H2O wrote:Liberate wrote:I have already had an extensive discussion with a muslim who was adamant that muslims were persecuted and killed in mecca regurgitating what he heard from his imams, you forget the quraish never shed blood in mecca, the worst that happened to the muslims was mockery at their new religion, I ask you what I asked that same muslim who couldn't provide any source, in fact the source he provided contradicted him which he embarassingly admitted to, show us where the muslims were persecuted and killed in mecca?
Sure, but first lets clear up the following first:
Liberate wrote:see H2O this is the noose around your neck, the hadiths will show you to be practicing al taqiya (deception) you cannot quote the hadiths that refer to the battle of badr other than to quote quranic ayats with no source whatsoever that this quranic ayats refer to the battle of badr?
You misunderstood me. I never meant it refered to the Battle of Badr. The Makkans sent their campaign against the Muslims at Medinah...
Wait right there, your hadiths pls?
whom stoped them at Badr from entering the City of Medinah.
Your hadiths pls?
The muslims acted according to that verse which was revealed after the Hijrah.
Your hadiths pls?
You do such a good job in quoting Ibn Kathir who quotes hadeeth on that verse. I am sure you looked it up in Tafseer Ibn Kathir. You couldnt use it against me, so now your playing dumb about that verse of when it was revealed.
You honestly think Ibn Kathir is on your side?
LOL funny how you being a hadith rejecter believes he can use hadiths when it suits him, but disregards those same hadiths when the subject shows islam and Mohammed in an immoral light, exactly H2O how do you look yourself in the mirror believing in hadiths and in the same breath disregarding those same hadiths when they demonise islam?, do you not see that you are already in a logical fallacy? but ofcourse you need those hadiths to substantiate which pizza slice of islam you believe in.
The Command to fight Those Who fight Muslims and killing Them wherever They are found
Abu Ja`far Ar-Razi said that Ar-Rabi` bin Anas said that Abu Al-`Aliyah commented on what Allah said:
[ูููููุชููููุงู ููู ุณูุจูููู ุงูููููู ุงูููุฐูููู ูููููุชููููููููู
ู]
(And fight in the way of Allah those who fight you,)
Abu Al-`Aliyah said, "This was the first Ayah about fighting that was revealed in Al-Madinah. Ever since it was revealed, Allah's Messenger used to fight only those who fought him and avoid non-combatants. Later, Surat Bara'ah (chapter 9 in the Qur'an) was revealed.'' `Abdur-Rahman bin Zayd bin Aslam said similarly,
then he said that this was later abrogated by the Ayah:
http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=2&tid=4985
It was revealed in Medinah, and it was the first command to fight under certain conditions as described.
Now back to your first allegations :
Wait a minute did you read what you just gave me? did you read the bit where it says "
then he said that this was later abrogated by the Ayah
Why did you stop the quote in mid flow?
H2O pls stop making yourself a laughing stock of an apologetic, do you honestly believe nobody will check the nonsense you spout? is this the entire hope of your all your apologetic material, hoping nobody calls your bluff?
Let me help you out with the quote you chose to omit:
[ููุงููุชููููุงู ุงููู
ูุดูุฑูููููู ุญูููุซู ููุฌูุฏุชููู
ููููู
ู]
(then kill them wherever you find them) (9:5).
in other words whatever you said has been abrogated with "
kill them wherever you find them" isn't allah merciful?
These verses make it clear the muslims where being persecuted and oppressed
The verses say nothing of the sort, I have already provided the tafsir for those verses:
http://www.jesus-christ-forums.com/home/viewtopic.php?p=58919
, and because of this they are granted permission to FIGHT their persecutors;
What persecution did they undergo? this is the bane of my questions? who killed them? were they killed? where are the hadiths?
but now your are crying for us to show you hadeeth in your wantoness to construe what happened back then. You sound like malicious Jew.
Didn't you say you used to be a jew?
Sahih Al-Bukhari Volumn 006, Book 060, Hadith Number 173.
-----------------------------------------
Narated By Ibn 'Umar : That a man came to him (while two groups of Muslims were fighting) and said, "O Abu 'Abdur Rahman! Don't you hear what Allah has mentioned in His Book:
'And if two groups of believers fight against each other...' (49.9)
So what prevents you from fighting as Allah has mentioned in His Book?"' Ibn 'Umar said, "O son of my brother! I would rather be blamed for not fighting because of this Verse than to be blamed because of another Verse where Allah says:
'And whoever kills a believer intentionally..." (4.93) Then that man said, "Allah says: 'And fight them until there is no more afflictions and the religion (i.e. worship) will be all for Allah (Alone)" (8.39) Ibn 'Umar said, "We did this during the lifetime of Allah's Apostle when the number of Muslims was small, and a man was put to trial because of his religion, the pagans would either kill or chain him; but when the Muslims increased (and Islam spread), there was no persecution." When that man saw that Ibn 'Umar did not agree to his proposal, he said, "What is your opinion regarding 'Ali and 'Uthman?" Ibn 'Umar said, "What is my opinion regarding Ali and 'Uthman? As for 'Uthman, Allah forgave him and you disliked to forgive him, and Ali is the cousin and son-in-law of Allah's Apostle." Then he pointed out with his hand and said, "And that is his daughter's (house) which you can see."
"
we did this during the lifetime of allah's apostle when the number of muslims was small" means what exactly? what did they do during the lifetime of Mohammed? you mean they were the first to "'
fight them until there is no more afflictions and the religion (i.e. worship) will be all for Allah (Alone)"? you do realise these early muslims regarded persecution as not seeing eye to eye with them don't you?
What exactly was involved in this persecution?
who was killed?
was anybody killed?
where are your hadiths?
Sahih Al-Bukhari Volumn 003, Book 037, Hadith Number 494.
-----------------------------------------
Narated By 'Aisha : (Wife of the Prophet) Since I reached the age when I could remember things, I have seen my parents worshipping according to the right faith of Islam. Not a single day passed but Allah's Apostle visited us both in the morning and in the evening
Good grief
Exactly how many times did H2O use this hadith as his sole evidence that Aisha had reached puberty in Mecca before the Hijra??
H2O wrote:Quote:
Al-BukhariVolumn 001, Book 008, Hadith Number 465.
-----------------------------------------
Narated By 'Aisha : (The wife of the Prophet) I had seen my parents following Islam since I attained the age of puberty. Not a day passed but the Prophet visited us, both in the mornings and evenings. My father Abii Bakr thought of building a mosque in the courtyard of his house and he did so. He used to pray and recite the Qur'an in it. The pagan women and their children used to stand by him and look at him with surprise. Abu Bakr was a Softhearted person and could not help weeping while reciting the Quran. The chiefs of the Quraish pagans became afraid of that (i.e. that their children and women might be affected by the recitation of Quran)."
According to this she had gotten her period long before she married him which was before the Hijrah
http://www.jesus-christ-forums.com/home/viewtopic.php?p=57701
H2O wrote:Quote:
Al-Bukhari Volumn 001, Book 008, Hadith Number 465.
-----------------------------------------
Narated By 'Aisha : (The wife of the Prophet) I had seen my parents following Islam since I attained the age of puberty. Not a day passed but the Prophet visited us, both in the mornings and evenings. My father Abu Bakr thought of building a mosque in the courtyard of his house and he did so. He used to pray and recite the Qur'an in it. The pagan women and their children used to stand by him and look at him with surprise. Abu Bakr was a Softhearted person and could not help weeping while reciting the Quran. The chiefs of the Quraish pagans became afraid of that (i.e. that their children and women might be affected by the recitation of Quran)."
She already reached puberty before they married when she was still living in Makkah before the Hijrah
http://www.jesus-christ-forums.com/home/viewtopic.php?p=57736
H2O wrote:Quote:
Al-BukhariVolumn 001, Book 008, Hadith Number 465.
-----------------------------------------
Narated By 'Aisha : (The wife of the Prophet) I had seen my parents following Islam since I attained the age of puberty. Not a day passed but the Prophet visited us, both in the mornings and evenings. My father Abu Bakr thought of building a mosque in the courtyard of his house and he did so. He used to pray and recite the Qur'an in it. The pagan women and their children used to stand by him and look at him with surprise. Abu Bakr was a Softhearted person and could not help weeping while reciting the Quran. The chiefs of the Quraish pagans became afraid of that (i.e. that their children and women might be affected by the recitation of Quran)."
Aisha is speaking here about the Makkah period before the Hijrah. She began puberty long before the Hirah when she was still living with her parents in which she did not marry the Prophet until the second year after the Hijrah.
This hadeeth places her at a much more older age, than what was reported, as she was in her puberty stage already that occured way before the Marriage took place.
http://www.jesus-christ-forums.com/home/viewtopic.php?p=57763
H2O wrote:So how old do you think she was below ?
Quote:
Al-Bukhari Volumn 001, Book 008, Hadith Number 465.
-----------------------------------------
Narated By 'Aisha : (The wife of the Prophet) I had seen my parents following Islam since I attained the age of puberty. Not a day passed but the Prophet visited us, both in the mornings and evenings. My father Abu Bakr thought of building a mosque in the courtyard of his house and he did so. He used to pray and recite the Qur'an in it. The pagan women and their children used to stand by him and look at him with surprise. Abu Bakr was a Softhearted person and could not help weeping while reciting the Quran. The chiefs of the Quraish pagans became afraid of that (i.e. that their children and women might be affected by the recitation of Quran)."
The time period of the above hadeeth being mentioned was before the hijrah when they were still living in Makkah.
All I am seeing you do is if a hadeeth is against our prophet that you can use you believe it but if the hadeeth is not against our prophet that you cannot use you reject it. This is called prejudice.
http://www.jesus-christ-forums.com/home/viewtopic.php?p=57886
He now quotes this hadith with complete disregard that it is showing him up to be devoid of the common sense he purports to have, it was told to him that any objective indivdual knows fully well the hadith might as well be saying
" for as long as I can remember" giving other sahih (authentic) ahadith relating to the same incident, but H2O stubbornly maintained this unbelievable rationale to ignore the blatant paedophilia of Mohammed, and amazingly he now uses a variation of this hadith with complete disregard that it shows him to be an unobjective liar.
.
When the Muslims were persecuted, Abu Bakr set out for Ethiopia as an emigrant
Please H2O you have got to do better than this, what was involved in this persecution? was anybody killed? do you remember what I asked? Put aside your semantic legalism for one second and apply some rationale, what exactly was this persecution? I can equally prove to you that the early muslims regarded injustice/persecution as unbelievers rejecting their message and/or laughing at them, would you agree that laughing at them was persecution? what was involved in this persecution? was this when Mohammed had a wanted poster for caravan pillaging and the authorities wanted him brought to justice? is this the persecution it is talking about? the hadiths H2O? what was this persecution? thinking that you have answered with hadiths that do not come anywhere near what happened is a fallacy argument.
Here again is the article your muslim brother linked me to to prove that muslims were being killed en masse, it is from your scholars at understanding-islam, after reading you will see that not one muslim was killed by the quraish in Mecca:
Title:
Boycott of Banu Hashim
Question:
One of my friend forwarded some questions to me , since i couldnt find any satisfactory answers to his questions than I decided to ask you his questions.
One of his question is as follows:
History testifies that when Hadhrath Muhammad (saaws) declared his Prophethood (saaws), the Quraysh subjected the Bani Hashim to a boycott. Hadhrath Abu Talib took the tribe to an area called Shib Abi Talib where they remained for three years, suffering from immense hardship.
Where were Hadhrath Abu Bakr and Hadhrath Umar during that period? They were in Makkah so why did they not help the Holy Prophet (saaws)? If they were unable to join the Prophet (saaws) at the Shib Abi Talib is there any evidence that they provided any type of support (food etc), breaching the agreement that the Quraysh boycott all food / business transactions with Bani Hashim?
I'll wait for your reply
Syed Fahad
Pakistan
Answer:
Though the basic sources of early Islamic history mention that there had been a boycott by the Quraish with the family of Banu Hashim, yet all of these reports differ in details. It is commonly stated that after the Muslims migration to Abyssinia Quraish tried to talk the Abyssinian king into handing the migrants to them who turned their request down. This infuriated the Quraish and they decided to come down on the Prophet (pbuh) with heavy hands. They demanded the leaders of the clan of Banu Hashim to hand the Prophet (pbuh) over to them. The clan did not yield to their threats and kept the Prophet (pbuh) under their protection. Now the Quraish unanimously decided to teach the clan a lesson. They forced the clan to leave their place and settle in Sha`ab Abi Talib near Mecca where they spent three years of immense hardship.
Terms of the boycott as they are reported include:
none will marry into the clan
none will enter into any kind of financial trade with them
none will keep social ties with them
A careful study of all the reports would reveal that the present version of the narrative gives rise to some questions. We cannot come to a conclusion before providing satisfactory answers to these questions.
The stated terms do not mention that the clan would be driven out of their settlements in Mecca and do not render them subject to a severe siege.
The narratives make it clear that the boycott was against the Banu Hasham and their allies Banu Muttalib. Thus there was no question of torturing and forcing members of other clans into this severe suffering as the reports also reveal that Sa`ad Bin Abi Waqas a member of Banu Zuhrah was forced to swallow a piece of skin of dead animal. Why was he huddled with the clan and why did his clan not show up to help him?
The terms state that none of the Quraish would enter into financial contact with the clan. How could other tribes be stopped from entering into trade with the clan? The terms do not hold it necessary that the clan could not enter into trade with other tribes. There remains no question of their being starved for three years.
The boycott was not agreed upon by all the Quraish. They would pass such a resolution in Dar-ul-Nadwah as they did in the case of their vow to kill the Prophet (pbuh) before his migration to Medina.
Banu Hasham was a famous tribe, which was held in high esteem among the Arabs. They did not live a life of such anonymity that the incident remained unnoticed by all other tribes. This is further corroborated by the fact that they were in charge of looking after the House of Lord and entertaining the pilgrims. We do not hear any thing about their abandoning their duty and any other taking the charge during the time they were besieged.
The above makes it clear that the report cannot be accepted as such. There, however, is a tradition recorded in the Sahih of Muslim which only mentions comprehensible portion of the incident.
Abu Huraira (Allah be pleased with him) reported: Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said to us as we were at Mina: We would observe halt tomorrow at Khaif of Banu Kinanah, where (the polytheists) had taken an oath on unbelief, and that was that the Quraish and Banu Kinanah had, pledged against Banu Hashim and Banu Muttalib that they would neither marry nor do any transaction with them unless they deliver Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) to them. And (this pledge was) taken at this (place) Muhassab. [Chapter: Excellence of Making A Halt at Al-Muhassab, on the Day of Nahr, and Observing Prayer There]
This is the most reliable report in this context which does not tell us that the Prophet (pbuh) and his clan remained subject to starvation for three years.
As regard the Sha`ab of Abi Talib, the place is not known to history. It can only be connected with the Sha`ab of Banu Hashim, a settlement belonging to the tribe that was situated in Mecca. This is supported by the fact that cries of starving children would be heard in the city. Therefore it could not be a far off place. Moreover the place where the tribe was settled did not have much green trees as to be used by the tribe to kill their hunger.
We can only rely on the agreed upon parts of the report as reported in Sahih of Muslim that some of the people of the tribe of Quraish entered into a pledge. It was not a decision backed by the whole tribe. Even the common version of the story mentions that some of the leaders of the Quraish like Mut`am Bin `Adi, Abu `ul Bakhtari Bin Hashim, Zam`ah Bin al-Aswad, `Adi bin Qais and Zuhair Bin Abi Umayyah at last came forward and said that they would no more condone this cruelty. This indicates they did not approve of it in the first place. The pledge did not require the whole of the Arabs and nor could they abandon the clan. Also the terms and conditions do not dictate besieging of the clan. Thus the clan must have faced boycott which worried the Prophet (pbuh) a lot as he remembered the incident but the nature of the worries could only be what one necessarily feels after being socially boycotted by an influential faction of the society. All the Muslims were not under compulsion and the preaching mission of the Prophet (pbuh) continued as before.
It clearly seems that the whole incident has been completely blown out of proportion. The incident which related primarily to the social boycott of a people is presented as one of persecution. Nevertheless, it is clear that if the incident were one of persecution, not only Abu Bakr and Omar, but all the Muslims would have stood by the Prophet (pbuh) and helped their brethren.
Regards,
http://understanding-islam.org/related/ ... n&qid=2498
The truth is more rational than the lies you are being spoon fed, it bears no relevance to what islam's history states, your prophet was wanted for stealing, this is why the quraish wanted him, read the hadiths on what was regarded as unbelief by this early muslims:
(the polytheists) had taken an oath on unbelief and that was that the Quraish and Banu Kinanah had, pledged against Banu Hashim and Banu Muttalib that they would neither marry nor do any transaction with them unless they deliver Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) to them does the above make any sense? is it unbelief to want to bring a thief to trial? absolutely amazing.
The more of your posts I read H2O the more plausible this picture becomes: