When did Muhammad say "I will bring you slaughter"?

[sum]

Before Muhammad left Mecca to go to Medina he threatened the Meccans with slaughter. At what time did this occur with reference to the Meccans apparently threatening violence towards Muhammad? Did it come before he was threatened or after? Can anyone advise?

sum

[skynightblaze]

Ibn Humayd- Salamah- Muhammad b. Ishaq- Yahya b. ‘Urwah b. al-Zubayr- his father ‘Urwah-‘Abdallah b. ‘Amr b. al-‘As: I said to him, "What was the worst attack you saw by Quraysh upon the Messenger of God when they openly showed their enmity to him?" He replied, "I was with them when their nobles assembled one day in the Hijr and discussed the Messenger of God. They said, ‘We have never seen the like of what we have endured from this man. He has derided our traditional values, abused our forefathers, reviled our religion, caused division among us, and insulted our gods. We have endured a great deal from him,’ or words to that effect. While they were saying this, the Messenger of God suddenly appeared and walked up and kissed the Black Stone. Then he passed by them while performing the circumambulation, and as he did so they made some slanderous remarks about him. I could see from the Messenger of God’s face that he had heard them, but he went on. When he passed the second time they made similar remarks, and I could see from his face that he had heard them, but again he went on. Then he passed them the third time, and they made similar remarks; but this time he stopped and said, ‘Hear, men of Quraysh. By Him in whose hand Muhammad’s soul rests, I have brought you slaughter.’ They were gripped by what he said, and it was as though every man of them had a bird perched on his head; even those of them who had been urging the severest measures against him previously spoke in conciliatory ways to him, using the politest expressions they could think of, and said, ‘Depart in true guidance, Abu al-Qasim; by God you were never ignorant.’

The Prophet left, and the next day they gathered in the Hijr, and I (‘Abdallah b. ‘Amr b. al-‘As) was again present. They said to one another, ‘You were talking about the unpleasantness which you have endured and the things which Muhammad has done to you, but when he openly said something disagreeable you shrank from him.’ While they were saying this, the Messenger of God suddenly appeared, and they leapt upon him as one man and surrounded him, saying, ‘Is it you who says this and that?’ repeating what they had heard of his denunciation of their gods and their religion. The prophet said, ‘Yes, I am the one who says that.’"

"Then I saw one of them grabbing his cloak, but Abu Bakr stood in front of him weeping and saying, ‘Woe upon you all! Would you kill a man because he says, My Lord is God?’ Then they left him, and that is the worst thing I ever saw Quraysh do to him."

Al-Tabari, pp. 142-143
Ibn Humayd- Salamah- Muhammad b. Ishaq- Yazid b. Ziyad- Muhammad b. Ka‘b al-Qurazi: They gathered against him, and among them was Abu Jahl b. Hisham, who said, while they were waiting at his door, "Muhammad claims that if you follow him in his religion, you shall be the kings of the Arabs and the non-Arabs, that after your death you shall be brought back to life and your lot shall then be gardens like the gardens of Jordan. He also claims that if you do not do this, you shall meet with slaughter after him, and that after death you shall be brought back to life, and your lot shall then be a fire, in which you shall burn."…

The above quotes might answer your question. Muhammad spoke of slaughter after Meccans mocked him. He was just mocked but not threatened and he issued a threat to slaughter Meccans. Also the very fact that Muhammad could perform circumambulation and kiss the black stone means that he had no threat from meccans. The worst they did was when one of the man amongst pagans grabbed muhammad by his cloak a day after muhammad issued a threat to slaughter them. When Abu Bakhr intervened, he let go off Muhammad.

[Fernando]

An article I've been reading recently claimed that the division of suras into Meccan and Medinan was spurious, since there are "Meccan" verses that are violent. It was a bit short on other evidence though.
Mind you, other things I've been reading suggest the Koran had little to do with Mecca or Medina anyway.

[skynightblaze]

An article I've been reading recently claimed that the division of suras into Meccan and Medinan was spurious, since there are "Meccan" verses that are violent. It was a bit short on other evidence though.
Mind you, other things I've been reading suggest the Koran had little to do with Mecca or Medina anyway.

Its been really long since I discussed any of these topics. I dont think some meccan verses being violent would mean that division of surahs into meccan or medinan was spurious. Why can't it be a human error? After all quran was compiled shabbily by men so its quite possible that someone misplaced surahs. Anyway, let's not divert from the point of this thread. Can you start a new thread where we can examine the evidence quran having nothing to do with Mecca or Medina?

[sum]

Many thanks skynightblaze

I looked up "threats to Muhammad" and have presented the following -

https://www.islamreligion.com/articles/ ... hy-part-5/

Plot to Murder the Prophet

In small groups, the Muslims slipped out of Mecca and took the road to Yathrib. The Hijrah (‘emigration’) had begun.
For Quraish the limits of what was bearable had been passed. Enemies within the city were bad enough, but now these enemies were setting up a rival centre to the north. The death of Abu Talib had removed Muhammad’s chief protector. Restrained hitherto by principles inherited from their bedouin forefathers and by the fear of causing a troublesome blood feud, the leaders finally decided that Muhammad must die. Abu Jahl proposed a simple plan. Young men should be chosen from different clans, each one to strike a mortal blow, so that Muhammad’s blood would be upon all of them. Hashim could not seek retribution from all the other clans.

No references were given for the above claim but it would appear to be after Muhammad threatened slaughter. Tabari must not have been aware of this or that it was a fabrication later and after Tabari.

If Muhammad did indeed threaten slaughter then it was done when he was militarily weak and so he must have had a long term plan in mind. It would appear that he had already decided to conquer Mecca - not what one would expect from a prophet of a merciful and compassionate god. I am not aware that his god reprimanded him for this threat, or anything else for that matter.

sum

[Fernando]

Its been really long since I discussed any of these topics. I dont think some meccan verses being violent would mean that division of surahs into meccan or medinan was spurious. Why can't it be a human error? After all quran was compiled shabbily by men so its quite possible that someone misplaced surahs. Anyway, let's not divert from the point of this thread. Can you start a new thread where we can examine the evidence quran having nothing to do with Mecca or Medina?

Sorry SNB, I wasn't trying to derail the thread: just pointing out that the "historical" accounts may not be quite so historical after-all. As for a new thread, I'd be delighted to read one but far from expert enough to contribute much to it. I think, though, it's central to a study of Islam, just as evolution is central to a study of biology. It needn't be invoked all the time but it's usually relevant if you start digging.

[skynightblaze]

Sorry SNB, I wasn't trying to derail the thread: just pointing out that the "historical" accounts may not be quite so historical after-all. As for a new thread, I'd be delighted to read one but far from expert enough to contribute much to it. I think, though, it's central to a study of Islam, just as evolution is central to a study of biology. It needn't be invoked all the time but it's usually relevant if you start digging.

I think the statement - "historical accounts may not be historical at all" is open to debate . Btw I didn't mean to point you personally for diverting the thread. My bad if it appeared that way.My concern was -If we discuss on this more , both of us (not just you) will divert from the topic of the thread. I am of the opinion that islamic scriptures are not 100% fake. The truth is somewhere in between. I have few points against Mecca/Medina argument.

As far as expert is being concerned, I guess neither am I an expert on this but it does no harm to have a casual friendly discussion. As a layman we can think and raise a lot of questions. You can put the links from where you got the information. If you are ok with this just go ahead and create a thread. I will contribute there.

[skynightblaze]

Many thanks skynightblaze

I looked up "threats to Muhammad" and have presented the following -

https://www.islamreligion.com/articles/ ... hy-part-5/

Plot to Murder the Prophet

In small groups, the Muslims slipped out of Mecca and took the road to Yathrib. The Hijrah (‘emigration’) had begun.
For Quraish the limits of what was bearable had been passed. Enemies within the city were bad enough, but now these enemies were setting up a rival centre to the north. The death of Abu Talib had removed Muhammad’s chief protector. Restrained hitherto by principles inherited from their bedouin forefathers and by the fear of causing a troublesome blood feud, the leaders finally decided that Muhammad must die. Abu Jahl proposed a simple plan. Young men should be chosen from different clans, each one to strike a mortal blow, so that Muhammad’s blood would be upon all of them. Hashim could not seek retribution from all the other clans.

No references were given for the above claim but it would appear to be after Muhammad threatened slaughter. Tabari must not have been aware of this or that it was a fabrication later and after Tabari.

If Muhammad did indeed threaten slaughter then it was done when he was militarily weak and so he must have had a long term plan in mind. It would appear that he had already decided to conquer Mecca - not what one would expect from a prophet of a merciful and compassionate god. I am not aware that his god reprimanded him for this threat, or anything else for that matter.

sum

Hi Sum,
I agree no references have been given by the site that presented this but there are some bigger problems for apologists .

1) Even what they quoted says that limits of what was bearable to quraysh was crossed. This means Quraysh had shown enough patience towards muhammad and resorted to violence as a last resort.

2) The quote also says that quraysh decided muhammad must die out of fear that he would cause blood feud. One might argue that irrational fear cannot be used as an excuse to kill muhammad by his enemies. However, Muhammad in the end killed all those who refused to accept islam when he conquered Mecca so their fear was not unfounded or irrational.

3) Muhammad migrated to medina in 622 Ad. Islam started in 610 Ad. This means he could preach in Mecca for 12 long years (622 -610). 12 years was a sufficient long time for Meccans to kill him if they wanted to. The very fact that Muhammad could stay in Mecca for 12 years shows that they were a tolerant bunch.

4) In ideal scenario, even if islamic scriptures told us meccans were aggressor there is no good reason to believe it unless we heard the Meccan version of the same events. The amazing or surprising thing here is that even the one sided muslim accounts clearly mention that Meccans resorted to violence as a last resort and they also clearly mention that Muhammad was the one who first started antagonizing pagans.

[Fernando]

OK. I was just thinking on the hoof - some of the stuff was from books, not something I can link to. I'll scratch my head and see if I can come up with enough to get a new thread going.
In the meantime, it rather depends on whether there was a historical Mohammed fitting fairly well with Islamic tradition and whether the Koran is derived from such a man or put together from older stuff and or stuff made-up later. I won't speculate at this stage.
I suppose, though, that I ought to scan the forum and make sure I don't go over old ground.
Cheers!
...oh, I've just seen sum's latest - wondering why there's no account of the Meccan's side of thinks. So maybe a new thread ought to consider, also, whether there were any historical Meccans!

[panis]

Hi!
Is it possible to download Tabari (in english) on the web?

[skynightblaze]

Hi!
Is it possible to download Tabari (in english) on the web?

Check this link. It contains translation of 40 volumes of Tabari.
https://archive.org/details/TabariEnglish

[FaFrIn]

Hi!
Is it possible to download Tabari (in english) on the web?

Check this link. It contains translation of 40 volumes of Tabari.
https://archive.org/details/TabariEnglish

Thank you