslims successfully inflicted on the polytheists. They held a meeting to discuss the chances of escaping the economic blockade and decided to go along a trade route across Najd to Iraq. Safwan bin Omaiyah led the caravan,News of the meeting leaked out through the effects of wine and travelled fast to the Prophet in Medina. The Prophet immediately mustered 100 horsemen under the leadership of Zaid bin Harinath al-Kalbi and despatched them to intercept and capture the caravan. They took the polytheists by surprise. The caravan was carrying silver and wares whose value amounted to 100,000 dirhams. The booty was distributed among the muslim warriors after 1/5 had been set aside for the prophet.

Allah and his prophet get 20% of all war booty as per the Quran-www.quran.com/8/41

Mohammad was a highway robber.

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2013 at 8:46pm:

Allah and his prophet get 20% of all war booty as per the Quran-www.quran.com/8/41

The money was for giving away in charity to the poor, widows and orphans.

The prophet did not keep riches for himself and died penniless.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 2:34pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 2:05pm: When did that war start? When the Meccans started persecuting them and kicked them out of Mecca.

No, the war, against all mankind, started when ISLAM was first founded, by Mohammed.

Allah made it known to Mohammed that he, Allah, is the enemy of all ['unbelieving'] mankind, and that Mohammed and ISLAM would be the instruments which Allah would use to wage a merciless, never ending war upon all of mankind.


"....Lo! Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith."
Koran 2.98


"....those who reject Allah have no protector."
Koran 47.008
v. 8-11



Every moslem, in being a moslem, is pledging himself to engage in never ending warfare against Allah's enemies [i.e. all of 'unbelieving' mankind].



Ishaq: 204 - "'Men, do you know what you are pledging yourselves to in swearing allegiance to this man [Muhammad]?' 'Yes. In swearing allegiance to him we are pledging to wage war against all mankind.'"



But unless the moslems are overwhelmingly more powerful that those that they are fighting, moslems are too frightened to declare their state of war against their enemy.

Instead, moslems pretend to be virtuous and peaceful [and moslems 'bravely', openly, deny their true intentions].         :P

Coz, moslems, are Allah's brave, Holy Warriors.          :P

Sure they are!    LOL         rapists [of young women], and murderers of women, children, and unsuspecting civilians.

Moslem Holy Warriors
throw acid in the faces of young women,
and moslem Holy Warriors bomb school buses,
and bomb schools,
and bomb civilian markets,
and bomb mosques,
and bomb the funerals of their enemies.

Coz, moslems, are Allah's brave, Holy Warriors.          :P

Sure they are!    LOL

They can't even declare their real intentions, the cowards.



SEE HOW Moslem Holy Warriors 'FIGHT' OTHERS.....
THE RELIGION OF PEACE
http://thereligionofpeace.com/i

+++



Quote:

Here, for example, are two very illuminating passages from the canonical Life of Mohammed by Ibn Ishaq, as translated by A. Guillaume, and a third passage, from the earliest known Muslim historian. Ishaq: 204 - "'Men, do you know what you are pledging yourselves to in swearing allegiance to this man [Muhammad]?' 'Yes. In swearing allegiance to him we are pledging to wage war against all mankind.'" Ishaq:231 - "Muslims are one ummah (community) to the exclusion of all men. Believers are friends of one another to the exclusion of all outsiders." And here is Al-Tabari, a very early Muslim historian, in book 9, chapter or section 69, reporting words that Muslims believe to have been said by Mohammed himself - "Killing infidels is a small matter to us". These texts are not fossils from a distant past. They are not dead letters. They are still 'live' and carry tremendous weight in the imagination and practice of many Muslims around the world. ...DDA

Google it.

n.b.
"Killing infidels is a small matter to us"

freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 7:27pm:

Quote: Definitely not. The quran states very clearly that if the enemy inclines towards peace, then you must accept it. Does the fact that the Meccans were not attacking Muhammed (despite him raiding their caravans) indicate that they were inclined towards peace? How can you reconcile this claim with your justification of the raids by referring to previous persecution of Muslims?

FD,

The fact that ISLAM forbids any enduring peace between moslems and 'disbelievers', gives the lie to the 'interpretation' of Koran 8.61, offered by moslems.

ISLAMS 'peace' may be lawfully enjoyed only between [fellow] moslems.

And regards the phrase from the Koran;
"if the enemy inclines towards peace"

....the word 'peace' in this form of words is code for 'seek to end hostilities, and convert' to ISLAM.


That phrase, or the form of words used, could more properly read;
"....if the enemy inclines towards ISLAM [indicates a willingness to embrace ISLAM], and offers to end hostilities, then you must accept him as a fellow moslem."



"And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah . Indeed, it is He who is the Hearing, the Knowing.
But if they intend to deceive you - then sufficient for you is Allah . It is He who supported you with His help and with the believers"
http://quran.com/8/61
v. 61-62

shockresist wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 2:27pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 1:36pm: shockresist wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 12:52pm: freediver wrote on Jul 20th, 2013 at 12:42pm: Do you agree that Muhammed engaged in highway robbery to finance his political ambitions? (if I can google your answer please let me know) Prophet Mohammed doesn't speak from his own desires, everything was revealed to him by his creator. Mohammed wouldn't do a action contrary to islam, and I support whatever was revealed to him. Was it gabriel or allah that gave revelations to Mo? Could we say gabriel is the servant of Mohammad's imaginary friend in the sky called allah? Why does allah need gabriel to give Mo his message,was he incapable of doing it? So how many wives is a muslim allowed to have, why was Mo allowed to have more wives than any other muslim is that an example of his behaviour being contrary to Islam? Quote: The prophet used to go round (have sexual relations with) all his wives in one night,and he had 9 wives. Mohammad's highway robbery is documented in "Sirat rasul allah by Ibn Ishaq" which is the earliest biography of profit Mo. Both Gabriel and Allah spoke to Mohamed. God also spoke directly to moses aswell. That is Gods wisdom why sometimes he used angels to relay mesaages, other times he spoke directly to his prophets.He is God the most powerful and he can do what he pleases. Previous prophets had many wives.Solomon had hundreds of wives. shockresist, Both King David and King Solomon had numerous wives and concubines. It is there, plain as day, recorded in the Old Testament. Both King David and King Solomon disobeyed God's law [the laws given to Moses], and consequently, Mohammed too, disobeyed the law given to Moses. It is there, plain as day, recorded in the Old Testament. cited here.... difference between wives and sex slaves http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1330815631/23#23 [quote] God's law specifically prohibited prophets and kings from taking many wives.

Yadda wrote on Jul 24^th, 2013 at 1:03pm:

Both King David and King Solomon disobeyed God's law...

Prophets disobey God's law? Don't you think that is bizarre? Do you really believe that God's mightiest prophets broke God's law? What kind of example would that be?


You didn't mention Abraham. He was also a polygynist.

True Colours wrote on Jul 24^th, 2013 at 6:50pm:

Yadda wrote on Jul 24th, 2013 at 1:03pm: Both King David and King Solomon disobeyed God's law... Prophets disobey God's law? Don't you think that is bizarre? Do you really believe that God's mightiest prophets broke God's law?

It is very difficult for moslems to accept the truth, when truth does not align with their idealogical views - can you concede that TC ?






Quote:

What kind of example would that be?

It was the 'example' to us, that King David and King Solomon experienced the human condition, of being corrupted by this world.

2 Samuel 11
2 Samuel 12

Why is that truth so difficult for you to accept/acknowledge ?

Why can't you accept that you too, are a corrupted soul, who needs to humble yourself before God ?








Quote:

You didn't mention Abraham. He was also a polygynist.

No i didn't.

Yadda wrote on Jul 24^th, 2013 at 7:48pm:

...King David and King Solomon experienced the human condition, of being corrupted by this world.

How does someone who claims to believe in God, say that God would send corrupted men to guide mankind?

Do you rally believe that God would send 'corrupt' prophets? What would be the point?

True Colours wrote on Jul 24^th, 2013 at 8:23pm:

Yadda wrote on Jul 24th, 2013 at 7:48pm: ...King David and King Solomon experienced the human condition, of being corrupted by this world. How does someone who claims to believe in God, say that God would send corrupted men to guide mankind? Do you rally believe that God would send 'corrupt' prophets? What would be the point?

Quite simply.....

1 Corinthians 10:6
Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.
7  Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.
8  Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.
9  Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.
10  Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer.
11  Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.


Scripture reveals that King David and King Solomon were un-intending idolaters.






True_Colours,


I said;

...King David and King Solomon experienced the human condition, of being corrupted by this world.

That is what scripture declares.

I stand by what i said.

My faith in God, is not weakened by what is true.

Truth underpins my absolute faith in my God.




read what i said here....

Eradicating dualism
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1365644836/15#15

Religion: A 21stC anachronism or mans salvation?
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1303676733/207#207






You asked.....

Quote:

Do you rally believe that God would send 'corrupt' prophets?

God did not send corrupt prophets.

Scripture reveals to us, that God co-opted ordinary men, to represent his ideals, here in this world.

We call those men prophets.


Sometimes it worked [.....quite well].

Sometimes those men were corrupted by this world - NOT by God.

It looks to me like Muhammed spent the better part of a decade robbing caravans. Was this always in the context of an ongoing war?

freediver wrote on Jul 30^th, 2013 at 6:41pm:

It looks to me like Muhammed spent the better part of a decade robbing caravans.

Mohammad was thief, only a delusional muslim could deny the evidence.

When you look at the list of expeditions by Mohammad it has the caravan highway robberies,Mohammads order and reason for this highway robbery was to relieve the muslims from poverty
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_expeditions_of_Muhammad

Selling captured women and children into slavery was also very profitable for muslims, as long as Mo and Allah got a 20%  cut it was halal.
Allah even says he gets 20% of all war booty in the Quran.
www.quran.com/8/41

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 30^th, 2013 at 6:59pm:

Mohammad was thief, only a delusional muslim could deny the evidence.

Well he robbed caravans, by definition he is a "thief" I guess.

You've made a couple of astounding observations today Baron - Muhammad was a "warlord" and a "thief". Well of course he was - by its very definition.

The question is, is theft of wealth possessed by the people bent on destroying you immoral? I would say clearly not - considering that wealth will only be used to fund the war against you.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 30^th, 2013 at 7:06pm:

Well he robbed caravans, by definition he is a "thief" I guess.

;D ;D ;D


Quote:

The question is, is theft of wealth possessed by the people bent on destroying you immoral? I would say clearly not - considering that wealth will only be used to fund the war against you.

So they were bent on destroying him, but ignored him for ten years while he robbed their caravans?

Seizing property from an enemy in times of war is not theft - especially when the enemy seized property from you in the first place.


If we want to examine the notion of government thievery, perhaps we should ask ourselves why the US has seized the assets of countries like Iran or Cuba.

Was it theft when the US seized Japanese assets in 1941 - 5 months prior to the Bombing of Pearl Harbour?

Why has the US stolen $250 million from Cuba?

Why has the US stolen $12 billion of Iranian assets?

freediver wrote on Jul 30^th, 2013 at 8:39pm:

So they were bent on destroying him, but ignored him for ten years while he robbed their caravans?

10 years?  ;D

Stop embarassing yourself FD.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 30^th, 2013 at 10:10pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 30th, 2013 at 8:39pm: So they were bent on destroying him, but ignored him for ten years while he robbed their caravans? 10 years?  ;D Stop embarassing yourself FD.

Facts re not important to Freediver - only whatever unsubstantiated or disproven claims that suit his agenda.

So how long was Muhammed's career as a caravan robber? I couldn't find the dates for the first or last ones, but I did see dates in the wikipedia article spanning at least 6 years.

freediver wrote on Jul 30^th, 2013 at 8:39pm:

ignored him for ten years

The caravan raids started in 423, the battle of Badr - where the Meccans retaliated and attempted to overrun Medina for the first time - was in 424. Not exactly "ignoring him for ten years" is it?

Quote:

The caravan raids started in 423

623


polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 30^th, 2013 at 10:10pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 30th, 2013 at 8:39pm: So they were bent on destroying him, but ignored him for ten years while he robbed their caravans? 10 years?  ;D Stop embarassing yourself FD.

Gandalf, Baron's link has Muhammed's last raid in 632, the year of his death. I was one year out, you were 200. So who should be embarrassed?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_expeditions_of_Muhammad

Basically, Muhammed spent the last 10 years of his life robbing people, slaughtering people, accumulating wives etc. He made no apparent attempt to lift standards. This is what the link has to say about the last outing:

100      Expedition of Usama bin Zayd      May 632 [327]      Invade Palestine and attack Moab and Darum[328]      
Local population "slaughtered" by Muslims, "destroying, burning and taking as many captives as they could"[328]

freediver wrote on Jul 31^st, 2013 at 8:05pm:

Gandalf, Baron's link has Muhammed's last raid in 632, the year of his death. I was one year out, you were 200. So who should be embarrassed?

Don't be silly. You didn't say he had been caravan robbing for 10 years, you said the Meccans had ignored his raiding for 10 years. They didn't - they launched their first invasion of Medina less than 1 year after the raiding began - not 10 years later.


freediver wrote on Jul 31^st, 2013 at 8:05pm:

. He made no apparent attempt to lift standards.

Apart from the whole rules of warfare thing.

Quote:

They didn't - they launched their first invasion of Medina less than 1 year after the raiding began

Can you explain why you use the word "invasion" to describe a caravan travelling to Mecca?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 31^st, 2013 at 8:18pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 31st, 2013 at 8:05pm: . He made no apparent attempt to lift standards. Apart from the whole rules of warfare thing.

The Book of Jihad by Ibn Nuhaas says male POW are to be executed all their wealth can be stolen and the remaining women and children can be sold into slavery.

Are muslims proud of The Book of Jihad by Ibn Nuhaas which outlines all these rules?

Thread here with a link to download the book-
www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1295682624

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 31^st, 2013 at 9:55pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 31st, 2013 at 8:18pm: The Book of Jihad by Ibn Nuhaas says male POW are to be executed all their wealth can be stolen and the remaining women and children can be sold into slavery. Are muslims proud of The Book of Jihad by Ibn Nuhaas which outlines all these rules? Thread here with a link to download the book- www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1295682624 Wrong. The book says that the leader of the Muslims should do what is in the best interests of the Muslims - and this includes the option to free POWs in order to create goodwill between Muslims and their enemies. The book even goes on to say that a Muslim who unlawfully kills a POW can be punished: [quote] If a Muslim kills a POW, the Amir [commander] has the right to punish him by Ta’zeer...[this means the commander has several options in punishment including jailing or lashing]

What is the secular Western way of dealing with the enemy? Shall we take Hiroshima and Nagasaki as the standard? Perhaps the napalming of villagers?

The Western way of doing war:

http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/Ev2dEqrN4i0/hqdefault.jpg

http://www.taintedthoughts.com/cache/wmark/2/1/2/21233/21233.jpg

http://media.sbs.com.au/news/thm/articlemain/7336_afghanistan-ussuspect-robertbales-120317-b-aap.jpg

http://www.nypost.com/rw/nypost/2012/03/12/news/web_photos/12.1n.007.afghanistan1--300x300.jpg

http://www.poorwilliam.net/pix/my-lai-1.jpg



http://sun.iwu.edu/~rwilson/hiroshima/pan2.jpg


http://www.palestineremembered.com/images/dailymail_humanshield.jpg


http://palestinechronicle.com/uploads/1256368345israel_human_shields.jpg

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 31^st, 2013 at 8:18pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 31st, 2013 at 8:05pm: Gandalf, Baron's link has Muhammed's last raid in 632, the year of his death. I was one year out, you were 200. So who should be embarrassed? Don't be silly. You didn't say he had been caravan robbing for 10 years, you said the Meccans had ignored his raiding for 10 years. They didn't - they launched their first invasion of Medina less than 1 year after the raiding began - not 10 years later. freediver wrote on Jul 31st, 2013 at 8:05pm: . He made no apparent attempt to lift standards. Apart from the whole rules of warfare thing.

Mohammed didn't give a damn about the welfare of infidels in combat areas.

Mohammed's 'rules of warfare thing' was;

Don't damage the war booty.




Yadda wrote on Aug 25^th, 2009 at 10:41am:

"During some of the Ghazawat of Allah's Apostle a woman was found killed, so Allah's Apostle forbade the killing of women and children." http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/052.sbt.html#004.052.258 On the face of it, "...Allah's Apostle forbade the killing of women and children." But those verses do not infer, or reveal, the motive/reason, for that 'prohibition'. I suggest that we should seek out those motives! For some deeper understanding of this whole issue [the 'welfare' of non-combatants], let us read some further Hadith verses, related to this issue, "The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." " http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/052.sbt.html#004.052.256 Here, clearly, Mohammed expressed no care, whatsoever, for the 'welfare', or safety, of those non-combatants [women and children, who were non-moslems].

Yadda wrote on Aug 1^st, 2013 at 9:45am:

Mohammed didn't give a damn about the welfare of infidels in combat areas.

Abu answered your smear pretty well in the thread you linked. Basically, when civilians are used as human shields, the responsibility for any subsequent collateral deaths is on the people using them a human shields.

this is gold:

Abu wrote:

Quote:

Funny how the texts you think support your view are clear Islamic texts and sources, whilst those which don't support your view are just lies and half truths. It seems the Islamic texts only tell the truth when they say what you want them to say.

to which Yadda replied:


Quote:

True.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 1^st, 2013 at 11:14am:

Yadda wrote on Aug 1st, 2013 at 9:45am: Mohammed didn't give a damn about the welfare of infidels in combat areas. Abu answered your smear pretty well in the thread you linked. Basically, when civilians are used as human shields, the responsibility for any subsequent collateral deaths is on the people using them a human shields.

gandalf,

It seems funny to me [not ha ha], that at times you don't seem to understand much about mainstream ISLAMIC doctrine [Koranic and Hadith based], and yet you confidently quote straight from ISLAM's Jihad 'playbook'.




Google;
"However, if children are killed, the fault lies with the adult occupiers who brought them into a battlefield situation"

....but never, ever, ever, with ISLAM/moslems.




Quote:

There Can Be No End to Jihad' Islamist Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad, in an exclusive interview, discusses the rationale for 9/11, the Christians he most respects, and the Jesus he defends. posted 11/05/2007 ....Any weapons are legitimate in jihad. Even animals may be used as "suicide bombers"! It is not restricted by target—even Muslims or children, if used by the enemy as human shields, can be killed. ....Killing women and children never was and never will be part of the jihad in Islam, whether that be the women or children of the Muslims or non-Muslims. So if Chechen mujahedeen killed women and children in Beslan, I would condemn it. The children of non-Muslims, such as those at Beslan, who die in such circumstances go to Paradise. ....Women and children [i.e. boys under 15] or Muslims are not legitimate targets—nor are any noncombatants [clergy, disabled, insane, elderly, etc.]. Not even Israeli children or women, unless they serve in the military, which most do, or live in properties taken from dispossessed Palestinians (Muslim or Christian), which virtually all do. However, if children are killed, the fault lies with the adult occupiers who brought them into a battlefield situation.

Google




In reading the next news item, bear in mind the inflection created, from the moslem assertions, in the news item above....


Quote:

7 November 2007 Afghanistan mourns bomb victims ......President Karzai said about 35 people had been killed - most of them children, teachers and MPs - while the provincial governor told the BBC there had been 41 deaths. ......But our correspondent says many questions remain, including that of responsibility. The Taleban have denied that they carried out the attack, but they and al-Qaeda are the only ones known to use suicide bombs in Afghanistan so far.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7082481.stmiQuote:

June 25, 2008 Canadian parliamentary committee hears: Jihadists crucifying children to terrorize their Christian parents into fleeing Iraq "It's part of a systemic -- and very effective -- campaign to ethnically cleanse the area of any non-Muslims." Islamic Tolerance Alert.....     ......Muslim militants are crucifying children to terrorize their Christian parents into fleeing Iraq, a parliamentary committee studying the persecution of religious minorities heard yesterday.     ......One infant was snatched, decapitated, burned and left on his mother's doorstep, the committee was told.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/021516.php

BUT THESE MONSTERS ARE NOT REAL MOSLEMS!

freediver wrote on Jul 31^st, 2013 at 9:49pm:

Quote: They didn't - they launched their first invasion of Medina less than 1 year after the raiding began Can you explain why you use the word "invasion" to describe a caravan travelling to Mecca?

Gandalf? Where are you getting this BS from?

Yadda it is a fact isn't that Christian Iraqis lived in peace in Iraq until Christian Americans and Australians decided it would be a good idea to invade the country?

Obviously the blame for chaos in that country lies with the idiot Christians like Bush and Howard who lied about WMDs and invaded the country totally removing the government.

True Colours wrote on Aug 1^st, 2013 at 7:39pm:

Yadda it is a fact isn't that Christian Iraqis lived in peace in Iraq until Christian Americans and Australians decided it would be a good idea to invade the country? Obviously the blame for chaos in that country lies with the idiot Christians like Bush and Howard who lied about WMDs and invaded the country totally removing the government.

Yadda paraphrases True_Colours post;

'The violence against Iraqi Christians, is an instance where collective punishment is justified.'


Correct TC ?

Do you see anyone silly enough to believe that GWB is God's messenger on earth?

So why do so many people fall for Muhammed's BS? And why is the point that no-one else worships warmongers so unfathomable to them?

freediver wrote on Aug 1^st, 2013 at 5:54pm:

Gandalf? Where are you getting this BS from?

What BS? Fielding ~1000 soldiers against the muslims is just a caravan passing through is it?  ;D Or are you still attempting to maintain your silly claim that the Meccans "ignored" Muhammad for 10 years?  :D

Where did you get the 1000 number from?

They sent the soldiers to defend the Caravan. It was standard practice at the time. Obviously extra defense was needed given the liklihood of Muhammed attacking. They did not "invade" anything or attack Medina. So why would you label it an invasion?

freediver wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2013 at 12:28pm:

Where did you get the 1000 number from?

2 second google search. Try it.


freediver wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2013 at 12:28pm:

So why would you label it an invasion?

OK, I may have been a little overzealous. Chalk that down to another devious muslim lie  :P

They fielded 1000 soldiers to destroy the muslim raiders that were waiting. My assumption was that upon defeating the muslims, they would pursue them into Medina and crush the small movement once and for all. Of course I could be wrong, and yes I shouldn't jump to conclusions.

Point is (again), this disproves the idea that they "ignored" the muslims for 10 years.

Obviously they attempted to defend their caravans. I did not mean to say that they did not notice being robbed all the time. However your claim that they were out to get him from the beginning, to kill them all (and that this justifies the robberies) does not make sense. Surely if you really wanted to slaughter a group of people, you would not sit back, year after year, watching them grow bigger and stronger by stealing from you.

The Quraysh of Mecca torture, sexually assault and kill several Muslims.

The Quraysh of Mecca robbed the Muslims of Mecca and took all their stuff.

The Quraysh of Mecca then threatened to kill every Muslim.

So Muslims decide to raid Quraysh's caravan.

Freediver thinks Muslims were terrible oppressors.

freediver wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2013 at 3:19pm:

Surely if you really wanted to slaughter a group of people, you would not sit back, year after year, watching them grow bigger and stronger by stealing from you.

Thats not my understanding of the situation. Badr was less than a year after the migration. There were then 3 separate battles in which the Quraysh attempted to break the growing muslim power - all inconclusive. Then there was the battle of the trench in 627, in which the Quraysh were once again forced to retreat without a decisive result. So thats 5 separate battles in less than 4 years - 5 separate occassions in which the Quraysh attempted to break the muslims.

That to me doesn't sound like sitting back watching them grow stronger year after year.

Quote:

Thats not my understanding of the situation. Badr was less than a year after the migration. There were then 3 separate battles in which the Quraysh attempted to break the growing muslim power - all inconclusive.

Did they all involve the Meccans escorting trade caravans?


Quote:

The Quraysh of Mecca torture, sexually assault and kill several Muslims.

Liar.

True Colours wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2013 at 4:04pm:

The Quraysh of Mecca torture, sexually assault and kill several Muslims. The Quraysh of Mecca robbed the Muslims of Mecca and took all their stuff. The Quraysh of Mecca then threatened to kill every Muslim. So Muslims decide to raid Quraysh's caravan. Freediver thinks Muslims were terrible oppressors.

True_Colours,

In this information and internet age - MANY, MANY PEOPLE ARE COMING TO REALISE, THAT MOSLEMS ALWAYS WERE, AND ARE, TERRIBLE OPPRESSORS AND BLATANT DECEIVERS.


TERRIBLE OPPRESSORS - wherever the moslem community are stronger than the non-moslems.

BLATANT DECEIVERS - wherever the non-moslems are politically stronger than the moslem community.i


"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. "
Koran 9.29




"If you want to know a man's character, give him power."
Abraham Lincoln

Gandalf, obviously the Meccans are going to put up a fight while Muhammed and his band of thieves are in the process of robbing them. That is not really the same as war though is it?


polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 9^th, 2014 at 8:14am:

freediver wrote on Apr 8th, 2014 at 8:46pm: History tells a very different story. Muhammed robbed their caravans for years before they turned to war. Why are Muslims so comfortable pushing a version of history that does not even make sense? What doesn't make sense is to claim the muslims had no casus beli against the Meccans after being systematically persecuted by them, and driven out of their homes.

Every thief has a hard luck story. Perhaps Muhammed wrote a book letting the pagans know that his final solution was to slaughter any of them who did not convert to his new religion.

That sort of thing does make people get all persecuty.


Quote:

Don't forget the Meccans declarations that they would kill all the Muslims in Madina - a declaration of war if there ever was one.

Thanks for bumping my thread TC. Of course I haven't forgotten it. I am merely waiting for you to back this up.

FD your attempts to portray the Meccans as the victims after persecuting then chasing out the muslims from their homes and property (a fact that you don't even deny) is amusing to say the least.

I don't deny it because I know nothing about it. I do deny that Muslims are forthcoming with evidence of this persecution - particularly that it happened to the extent to justify Muhammed and his merry band of thieves spending several years "stealing it back" before moving up to rape and pillage.

freediver wrote on Apr 9^th, 2014 at 6:47pm:

I don't deny it because I know nothing about it.

Of course you don't - because you only look up the incriminating things about islam.

Anyway, I have a distinct memory of TC giving you detailed evidence of this some time ago.

But here you go - I'll give you a wiki article that took me 2 seconds to find:


Quote:

There are many records, at great length, of the persecution and ill-treatment of Muhammad's followers.[27][69] At first the more traditional Quraysh taunted Muslims, and interrupted their prayers. But this later changed and Muslim were physically hurt, starved, harassed and boycotted. If this didn't work, the Muslims would be staked out on the ground under the scorching heat of the Arabian desert.[68] Sumayya bint Khubbat, a slave of Abu Jahl and a prominent Meccan leader, is famous as the first martyr of Islam, having been killed with a spear by her master when she refused to give up her faith. Bilal, another Muslim slave, suffered torture at the hands of Umayya ibn khalaf by placing a heavy rock on his chest to force his conversion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_in_Mecca#Persecution

How is it that despite the persecution being discussed "at great length", there are so few examples of it actually happening? Most of them seem like a single vague original reference to a single incident, later fleshed out with the help of someone's imagination, then turned into a pattern of behaviour by Muslims with a persecution complex. Half of them vanish completely when I try to follow them up.

It seems like a pretty weak justification for spending several years robbing caravans travelling to Mecca. It sounds just like the bigotry you deride others for, except that Muhammed actually turned it into criminality. A few Muslims were wronged by a few Meccans, so Muhammed used this as an excuse to steal anything he could going to or from Mecca for several years.

Muhammed made a habit of winding people up. He publicly denounced the paganism of the Meccans, which turned them against him. He publicly threatened and derided the Jewish tribes of Medina, which is probably what turned them against him. He did the same thing he later killed non-Muslims for doing. It's like he deliberately tried to turn people against him so that he could use it as an excuse to steal from them, slaughter them etc. At every step along the way, it was Muhammed who escalated, all the while playing the victim.

freediver wrote on Apr 9^th, 2014 at 7:57pm:

How is it that despite the persecution being discussed "at great length", there are so few examples of it actually happening? Most of them seem like a single vague original reference to a single incident, later fleshed out with the help of someone's imagination, then turned into a pattern of behaviour by Muslims with a persecution complex.

Well the fact that they were driven out of their homes and had their properties confiscated should sound some alarm bells I would have thought.


freediver wrote on Apr 9^th, 2014 at 7:57pm:

It seems like a pretty weak justification for spending several years robbing caravans travelling to Mecca.

It is not just a moral argument - though Muhammad was on perfectly solid ground there. It is also cold practicalities. The muslims were born and raised in a mercantile community, and knew no other livelihood. They were then kicked out of that community, and found refuge in an agricultural community. They had no experience in agriculture, and in any case, all the best agricultural land had already been taken up. They needed a livelihood and a source of income. They found it in the age old arab tradition of caravan raiding.

Seizing enemy assets in time of war is practiced by all nations.

George W Bush pushed through the Patriot Act which allows him to seize assets which are never to be returned:

U.S. can seize assets, no conviction required


Quote:

The Patriot Act also addresses property forfeiture in Section 106, titled Presidential Authority. This section says that when the United States is "engaged in armed hostilities," the president may seize "any property" within U.S. jurisdiction from "any foreign person" that the president determines has aided in "such hostilities." This section has its roots in a 1917 law called the Trading With the Enemy Act, which gave the president power to seize assets in any national emergency....

In WWI, the US seized $600 million worth of German assets.


Seizing enemy assets and blocking their trade is routine in war:


Quote:

the US, Netherlands and Great Britain froze Japanese assets in their countries and imposed stringent economic restrictions, cutting off 90% of raw materials required by Japan for war production... http://www.pearlharboroahu.com/attack.htm

Quote:

It is not just a moral argument - though Muhammad was on perfectly solid ground there. It is also cold practicalities. The muslims were born and raised in a mercantile community, and knew no other livelihood. They were then kicked out of that community, and found refuge in an agricultural community. They had no experience in agriculture, and in any case, all the best agricultural land had already been taken up. They needed a livelihood and a source of income. They found it in the age old arab tradition of caravan raiding.

And justified it by insisting they were merely stealing back what the Meccan's stole from them, even though they had know way of knowing who they were stealing from, and in all liklihood stole just as much from from non-Meccan traders and owners, or Meccans who had done them no wrong.

If Muslims actually admitted that Muhammed was forced into a life of highway robbery by circumstances, it might be a bit easier to swallow. Instead, Muhammed built a religion out of hypocrisy and cynical self justification. He enacted cruel punishments for people who did the same thing he did. He created an ideology that permits Muslims to get away with anything by playing the victim card. And the fact is, Muhammed did not steal to put food in his mouth. He made himself rich and powerful by thieving. It was a mixture of slaughtering Medina Jews and robbing Meccan caravans by which Muhammed built the beginnings of his new empire.

He never actually stopped stealing. As soon as he was in a position to do so, he switched from robbing to rape and pillage. He was "forced" to rape and pillage by circumstance and build a massive military empire out of self defense. At every step of the way, it was someone else's fault and he was merely defending himself.


Quote:

Seizing enemy assets in time of war is practiced by all nations.

Yes TC we are familiar with this convenient excuse. The Meccans declared war (even though there is no evidence for it and it makes no sense historically) therefor Muhammed was completely justified spending years stealing everything he could, without even a thought for whether it even belonged to the Meccans. If it was going to Mecca or from Mecca, he stole it. This is just like Abu's absurd claim that the west has been "at war" with the Muslim world for over a century. This is the problem with the spineless apologetics that is written into Islamic ideology. Abu's claim, though absurd, is no less absurd that the cynical self-justifications and hypocrisy of Muhammed. By Islamic reckoning, Muslims are perfectly justified in making a career stealing whatever they can from "the west", lying, etc. And of course, it is all the west's fault.

Muhammed's example to Muslims is that they can get away with anything because they are Muslims, and they are never responsible for for the crap they bring on themselves because they can always blame it on someone else.

freediver wrote on Apr 13^th, 2014 at 9:50am:

If Muslims actually admitted that Muhammed was forced into a life of highway robbery by circumstances, it might be a bit easier to swallow.

Thats exactly what they do, and we are unapologetic about it.

Most of them try to justify it by saying Muhammed was stealing back what the Meccans took from them - ie that it was not really stealing at all.

There is a difference between stealing to feed yourself and stealing to grow rich and powerful enough to upgrade to rape and pillage.

You claim that they were mercantilists and not farmers. Why did they not simply practice the same trade in Medina that they used to in Mecca? Too busy stealing?

freediver wrote on Apr 13^th, 2014 at 12:06pm:

Most of them try to justify it by saying Muhammed was stealing back what the Meccans took from them - ie that it was not really stealing at all.

He was waging war against the people who persecuted and drove his people out of their homes. It also just happened to be a useful way of sustaining themselves. A debate over whether or not the booty he stole was rightly his or not is neither here nor there.


freediver wrote on Apr 13^th, 2014 at 12:06pm:

You claim that they were mercantilists and not farmers. Why did they not simply practice the same trade in Medina that they used to in Mecca?

Because Medina was not a mercantile centre. Mecca was because it was the site of a famous pilgramage. They are not going to be able to compete for trade with Mecca - especially after they had been driven out of their homes with very few possessions.

Quote:

He was waging war against the people who persecuted and drove his people out of their homes.

Is this the same as TC's argument that the Meccans had "declared war" on Muhammed?


Quote:

It also just happened to be a useful way of sustaining themselves.

Of course. They were starving. It was a happy coincidence that it kept them alive. And kicking.

Have you changed your mind about Muhammed's excuse now? They were not stealing out of desperation, but as an act of war?


Quote:

A debate over whether or not the booty he stole was rightly his or not is neither here nor there.

Shouldn't a religious leader act morally?


Quote:

Because Medina was not a mercantile centre. Mecca was because it was the site of a famous pilgramage. They are not going to be able to compete for trade with Mecca - especially after they had been driven out of their homes with very few possessions.

Why couldn't they compete? The trade caravans were going past Medina. Why not participate in that trade rather than destroying it? Sounds like a poor excuse for the fact that they preferred to steal rather than work for a living.

freediver wrote on Apr 13^th, 2014 at 12:41pm:

Is this the same as TC's argument that the Meccans had "declared war" on Muhammed?

Its an argument that Muhammad waged war on the people who persecuted and drove his people out of their homes. Thats as clear as I can make it. No need to try and necessarily obfuscate it.


freediver wrote on Apr 13^th, 2014 at 12:41pm:

Shouldn't a religious leader act morally?

You're not making any sort of a case that it wasn't moral.

FD, your interrogations appear to be running out of steam. If you don't mind me saying, you're starting to sound like a little old lady complaining to a friend about her dodgy plumber.

Have you given any thought to just reading a book on what you're discussing? You never seem too happy with any of the answers you get here.

Just an idea, dear. There are no right or wrong answers, you know.

Although I must say, FD, the old boy, Y and your good self do seem most grumpy on this board. And Moses - don't get me started on him. What is it about the Islam board that brings out such cheerless grumpiness?

Is that what you mean by freedom?

Quote:

Its an argument that Muhammad waged war on the people who persecuted and drove his people out of their homes. Thats as clear as I can make it. No need to try and necessarily obfuscate it.

You'll have to be a bit patient with me here, as I have not seen a Muslim spin it this way before. When did he start waging war?


Quote:

You're not making any sort of a case that it wasn't moral.

How would I go about making a case that would satisfy you that theft is immoral?


Quote:

Have you given any thought to just reading a book on what you're discussing?

Go ahead and suggest one if you want. Apparently the most relevant one is pretty much unreadable. Gandalf never answered my question about how many books I have to read before I can figure out for myself that someone's views are messed up.

freediver wrote on Apr 13^th, 2014 at 6:57pm:

Quote: Its an argument that Muhammad waged war on the people who persecuted and drove his people out of their homes. Thats as clear as I can make it. No need to try and necessarily obfuscate it. You'll have to be a bit patient with me here, as I have not seen a Muslim spin it this way before. When did he start waging war? [quote]You're not making any sort of a case that it wasn't moral.

How would I go about making a case that would satisfy you that theft is immoral?


Quote:

Have you given any thought to just reading a book on what you're discussing?

Go ahead and suggest one if you want. Apparently the most relevant one is pretty much unreadable. Gandalf never answered my question about how many books I have to read before I can figure out for myself that someone's views are messed up.[/quote]

I gave you a good reference on Islamic psychiatry, FD. Writer by the name of P.B Khunt. You never read them. You don't even read the ones we discuss.

Much more fun to aska the questions, eh?

I have to ask though - how do you make such acute judgements on the Muselman based on no more than Herbie's UK Mirror articles, Y's Bible quotes, and the words of the ever-absent Abu?

Y and the old boy are happy to keep gesticulating ad nauseum, but don't you ever want to know more?

I judge Gandalf by his own words. Same with Abu, Falah, Malik, TC and all the rest of them. I don't need to read a book to do so. It's called thinking for yourself.

freediver wrote on Apr 13^th, 2014 at 9:38pm:

I don't need to read a book to do so. It's called thinking for yourself.

Ah.

freediver wrote on Apr 13^th, 2014 at 6:57pm:

You'll have to be a bit patient with me here, as I have not seen a Muslim spin it this way before. When did he start waging war?

I'm the most patient person in the world when it comes to answering your interrogations FD - you might have noticed.

As for your confusion, I can only repeat what I said - as it is literally impossible to dumb down my argument any more:

Muhammad waged war against the people who persecuted and drove his people out of their homes.

I'm sure you can look up the dates for when the caravan raids started.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 14^th, 2014 at 10:08am:

freediver wrote on Apr 13th, 2014 at 6:57pm: You'll have to be a bit patient with me here, as I have not seen a Muslim spin it this way before. When did he start waging war? I'm the most patient person in the world when it comes to answering your interrogations FD - you might have noticed. As for your confusion, I can only repeat what I said - as it is literally impossible to dumb down my argument any more: Muhammad waged war against the people who persecuted and drove his people out of their homes. I'm sure you can look up the dates for when the caravan raids started.

I think FD would rather ask you about those dates, G.

It's called thinking for yourself.

lol.

I was going to try and think up something funny, but FD parodies himself far better than I could.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 14^th, 2014 at 1:01pm:

lol. I was going to try and think up something funny, but FD parodies himself far better than I could.

Yes, but FD should have the freedom to do that, G.


freediver wrote on Apr 14^th, 2014 at 8:48am:

I wouldn't want to sound like a bigot.

FD, you see, has the freedom to not sound like a bigot. Let's all hear him as someone interested in truth and freedom, please.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 14^th, 2014 at 10:08am:

freediver wrote on Apr 13th, 2014 at 6:57pm: You'll have to be a bit patient with me here, as I have not seen a Muslim spin it this way before. When did he start waging war? I'm the most patient person in the world when it comes to answering your interrogations FD - you might have noticed. As for your confusion, I can only repeat what I said - as it is literally impossible to dumb down my argument any more: Muhammad waged war against the people who persecuted and drove his people out of their homes. I'm sure you can look up the dates for when the caravan raids started.

From what I have seen, very few people regard Muhammed's career as a caravan robber to be warfare. I am not asking you when he raided caravans. I am asking you when you consider that it became warfare. It is an important concept, as Muslims such as yourself regard warfare as an excuse to drop every moral principle they have, yet they also throw the term around rather loosely.

Ironically enough, when it comes to slaughtering POWs, they will make the opposite argument - that it was not warfare - because that would go against the last Muslim moral principle left standing.

freediver wrote on Apr 14^th, 2014 at 1:39pm:

Ironically enough, when it comes to slaughtering POWs, they will make the opposite argument - that it was not warfare - because that would go against the last Muslim moral principle left standing.

How do you know that, FD? Did you read it?

Or did Abu tell you?

freediver wrote on Apr 14^th, 2014 at 1:39pm:

From what I have seen, very few people regard Muhammed's career as a caravan robber to be warfare.

I do. Why not? Its what I've been saying all along.

freediver wrote on Apr 14^th, 2014 at 1:39pm:

Muslims such as yourself regard warfare as an excuse to drop every moral principle they have

Ah.

Karnal wrote on Apr 14^th, 2014 at 1:40pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 14th, 2014 at 1:39pm: Ironically enough, when it comes to slaughtering POWs, they will make the opposite argument - that it was not warfare - because that would go against the last Muslim moral principle left standing. How do you know that, FD? Did you read it? Or did Abu tell you?

Abu. Gandalf. Pretty much every single one of them.


Quote:

I do. Why not? Its what I've been saying all along.

So when did this warfare begin?

freediver wrote on Apr 14^th, 2014 at 6:06pm:

So when did this warfare begin?

Ah - back to asking me when the caravan raids started again I see.

Now now, if you don't answer FD's questions he puts you in the Wiki for evasion.

Why is that such a problematic question for you Gandalf?

You've given him enough time, FD. Put him in the Wiki for evasion.

freediver wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 12:10pm:

Why is that such a problematic question for you Gandalf?

Its not problematic, its retarded.

FD: Gandalf will you google Muhammad's caravan raids for me so I can know when they started?

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 2:17pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 15th, 2014 at 12:10pm: Why is that such a problematic question for you Gandalf? Its not problematic, its retarded. FD: Gandalf will you google Muhammad's caravan raids for me so I can know when they started?

Exactly. And no adequate response from the resident Muselman. You're quoted in the WIki:


polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 2:17pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 15th, 2014 at 12:10pm: Why is that such a problematic question for you Gandalf? Its not problematic Muhammad started retarded caravan raids.

Put in in, FD. He admitted as much through his spineless evasion tactics.

We have to fight fire with fire, you know. These people invented Taqqiya.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 2:17pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 15th, 2014 at 12:10pm: Why is that such a problematic question for you Gandalf? Its not problematic, its retarded. FD: Gandalf will you google Muhammad's caravan raids for me so I can know when they started?

Earth to Gandalf: I am asking you when you consider that it turned into warfare.

Why are you pretending to be so thick?

Better answer FD's question, G.

Why are you pretending? Is it Taqqiya?

freediver wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 7:16pm:

Earth to Gandalf: I am asking you when you consider that it turned into warfare.

When the first caravan raid occurred.

Under what similar circumstances can Muslims justify rampant theft as an act of war?

mothra wrote on Mar 31^st, 2017 at 9:59am:

freediver wrote on Mar 31st, 2017 at 7:39am: mothra wrote on Mar 29th, 2017 at 9:13pm: freediver wrote on Mar 29th, 2017 at 7:55pm: mothra wrote on Mar 29th, 2017 at 6:25pm: freediver wrote on Mar 29th, 2017 at 6:06pm: mothra wrote on Mar 29th, 2017 at 5:51pm: freediver wrote on Mar 29th, 2017 at 5:32pm: Quote: It was ordained when Muslims were a targeted and persecuted minority. Crap. Muhammad preached peace and tolerance when Muslims were a minority. He preached rape and pillage as soon as they gained enough military strength. Overly siplistic, as no doubt Karnal and Gandalf have told you many, many times. At the time this Surah was ordained, the Muslims had left Mecca where they were persecuted, to arrive in Medina. The Meccans sent an army after them. The small settlement of Muslims in Medina were under siege conditions. The only option for the Muslims was to either accept domination or fight for their beliefs. The Meccans sent an army after them because Muhammad was using Medina as a base from which to rob Meccan caravans. The "accept domination" schtick is BS. The Meccans wanted to stop Muhammad robbing caravans. After one battle that they won, the went back to Mecca rather than pressing their advantage because they thought Muhammad was dead and that would be the end of it. It was not the culture at the time for one religion to dominate another. Muhammad introduced that. It was literally a multicultural and multireligious society. Had they not been beholden to a giant douchebag, they would have seen the clear option of not robbing Meccan caravans. Alas, you probably believe all of that. An oft cited claim of anti-Muslim hate sites. History tells a different story though. The Muslims sought to raid caravans to disrupt the enemies war making capabilities. Mohammed preached against plundering and stopped them. How many times has Gandalf tried to explain this to you? So, they spent ten years robbing Meccan caravans in an attempt to stop the Meccans from retaliating over the constant caravan raiding? Or was it a grand scheme by the Muslims so they could later attack Mecca? Muhammad did not preach against plundering. He lead the plundering. Again, you prove to be wrong on every single count Mothra. Where on earth did you pull 10 years from? The Muslims went to Medina in 622. The first raid on Medina was in 623, and there were other skirmishes. The Battle of Badr itself was in was in early 624. 10 years? Not even close. The raids were to interrupt the  war-making capabilities and to interrupt Quraish trade routes that were passing too close to Medina. But listen FD, if they were plundering, would it not be justified? As the Meccans had seized all of their property an wealth and sold off everything they seized for financial benefit? But anyway, i digress. There are several Hadiths that refer specifically to plundering: The thief is not a believer while he is stealing. The plunderer is not a believer while he is plundering and the people are watching him. Source: Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī2343 Whoever plunders the wealth of others is not one of us. Source: Sunan al-Tirmidhī 1123 Whoever is notorious for plunder is not one of us. Source: Sunan Abī Dāwūd 4391 Verily, plunder is unlawful. Source: Sunan Ibn Mājah 3938 Yes Mothra we know Muhammad was a hypocrit. He robbed Meccan caravans when he was poor. When he was rich he started cutting the hands and feet of thieves. I think they even decided highway robbery should attract the death penalty. The raids were to steal stuff, pure and simple. At the time the idea of going to war was ludicrous. Muhammad had no army. He eventually used the thievery to make one. And WTF is this BS about "passing too close to Medina"? Is that like saying you broke into a car because it was parked too close to your house? You're sure of that, are you FD? As sure as you were when you said Mohammed was raiding caravans for 10 years before the battle of Badr? LOL! Face it, your understanding of Mohammed is as sophisticated as your understanding of Islam ... that is, not very. You should broaden your horizons. You should take note of the level of general intelligence of those that agree with you FD. Let that be your first clue. As for the comparison to breaking into a car that is parked too close to your property, well that's just absurd. A non sequitur. I'll leave it with to work out why. It shouldn't take you long. As for your shifting the goal posts again (as you did when  proved that there was no ordinance for executing apostates in the Quran) by bringing up cutting off hands and feet, you once again show your bias and your ignorance. I urge you to read: http://misconceptions-about-islam.com/cut-off-hands-theft.htm But i'll leave you with this: Quran 5:38: "As to the thief, Male or female, cut off his or her hands: a punishment by way of example, from Allah, for their crime: and Allah is Exalted in power." Quran 5:39 "But whoever repents after his wrongdoing and reforms, indeed, Allah will turn to him in forgiveness. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful."

He robbed Meccan caravans Mothra. It was robbery, no matter how desperate you are to put a positive spin on it.


Quote:

As for the comparison to breaking into a car that is parked too close to your property, well that's just absurd.

This is what is absurd:


Quote:

and to interrupt Quraish trade routes that were passing too close to Medina.

Is this meant to be a moral justification for Muhammad's robbery? In what sense were they "too close"?


Quote:

At the time this Surah was ordained, the Muslims had left Mecca where they were persecuted, to arrive in Medina. The Meccans sent an army after them.

The Meccans sent an army years later - because Muhammad was robbing their caravans. If you look above, even Gandalf admits that there was no 'state of war' prior to Muhammad robbing caravans.

I'm surprised you wanted to bump this thread. You had your arse soundly handed to you in it.

10 years. LOL!

A sensible person would question themselves when their only support comes from Yadda and Baron. It really should tell you something. But alas, after all of these years, it hasn't. You're still pimping the same lies and prejudices.

And as for the car analogy, you honestly don't get why that is a non sequitur? For real? If so, how can you possibly be reasoned with? All evidence points to the suggestion that you cannot.

As for Gandalf "admitting" that a state of war only commenced with the first caravan raid (although n fact, his argument is considerably more nuanced than that), i disagree. I would say a state of war commenced with the torture, persecution, acts of sanctioned theft and confiscation of goods and property, and attempted assassination attempts upon the Muslims by the Meccans.

Finally, it has been pointed out to you several times that the Meccans dd not send an army "years later".  Do try to play attention to the counter-argument FD, lest you make a tit of yourself.

freediver wrote on Apr 16^th, 2014 at 7:40pm:

Under what similar circumstances can Muslims justify rampant theft as an act of war?

Oh, I'd say in the same way Mother England justified her piracy of French and Spanish ships and colonies from the Elizabethan era on.

But you're right. Despite the fact that this sort of theft is allowed in even modern rules of engagement, I call it theft too.

Muhammed played by the rules of his time. Can he still be a prophet? Of course. Can he still have divine revelations?

Indeed. Plenty of prophets were far from perfect.

But going to your inevitable point, is Muhammed the best example for all people and the final prophet for all times?

Of course not. Muhammed had a purpose in a specific time and place, as do all prophets and religious leaders.

Quote:

As for Gandalf "admitting" that a state of war only commenced with the first caravan raid (although n fact, his argument is considerably more nuanced than that), i disagree. I would say a state of war commenced with the torture, persecution, acts of sanctioned theft and confiscation of goods and property, and attempted assassination attempts upon the Muslims by the Meccans.

And this justifies pretty much anything a Muslim might want to do, such as getting rich robbing trade caravans?

Have Muslims ever not been in a state of war?


Quote:

Finally, it has been pointed out to you several times that the Meccans dd not send an army "years later".

You made this claim. It is false.


Quote:

But you're right. Despite the fact that this sort of theft is allowed in even modern rules of engagement, I call it theft too.

Because there was no "engagement" other than Muhammad killing people in the act of theft?


Quote:

Muhammed played by the rules of his time. Can he still be a prophet? Of course. Can he still have divine revelations?

Muhammad grew up in a trade and mercantile city. I doubt rampant theft was accepted as part of the rules.


Quote:

Indeed. Plenty of prophets were far from perfect.

LOL. Especially Muhammad.

mothra wrote on Mar 31^st, 2017 at 11:11am:

As for Gandalf "admitting" that a state of war only commenced with the first caravan raid (although n fact, his argument is considerably more nuanced than that), i disagree. I would say a state of war commenced with the torture, persecution, acts of sanctioned theft and confiscation of goods and property, and attempted assassination attempts upon the Muslims by the Meccans.

By driving the muslims out and confiscating their property, the Meccans deprived these mercantile people from a merchant city a livelihood. It is quite amusing watching FD spinelessly apologise for this persecution and blatant attack on (non-violent) freedom of speech.

Also robbing the Meccan caravans was as much about sustaining themselves financially as it was about retaliating against the initial Meccan aggression.

So it was a form of collective punishment against the city of Mecca?

Muhammad became a career thief out of a sense of righteousness?

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 31^st, 2017 at 3:39pm:

mothra wrote on Mar 31st, 2017 at 11:11am: As for Gandalf "admitting" that a state of war only commenced with the first caravan raid (although n fact, his argument is considerably more nuanced than that), i disagree. I would say a state of war commenced with the torture, persecution, acts of sanctioned theft and confiscation of goods and property, and attempted assassination attempts upon the Muslims by the Meccans. By driving the muslims out and confiscating their property, the Meccans deprived these mercantile people from a merchant city a livelihood. It is quite amusing watching FD spinelessly apologise for this persecution and blatant attack on (non-violent) freedom of speech. Also robbing the Meccan caravans was as much about sustaining themselves financially as it was about retaliating against the initial Meccan aggression.

Preposterous but completely expected and routine piffle.


Algeria, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Iran - where are your Jews?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35eEljsSQfc

Muhammad went from refugee to conquering the whole Arabian peninsula in about 15 years through acts of subsistence and self defense.

Gandalf you also argued that Muhammad did not have the political power or authority to slaughter the Jews of Medina. Are you saying that he was in a position to seek retribution against the whole city of Mecca despite being in such a weak position?

Or were you merely pretending to be confused?

As to the poll, the idea of compensation can be seen as blood money. Also, it does not seem to take into account that Germany paid very dearly for WW1 and WW2. Part of the ease with which the Nazis took power was due to the dire state of life in Germany after WW1, which the population blamed (with some justification) on the Allies and their terms of armistice. 

freediver wrote on Mar 31^st, 2017 at 6:08pm:

Muhammad went from refugee to conquering the whole Arabian peninsula in about 15 years through acts of subsistence and self defense.

:D :D

Insh'allah, innit?

Frank wrote on Mar 31^st, 2017 at 6:07pm:

mothra wrote on Mar 31st, 2017 at 10:55am: freediver wrote on Mar 31st, 2017 at 10:23am: Muhammad the thief: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374276604/132#132 Oh dear. How embarrassing for you. Do you, Mothra, take this here Mohammed as your personal guide for your relationship to other people's property?

And here was me ... thinking it was just a really stupid question.

Lets see if we can get a clever answer.

Was Muhammad stealing when he raided those caravans?

Did the Meccans steal from the Muslims FD?

Are you sure you are not a Muslim Mothra? I'm sure I saw an Allahu Akbar in there somewhere. Let's try again and see if we can get a straight answer.

Was Muhammad stealing when he raided those caravans?

freediver wrote on Mar 31^st, 2017 at 9:49pm:

Are you sure you are not a Muslim Mothra? I'm sure I saw an Allahu Akbar in there somewhere. Let's try again and see if we can get a straight answer. Was Muhammad stealing when he raided those caravans?

No FD. Let's get it in chronological order.

Did the Meccans steal from the Muslims?

mothra wrote on Mar 31^st, 2017 at 9:51pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 31st, 2017 at 9:49pm: Are you sure you are not a Muslim Mothra? I'm sure I saw an Allahu Akbar in there somewhere. Let's try again and see if we can get a straight answer. Was Muhammad stealing when he raided those caravans? No FD. Let's get it in chronological order. Did the Meccans steal from the Muslims?

Are you asking me whether the Meccans acted as a collective?

Was Muhammad stealing when he raided those caravans?

freediver wrote on Mar 31^st, 2017 at 9:52pm:

mothra wrote on Mar 31st, 2017 at 9:51pm: freediver wrote on Mar 31st, 2017 at 9:49pm: Are you sure you are not a Muslim Mothra? I'm sure I saw an Allahu Akbar in there somewhere. Let's try again and see if we can get a straight answer. Was Muhammad stealing when he raided those caravans? No FD. Let's get it in chronological order. Did the Meccans steal from the Muslims? Are you asking me whether the Meccans acted as a collective? Was Muhammad stealing when he raided those caravans?

It's not a trick question FD.

mothra wrote on Mar 31^st, 2017 at 9:54pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 31st, 2017 at 9:52pm: mothra wrote on Mar 31st, 2017 at 9:51pm: freediver wrote on Mar 31st, 2017 at 9:49pm: Are you sure you are not a Muslim Mothra? I'm sure I saw an Allahu Akbar in there somewhere. Let's try again and see if we can get a straight answer. Was Muhammad stealing when he raided those caravans? No FD. Let's get it in chronological order. Did the Meccans steal from the Muslims? Are you asking me whether the Meccans acted as a collective? Was Muhammad stealing when he raided those caravans? It's not a trick question FD.

Nothing tricky about it. I think it is a particularly stupid question coming from you, as it highlights the immorality you are trying so desperately to build a facade over. But I thought I should check, just in case.

Are you asking me whether the Meccans acted as a collective?

Was Muhammad stealing when he raided those caravans?


polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 31^st, 2017 at 3:39pm:

mothra wrote on Mar 31st, 2017 at 11:11am: As for Gandalf "admitting" that a state of war only commenced with the first caravan raid (although n fact, his argument is considerably more nuanced than that), i disagree. I would say a state of war commenced with the torture, persecution, acts of sanctioned theft and confiscation of goods and property, and attempted assassination attempts upon the Muslims by the Meccans. By driving the muslims out and confiscating their property, the Meccans deprived these mercantile people from a merchant city a livelihood. It is quite amusing watching FD spinelessly apologise for this persecution and blatant attack on (non-violent) freedom of speech. Also robbing the Meccan caravans was as much about sustaining themselves financially as it was about retaliating against the initial Meccan aggression.

Gandalf, how about you, were the Meccans being punished as a collective by Muhammad?

I'm not the one building a facade, FD. But you've introduced a new question into the mix.

Did the Meccans behave immorally towards the Muslims?

Did the Meccans steal from the Muslims?

mothra wrote on Mar 31^st, 2017 at 10:04pm:

I'm not the one building a facade, FD. But you've introduced a new question into the mix. Did the Meccans behave immorally towards the Muslims? Did the Meccans steal from the Muslims?

Did the Muslims steal the entire 'Muslim world' beyond the Arabian peninsula?

Yes.

Frank wrote on Mar 31^st, 2017 at 10:09pm:

mothra wrote on Mar 31st, 2017 at 10:04pm: I'm not the one building a facade, FD. But you've introduced a new question into the mix. Did the Meccans behave immorally towards the Muslims? Did the Meccans steal from the Muslims? Did the Muslims steal the entire 'Muslim world' beyond the Arabian peninsula? Yes.

Sometimes a question is just a question.

mothra wrote on Mar 31^st, 2017 at 10:04pm:

I'm not the one building a facade, FD. But you've introduced a new question into the mix. Did the Meccans behave immorally towards the Muslims? Did the Meccans steal from the Muslims?

FD won't answer, because it doesn't fit with his meme.

He recently started a "history" of Islam (which he admits himself is a just cherry-picked rehash of wikipedia) - in which he completely whitewashes the persecution and forced eviction of the muslims. He basically says Muhammad's preaching against idolatory amounted to a declaration of war- thus justifying the persecution.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 1^st, 2017 at 6:40am:

mothra wrote on Mar 31st, 2017 at 10:04pm: I'm not the one building a facade, FD. But you've introduced a new question into the mix. Did the Meccans behave immorally towards the Muslims? Did the Meccans steal from the Muslims? FD won't answer, because it doesn't fit with his meme. He recently started a "history" of Islam (which he admits himself is a just cherry-picked rehash of wikipedia) - in which he completely whitewashes the persecution and forced eviction of the muslims. He basically says Muhammad's preaching against idolatory amounted to a declaration of war- thus justifying the persecution.

Can you quote me Gandalf?

Are you asking me whether all the Meccans acted this way? Or are you asking me whether they were a collective, hence Muhammad's collective punishment of them?

freediver wrote on Apr 1^st, 2017 at 9:08am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 1st, 2017 at 6:40am: mothra wrote on Mar 31st, 2017 at 10:04pm: I'm not the one building a facade, FD. But you've introduced a new question into the mix. Did the Meccans behave immorally towards the Muslims? Did the Meccans steal from the Muslims? FD won't answer, because it doesn't fit with his meme. He recently started a "history" of Islam (which he admits himself is a just cherry-picked rehash of wikipedia) - in which he completely whitewashes the persecution and forced eviction of the muslims. He basically says Muhammad's preaching against idolatory amounted to a declaration of war- thus justifying the persecution. Can you quote me Gandalf?

We can easily settle this FD - do you think the Meccans who attacked the muslims were justified in what they did? Do you think his 'hate preaching' was tantamount to a declaration of war?

Very very happy to stand corrected if you answer in the negative to both.

Are you referring to a single incident or multiple instances Gandalf?

Can you quote Muhammad's hate preaching?

Or am I supposed to lump it all together and pass judgement on all the Meccans at once for a variety of different incidents like Muhammad did, and like you are compelled to do?


polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 31^st, 2017 at 3:39pm:

mothra wrote on Mar 31st, 2017 at 11:11am: As for Gandalf "admitting" that a state of war only commenced with the first caravan raid (although n fact, his argument is considerably more nuanced than that), i disagree. I would say a state of war commenced with the torture, persecution, acts of sanctioned theft and confiscation of goods and property, and attempted assassination attempts upon the Muslims by the Meccans. By driving the muslims out and confiscating their property, the Meccans deprived these mercantile people from a merchant city a livelihood. It is quite amusing watching FD spinelessly apologise for this persecution and blatant attack on (non-violent) freedom of speech. Also robbing the Meccan caravans was as much about sustaining themselves financially as it was about retaliating against the initial Meccan aggression.

Would it be fair to say this is another example of collective punishment by Muhammad, and unquestioning support of collective punishment by Muslims?

No I do not think raiding caravans is collective punishment. Thats just silly. Its opportunistic and hitting back in any way they can. I think you are latching on to the 'collective punishment' smear to avoid having to concede that Muhammad had a legitimate casus belli for attacking.


freediver wrote on Apr 1^st, 2017 at 10:49am:

Can you quote Muhammad's hate preaching?

I got it from your wiki article FD. I'm not going to explain your own thoughts for you.

Do you consider his preaching against idol worship hate preaching? I believe you said something about dissing the main attraction of Mecca (the idols) was a dangerous threat to the Meccan's mercantile livelihood. I kinda just put two and two together and concluded you were excusing their subsequent persecution and eviction and stealing of their property.

But if this is a misrepresentation, I'm happy for you to explain yourself. You can easily do that by addressing these points: 1. was Muhammad's actions in Mecca tantamount to a declaration of war? 2. Were the Meccans therefore justified in booting out the muslims and confiscating their property?

Or do you in fact want to entertain the idea that the muslims were indeed mistreated, and in fact a declaration of war had been made against them - for which Muhammad was justified in attacking back?

Quote:

No I do not think raiding caravans is collective punishment. Thats just silly.

But Muhammad did punish the Meccans as a collective?


Quote:

Its opportunistic and hitting back in any way they can.

So it wasn't collective because Muhammad was not able to get them all?


Quote:

I think you are latching on to the 'collective punishment' smear to avoid having to concede that Muhammad had a legitimate casus belli for attacking.

When you say attacking, do you mean stealing and murdering?


Quote:

I got it from your wiki article FD. I'm not going to explain your own thoughts for you.

What did you get?


Quote:

Do you consider his preaching against idol worship hate preaching?

It depends what you say. Muhammad for example combined it with destroying pagan idols and slaughtering pagans, so I expect there was a bit of vitriol and frothing at the mouth involved.


Quote:

I believe you said something about dissing the main attraction of Mecca (the idols) was a dangerous threat to the Meccan's mercantile livelihood.

This is what I actually said: Muhammad's own tribe was in charge of the pagan Kaaba and deriving a significant income from it. Muhammad's preaching was a threat to that income. In the end he figured out how to take it all for himself.


Quote:

was Muhammad's actions in Mecca tantamount to a declaration of war?

Which actions? When he marched on Mecca with 10000 soldiers?


Quote:

Or do you in fact want to entertain the idea that the muslims were indeed mistreated, and in fact a declaration of war had been made against them - for which Muhammad was justified in attacking back?

No. I think when he first fled to Medina, he was in a weak position, and his actions amounted to theft and murder. This talk of a "declaration of war" is just post-hoc weasel words by Muslims in a vain attempt to give legitimacy to his theft and murder. There was not two states at there was not a war. There was one man with a small following fleeing his own tribe, then launching his rape and pillage career by robbing Meccan caravans and murdering Meccan traders, then afterwards trying to justify his actions because he eventually grew powerful to wage actual war, after he got rid of the Jews.

You are no less ludicrous than previous Muslims we have had here who say these crimes, and lying about Islam, is only justified in a state of war, and that the west has been at war with the Muslim world for over a century.

You justify Muhammad's genocide of the Jews by saying they never officially declared war, but you also justify Muhammad's career of theft as murder by saying war is automatically declared against Muslims if you, or anyone else from your city, does wrong by them. You are a hypocrite.

Everything you say in defense of Muhammad's vile actions drips with hypocrisy and lies, because your religion is built on hypocrisy and lies.

freediver wrote on Apr 1^st, 2017 at 12:03pm:

No. I think when he first fled to Medina, he was in a weak position, and his actions amounted to theft and murder.

Why did he flee FD? Just for fun?

Do you think the Meccans were justified in persecuting his followers, forcing them to flee and confiscating their property?

I have no idea what you are talking about Gandalf. I keep asking you but you won't say, because to say would be to acknowledge that Muhammad's retribution for whatever wrongdoing your refer to was collective punishment. It was theft. It was indiscriminate murder of innocent people. All because one religious extremist got chased out of a religiously tolerant Mecca by his own family. So in typical Muslim fashion you continue this absurd tapdance around the issue.

Ah the 'me no speaka da English' routine.

From your own wiki article:


Quote:

He and a small band of followers migrated to Medina in 622 after facing persecution in Mecca. This persecution resulted from Muhammad revealing verses that condemn polytheism and idol worship, as well as love of wealth (a significant declaration in a city built on trade).

-Do you think the Meccans were justified in booting him out?
-Do you agree that the conflict with the Meccans was in fact started by the violence of the Meccans against non-violent dissenters?

They didn't boot him out. He fled because someone was trying to kill him. Also, children bit him and dogs spat on him.

You appear to be attempting to ascribe the incident, or incidents, to the entire city of Mecca as a collective.


Quote:

Or do you in fact want to entertain the idea that the muslims were indeed mistreated, and in fact a declaration of war had been made against them - for which Muhammad was justified in attacking back?

Gandalf am I right that this is another attempt by you to justify collective punishment, in the form of opportunistic theft and murder?

Do you only do this for your fellow Muslims?

Did you only develop your fondness for collective punishment after converting to Islam? Or did you grow up stealing poo to get back at the man?

FD am I right in concluding that you are excusing the Meccan leaders who conducted the persecution of the non-violent muslims and attempted assassination of Muhammad?

Would you at least go so far as to say their (the Meccan leaders) actions were justified?

I just find it extraordinary that after being very candid in your wiki article about the fact the muslims were persecuted and forced to flee - you can't seem to bring yourself to admitting such action was wrong. And now you are going into full-fledged spineless apology mode.


freediver wrote on Apr 1^st, 2017 at 8:33pm:

They didn't boot him out. He fled because someone was trying to kill him. Also, children bit him and dogs spat on him.

But you already conceded they were persecuted FD. When you mentioned that in your article - did you really mean that it was trivial? Did you actually use the word 'persecution' tongue-in-cheek? Do you agree that arguing that someone wasn't booted out, he was 'only' forced to flee because someone tried to kill him is a pretty ridiculous thing to say?

Quote:

FD am I right in concluding that you are excusing the Meccan leaders who conducted the persecution of the non-violent muslims and attempted assassination of Muhammad?

No. See how easy it is to give a straight answer Gandalf? You should try it.


Quote:

I just find it extraordinary that after being very candid in your wiki article about the fact the muslims were persecuted and forced to flee - you can't seem to bring yourself to admitting such action was wrong.

I don't know whether it was wrong. I don't really care either. No-one is attempting to justify their actions. Nor is it relevant to whether Muhammad's "retaliation" can be justified. You are however attempting to justify Muhammad's actions.


Quote:

Or do you in fact want to entertain the idea that the muslims were indeed mistreated, and in fact a declaration of war had been made against them - for which Muhammad was justified in attacking back?

Gandalf am I right that this is another attempt by you to justify collective punishment, in the form of opportunistic theft and murder?

Do you only do this for your fellow Muslims?

Did you only develop your fondness for collective punishment after converting to Islam? Or did you grow up stealing poo to get back at the man?

freediver wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 8:08am:

I don't know whether it was wrong. I don't really care either.

You seem to spend a lot of time pontificating over something you claim you don't really care about. you've spend all these years judging muslims who do think it was wrong. You mock them with your childish little dig about dog bites and children spitting. You used to mock the idea that there was any assassination attempt at all (though you seem to have backpeddled on that). In over 4 years discussing this with you you've done nothing but question and undermine the idea that it was wrong.

If you ask me, this claim that you don't really care is complete BS.

Quote:

You seem to spend a lot of time pontificating over something you claim you don't really care about.

I "pontificate" on the things you post. I know exactly what you post because it is right there in front of me. We don't argue about the Meccan "persecution" because I don't particularly care whether you are lying about that, because it is no excuse for Muhammad's behaviour. I may get to it eventually, but for now I am just as happy to accept your version. Hence, no argument, just a desperate attempt from you to avoid the question.


Quote:

Or do you in fact want to entertain the idea that the muslims were indeed mistreated, and in fact a declaration of war had been made against them - for which Muhammad was justified in attacking back?

Gandalf am I right that this is another attempt by you to justify collective punishment, in the form of opportunistic theft and murder?

Do you only do this for your fellow Muslims?

Did you only develop your fondness for collective punishment after converting to Islam? Or did you grow up stealing poo to get back at the man?

freediver wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 8:40am:

We don't argue about the Meccan "persecution" because I don't particularly care whether you are lying about that, because it is no excuse for Muhammad's behaviour.

But you do care FD.

You dismiss the persecution as nothing but dog bites and children spitting.

You mocked the idea that there was an attempted assassination on Muhammad

You go out of your way to mention that the persecution and eventual eviction happened only after Muhammad threatened the Meccan's livelihood

Your entire meme is built around the insistence the war Muhammad carried out against the Meccans was started by Muhammad. For you to admit the fact that it was the opposite, would blow your entire meme out of the water.

Quote:

But you do care FD.

I care to the extent that I think it is a shame they did not kill Muhammad.


Quote:

You dismiss the persecution as nothing but dog bites and children spitting.

And trying to kill Muhammad.


Quote:

You go out of your way to mention that the persecution and eventual eviction happened only after Muhammad threatened the Meccan's livelihood

He probably threatened to kill them. When he retook Mecca he slaughtered many pagans. He destroyed all the pagan idols around the kaaba and effectively stole the Kaaba for himself. He was not merely "threatening" there income. In the end he stole the lot for himself.


Quote:

Your entire meme is built around the insistence the war Muhammad carried out against the Meccans was started by Muhammad.

Feel free to quote me Gandalf. As I keep telling you, it was only a war after many years of Muhammad stealing from the Meccans and murdering them.


Quote:

Or do you in fact want to entertain the idea that the muslims were indeed mistreated, and in fact a declaration of war had been made against them - for which Muhammad was justified in attacking back?

Gandalf am I right that this is another attempt by you to justify collective punishment, in the form of opportunistic theft and murder?

Do you only do this for your fellow Muslims?

Did you only develop your fondness for collective punishment after converting to Islam? Or did you grow up stealing poo to get back at the man?

freediver wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 1:21pm:

He probably threatened to kill them.

ya probably.

But you know there's a way to put that beyond doubt - just wack it in wikipedia, and hey presto its gospel truth.

Quote:

Or do you in fact want to entertain the idea that the muslims were indeed mistreated, and in fact a declaration of war had been made against them - for which Muhammad was justified in attacking back?

Gandalf am I right that this is another attempt by you to justify collective punishment, in the form of opportunistic theft and murder?

Do you only do this for your fellow Muslims?

Did you only develop your fondness for collective punishment after converting to Islam? Or did you grow up stealing poo to get back at the man?

keep in on your clipboard FD. Looks like you'll be pasting it quite a bit.

Can anyone make sense of this? Muhammad robbed and murdered Meccan traders for years. Eventually they tried to attack him, but it wasn't because of Muhammad robbing and murdering Meccan traders, it was because the Meccans had kicked him out of Mecca prior to that....


polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 21^st, 2017 at 1:45pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 21st, 2017 at 1:31pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 21st, 2017 at 1:21pm: freediver wrote on Jun 21st, 2017 at 1:11pm: The Meccans wanted Muhammad to stop raiding caravans and murdering innocent traders Ah yes, of course the Meccans (Quraysh) are the victims here.  ;D Are you suggesting that the innocent traders that Muhammad murdered and robbed were not victims? Are you going to invoke the mindless collective argument again Gandalf? no, I'm suggesting you are looking for any excuse to apologise for the Qurayza's treason and to pretend there wasn't just cause to punish them for their actions. Now you are introducing another, but well worn apology: excusing the Quraysh for the forced eviction of peaceful protesters from their homes and ceasing all their property - or pretending it didn't happen. Did the Qurayza stab Muhammad in the back because they felt so terrible about the poor murdered and robbed traders? Thats a novel line - you should try that one. tsk tsk, yawn

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2017 at 1:18pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 23rd, 2017 at 12:41pm: Why did you laugh at your own suggestion that the Meccans murdered by Muhammad during his career as a highway robber were victims? I wasn't laughing at the idea the caravaners were victims. I was laughing at such blinkered historical revisionism that identifies the caravan raids as the cause of the war - and not the forced eviction of peaceful muslims from their homes and ceasing of their property, which as far as I can tell you still prefer to pretend didn't happen.

Thats not what I said FD.

Would it be fair to say that the traders who were robbed and/or murdered by Muhammad were victims?

of course.

Now your turn - is it fair to say that non-violent protesters getting evicted from their home and their property ceased were victims?

Furthermore, would it be fair to say that the war that involved the caravan raids was started by this act?

What do you think they were victims of?

I wouldn't call it a war. I would call it a career of robbing caravans and murdering traders, that eventually lead to war after Muhammad grew rich and powerful from his theft and murder.

When do you think this war started?