Page 3 of 3

Re: Comments on Khalil Fariel vs Truthsayer

PostPosted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 4:26 pm
by skynightblaze
TruthSayer wrote:
Skynightblaze wrote:How could Meccans systematically persecute muslims and Muhhamad if he was protected by his uncle Abu Talib.?


I have alredy admitted there was no systematic persecution of Muhammad as such, whatever was done against him was out of anger, which is clear from the sources. Why should the other Muslims be protectod by Abu Talib?


Alright then there is no confusion that Muhhamad wasn’t persecuted systematically .

TruthSayer wrote:
Skynightblaze wrote:Abu Talib died in 619 Ad and Muhhamad migrated to Medina in 622 if I am not wrong and so we have 3 years in between migration to medina and Abu Talibs death. How come pagans didn’t kill him for 3 years if they wanted desperately to kill him?


Seems like I had a few dates wrong. I always thought the year of sorrow was the same year as the migration. Looks like I was wrong, but still, the persecution of muslims got increasingly bad with every year and after Muhammad got a chance to make a deal with the Medinittes he's of course going to do it.


Now your argument is that Muhhamad killed the pagans because they tortured his slaves .
Infact whatever you said above proves that Muhhamad was a selfish leader. If he really cared about his followers then Muhhamad would have stopped abusing pagan Gods and accepted the deal the pagans had earlier offered. Pagans would therefore not torture muslims if the muslims had kept their faith for themselves . So you are supposed to tell me why Muhhamad didn’t accept the deal with pagans and free his followers from undergoing persecution if he was so considerate and cared about his followers.Accepting the deal was certainly a better solution unless Muhhamads aim was subjugating every single pagan to islam.
Secondly your sources don’t back this claim of yours. Your sources tell us Muhhamad killed the pagans for their disbelief and not for their persecution.Something is fishy.

TruthSayer wrote:
Skynightblaze wrote:Why don’t we have a way of knowing that Christians and jews were persecuted by the pagans? There is no proof of them being persecuted.Infact they cannot be persecuted as your own sources tell that that pagans had no problem with Muhhamad or anyone if they kept their religion to themselves without disturbing the pagans.

Note that Meccans weren’t any Uswa Hasanas. Beating and torturing muslims was bound to follow because your so called prophet even after being warned multiple times still resorted to abuse. Meccans were tolerant people unlike Muhhamad . This is a fact because pre islamic Arabic could leave peacefully inspite of mixed cultures and religions.Meccans had no problem if Muhhamad practiced his religion as long as he didnt mess with their folk and converted them by his sweet talks.(A Meccan belief as seen from one of the quotes)


You really cant compare the situation of muslims to that of Christians and Jews. If you could find Christians proseletyzing their faith, gaining large numbers of converts from pagans and denouncing polytheism and idol worship you may have a point.


At the max we can say that pagans were like hell when someone disturbed their mental peace. The fact still remains that pagans were a peaceful bunch provided you didn’t mess with them. Infact they warned muhhamad plenty of times before attacking or troubling him or his followers.This shows they were tolerant upto certain extent.You cant blame the pagans for everything. Muhhamad too has to share the blame but you deny this .

TruthSayer wrote:
Skynightblaze wrote:You keep repeating the fact that pagans started the war with Muhhamad and that’s why they were killed but then why do we find sources from your own history that tell us Muhhamad killed them because they denied Allah and his messenger.You ignored my quotes from Ibn Kathir and the verse 8:39 that I brought.Ibn Kathir clearly mentions that Muhhamad killed them because they DEFIED ALLAH AND HIS MESSENGER. Note that it doesn’t say Muhhamad killed them because they attacked him or in self defense.Please explain this.


First of all, the other pagans who did wage war against Muhammad were not killed. So your claim that these people were killed for not becoming muslims is bogus. Second, "Defied" can mean being agressive.


So you have 2 claims:
1) Muhhamad did not kill all the pagans deliberately
2) Defy here means being aggressive.

All right let me debunk both of them.

Debunking Claim 1:
Here is a question putting an end to your bogus contention which I should have asked in the first place.You said that muhhamad deliberately didn’t kill the other pagans .A point to be noted is that those pagans had already entered into war with Muhhamad. If other pagans had already entered into the battle and were fighting muhhamad so how could Muhhamad still leave them ? I mean arent Muhhamad and Allah violating quran here which asks you to fight against those who fight you too?
You are caught in a trap. IF you say that killing all the pagans who fought in that war was not the aim of Allah and Mohhamad then they both violate quran which asks you to not to resort to peace while the enemy is fighting you OR the other option for you is to accept that Muhhamad did fight them but couldn’t kill all of them which would as well prove that there were no angels of GOD involved in the fight since angels of GOD should destroy all the army .Its the least that we can expect from GOD.It means Muhhamad lied here and therefore either ways your entire religion crumbles into pieces.


Debunking Claim 2:
Pagans were killed because they didn’t accept islam and the reason muhhamad couldn’t kill all of them was because his army wasn’t strong enough and not because he didn’t want to kill other pagans.In other battles muhhamad didn’t do the same and that’s why I named Banu Quraiza to start with.Also You didn’t read properly what Ibn Kathir said:
Lets have a recap
Ibn Kathir wrote:This is because they defied and disobeyed Allah and His Messenger.)joining the camp that defied Allah and His Messenger not including themselves in the camp of Allah's Law and faith in Him. Allah said,
(And whoever defies and disobeys Allah and His Messenger, then verily, Allah is severe in punishment.) for He will crush whoever defies and disobeys Him. Nothing ever


Here Ibn Kathir has defined what “Defied” means in this context by stating the actions of pagans . What the pagans did is clear. They didn’t join Allahs camp and didn’t have faith in him. This doesn’t seem to be an aggressive move so you have no point.
How is not joining Allahs camp and not having faith in Allah an aggressive act? I don’t believe in Allah nor do I want to be a part of Allahs camp. Does that make me aggressive against muslims? If yes then we have to change the definition of the word aggressive.
Lets see another hadith to understand the stance of Muhhamad against pagans.

Sahih Muslim (19:4294) –
"When you meet your enemies who are polytheists [Christians...], invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them ... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them"

If polytheists deny Allah they should pay Jizya but if they refuse to pay Jizya too then muslims are supposed to fight them. From the above its clear what stance of Muhhamad was . Pay attention here again ! Muhhamad wanted to get rid of pagans who didn’t believe in Allah.So we have another source confirming Ibn Kathirs account and quran as well. I guess this should be sufficient to prove that Muhhamad wanted to get rid of pagans because they didn’t believe in him. Your own one sided sources hint this .



TruthSayer wrote:. All Muhammad did was mock his enemies, people who tortured and murdered his followers and waged war against them

Your sources aren’t consistent with this idea.I have just showed you how.They do portray pagans as bad but still they say that Muhhamad didn’t kill them for that but for disbelief in Allah and in him.

Skynightblaze wrote:Also your signature says that Muhhamad was the best of creations. Please enlighten me how does a man who robs someone just because of his enmity be the best of creations? At the max Muhhamad gets the right of self defense and not robbing .Please answer this question too.


I will answer you point by point so I have split your posts..
TruthSayer wrote:
Only one caravan was robbed, and it was not approved of by Muhammad. In fact, Muhammad rebuked the people who were responsible for raiding it, even though the meccans had stolen property from the muslims and tortured them for years, and kept muslim hostages.


Where is the proof of this?
Lets see again the quote from Ibn Ishaq:
Ibn Ishaq page 428 wrote:Then the apostle heard that Abu Sufyan was coming from Syria with a large caravan of Qurish, containing their money and merchandise,
accompanied by some thirty or forty men… When the Apostle heard about Abu Sufyan coming from Syria, he summoned the Muslims and said, “This is the Quraish caravan containing their property. Go out to attack it, perhaps Allah will give it as a prey.”

Muhhamad encouraged them to rob .From where did you get the idea that he rebuked them for robbing? More ever lets see a particular quote in isolation
“This is the Quraish caravan containing their property

Muhhamad said THEIR PROPERTY AND NOT OUR PROPERTY . Now you may argue here that Muhhamad took this property of pagans in return of something that the pagans stole from muslims previously as a compensation but in that case you need to prove it.

TruthSayer wrote:The two people who were taken captive here were traded with the muslim hostages the Quraysh had taken. Before that happended, muslim groups that were sent out by Muhammad passed several caravans without any confrontation.

You don’t have to rob everything that you see to be called as a thief.So what if Muhhamad didn’t rob them before ? You rob once you are a thief. Period. Btw this is not the first and the last time Muhhamad did this.

Truthsayer wrote:Battle of Badr was started by Muhammad trying to intercept some camels and other stuff a group of meccans had looted from the muslims in Medinah. I don't see any agression on Muhammad's side, other than some counter offensives. If you think that's wrong, well, then I'd call you extremely naive, but I suppose it's fine as long you uphold everyone else, not just Muhammad, to that. Even though it'd probably be impossible to win a war if you were to follow your ideology.

Where is the proof that meccans had looted muhhamad?

Btw do you want me to prove that Muhhamad was a professional hard core thief. ??? This would be side stepping from the topic at hand but if you want then there is plenty of evidence for that.


TruthSayer wrote:
Skynightblaze wrote:Pagans were bound to react . The only question is how much hostility should they have shown towards Muhhamad.I wouldn’t say pagans were 100 % right but neither was Muhhamad right here as you repeatedly try to show us. He had been warned plenty of times and yet he repeatedly kept hurting sentiments of people and swaying their people .If you think what pagans did was wrong please tell us what pagans should have done with Muhhamad and his men when they repeatedly abused their GODs even after being warned.


Do you consider torture, murder and forcing people into exile to be appropriate actions to deal with people offending your religion? I'm not saying the Muslims didnt do anything to antagonize the pagans, but they werent hurting them in any way and were in no position to do so.

I don’t support murder or physical injuries done by pagans. Just answer my question. What should have pagans done to Muhhamad when he didn’t pay attention to their repeated warnings.??

Btw I aint saying here pagans were 100 % correct(as you proved adequately) for what they did but neither were they wrong for all that they did. I am saying both were wrong to an extent. The claim that Muhhamad killed them because they retaliated against them harshly is no excuse . Its not that Muhhamad couldn’t control the situation. He had the option of accepting their deal and seek peace but he didn’t so Muhhamad is equally responsible for the fate of his followers.

.Also I am tending to believe that your sources have tried to conceal the truth and have tried to paint pagans in bad light than they were really . I aint making empty claims here. I have showed inconsistency in your sources. Quranic verse 8:39,ibn Kathir , One hadith from Bukhari(a new one below ) clearly indicate that Muhhamad attacked them because they disbelieved and not because they persecuted his followers.


TruthSayer wrote:
Skynightblaze wrote:My claim can be understood from the context. If what you say is true then how exactly were meccans going to get pleased if they followed Muhhamad and his Allah? Meccans were already happy following their religion and they disliked islam so how can someone who doesn’t like Islam feel happy after following it ? .Anyway I have already brought a quote from Ibn Kathir to clarify this issue .


Of course they wouldnt have been killed if they became muslims and joined Muhammad. That still doesn't mean they were killed for not doing so. If so, what about all the other pagans who were not killed even though Muhammad could have done so if he wanted? (and would have been entitled to according to the "father of wisdow".)

I have already proved that they were not killed not because Muhhamad didn’t want to kill them but because he couldn’t kill them being militarily weak.

TruthSayer wrote:
Spoiler! :
And as for forced conversion, let me bring in another of Ibn kathirs tafsir.
(There is no compulsion in religion), meaning, "Do not force anyone to become Muslim, for Islam is plain and clear, and its proofs and evidence are plain and clear. Therefore, there is no need to force anyone to embrace Islam. Rather, whoever Allah directs to Islam, opens his heart for it and enlightens his mind, will embrace Islam with certainty. Whoever Allah blinds his heart and seals his hearing and sight, then he will not benefit from being forced to embrace Islam.''

It was reported that the Ansar were the reason behind revealing this Ayah, although its indication is general in meaning. Ibn Jarir recorded that Ibn `Abbas said ﴿that before Islam﴾, "When (an Ansar) woman would not bear children who would live, she would vow that if she gives birth to a child who remains alive, she would raise him as a Jew. When Banu An-Nadir (the Jewish tribe) were evacuated ﴿from Al-Madinah﴾, some of the children of the Ansar were being raised among them, and the Ansar said, `We will not abandon our children.' Allah revealed,

(There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the right path has become distinct from the wrong path.)''

Abu Dawud and An-Nasa'i also recorded this Hadith. As for the Hadith that Imam Ahmad recorded, in which Anas said that the Messenger of Allah said to a man,

("Embrace Islam.'' The man said, "I dislike it.'' The Prophet said, "Even if you dislike it.'')

First, this is an authentic Hadith, with only three narrators between Imam Ahmad and the Prophet . However, it is not relevant to the subject under discussion, for the Prophet did not force that man to become Muslim. The Prophet merely invited this man to become Muslim, and he replied that he does not find himself eager to become Muslim. The Prophet said to the man that even though he dislikes embracing Islam, he should still embrace it, `for Allah will grant you sincerity and true intent.'
So according to Ibn Kathir, Muhammad never forced anyone to accept islam. So it seems quite opportunistic that you're using Ibn Kathir to show that he did.



"Embrace Islam.'' The man said, "I dislike it.'' The Prophet said, "Even if you dislike it.'')

Isnt this equal to forcing?


Also tell me one thing why should I pay heed to 2:256 (which wasn’t revealed in the context of battle of Badr) when we have what Muhhamad said in context of battle of Badr? What muhhamad/quran said in the context of battle of Badr is important and not what he said before.

Your only way to get out of this problem is to discredit Ibn kathir of stating contradictory reports but let me prove that he isn’t the one who is providing contradictory reports.

Ibn Kathir isn’t wrong in what he wrote but its quran that is wrong here. In 2:256 it says no compulsion while in 9:29 and 8:39(related to battle of Badr ) it talks of forcing people to accept islam .Ibn Kathir isn’t wrong here since he is merely explaining what quran said. Let me give you an example to make my point. If B copies from A and if A is wrong then naturally B becomes wrong too. Same is the case here. Ibn kathir merely narrated what quran said .

Also If there is discrepancy in your text quran then its not my fault but rather a proof that quran isn’t from any God.Its something that you should be concerned of and not me. I already know its not from any God.