Myth: Muhammad and the Muslims were persecuted
2/10/2012
Editor’s Note: Author requested anonimity
Myth
Muhammad was Persecuted by the Meccans for Preaching Islam (Life of Mohammed BBC2 2100 hrs. 10July.2011)
The Meccans said they had never known anything like the trouble they had endured from this fellow. He declared their mode of life foolish, insulted their forefathers, reviled their religion, divided the community and cursed their gods (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 183). Not only was this an insult to the people and traditions, it threatened the local economy, which depended on the annual pilgrimage.
Quran says Muhammad was only evicted by Quraysh no Muslim was killed Q 22:40 – YET the Pagans believed in Allah any way, why believe in Muhammad’s nameless Allah?
Leaving Mecca – Muslims promote the idea that Muhammad was “evicted” from Mecca. History shows otherwise. Muhammad sent a group of Muslims to Abyssinia to investigate the situation there. He also went to Taef to investigate moving there. People of Taef did not put up with Muhammad’s insanity for long and kicked him out (to his credit though, Muhammad managed to convert some “Jinns” to Islam on that trip!!). Finally, Muhammad left Mecca to Medina when his time was ripe.
After leaving Mecca, the Yathrib (Medina) Tribe Jews and Christians accepted him as their own (Just like NOW, Jews and Christians are accepting Muslims when they come begging for 1/2 a slice of bread to eat)
After the Jews showed him their scriptures, he then turned against them, telling them to accept him as their prophet. When they refused, he declared on them Quran 2:29 KILL those who do not believe in
Al-lah قَٰتِلُوا لَّذِينَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ بِللَّهِ وَلَا بِلْيَوْمِ لْءَاخِرِ وَلَا
21st Cent. Muslims are doing exactly what Muhammad did in the 7th. Once the West becomes Sharia Muslims, where next will the White Muslims go begging for 1/2 a slice of bread to eat?
For we have seen that for the last 1400 yrs Islam has brought nothing but a curse on them.
Posted by FFI Editor
on February 10 2012. Filed under Op-Ed.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
Funny how like-minded think alike. Somehow I knew your effort in the article was to connect the treacherous behaviour of muslims in the West today to that of the same treacherous behaviour of muslims of 1400 years ago in Madina.
You can also observe another parallel. The muslims in Madina were trying to convert jews and christians to ultimately to war with the pagan Meccans ridding their religion, culture and way of life and in the end replacing it with islam. Muslims of today are still doing that today except todays version of Madina is the West and Israel is the new Mecca.
Interestingly Jews and Christians helped out Muhammad only to be repaid with killing, forced conversion, slavery and banishment.
Just like what would happen in the future to the West.
It is already starting to happen in Europe!
He declared their mode of life foolish, insulted their forefathers, reviled their religion, divided the community and cursed their gods (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 183). Not only was this an insult to the people and traditions, it threatened the local economy, which depended on the annual pilgrimage.
DANIEL 11
37Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all. 38But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things. 39Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory: and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for gain.
Not only should you write jews and Hindus PBUH but to complete the statemnt you must write pus,piss,puke and putrid pork be upon allah and moslems and always be on the child rapist, thug rasool mohammad
(HQ 22:40)" those who were unjustly expelled from their homes80 for no other reason than their saying: "Allah is Our Lord."81 If Allah were not to repel some through others, monasteries and churches and synagogues82 and mosques wherein the name of Allah is much mentioned, would certainly have been pulled down.83 Allah will most certainly help those who will help Him. Verily Allah is Immensely Strong, Overwhelmingly Mighty. "
80. The mention of their expulsion from their homes in verse 40 is a clear proof that this portion of Surah Al-Hajj was revealed at Al-Madinah.
81. In order to have an idea of the severe persecution of the Muslims, a few instances of this are cited.
(1) Suhaib Rumi was deprived of everything, when he was about to migrate to Al-Madinah. When he reached there, he had nothing with him except the clothes he was wearing. Though he had earned all that through his own labors, he was deprived of everything by the disbelievers of Makkah.
(2) When Abu Salmah was about to leave Makkah with his wife and a suckling child, his in laws forcibly separated his wife from him, and then the people of his own family took away the child from them. Thus the poor woman had to pass one whole year in sorrow and grief. After a year, she secured the child somehow and journeyed from Makkah to Al-Madinah with it all alone on a dangerous route.
(3) Ayyash bin Rabiah was a half brother of Abu Jahl. When he migrated to Al-Madinah, he was followed by Abu Jahl and another brother of his, and they told him the lie: Your mother has taken the oath that she will not move from the sun to the shade nor comb her hair until she should see you (Ayyash). You should therefore go back with us to Makkah, show her your face and then come back. He was taken in by this trick. When they were journeying back the two brothers made him a prisoner, took him to Makkah with his hands and feet tied, and proclaimed: O people of Makkah, this is how these lads should be treated and set right. He remained in that state for a long time and was at last rescued by a brave Muslim.
82. Saumah (pl. Swami), Biya and Salawat in the original text are the places of worship of the monks who have left the world, the Christians and the Jews respectively. Salawat was Salauta in Aramaic, which might be the origin of the English words salute and salutation.
83. In this sentence, a divine principle has been stated:
Allah does not let a group of people or a community have authority forever. Every now and then He repels one group by means of another.
If this had not been the case, the permanent dominator would have created chaos not only in the political and economic spheres, but would have encroached upon the places of worship as well. This principle has also been stated in Ayat 251 of Surah Al-Baqarah.
#2
When they refused, he declared on them Quran 2:29 KILL those who do not believe in………….
i don't know whether the author had drunken or had some hard mental or psychic disease or sight problem.
advice to FFI
plz check the verses before posting…………………………..or just change the site name faith_freedom to foolish_freedom
the actual verses like this…………………….
(HQ 2:29) It is He Who created for you all that is on earth and then turned above and fashioned it into seven heavens. He knows all things.
here allha says about the creation of earth and sky not for killing jews……………………………..
ALL SAID AND DONE – REVELATIONS ARE NOT FROM ALLAH – BUT JUSTIFICATIONS BY MUHAMMAD TO WHAT did HAPPEN.
Like Aisha said to Muhammad to his face: "Your lord seems to come to your aid when you are in s*it"
that's a lot of righteous bellyaching from someone whose religion has persecuted more people and created more destitution and misery than any other force on Earth. Sorry if I don't weep for you. You will weep enough for yourself, but not for anyone else.
How about the guy they're killing in sod I for a tweet? Please write us a three foot speech explaining why you are for it.
Shabeer is right: the correct quote is Koran 9:29: "Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book [Jews, Christians], until they pay the tax [Jizya] in acknowledgement of [Islamic] superiority and they are in a state of complete abasement."
Of course, there is a certain irony in Shabeer noting a mis-quote …
PROPHET MUHAMMED(PBUH):
MOST INFLUENTIAL PERSON FROM HISTORY:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explor…
MOST IDEAL MANNERS FROM MANKIND:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explor…
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explor…
Your "prophet" mohammad (pig $hit be upon him) was a vile, disgusting, evil, raping, murdering, looting, genocidal pedophile.
I think you keep posting all of the musloid propaganda because you are trying to convince yourself! History has now shown us what a perverted piece of excrement he really was, and we are telling the world.
Yes you are right shabeer!!!!.
Muhammad (PBUH) is the most influential person from history , he has challenged many( especially sex maniac). Still his spirit is working around the world mainly in porn industry.
shablear, you forgot
MOST PEOPLE WITH THEIR HEADS CUT OFF
and
MOST SEX SLAVES RAPED AND SOLD
and
MOST LIMBS CHOPPED OFF
and
MOST CIVILIZATIONS DECIMATED
and
MOST MISERY BROUGHT TO THE HUMAN RACE
and
BIGGEST THREAT TO DOMINATE AND SPREAD BARBARIC SAVAGERY TO COUNTRIES EVERYWHERE
MOST LUNATICS
MOSt CHILD RAPE IN BOTH MALE AND FEMALE CATEGORIES
FEWEST INTACT CLITS
MOST KILLING OF THOSE WHO DIFFER
LEAST DISSENT
LOWEST GDP
MOST SELF-GLORIFICATION
Once again shablear I've read your apologetics and find them to be simply ludicrous. Mohammad was a cut throat sex slaver. He was not your fantasy Perfect Man. Allah did NOT create his soul before all the worlds. He was NOT the mercy of God in the Earth. Your god has no mercy. He makes people drink puss and sweat, shablear. Do you even read your own posts? Shmukhamad was NOT the person in those documents. Sorry. He was a pig and a perverter of religion.
@ shabeer,
The verse that the Author meant regarding the fighting of the Jews and Christians is 9:29 (Al-Tawbah) not 2:29 which in Muslim Khan's translation says:
"Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
This was simply a mistake on the Author's part, so do not worry, you do not need to search much in order to find violence in that book.
What the Author forgot to mention, is that Muhammad forced his followers to "leave their families" (8:72) and gathered them in Yathrib. He said: “And those who believed but did not leave their homes, ye have no duty to protect them till they leave their homes”. He warned those who did not follow him, leaving behind their families, will be cursed by Allah and “their habitation will be hell”(4:97). Muhammad went as far as to order his followers to murder those Muslims who defected his barricade.(4:89)
Clearly, if Muslims were really pushed out from Mecca by the Pagans, there was no need for those threats. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to see that it was Muhammad who forced them to leave, NOT the Meccans. All it takes is a bit of reasoning and straight thinking; something Muslims never attempt to do.
9:29 Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, [even if they are] of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
Some people have falsely concluded from verse 9:29, that Muslims are commanded to attack all non-Muslims until they pay money. In fact, such an interpretation is completely false and contradicts authentic Islamic teachings. Commenting on this verse, Shaykh Jalal Abualrub writes:
These Ayat (Quranic verses) stress the necessity of fighting against the People of the Scripture, but under what conditions? We previously established the fact that the Islamic State is not permitted to attack non-Muslims who are not hostile to Islam, who do not oppress Muslims, or try to convert Muslims by force from their religion, or expel them from their lands, or wage war against them, or prepare for attacks against them. If any of these offenses occurs, however, Muslims are permitted to defend themselves and protect their religion. Muslims are not permitted to attack non-Muslims who signed peace pacts with them, or non-Muslims who live under the protection of the Islamic State. (Abualrub, Holy Wars, Crusades, Jihad)
Likewise, the following fatwa points out that Muslims cannot attack a peaceful non-Muslim country:
Question: Is it an obligation of an Islamic state to attack the neighboring non-Muslim states and collect ‘jizya’ from them? Do we see this in the example of the rightly guided Caliphs who fought against the Roman and Persian Empires without any aggression initiating from them?
Answered by Sheikh Hânî al-Jubayr, judge at the Jeddah Supreme Court
If the non-Muslim country did not attack the Muslim one nor mobilize itself to prevent the practice and spread of Islam, nor transgress against mosques, nor work to oppress the Muslim people in their right to profess their faith and decry unbelief, then it is not for the Muslim country to attack that country. Jihâd of a military nature was only permitted to help Muslims defend their religion and remove oppression from the people.
The Persians and Romans did in fact aggress against Islam and attack the Muslims first.
The Chosroe of Persia had gone so far as to order his commander in Yemen specifically to kill the Prophet (peace be upon him). The Romans mobilized their forces to fight the Prophet (peace be upon him), and the Muslims confronted them in the Battles of Mu’tah and Tabûk during the Prophet’s lifetime.
May Allah guide us all. And May peace and blessing be upon our Prophet Muhammad. (SOURCE, emphasis added)
The above fatwa refers to the historical context in which the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) fought against other nations. The Prophet Muhammad did not initiate agression against anyone, rather he and his followers were under attack from all who sought to crush the new Islamic state. The first hostilities between the Muslims and the Roman empire began when the Prophet Muhammad’s messenger to the Ghassan tribe (a governate of the Roman empire), Al-Harith bin Umayr Al-Azdi, was tied up and beheaded (Al-Mubarakpuri, Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum, p. 383). The killing of a diplomat was an open act of war, and the Prophet Muhammad sent an armed force to confront the tribe, but the Roman empire brought in reinforcements and the resulting conflict, known as the Battle of Mut’ah, was a defeat for the Muslims. Only after this did subsequent battles between the Muslims and the Roman Empire occur, and the Muslims emerged victorious. Likewise, as mentioned in the above fatwa, hostiltiies between the Muslims and the Persians only began after the Persian emperor Chosroe ordered his governor in Yemen Badham, to kill the Prophet Muhammad pbuh, although his efforts were thwarted when the latter accepted Islam. Other non-muslim groups, such as those in Madinah, also initiated hostilities against the Muslims despite peace treaties as Shaykh Sayyid Sabiq writes:
As for fighting the Jews (People of the Scripture), they had conducted a peace pact with the Messenger after he migrated to Madinah. Soon afterwards, they betrayed the peace pact and joined forces with the pagans and the hypocrites against Muslims. They also fought against Muslims during the Battle of A`hzab , then Allah revealed…[and he cites verse 9:29] (Sayyid Sabiq, Fiqhu as-Sunnah, Vol. 3, p. 80)
In light of the historical context of this verse, it becomes very clear that the verse was revealed in connection with agression initiated against Muslims. As Dr. Jamal Badawi very accurately concludes with regard to verse 9:29 and similar verses:
Your "prophet" mohammad (pig $hit be upon him) was a vile, disgusting, evil, raping, murdering, looting, genocidal pedophile.
I think you keep posting all of the musloid propaganda because you are trying to convince yourself! History has now shown us what a perverted piece of excrement he really was, and we are telling the world.
The battle of Tabuk.
Even Muslim commentators state that the "battle of Tabouk" was initiated by Mohammed in 630. Therefore Mohammed and the Muslims were the aggressors (your first error).
Second: there are absolutely NO Byzantine records of the "battle" and it is known that the two armies never actually met, so it wasn't a "battle" at all (your second error).
These real-world facts (rather than mythological Islamic 'history') support the fact that the Muslims were the aggressors and that the Byzantines didn't even know of the Muslim threat.
To be fair Heraclius was preparing to defend Christian tribes threatened by Muslims, as he had come to the aid of other Arab allies of his previously …
Tabuk follows on from the battle of Mut'ah which was a Byzantine victory over the Muslims (or rather the victory of a Byzantine governor).
This battle was called as the result of the (probably mythical) murder of Islamic envoys (according to Islamic sources) or Mohammed's desire to subjugate the tribes in the area (according to non-Muslim sources).
In the battle itself, all the Muslim leaders were slain and the Muslims forced to retreat. By clever skirmishing various other "guerilla" tactics Khalid ibn-al Walid, enabled the Muslims to break off and get clear.
It must be noted that the Byzantines' did not attempt to pursue – they had no intention of counter-attacking since they were acting purely in self-defence.
Muslims v. Persians.
This kicked off in 633, under Abu-Bakr, when Khalid ibn-al Walid attacked then-Persian Iraq. When he switched to the Byzantine front, Persian counter-attacks ousted the invader Muslims.
In 636 the Muslims had another go and took the Persian lands west of the Zagros Mountains.
Persian counter-attacks, largely unsuccessful, to irritated Umar that he ordered the full-scale invasion of Persia that lead to its tragic downfall.
As you will note, no conflict with the Persians occurred in Mohammed's lifetime. This calls into question your statement above that Chosroes had called on his Yemeni commander to "kill Mohammed".
All of these verses, without exception, if studied carefully, address aggression and oppression committed against Muslims at the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), whether by idolatrous Arabs, some of the Jewish tribes in Madinah, or by some Christians. (SOURCE)
Therefore, the command to fight in verse 9:29 relates to those non-muslims who commit agression and not those who are committed to live in peace. The verse is subject to certain conditions that were apparent when it was implemented in the time of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh, as Shaykh Sayyid Sabiq writes:
What we have stated makes it clear that Islam did not allow the initiating of hostilities, except to: 1. repel aggression; 2. protect Islamic propagation; 3. deter Fitnah and oppression and ensure freedom of religion. In such cases, fighting becomes a necessity of the religion and one of its sacred ordainments. It is then called, ‘Jihad’. (Sayyid Sabiq, Fiqhu as-Sunnah, Vol. 3, p. 81)
The verse then proceeds to mention some issues relating to the Islamic state, and governing non-muslim citizens of the Islamic state. Dr. Maher Hathout comments on the regulations in verse 9:29:
Freedom of religion is an essential aspect in an Islamic state. One of the five pillars of Islam is zakat (almsgiving). The People of the Book (Christians and Jews) are not obliged to pay the Islamic zakat that is spent by the state for social necessities and state affairs as defined in the Quran (see 9:60). But they must pay other taxes to share in the state budget. If they refuse to pay this tax to the state and rebel against the state, then it is the obligation of the state to confront them until they pay it. This is what Caliph Abu Bakr did after the death of the Prophet, when some people refused to pay zakat. (Hathout, Jihad vs. Terrorism; US Multimedia Vera International, 2002, p.53)
The verse mentions Jizya, which is unfortunately misunderstood by some people. Like any nation, the Islamic government requires its citizens to pay taxes in return for its services. Since Muslims pay the Zakat, the non-muslim citizens are required to pay Jizya (for more information on Jizya, please refer to Jizya in Islam and Jizyah and non-muslim minorities). Dr. Monqiz As-Saqqar writes concerning the Jizya tax:
The sum of jizya was never large to the extent that the men were unable to pay. Rather, it was always available and reasonable. During the reign of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, jizya never exceeded one dinar annually and it never exceeded four dinars under the Umayyad rule. (SOURCE)
Shaykh Abu’l-Hasan Al-Mawardi (d. 1058CE) explicitly points out that the Jizya should be exacted in accordance with the means of the people, and the Imam should judge the conclude the amount to the satisfaction of the leaders of those being taxed:
The fuqaha (Jurists) differ as to the amount of the Jizya. Abu Hanifa considers that those subject to this tax are of three kinds: the rich from whom forty-eight dirhams are taken; those of average means from whom twenty four are taken, and the poor from whom twelve dirhams are taken: he thus stipulated the minimum and maximum amounts and prohibits any further judgement on behalf of those responsible for its collection. Malik, however, does not fix its minimum and maximum amount and considers that those responsible should make their own judgement as to the minimum and maximum. Ash-Shafi’i considers that the minimum is a dinar, and that it is not permitted to go below this while he does not stipulate the maximum, the latter being dependant on the ijtihad (judgement) of those responsible: the Imam, however, should try to harmonise between the different amounts, or to exact an amount in accordance with people’s means. If he has used his judgement to conclude the contract od jizyah to the satisfaction of the leaders of the people being taxed, then it becomes binding on all of them and their descendants, generation after generation, and a leader may not afterwards change this amunt, be it to decrease it or increase it. (Al-Mawardi, al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyyah, Ta-Ha Publishers Ltd. 1996, pp. 209-210)
Hence, the laws of Islam forbid Muslims from opressing non-muslims and command them to treat others with justice and compassion. In fact, the Prophet Muhammad pbuh himself forbade Muslims from harming non-muslim citizens of an islamic state or any non-muslim with whom there was an agreement of peace, as he said,
“The one who wrongs a covenanter or impairs his right or overworks him or forcibly takes something from him, I will be his prosecutor on the Day of Judgment. (Sunan Abi Dawud 170/3 no. 3052, Sunan an-Nasa’i 25/8 no. 2749, and verified by Al-Albani no. 2626).
In conclusion, verse 9:29 commands Muslims to fight against only those who initiate agression as illustated by its historical context. Muslims may only fight under strict conditions, and are commanded to live peacefully with peaceful non-muslim neighbors.
"All of these verses, without exception, if studied carefully, address aggression and oppression committed against Muslims at the time of the Prophet… Therefore, the command to fight in verse 9:29 relates to those non-muslims who commit agression and not those who are committed to live in peace."
Let's pick that apart a little:
For non-Muslims "aggression" is resisting Islamic invasion and "oppression" means not doing what Muslims tell them so. Those "committed to live in peace" are those who don't want to exist as Dhimmis.
Have I got that right, Shabeer?
muhammad and his sahaba were persecuted and suffered a lot to spread Islam;this is the most important thing muslim preachers always use to tell their ignorant people.I have seen so many times muslim women burst into tears after listening this.
I wish I could tell them truth.
(source wikipedia link https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_H._Hart) or you can search in google.
His first book was The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential
Persons in History , which has sold more than 500,000 copies
and been translated into 15 languages. What mainly
surprised readers in this book was the first person on Hart’s
list (Hart, 1992). Hart decided to choose Muhammad over
Jesus or Moses . Hart attributes this to the fact that
Muhammad was “supremely successful” in both the religious
and secular realms. He also accredits the authorship of the
Qur’an to Muhammad, making his role in the development
of Islam far more influential than Jesus’ collaboration in the
development of Christianity . He attributes the development
of Christianity to St. Paul , who played a pivotal role in the
dissemination of Christianity.
His third book, A View from the Year 3000 , published in
1999, is a history of the future which includes both
technological advances and political developments.
His fourth book, Understanding Human History, is a history
of humanity.
One of Hart’s articles disputed the authorship of the literary
works of Shakespeare, asserting that the famous plays and
poems were in fact written by Edward de Vere , the 17th Earl
of Oxford rather than the man from Stratford-on-Avon who
is credited with them.
Another paper suggested that a future of Yugoslavia -type
ethnic conflict in the United States could be avoided by a
voluntary partition of the country into three states: an
integrated mixed-race state, a white state, and a black state.
[1]
Racial conferences
In 1996, Hart addressed a conference organized by Jared
Taylor ‘s race-realist organization, American Renaissance , on
the need for a racial partition of the United States. [2] Hart
proposed a three-way division with one part for white
separatists, one part for black separatists, and one part left
as multiracial nation. He said that a peaceful, voluntary
partition is the only way to prevent violence. [3]
At the 2006 American Renaissance conference, Hart had a
public confrontation with David Duke , the former Grand
Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan and former Louisiana state
representative, over Duke’s ” antisemitic ” remarks. [4][5]
Hart organized a conference held in Baltimore in 2009 with
the title, Preserving Western Civilization . It was billed as
addressing the need to defend “America’s Judeo-Christian
heritage and European identity” from immigrants, Muslims ,
and African Americans . [6] Invited speakers included:
Lawrence Auster , Peter Brimelow , Steven Farron, Julia Gorin,
Lino A. Graglia , Henry C. Harpending , Roger D. McGrath, Pat
Richardson , J. Philippe Rushton , Srdja Trifković, and Brenda
Walker. [7]