Do Not Bash Muslims

[Joyousperson]

JosephZ,

You keep condemning Robert Spencer and David Wood's view without proving any argument of substance.

Here is an opportunity for you to highlight where they are wrong from this debate between Robert Spencer & David Wood versus Ebady & Hussain.

Show where are they wrong in using the quotations from the Quran.
Note especially
1:29:20 - David Wood Closing Statements
he argued there no self-defense re verse 9:29 to 9:38

Contents
4:45 - David Wood Opening Presentation
15:15 - Robert Spencer Opening Presentation
24:20 - Sayyid Atiq Ebady Opening Presentation
45:10 - David Wood Rebuttal
51:05 - Robert Spencer Rebuttal
55:20 - Sayyid Atiq Ebady Rebuttal
1:06:00 - Questions and Answers
1:29:20 - David Wood Closing Statements
1:35:40 - Robert Spencer Closing Statements
1:38:50 - Sayyid Atiq Ebady Closing Statements
1:48:10 - Sh. Sakhawat Hussain Closing Statements

 

[JosephZ]

Are you saying that, what you described as Christian behavior, is how mainline Christians treat Muslims?

Christians standing in front of Mosques preaching hate against Muhammad and Allah? I sincerely doubt that is happening. Provide evidence that this is happening by actual mainline Christian organizations. Christians are very careful to preach only in authorized areas, and not to preach hate, and they do not curse Muhammad or Allah.

I wasn't trying to say that this was a practice by mainline Christians. I guess I should have put the word Christians in parenthesis to clear up any confusion. Below is a good example of "Christians" cursing Muhammad, Allah, and even Muslim children.

Even David Wood, although using humor to get his points across clearly, does not viciously attack or curse Muhammad or Allah.

I have seen videos where David Wood insults Muhammad by implying he was a cross dresser, a pervert, and a pedophile.

Muhammad was acting towards the Quraysh as an example to follow.

When reading the accounts of Ibn Kathir, al Tabari, and Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad really wasn't that forceful in his preaching. Regardless, anyone who is told that they are worshiping a false god(s) and/or told to stop worshiping idols or they will face judgement and eternity in hellfire are going to be offended.

Comparing Muhammad to King David and Joshua. What next? So you acknowledge that Muhammad was Jihad extremist?

I think anyone would agree that the actions carried out by King David and Joshua were extreme in nature. If they were alive today and did what they did back in their day, they would be tried and convicted of war crimes.

Your links do not prove what you hoped.

But they do as the following quotes can be found:

From Ibn Ishaq:

The Quraysh incited the people against the companions of the apostle who had become Muslims. Every tribe fell among the Muslims among them, beating them and seducing them from their religion.

From Ibn Kathir:

Violent and powerful Quraysh polytheists inflicted harm both verbal and physical upon the Messenger of God (SAAS) and upon those powerless individuals who followed him.

Ibn Ishaq stated, "Quraysh then incited each other against those individual tribesmen who were Companions of the Messenger of God (SAAS) and had accepted Islam. "Each tribe persecuted the Muslims among them, using violence and trying to seduce them from their faith. "God gave protection to the Messenger of God (SAAS) against them through his uncle Abii Tdib.

While the Prophet (SAAS) was praying at the hjir (the outer enclosure of the kacba) Wqba b. Abii Mu'ayy went up to hi, drew his robe around his neck and began choking him hard. "Aba Bakr, God bless him, approached, took him by the shoulders and pulled him off the Prophet (SAAS) saying, 'Would you murder a man for saying, "God is my Lord;

He [Muhammad] was praying while a group of Quraysh sat there; there was the placenta (salz) of a sacrificed camel near by him. Quraysh asked, 'Who will pick up that placenta and throw it over his back?' Wqba b. Abii Mu* replied, 'I will.' And he picked it up and threw it over his hack. The Messenger of God (SAAS) remained there prostrating until Fatima came and removed it off his back.

Here is how this event is recorded by al Bukhari:

Narrated 'Amr bin Maimuin: 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud said, "While Allah's Apostle was praying beside the Ka'ba, there were some Quraish people sitting in a gathering. One of them said, 'Don't you see this (who does deeds just to show off)? Who amongst you can go and bring the dung, blood and the abdominal contents (intestines, etc). of the slaughtered camels of the family of so and so and then wait till he prostrates and put that in between his shoulders?' The most unfortunate amongst them ('Uqba bin Abi Mu'ait) went (and brought them) and when Allah's Apostle prostrated, he put them between his shoulders. The Prophet remained in prostration and they laughed so much so that they fell on each other. A passerby went to Fatima, who was a young girl in those days. She came running and the Prophet was still in prostration. She removed them and cursed upon the Quraish on their faces. When Allah's Apostle completed his prayer, he said, 'O Allah! Take revenge on Quraish.' He said so thrice and added, 'O Allah! take revenge on 'Amr bin Hisham, 'Utba bin Rabia, Shaiba bin Rabi'a, Al-Walid bin'Utba, Umaiya bin Khalaf, 'Uqba bin Abi Mu'ait and 'Umar a bin Al-Walid." Abdullah added, "By Allah! I saw all of them dead in the battle field on the day of Badr and they were dragged and thrown in the Qalib (a well) at Badr: Allah's Apostle then said, 'Allah's curse has descended upon the people of the Qalib (well). (Sahih al BukhariVolume 1, Book 9, Number 499)

The above occurred prior to the event at the Kabaah. Is it any wonder why Muhammad said "'Hear me, O Quraysh. By Him who holds Muhammad’s life in his hand, I will bring you slaughter.” after being constantly harassed as he walked around the Kabaah and all of the events that took place beforehand? Even despite Muhammad saying this on that particular day, he still didn't retaliate, and even ordered Muslims to seek refugee outside of Mecca to avoid persecution and conflict with the polytheists. I don't know about you, and I'm all about turning the other cheek, but if someone dumped the the dung, blood and the abdominal contents of a slaughtered camel on me while I'm praying, I'm probably going to have more than just a few harsh words for the person or persons who did it.

And after the event at the Kabaah as recorded by Ibn Kathir:

Ibn Ishsq stated: "They then became aggressive towards those who had accepted Islam and followed the Messenger of God (SAAS). "Each tribe attacked all the defenseless Muslims in them, imprisoning them or persecuting them by beating them, depriving them of food and drink and by putting them out on the burning hot ground of Mecca when the heat was most extreme. They were trying to deter them from their religion."

Mnsa b. 'Uqba stated, from al-Zuhri: "The polytheists thereafter became so violent in their actions against the Muslims that the plight of the latter became extreme. And Quraysh so united in their evil intent as to agree to kill the Messenger of God (SAAS) in full view."

"They then attacked the Muslims, restricting their movements and subjecting them to violence. Their plight and insecurity became extreme... And they remained under those conditions for two or three years in the utmost distress."

Robert Spencer fails to mention any of this in his book.

Regarding impaling or torturing and murdering for preaching what was offensive, I respond as follows. Firstly, that is only one of several renditions about what happened. So, not sure that was even true.

It doesn't matter if it's true or not. It comes from the same source that Robert Spencer cited in his book. If he is going to use it as a source for the history of Islam, then he has to take it as a whole, and not just pick and choose the parts he feels supports his agenda.

Nowhere does Ibn Ishaq 166 state that the Quraysh struck anyone, or even that they were the first to “blow” (whatever that actually means). Apparently both the Quraysh and Muslims started to throw punches, but doesn’t say anyone was hit or was wounded.

“They blamed them for what they were doing until they came to blows, and it was on that occasion that Sa’d smote a polytheist with the jawbone of a camel and wounded him. This was the first blood shed in Islam” The only one said to be hit or wounded was a polytheist by a Muslim.

Why was the part about polytheist and Sa'd coming to blows left out of the quote? The reason is because it's clear that that Sa'd was acting in self defense.

Let's look at your altered version again (A google search traces it back to the anti-Islamic propaganda site religionofpeace), and compare it to the authentic Islamic texts:

The Muslims were actually the first to resort to physical violence when Sa’d bin Abu Waqqas picked up a camel’s jawbone and struck a local polytheist who was “rudely interrupting” his group of praying Muslims. "This was the first blood to be shed in Islam" (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 166).

"Whilst Sad and several companions of the apostle were at prayer, they were discovered by idolaters who heaped insults upon them, condemned their deeds, and provoked them to fight. Then Sad struck an idolater with the jawbone of a camel, and wounded him; and this was the first blood shed in Islam." -- Ibn Ishaq

"While Sa'd b. Aba Waqqas was at prayer, along with a small group of others, on a mountain trail, some polytheists came at them. They upbraided them, reviled them for what they were doing, and attacked them. "Sa'd struck one man with a camel's jawbone and cut him open; this was the first blood spilled in Islam." -- Ibn kathir

The above texts clearly show that the polytheists did more than just "rudely interrupt" a group of praying Muslims. A word of wisdom: Don't trust anything you read at religionofpeace or similar websites that bash Islam.

Islamic extremists behave just like their prophet. 1400+ years of Jihad do not lie. 1400+ years of extremism. This is Islam.

Firstly, you have to read the Qur’an and Hadith to actually learn that Muhammad and his followers actually did take vengeance on others for refusing to submit to him – killing, raiding, raping, enslaving, subduing, pillaging all who opposed him. The Quraysh were killed in raids because they refused believe in Allah and that Muhammad was Allah’s Messenger and become Muslims.

Abu Talib said to Muhammad, “Nephew, how is it that your tribe is complaining about you and claiming that you are reviling their gods and saying this, that, and the other.” The Allah’s Apostle said, “Uncle, I want them to utter one saying. (There is no ilah but Allah and Muhammad is his Prophet.) If they say it, the Arabs will submit to them and the non-Arabs will pay the Jizya tax.” (Tabari, Vol. VI, page 96)...
The Quraysh refused to confess Muhammad as their Prophet or pay a Jizya tax to Muhammad, so Muhammad went on a rampage raiding, pillaging, killing and enslaving the Quraysh.

The events quoted from Tabari occurred long before the Muslims started raiding caravans. It is also misleading as the reason Muhammad stated that he wanted the Qurayshi to say there is only one God is out of his love and concern for them. Below is how this event is recorded in the book by al Tabari:

When the Quraysh became distressed by the trouble caused by the Apostle they called him a liar, insulted him, and accused him of being a poet, a sorcerer, a diviner, and of being possessed....

Abu Talib said to him, "Nephew, how is it that your tribe are complaining of you and claiming that you are reviling their gods and saying this, that, and the other?" They showered accusations upon him, and then the Messenger of God spoke and said, "Uncle, I want them to utter one saying. If they say it, the Arabs will submit to them and the non-Arabs will pay the jizyah to them." They were perturbed at this utterance and said, "One saying? Yes, by your father, and ten! What is it?" Abu Talib said, "What saying is it, nephew" He replied, "There is no deity but God." They rose up in alarm, shaking the dust off their garments and saying, "Does he make the gods one god? This is indeed an astounding thing." Then came the revelation beginning with the words just spoken by these men and ending "they have not yet tasted my doom." These are the exact words of Abu Kurayb's account.

...The apostle, by the orders of Allah, continued patiently, confidently, and lovingly to preach to his people, despite their accusations of falsehood, their insults, and their mockeries.

https://kalamullah.com/Books/The History Of Tabari/Tabari_Volume_06.pdf

Every battle that Muhammad fought was because he was ordering them to submit to Islam confessing Muhammad as their prophet, or to submit to Muhammad as servants. Truces were formed with more powerful tribes until Muhammad gained enough power to overthrow them. There was no other way out. During Muhammad’s life as Prophet, 29 battles took place. Naturally many resisted, because Muhammad was a threat to them. So, Muhammad attacked, killed, raped, pillaged, destroyed, many peoples and their way of life. And that Jihad continues to be followed today.

His barbaric practices of Jihad are still valid today as a command from Allah and His messenger, and as carefully followed for 1400+ years.

Here is a link to several books on Islam and Islamic History. islamicbooks4 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive (Not the first one on the list so much, but many of the others. You will have to go through each one to find those that are most applicable). If you read them you will find that the versions of history you are finding on the anti-Islamic propaganda sites are quite different than that of the accounts given by actual historians.

You can also compare what you find at the anti-Islamic propaganda sites to the authentic Islamic texts and get a differing version of Islamic history as well.

https://ia801600.us.archive.org/4/i...ationOfIbnKathirsAlSiraAlNabawiyyaVolume1.pdf -- Ibn kathir

https://ia902602.us.archive.org/5/items/IbnIshaqMuhammad/Ibn Ishaq - Muhammad.pdf -- Ibn Ishaq

https://kalamullah.com/Books/The History Of Tabari/Tabari_Volume_06.pdf -- al Tabari

 

[Joyousperson]

...
When reading the accounts of Ibn Kathir, al Tabari, and Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad really wasn't that forceful in his preaching. Regardless, anyone who is told that they are worshiping a false god(s) and/or told to stop worshiping idols or they will face judgement and eternity in hellfire are going to be offended.
...

There is no excuse for the above.
There are many ways of communicating opposing and unfavorable views to others without offending the other party.

Note this [quoted earlier] from the Sira,

When the apostle openly displayed Islam as God ordered him his people did not withdraw or turn against him, so far as I have heard, until he [Muhammad] spoke disparagingly of their gods. When he did that they took great offence and resolved unanimously to treat him as an enemy ...
Ibn Ishaq 166.
​

Note the Qureshi issued many warnings and even requested Muhammad's uncle to do something but Muhammad persisted in offending and insulting the religion of the Qureshi.

Thus it is only very natural the Qureshi reacted the way they did, e.g. interrupted the prayers and counter insulted the companions that led to blows and Sa'd shedding the first blood all the way through 1400 years of Islam's history till the present.

 

[JosephZ]

What Setst stated in quoted "..." earlier is true and anyone can read the full passage in the Sira which Setst777 reproduced in total.

It is stated "until they came to blows" but no mentioned who started to be physical first.
But was is sure is, Sa'd drew the first blood to be shed in Islam.

Here is some additional context on that passage:

"Whilst Sad and several companions of the apostle were at prayer, they were discovered by idolaters who heaped insults upon them, condemned their deeds, and provoked them to fight. Then Sad struck an idolater with the jawbone of a camel, and wounded him; and this was the first blood shed in Islam." -- Ibn Ishaq

"While Sa'd b. Aba Waqqas was at prayer, along with a small group of others, on a mountain trail, some polytheists came at them. They upbraided them, reviled them for what they were doing, and attacked them. "Sa'd struck one man with a camel's jawbone and cut him open; this was the first blood spilled in Islam." -- Ibn kathir

It was clearly a defensive move.

While it is true that Sa'd drew the first blood in Islam, that doesn't mean anything one way or the other concerning blood being drawn by the polytheists. That is just saying that Sa'd was the first Muslim to violently retaliate (In this case in self defense) and draw blood against the polytheists who had been persecuting (An offensive action) the Muslims.

Here is an opportunity for you to highlight where they are wrong from this debate between Robert Spencer & David Wood versus Ebady & Hussain.

Show where are they wrong in using the quotations from the Quran.
Note especially
1:29:20 - David Wood Closing Statements
he argued there no self-defense re verse 9:29 to 9:38

Once again, I have refuted the verses found in Chapter 9 already. I have nothing to add to what I have already said.

 

[Joyousperson]

I wasn't trying to say that this was a practice by mainline Christians. I guess I should have put the word Christians in parenthesis to clear up any confusion. Below is a good example of "Christians" cursing Muhammad, Allah, and even Muslim children.

I have seen videos where David Wood insults Muhammad by implying he was a cross dresser, a pervert, and a pedophile.


When reading the accounts of Ibn Kathir, al Tabari, and Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad really wasn't that forceful in his preaching. Regardless, anyone who is told that they are worshiping a false god(s) and/or told to stop worshiping idols or they will face judgement and eternity in hellfire are going to be offended.


I think anyone would agree that the actions carried out by King David and Joshua were extreme in nature. If they were alive today and did what they did back in their day, they would be tried and convicted of war crimes.


But they do as the following quotes can be found:

From Ibn Ishaq:

The Quraysh incited the people against the companions of the apostle who had become Muslims. Every tribe fell among the Muslims among them, beating them and seducing them from their religion.

From Ibn Kathir:

Violent and powerful Quraysh polytheists inflicted harm both verbal and physical upon the Messenger of God (SAAS) and upon those powerless individuals who followed him.

Ibn Ishaq stated, "Quraysh then incited each other against those individual tribesmen who were Companions of the Messenger of God (SAAS) and had accepted Islam. "Each tribe persecuted the Muslims among them, using violence and trying to seduce them from their faith. "God gave protection to the Messenger of God (SAAS) against them through his uncle Abii Tdib.

While the Prophet (SAAS) was praying at the hjir (the outer enclosure of the kacba) Wqba b. Abii Mu'ayy went up to hi, drew his robe around his neck and began choking him hard. "Aba Bakr, God bless him, approached, took him by the shoulders and pulled him off the Prophet (SAAS) saying, 'Would you murder a man for saying, "God is my Lord;

He [Muhammad] was praying while a group of Quraysh sat there; there was the placenta (salz) of a sacrificed camel near by him. Quraysh asked, 'Who will pick up that placenta and throw it over his back?' Wqba b. Abii Mu* replied, 'I will.' And he picked it up and threw it over his hack. The Messenger of God (SAAS) remained there prostrating until Fatima came and removed it off his back.

Here is how this event is recorded by al Bukhari:

Narrated 'Amr bin Maimuin: 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud said, "While Allah's Apostle was praying beside the Ka'ba, there were some Quraish people sitting in a gathering. One of them said, 'Don't you see this (who does deeds just to show off)? Who amongst you can go and bring the dung, blood and the abdominal contents (intestines, etc). of the slaughtered camels of the family of so and so and then wait till he prostrates and put that in between his shoulders?' The most unfortunate amongst them ('Uqba bin Abi Mu'ait) went (and brought them) and when Allah's Apostle prostrated, he put them between his shoulders. The Prophet remained in prostration and they laughed so much so that they fell on each other. A passerby went to Fatima, who was a young girl in those days. She came running and the Prophet was still in prostration. She removed them and cursed upon the Quraish on their faces. When Allah's Apostle completed his prayer, he said, 'O Allah! Take revenge on Quraish.' He said so thrice and added, 'O Allah! take revenge on 'Amr bin Hisham, 'Utba bin Rabia, Shaiba bin Rabi'a, Al-Walid bin'Utba, Umaiya bin Khalaf, 'Uqba bin Abi Mu'ait and 'Umar a bin Al-Walid." Abdullah added, "By Allah! I saw all of them dead in the battle field on the day of Badr and they were dragged and thrown in the Qalib (a well) at Badr: Allah's Apostle then said, 'Allah's curse has descended upon the people of the Qalib (well). (Sahih al BukhariVolume 1, Book 9, Number 499)

The above occurred prior to the event at the Kabaah. Is it any wonder why Muhammad said "'Hear me, O Quraysh. By Him who holds Muhammad’s life in his hand, I will bring you slaughter.” after being constantly harassed as he walked around the Kabaah and all of the events that took place beforehand? Even despite Muhammad saying this on that particular day, he still didn't retaliate, and even ordered Muslims to seek refugee outside of Mecca to avoid persecution and conflict with the polytheists. I don't know about you, and I'm all about turning the other cheek, but if someone dumped the the dung, blood and the abdominal contents of a slaughtered camel on me while I'm praying, I'm probably going to have more than just a few harsh words for the person or persons who did it.

And after the event at the Kabaah as recorded by Ibn Kathir:

Ibn Ishsq stated: "They then became aggressive towards those who had accepted Islam and followed the Messenger of God (SAAS). "Each tribe attacked all the defenseless Muslims in them, imprisoning them or persecuting them by beating them, depriving them of food and drink and by putting them out on the burning hot ground of Mecca when the heat was most extreme. They were trying to deter them from their religion."

Mnsa b. 'Uqba stated, from al-Zuhri: "The polytheists thereafter became so violent in their actions against the Muslims that the plight of the latter became extreme. And Quraysh so united in their evil intent as to agree to kill the Messenger of God (SAAS) in full view."

"They then attacked the Muslims, restricting their movements and subjecting them to violence. Their plight and insecurity became extreme... And they remained under those conditions for two or three years in the utmost distress."

Robert Spencer fails to mention any of this in his book.


It doesn't matter if it's true or not. It comes from the same source that Robert Spencer cited in his book. If he is going to use it as a source for the history of Islam, then he has to take it as a whole, and not just pick and choose the parts he feels supports his agenda.


Why was the part about polytheist and Sa'd coming to blows left out of the quote? The reason is because it's clear that that Sa'd was acting in self defense.

Let's look at your altered version again (A google search traces it back to the anti-Islamic propaganda site religionofpeace), and compare it to the authentic Islamic texts:



"Whilst Sad and several companions of the apostle were at prayer, they were discovered by idolaters who heaped insults upon them, condemned their deeds, and provoked them to fight. Then Sad struck an idolater with the jawbone of a camel, and wounded him; and this was the first blood shed in Islam." -- Ibn Ishaq

"While Sa'd b. Aba Waqqas was at prayer, along with a small group of others, on a mountain trail, some polytheists came at them. They upbraided them, reviled them for what they were doing, and attacked them. "Sa'd struck one man with a camel's jawbone and cut him open; this was the first blood spilled in Islam." -- Ibn kathir

The above texts clearly show that the polytheists did more than just "rudely interrupt" a group of praying Muslims. A word of wisdom: Don't trust anything you read at religionofpeace or similar websites that bash Islam.




The events quoted from Tabari occurred long before the Muslims started raiding caravans. It is also misleading as the reason Muhammad stated that he wanted the Qurayshi to say there is only one God is out of his love and concern for them. Below is how this event is recorded in the book by al Tabari:

When the Quraysh became distressed by the trouble caused by the Apostle they called him a liar, insulted him, and accused him of being a poet, a sorcerer, a diviner, and of being possessed....

Abu Talib said to him, "Nephew, how is it that your tribe are complaining of you and claiming that you are reviling their gods and saying this, that, and the other?" They showered accusations upon him, and then the Messenger of God spoke and said, "Uncle, I want them to utter one saying. If they say it, the Arabs will submit to them and the non-Arabs will pay the jizyah to them." They were perturbed at this utterance and said, "One saying? Yes, by your father, and ten! What is it?" Abu Talib said, "What saying is it, nephew" He replied, "There is no deity but God." They rose up in alarm, shaking the dust off their garments and saying, "Does he make the gods one god? This is indeed an astounding thing." Then came the revelation beginning with the words just spoken by these men and ending "they have not yet tasted my doom." These are the exact words of Abu Kurayb's account.

...The apostle, by the orders of Allah, continued patiently, confidently, and lovingly to preach to his people, despite their accusations of falsehood, their insults, and their mockeries.

https://kalamullah.com/Books/The History Of Tabari/Tabari_Volume_06.pdf


Here is a link to several books on Islam and Islamic History. islamicbooks4 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive (Not the first one on the list so much, but many of the others. You will have to go through each one to find those that are most applicable). If you read them you will find that the versions of history you are finding on the anti-Islamic propaganda sites are quite different than that of the accounts given by actual historians.

You can also compare what you find at the anti-Islamic propaganda sites to the authentic Islamic texts and get a differing version of Islamic history as well.

https://ia801600.us.archive.org/4/i...ationOfIbnKathirsAlSiraAlNabawiyyaVolume1.pdf -- Ibn kathir

https://ia902602.us.archive.org/5/items/IbnIshaqMuhammad/Ibn Ishaq - Muhammad.pdf -- Ibn Ishaq

https://kalamullah.com/Books/The History Of Tabari/Tabari_Volume_06.pdf -- al Tabari

JosephZ wrote:
Robert Spencer fails to mention any of this in his book.
​

Note this video at 4:48 of Ali, Robert Spencer did not mention he is quoting from Ibn Ishad or the others.

He stated 'Legend has it ...."
because the main purpose of his book is about the history and event of jihad [holy war] event not about what is jihad per-se and the history of Muhammad in Mecca.
It would be silly of Spencer to go into the details from Ibn Ishaq and go out of point.

 

[JosephZ]

Note this video at 4:48 of Ali, Robert Spencer did not mention he is quoting from Ibn Ishad or the others.
He stated 'Legend has it ...."
because the main purpose of his book is about the history and event of jihad [holy war] event not about what is jihad per-se and the history of Muhammad in Mecca.

He doesn't have to mention he is quoting from Ibn Ishaq, because the story he shares obviously comes directly from Ibn Ishaq.

because the main purpose of his book is about the history and event of jihad [holy war] event not about what is jihad per-se and the history of Muhammad in Mecca.

Have you even read Robert Spencer's book?

 

[Joyousperson]

Here is some additional context on that passage:

"Whilst Sad and several companions of the apostle were at prayer, they were discovered by idolaters who heaped insults upon them, condemned their deeds, and provoked them to fight. Then Sad struck an idolater with the jawbone of a camel, and wounded him; and this was the first blood shed in Islam." -- Ibn Ishaq

"While Sa'd b. Aba Waqqas was at prayer, along with a small group of others, on a mountain trail, some polytheists came at them. They upbraided them, reviled them for what they were doing, and attacked them. "Sa'd struck one man with a camel's jawbone and cut him open; this was the first blood spilled in Islam." -- Ibn kathir

It was clearly a defensive move.

While it is true that Sa'd drew the first blood in Islam, that doesn't mean anything one way or the other concerning blood being drawn by the polytheists. That is just saying that Sa'd was the first Muslim to violently retaliate (In this case in self defense) and draw blood against the polytheists who had been persecuting (An offensive action) the Muslims.

Note this from Ishaq 166.

When the apostle openly displayed Islam as God ordered him his people did not withdraw or turn against him, so far as I have heard, until he [Muhammad] spoke disparagingly of their gods. When he did that they took great offence and resolved unanimously to treat him as an enemy ...
Ibn Ishaq 166.​

Whilst this above para appeared after the ' Sa'd b. Aba Waqqas row and blood shed' event, this is a general statement which tie in with the ethos of Islam.

It cannot be that Muhammad started to disparage the Qureshi's religion only after the 'Sa'd b. Aba Waqqas row and blood shed' event.

When Muhammad started preaching the Quran as ordered by Allah, he [on behalf of Allah] would definitely have insulted the Qureshi's religion because insulting [of the worst kind] of infidels by Allah is inherent with the ideology of Islam.

Allah in the Quran had insulted and dehumanized non-Muslims as apes, swines, ass, cattle, the lowest of all creatures, etc. plus throwing a ton of derogatory terms at infidels and non-Muslims.

As stated in the Quran, Muhammad would have to told them the stories of the messengers of old [Abraham, Hud, Thamud, Shueb, etc] and how the infidels of old were dealt with terribly. Such stories will surely offend the Qureshi who were pagans and infidels.

Actually your counter views insisting Robert Spencer to detail the 13 years of Muhammad in Mecca is way off topic.

The original point was 'the ideology of Islam condone warfare of offensive and defensive 'jihad' against non-Muslims.
You threw in Ali's video who barked up the wrong tree in critiquing Spencer's book in The History of Jihad.

To critique Spencer's view on Jihad, Ali should have critiqued on what Spencer wrote specifically on 'what is jihad' and not on the History of Jihad.

E.g. say, if you want to critique my views on
A. 'what is war' [principles]
you cannot do so on my book about
B. The History and timeline of Wars.​

As such, Ali critiques in the 3 videos is intellectually immature and at worst stupid.

Once again, I have refuted the verses found in Chapter 9 already. I have nothing to add to what I have already said.

Nope your counter views re Chapter 9 are as historical and self-defense are insufficient.

Note I have done a summary of my arguments and your counter views here.
None of your counter views are successful against my premises.

The Critiques of Islam versus Muslim Apologists

 

[setst777]

I wasn't trying to say

setst777 said: ↑
Are you saying that, what you described as Christian behavior, is how mainline Christians treat Muslims?

setst777 said: ↑
Christians standing in front of Mosques preaching hate against Muhammad and Allah? I sincerely doubt that is happening. Provide evidence that this is happening by actual mainline Christian organizations. Christians are very careful to preach only in authorized areas, and not to preach hate, and they do not curse Muhammad or Allah.

Click to expand...

I wasn't trying to say that this was a practice by mainline Christians. I guess I should have put the word Christians in parenthesis to clear up any confusion. Below is a good example of "Christians" cursing Muhammad, Allah, and even Muslim children.

Setst RE: I don’t believe you or I would uphold anyone claiming to be Christian who exemplifies such behavior to those they are witnessing to. That is not how Christians evangelize others. I am not sure why you choose to exemplify those few who claim to be Christians who exhibit behavior towards those they are evangelizing that is clearly condemned by Christianity. You bring these sources up as credible evidence to show that Christians are just as bad as Muhammad. Yet, that is not how Christians are to conduct themselves according to the Gospel.

setst777 said: ↑
Even David Wood, although using humor to get his points across clearly, does not viciously attack or curse Muhammad or Allah.

I have seen videos where David Wood insults Muhammad by implying he was a cross dresser, a pervert, and a pedophile.

Setst RE: Yes, I also have seen those videos. When I view those videos, I would have to say that his method may seem controversial, but I don’t see a spirit of hatred or bitterness in David. I think he is trying approaches in his evangelism that cause some shock, surprise, and curiosity to capture the attention of those who would not otherwise listen, and help people really think this through. And it actually works.

setst777 said: ↑
Muhammad was acting towards the Quraysh as an example to follow.

When reading the accounts of Ibn Kathir, al Tabari, and Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad really wasn't that forceful in his preaching. Regardless, anyone who is told that they are worshiping a false god(s) and/or told to stop worshiping idols or they will face judgement and eternity in hellfire are going to be offended.

Setst RE: In some parts of those Scriptures, I agree that not enough information is given that would indicate that Muhammad was forceful in his preaching. Yet, in others, which I also quoted, do show the Muhammad was aggressively attacking the religion and the gods of the Quraysh in the sacred area of Mecca for years.

Certainly in the first three years of Muhammad as prophet in Mecca, he did practice his religions peacefully, just as the sources reveal.

After three years Muhammad then says he gets this revelation to confront the Quraysh religions knowing that he would be creating enmity by doing so. Muhammad certainly started out non-aggressively, but as time went on within those 13 years, the sources reveal that Muhammad become increasingly hostile in his verbal attacks on the religions of the Quraysh. The result was that the Quraysh became increasingly hostile to Muhammad and his other followers.

Note that I said earlier that I believe that the number of Muhammad’s followers in Mecca could not have topped 40 persons MAX. However, after reading more in depth, I now am fairly convinced that Muhammad could not have had more than 15 or 20 followers before emigrating to Medina.

setst777 said: ↑
Comparing Muhammad to King David and Joshua. What next? So you acknowledge that Muhammad was Jihad extremist?

I think anyone would agree that the actions carried out by King David and Joshua were extreme in nature. If they were alive today and did what they did back in their day, they would be tried and convicted of war crimes.

Setst RE:
Yes I agree that the actions of King David and Joshua were extreme in nature per the command of God.

When you compare Muhammad’s actions to King David and Joshua, I am hoping you are keeping in mind that,

• while the OT revelation of war was only for a specific time and purpose – to secure the Promised Land of Israel
• and Christians follow the NT example of Christ – total pacifism,
• Muhammad’s Jihad (Qur’an and Hadith) was the NT of the Muslims to follow for all time, since Muhammad was the last prophet, and the Medinan period and commands for Jihad were the last that were to be followed before his death.
• We know this was the case because that is what all Caliphs and the Four Jurists understood and what the most renown Tafsir, and the Hadith, actually explain as Jihad against unbelievers until the world is one religion – Islam
• We see this in the 1400 years of the History of Islam’s Jihad against unbelievers being carried out in much of Europe, parts of Africa, Syria, Turkey and the Middle East,
• and continues to this day although adapted to fit a defensive Jihad until the next Caliph arrives.
• that is the danger the world faces today.

setst777 said: ↑
Your links do not prove what you hoped.

But they do as the following quotes can be found:

From Ibn Ishaq:
The Quraysh incited the people against the companions of the apostle who had become Muslims. Every tribe fell among the Muslims among them, beating them and seducing them from their religion.

From Ibn Kathir:
Violent and powerful Quraysh polytheists inflicted harm both verbal and physical upon the Messenger of God (SAAS) and upon those powerless individuals who followed him.

Ibn Ishaq stated, "Quraysh then incited each other against those individual tribesmen who were Companions of the Messenger of God (SAAS) and had accepted Islam. "Each tribe persecuted the Muslims among them, using violence and trying to seduce them from their faith. "God gave protection to the Messenger of God (SAAS) against them through his uncle Abii Tdib.

While the Prophet (SAAS) was praying at the hjir (the outer enclosure of the kacba) Wqba b. Abii Mu'ayy went up to hi, drew his robe around his neck and began choking him hard. "Aba Bakr, God bless him, approached, took him by the shoulders and pulled him off the Prophet (SAAS) saying, 'Would you murder a man for saying, "God is my Lord;

He [Muhammad] was praying while a group of Quraysh sat there; there was the placenta (salz) of a sacrificed camel near by him. Quraysh asked, 'Who will pick up that placenta and throw it over his back?' Wqba b. Abii Mu* replied, 'I will.' And he picked it up and threw it over his hack. The Messenger of God (SAAS) remained there prostrating until Fatima came and removed it off his back.

Here is how this event is recorded by al Bukhari:

Narrated 'Amr bin Maimuin: 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud said, "While Allah's Apostle was praying beside the Ka'ba, there were some Quraish people sitting in a gathering. One of them said, 'Don't you see this (who does deeds just to show off)? Who amongst you can go and bring the dung, blood and the abdominal contents (intestines, etc). of the slaughtered camels of the family of so and so and then wait till he prostrates and put that in between his shoulders?' The most unfortunate amongst them ('Uqba bin Abi Mu'ait) went (and brought them) and when Allah's Apostle prostrated, he put them between his shoulders. The Prophet remained in prostration and they laughed so much so that they fell on each other. A passerby went to Fatima, who was a young girl in those days. She came running and the Prophet was still in prostration. She removed them and cursed upon the Quraish on their faces. When Allah's Apostle completed his prayer, he said, 'O Allah! Take revenge on Quraish.' He said so thrice and added, 'O Allah! take revenge on 'Amr bin Hisham, 'Utba bin Rabia, Shaiba bin Rabi'a, Al-Walid bin'Utba, Umaiya bin Khalaf, 'Uqba bin Abi Mu'ait and 'Umar a bin Al-Walid." Abdullah added, "By Allah! I saw all of them dead in the battle field on the day of Badr and they were dragged and thrown in the Qalib (a well) at Badr: Allah's Apostle then said, 'Allah's curse has descended upon the people of the Qalib (well). (Sahih al BukhariVolume 1, Book 9, Number 499)

The above occurred prior to the event at the Kabaah. Is it any wonder why Muhammad said "'Hear me, O Quraysh. By Him who holds Muhammad’s life in his hand, I will bring you slaughter.” after being constantly harassed as he walked around the Kabaah and all of the events that took place beforehand? Even despite Muhammad saying this on that particular day, he still didn't retaliate, and even ordered Muslims to seek refugee outside of Mecca to avoid persecution and conflict with the polytheists. I don't know about you, and I'm all about turning the other cheek, but if someone dumped the the dung, blood and the abdominal contents of a slaughtered camel on me while I'm praying, I'm probably going to have more than just a few harsh words for the person or persons who did it.

And after the event at the Kabaah as recorded by Ibn Kathir:

Ibn Ishsq stated: "They then became aggressive towards those who had accepted Islam and followed the Messenger of God (SAAS). "Each tribe attacked all the defenseless Muslims in them, imprisoning them or persecuting them by beating them, depriving them of food and drink and by putting them out on the burning hot ground of Mecca when the heat was most extreme. They were trying to deter them from their religion."

Mnsa b. 'Uqba stated, from al-Zuhri: "The polytheists thereafter became so violent in their actions against the Muslims that the plight of the latter became extreme. And Quraysh so united in their evil intent as to agree to kill the Messenger of God (SAAS) in full view."

"They then attacked the Muslims, restricting their movements and subjecting them to violence. Their plight and insecurity became extreme... And they remained under those conditions for two or three years in the utmost distress."

Robert Spencer fails to mention any of this in his book.

Setst RE: I am not saying the Quraysh were angels, but when their religions are attacked, Muhammad was bound to accumulate enemies. And Muhammad knew this would happen when he started preaching against their gods for so many years as the sources reveal.

Continued. . .

 

[setst777]

Continued. . .

I wasn't trying to say that this was a practice by mainline Christians.

setst777 said: ↑
Regarding impaling or torturing and murdering for preaching what was offensive, I respond as follows. Firstly, that is only one of several renditions about what happened. So, not sure that was even true.

It doesn't matter if it's true or not. It comes from the same source that Robert Spencer cited in his book. If he is going to use it as a source for the history of Islam, then he has to take it as a whole, and not just pick and choose the parts he feels supports his agenda.

Setst RE: Your argument is not quite logical.

For instance, the incident about impaling and torturing is contested by other sources. This does not mean that we can generalize and say that all of Ibn Ishaq or Ibn Kathir is unreliable because of one contested event.

We have to compare sources to determine the most probable historical account of any particular incident. If the accounts agree on an incident from various sources, then that is strong evidence that it actually happened. If the sources clearly disagree on an incident, then at least one of the sources is in error.

setst777 said: ↑
Nowhere does Ibn Ishaq 166 state that the Quraysh struck anyone, or even that they were the first to “blow” (whatever that actually means). Apparently both the Quraysh and Muslims started to throw punches, but doesn’t say anyone was hit or was wounded.

“They blamed them for what they were doing until they came to blows, and it was on that occasion that Sa’d smote a polytheist with the jawbone of a camel and wounded him. This was the first blood shed in Islam” The only one said to be hit or wounded was a polytheist by a Muslim.

Why was the part about polytheist and Sa'd coming to blows left out of the quote? The reason is because it's clear that that Sa'd was acting in self defense.

Let's look at your altered version again (A google search traces it back to the anti-Islamic propaganda site religionofpeace), and compare it to the authentic Islamic texts:

Setst RE: As you explained, I certainly would have preferred that Robert Spencer gave details of the origins of Jihad, and actually quoted the sources instead of just alluding to some of them.

I have not finished reading “The History of Jihad” yet, so I cannot comment if the rest of his book similarly treats the sources. My understanding so far is that Robert Spencer was not attempting to go into detail regarding the origins of Jihad, but I think he should have. However, just because he didn’t go into this detail does not mean we can generalize and judge the rest of His book is trash regarding Jihad. Making generalizations like that is just not fair.

No book is perfect. No historical source is perfect that I have ever read. that does not mean throw out history altogether.

Regarding the quotes, it could be self defense against verbal attacks and threats. Whatever the case, none of this would have happened if Muhammad would not have continually, without stop, preached against their gods for years. How many days of verbal abuse against the religions of the Quraysh would that amount to per year? How many days of verbal abuse in 10 years?

Considering that Muhammad in Mecca (before Medina) was the most peaceful side of Muhammad that history would ever see, we can understand from this that Muhammad still managed to conjure up a great deal of hostility and enmity. That hostility did not just happen because he chose to worship his own god, but because he was attacking the gods of the Quyraysh.

setst777 said: ↑
The Muslims were actually the first to resort to physical violence when Sa’d bin Abu Waqqas picked up a camel’s jawbone and struck a local polytheist who was “rudely interrupting” his group of praying Muslims. "This was the first blood to be shed in Islam" (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 166).

"Whilst Sad and several companions of the apostle were at prayer, they were discovered by idolaters who heaped insults upon them, condemned their deeds, and provoked them to fight. Then Sad struck an idolater with the jawbone of a camel, and wounded him; and this was the first blood shed in Islam." -- Ibn Ishaq

"While Sa'd b. Aba Waqqas was at prayer, along with a small group of others, on a mountain trail, some polytheists came at them. They upbraided them, reviled them for what they were doing, and attacked them. "Sa'd struck one man with a camel's jawbone and cut him open; this was the first blood spilled in Islam." -- Ibn kathir

The above texts clearly show that the polytheists did more than just "rudely interrupt" a group of praying Muslims. A word of wisdom: Don't trust anything you read at religionofpeace or similar websites that bash Islam.

Setst RE: Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Kathir appear to be in disagreement, unless you understand the word “attacked” as meaning provoking the Muslims to fight – but how? It seems insults and condemnation occurred, and then the group of Quraysh provoked them to fight, perhaps by threats, or even maybe shoves. The history is simply incomplete regarding this incident. But none of the accounts actually state that the Quraysh physically attacked the Muslims that were praying. No others are mentioned as being wounded. I am just going by the sources.

setst777 said: ↑
Islamic extremists behave just like their prophet. 1400+ years of Jihad do not lie. 1400+ years of extremism. This is Islam.

Firstly, you have to read the Qur’an and Hadith to actually learn that Muhammad and his followers actually did take vengeance on others for refusing to submit to him – killing, raiding, raping, enslaving, subduing, pillaging all who opposed him. The Quraysh were killed in raids because they refused believe in Allah and that Muhammad was Allah’s Messenger and become Muslims.

setst777 said: ↑
Abu Talib said to Muhammad, “Nephew, how is it that your tribe is complaining about you and claiming that you are reviling their gods and saying this, that, and the other.” The Allah’s Apostle said, “Uncle, I want them to utter one saying. (There is no ilah but Allah and Muhammad is his Prophet.) If they say it, the Arabs will submit to them and the non-Arabs will pay the Jizya tax.”(Tabari, Vol. VI, page 96)...
The Quraysh refused to confess Muhammad as their Prophet or pay a Jizya tax to Muhammad, so Muhammad went on a rampage raiding, pillaging, killing and enslaving the Quraysh.

The events quoted from Tabari occurred long before the Muslims started raiding caravans.

setst RE: We are aware that Muhammad in Mecca was not yet a military leader. I was not insinuating otherwise.

It is also misleading as the reason Muhammad stated that he wanted the Qurayshi to say there is only one God is out of his love and concern for them. Below is how this event is recorded in the book by al Tabari:

When the Quraysh became distressed by the trouble caused by the Apostle they called him a liar, insulted him, and accused him of being a poet, a sorcerer, a diviner, and of being possessed....

Abu Talib said to him, "Nephew, how is it that your tribe are complaining of you and claiming that you are reviling their gods and saying this, that, and the other?" They showered accusations upon him, and then the Messenger of God spoke and said, "Uncle, I want them to utter one saying. If they say it, the Arabs will submit to them and the non-Arabs will pay the jizyah to them." They were perturbed at this utterance and said, "One saying? Yes, by your father, and ten! What is it?" Abu Talib said, "What saying is it, nephew" He replied, "There is no deity but God." They rose up in alarm, shaking the dust off their garments and saying, "Does he make the gods one god? This is indeed an astounding thing." Then came the revelation beginning with the words just spoken by these men and ending "they have not yet tasted my doom." These are the exact words of Abu Kurayb's account.

...The apostle, by the orders of Allah, continued patiently, confidently, and lovingly to preach to his people, despite their accusations of falsehood, their insults, and their mockeries.

https://kalamullah.com/Books/The History Of Tabari/Tabari_Volume_06.pdf

Setst RE: The account you quote ends with making Muhammad look like a saint. Perhaps Muhammad actually believed he was trying to help the Quraysh by turning them to the one god – Allah. However, Muhammad’s intent was eventually to accomplish this by force. The Quraysh had to confess, “There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his Prophet. If they say it, the Arabs will submit to them and the non-Arabs will pay the Jizya tax."

Well, the Quraysh could not take any more of this and eventually drove the Muslims out. Muhammad emigrated to Medina to become a mediator to resolve conflicts. That was also the time Muhammad’s whole attitude changed regarding his Message to one of military force… it was that message that appealed to many Arabs, and so that is the time Muhammad gained many converts. From now on the message was propagated by force – raiding, pillaging, rape, murder, and the like until they either submited to Allah and His Messenger or would be killed or enslaved.

setst777 said: ↑
Every battle that Muhammad fought was because he was ordering them to submit to Islam confessing Muhammad as their prophet, or to submit to Muhammad as servants. Truces were formed with more powerful tribes until Muhammad gained enough power to overthrow them. There was no other way out. During Muhammad’s life as Prophet, 29 battles took place. Naturally many resisted, because Muhammad was a threat to them. So, Muhammad attacked, killed, raped, pillaged, destroyed, many peoples and their way of life. And that Jihad continues to be followed today.

setst777 said: ↑
His barbaric practices of Jihad are still valid today as a command from Allah and His messenger, and as carefully followed for 1400+ years.

Here is a link to several books on Islam and Islamic History. islamicbooks4 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive (Not the first one on the list so much, but many of the others. You will have to go through each one to find those that are most applicable). If you read them you will find that the versions of history you are finding on the anti-Islamic propaganda sites are quite different than that of the accounts given by actual historians.

You can also compare what you find at the anti-Islamic propaganda sites to the authentic Islamic texts and get a differing version of Islamic history as well.

https://ia801600.us.archive.org/4/i...ationOfIbnKathirsAlSiraAlNabawiyyaVolume1.pdf -- Ibn kathir

https://ia902602.us.archive.org/5/items/IbnIshaqMuhammad/Ibn Ishaq - Muhammad.pdf -- Ibn Ishaq

https://kalamullah.com/Books/The History Of Tabari/Tabari_Volume_06.pdf -- al Tabari

Setst RE: During Muhammad’s time in Mecca, he had not yet become a warmonger. That happened in Medina, and intensified in aggression as time went on until his death in 632 AD. However, Jihad did not stop with Muhammad. Jihad against unbelievers continued in conquest by all the Caliphs throughout history and still continues to this day in a defensive format…. Over 1400 years and counting.

 

[Joyousperson]

setst777 said: ↑
Are you saying that, what you described as Christian behavior, is how mainline Christians treat Muslims?

setst777 said: ↑
Christians standing in front of Mosques preaching hate against Muhammad and Allah? I sincerely doubt that is happening. Provide evidence that this is happening by actual mainline Christian organizations. Christians are very careful to preach only in authorized areas, and not to preach hate, and they do not curse Muhammad or Allah.

Click to expand...



Setst RE: I don’t believe you or I would uphold anyone claiming to be Christian who exemplifies such behavior to those they are witnessing to. That is not how Christians evangelize others. I am not sure why you choose to exemplify those few who claim to be Christians who exhibit behavior towards those they are evangelizing that is clearly condemned by Christianity. You bring these sources up as credible evidence to show that Christians are just as bad as Muhammad. Yet, that is not how Christians are to conduct themselves according to the Gospel.

setst777 said: ↑
Even David Wood, although using humor to get his points across clearly, does not viciously attack or curse Muhammad or Allah.


Setst RE: Yes, I also have seen those videos. When I view those videos, I would have to say that his method may seem controversial, but I don’t see a spirit of hatred or bitterness in David. I think he is trying approaches in his evangelism that cause some shock, surprise, and curiosity to capture the attention of those who would not otherwise listen, and help people really think this through. And it actually works.

setst777 said: ↑
Muhammad was acting towards the Quraysh as an example to follow.



Setst RE: In some parts of those Scriptures, I agree that not enough information is given that would indicate that Muhammad was forceful in his preaching. Yet, in others, which I also quoted, do show the Muhammad was aggressively attacking the religion and the gods of the Quraysh in the sacred area of Mecca for years.

Certainly in the first three years of Muhammad as prophet in Mecca, he did practice his religions peacefully, just as the sources reveal.

After three years Muhammad then says he gets this revelation to confront the Quraysh religions knowing that he would be creating enmity by doing so. Muhammad certainly started out non-aggressively, but as time went on within those 13 years, the sources reveal that Muhammad become increasingly hostile in his verbal attacks on the religions of the Quraysh. The result was that the Quraysh became increasingly hostile to Muhammad and his other followers.

Note that I said earlier that I believe that the number of Muhammad’s followers in Mecca could not have topped 40 persons MAX. However, after reading more in depth, I now am fairly convinced that Muhammad could not have had more than 15 or 20 followers before emigrating to Medina.

setst777 said: ↑
Comparing Muhammad to King David and Joshua. What next? So you acknowledge that Muhammad was Jihad extremist?



Setst RE:
Yes I agree that the actions of King David and Joshua were extreme in nature per the command of God.

When you compare Muhammad’s actions to King David and Joshua, I am hoping you are keeping in mind that,

• while the OT revelation of war was only for a specific time and purpose – to secure the Promised Land of Israel
• and Christians follow the NT example of Christ – total pacifism,
• Muhammad’s Jihad (Qur’an and Hadith) was the NT of the Muslims to follow for all time, since Muhammad was the last prophet, and the Medinan period and commands for Jihad were the last that were to be followed before his death.
• We know this was the case because that is what all Caliphs and the Four Jurists understood and what the most renown Tafsir, and the Hadith, actually explain as Jihad against unbelievers until the world is one religion – Islam
• We see this in the 1400 years of the History of Islam’s Jihad against unbelievers being carried out in much of Europe, parts of Africa, Syria, Turkey and the Middle East,
• and continues to this day although adapted to fit a defensive Jihad until the next Caliph arrives.
• that is the danger the world faces today.

setst777 said: ↑
Your links do not prove what you hoped.



Setst RE: I am not saying the Quraysh were angels, but when their religions are attacked, Muhammad was bound to accumulate enemies. And Muhammad knew this would happen when he started preaching against their gods for so many years as the sources reveal.

Continued. . .

Very good and right on target.

Re numbers before migrating to Medina, Warner mentioned 120, not sure where he got his numbers.
Ishaq Sira [166] mentioned "in large numbers .."

I read in the Sira of Ishaq, Muhammad was commanded to preach after THREE years of receiving the revelations.
Muhammad continued to receive revelations therefrom till the next 20 years.

We don't know which year where the Quereshi confronted the companions in their prayers and S'ad strike the first blood.
More likely around the 10th year leading to greater fights and Muhammad leaving Medina in the 13th year.

Based on the years the Surah were revealed chronologically, Muhmmad had already received 40 chapters by the 3rd year and 53 by the 7th year. By the 10th year Muhammad had already received 70 chapters of the Quran.

Based on the evident Quranic verses* from these 53 chapters, and possibly 70 chapters it is obvious Allah via Muhammad from those Surahs had condemned and insulted the religions of the Qureshi with the utmost derogatory terms with threats from Allah.
* the Quranic verses from Allah is definitely [utmost] more convincing than the Sira or Ahadith.

Muhammad knew well the Qureshi will be offended but he has no choice else he would be punished by Allah, he stated,

God has ordered me to warn my [Muhammad] family, my nearest relations and the task in beyond my strength. I know that when I made this message known to them I should meet with great unpleasantness so I kept silence until Gabriel came to me and told me that if I did not do as I was ordered my lord would punish me ...."
Ishaq 166​

If Muhammad knew his family members will be GREATLY offended surely he knew the Qureshi will be more offended but yet he has no choice but to deliberately antagonize the Meccans.

This is the inherent ethos of the ideology of Islam, i.e. be on the offensive or else be punished by Allah. It is fortunate at present the majority of Muslims are more human than being truer Muslims to comply with the above commands of Allah. But the danger is more and more Muslims are getting to be truer Muslims.

Muhammad knowingly and deliberately [has no choice a ordered from Allah] antagonized and thus inflamed natural defensive actions from the Qureshi to protect their own existing religions. It is only natural for the 7th century tribalistic Qureshi to react within their own inherent aggressive nature.

As I had argued Muhammad initiated the tit-for-that and it is absurd to claim Muhammad's actions of further aggression is merely self-defense.

What from what Muhammad the exemplar has stated, i.e. Allah forced him to do it, we can infer the ideology of Islam is inherently evil and the same message of antagonistic and warring against non-Muslims as applied to Muhammad and was forced upon Muslims during its 1400 history, will be effective in the present and the future.

Muslims as with Muhammad and Muslims of the past, thus has no choice but to obey Allah's commands in the Quran's 6236 verses else they will be punished.
The 6236 verses contain verses exhorting Muslims to war against and kill non-Muslims under conditions of "fasad" [very loosely defined] i.e. threats to the religion of Islam.

 

[Joyousperson]

Continued. . .



setst777 said: ↑
Regarding impaling or torturing and murdering for preaching what was offensive, I respond as follows. Firstly, that is only one of several renditions about what happened. So, not sure that was even true.



Setst RE: Your argument is not quite logical.

For instance, the incident about impaling and torturing is contested by other sources. This does not mean that we can generalize and say that all of Ibn Ishaq or Ibn Kathir is unreliable because of one contested event.

We have to compare sources to determine the most probable historical account of any particular incident. If the accounts agree on an incident from various sources, then that is strong evidence that it actually happened. If the sources clearly disagree on an incident, then at least one of the sources is in error.

setst777 said: ↑
Nowhere does Ibn Ishaq 166 state that the Quraysh struck anyone, or even that they were the first to “blow” (whatever that actually means). Apparently both the Quraysh and Muslims started to throw punches, but doesn’t say anyone was hit or was wounded.

“They blamed them for what they were doing until they came to blows, and it was on that occasion that Sa’d smote a polytheist with the jawbone of a camel and wounded him. This was the first blood shed in Islam” The only one said to be hit or wounded was a polytheist by a Muslim.



Setst RE: As you explained, I certainly would have preferred that Robert Spencer gave details of the origins of Jihad, and actually quoted the sources instead of just alluding to some of them.

I have not finished reading “The History of Jihad” yet, so I cannot comment if the rest of his book similarly treats the sources. My understanding so far is that Robert Spencer was not attempting to go into detail regarding the origins of Jihad, but I think he should have. However, just because he didn’t go into this detail does not mean we can generalize and judge the rest of His book is trash regarding Jihad. Making generalizations like that is just not fair.

No book is perfect. No historical source is perfect that I have ever read. that does not mean throw out history altogether.

Regarding the quotes, it could be self defense against verbal attacks and threats. Whatever the case, none of this would have happened if Muhammad would not have continually, without stop, preached against their gods for years. How many days of verbal abuse against the religions of the Quraysh would that amount to per year? How many days of verbal abuse in 10 years?

Considering that Muhammad in Mecca (before Medina) was the most peaceful side of Muhammad that history would ever see, we can understand from this that Muhammad still managed to conjure up a great deal of hostility and enmity. That hostility did not just happen because he chose to worship his own god, but because he was attacking the gods of the Quyraysh.

setst777 said: ↑
The Muslims were actually the first to resort to physical violence when Sa’d bin Abu Waqqas picked up a camel’s jawbone and struck a local polytheist who was “rudely interrupting” his group of praying Muslims. "This was the first blood to be shed in Islam" (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 166).



Setst RE: Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Kathir appear to be in disagreement, unless you understand the word “attacked” as meaning provoking the Muslims to fight – but how? It seems insults and condemnation occurred, and then the group of Quraysh provoked them to fight, perhaps by threats, or even maybe shoves. The history is simply incomplete regarding this incident. But none of the accounts actually state that the Quraysh physically attacked the Muslims that were praying. No others are mentioned as being wounded. I am just going by the sources.

setst777 said: ↑
Islamic extremists behave just like their prophet. 1400+ years of Jihad do not lie. 1400+ years of extremism. This is Islam.

Firstly, you have to read the Qur’an and Hadith to actually learn that Muhammad and his followers actually did take vengeance on others for refusing to submit to him – killing, raiding, raping, enslaving, subduing, pillaging all who opposed him. The Quraysh were killed in raids because they refused believe in Allah and that Muhammad was Allah’s Messenger and become Muslims.

setst777 said: ↑
Abu Talib said to Muhammad, “Nephew, how is it that your tribe is complaining about you and claiming that you are reviling their gods and saying this, that, and the other.” The Allah’s Apostle said, “Uncle, I want them to utter one saying. (There is no ilah but Allah and Muhammad is his Prophet.) If they say it, the Arabs will submit to them and the non-Arabs will pay the Jizya tax.”(Tabari, Vol. VI, page 96)...
The Quraysh refused to confess Muhammad as their Prophet or pay a Jizya tax to Muhammad, so Muhammad went on a rampage raiding, pillaging, killing and enslaving the Quraysh.



setst RE: We are aware that Muhammad in Mecca was not yet a military leader. I was not insinuating otherwise.



Setst RE: The account you quote ends with making Muhammad look like a saint. Perhaps Muhammad actually believed he was trying to help the Quraysh by turning them to the one god – Allah. However, Muhammad’s intent was eventually to accomplish this by force. The Quraysh had to confess, “There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his Prophet. If they say it, the Arabs will submit to them and the non-Arabs will pay the Jizya tax."

Well, the Quraysh could not take any more of this and eventually drove the Muslims out. Muhammad emigrated to Medina to become a mediator to resolve conflicts. That was also the time Muhammad’s whole attitude changed regarding his Message to one of military force… it was that message that appealed to many Arabs, and so that is the time Muhammad gained many converts. From now on the message was propagated by force – raiding, pillaging, rape, murder, and the like until they either submited to Allah and His Messenger or would be killed or enslaved.

setst777 said: ↑
Every battle that Muhammad fought was because he was ordering them to submit to Islam confessing Muhammad as their prophet, or to submit to Muhammad as servants. Truces were formed with more powerful tribes until Muhammad gained enough power to overthrow them. There was no other way out. During Muhammad’s life as Prophet, 29 battles took place. Naturally many resisted, because Muhammad was a threat to them. So, Muhammad attacked, killed, raped, pillaged, destroyed, many peoples and their way of life. And that Jihad continues to be followed today.

setst777 said: ↑
His barbaric practices of Jihad are still valid today as a command from Allah and His messenger, and as carefully followed for 1400+ years.



Setst RE: During Muhammad’s time in Mecca, he had not yet become a warmonger. That happened in Medina, and intensified in aggression as time went on until his death in 632 AD. However, Jihad did not stop with Muhammad. Jihad against unbelievers continued in conquest by all the Caliphs throughout history and still continues to this day in a defensive format…. Over 1400 years and counting.

Setst777 Great points again.

JosephZ quoted above'
...The apostle, by the orders of Allah, continued patiently, confidently, and lovingly to preach to his people, despite their accusations of falsehood, their insults, and their mockeries.
https://kalamullah.com/Books/The History Of Tabari/Tabari_Volume_06.pdf​

"continued patiently, confidently, and lovingly to preach to his people"
What a joke? This deception is so obvious when compared to Ishaq's Sira.

Tabari finished his work in 883
Tafsir al-Tabari - Wikipedia

Ishaq died 767 and likely finished the Sira of Muhammad around 750?

Tabari must have read Ishaq's work written 130 years before him.

Ishaq wrote:

God has ordered me to warn my [Muhammad] family, my nearest relations and the task in beyond my strength. I know that when I made this message known to them I should meet with great unpleasantness so I kept silence until Gabriel came to me and told me that if I did not do as I was ordered my lord would punish me ...."
Ishaq 166​

Therefore Tabari have cheated and invented his own version to paint a different picture.

What Ishaq wrote about Muhammad can be confirmed by what is in the Quran, i.e. Allah in the Quran condemned, insulted non-Muslims [the Qureshi then] in the most derogatory terms on their religions, customs and beliefs.

Ishaq historical account cannot be reliable especially so when nobody has another earlier of similar account during the same time.
Tabari's accounts based on hearsays 250+ years after 632AD is worst.
Robert in his book 'The History of Jihad' referred to them as 'legends' and they are more like myth.

Within the ideology of Islam, what is more reliable is the Quran's 6236 verses, the pristine words from Allah which was delivered perfectly and memorized without alteration since 632AD.

There is no need to rely on Ishaq or Tabari, naturally if the Quranic message was imposed on the Qureshi during that time [613-620], they would have naturally been insulted regardless of who delivered the message.
Islam initiated the offensive mental aggression on the Qureshi and they took defensive actions.
Therefore it is very wrong to insist what Muhammad did to the Qureshi was defensive. The same can said for the Jews and Christians, plus all others during the 1400 history of Islam till the present.

Just like Muhammad [under threat of punishment from Allah] was obligated to obey the Quranic verses to offend, first his relatives, then the Qureshi, all Muslims are obligated as a duty to comply with what is in the Quran just like Muhammad as the exemplar did.

 

[Joyousperson]

JosephZ,

Here is one point supporting my point of contempt from within the Quran by the translator of Ishaq's Sira,

However the apostle continued to proclaim what God has ordered him to proclaim, concealing nothing, and exciting the dislike by contemning [express contempt] their religion, forsaking their idols, and leaving them to their unbelief.
This is not a statement resting on tradition, but a concise summary of the circumstances that are plainly indicated by certain passages of the Quran which deal with this period.
Introduction xix - A. Guillauame -translator of Sira of Muhammad.​

Guillaume mentioned the verses with contempt against the Quraishi during that period but note the whole Quran comprised on 3400++ verses that are contemptuous against non-Muslims in a range of degrees.

As you will note, even Guillaume has supported my point, the Quran is inherently evil and violent. Muhammad had no choice but to to do his Islamic duty of good [which in reality evil and violent] against non-Muslims has commanded by Allah else he will be punished [Ishaq 166] and thus the general principle that all Muhammad also has to obey the commands of Allah as Muhammad did.