Politics & Stuff

[DCS1984 28]

Thanks for your questions, but please bear in mind that I'm no expert on this, nor would I even call myself a student of knowledge in anyway. I've only turned towards this faith relatively recently despite being born a muslim, primarily because of my utter lack of knowledge of it beforehand. It's sad how little regard I've given to the actual understanding of the religion, a case very common there with many others too. Despite being born muslim in a muslims country. My belief is much greater living in the west than it was there, which is kinda funny.

Anyway, both the Surahs are historically revealed very closely, with 9 (at-tawbah) preceding 60 (Al-mumtahanah). The context of the first verse should be clear enough from the beginning verse of it's Surah. Which is,

9: 1 This is a declaration of] disassociation, from Allah and His Messenger, to those with whom you had made a treaty among the polytheists.

9:2 So travel freely, [O disbelievers], throughout the land [during] four months but know that you cannot cause failure to Allah and that Allah will disgrace the disbelievers.

Can't get it to quote, the above is from Sal.

Many thanks to you for your responses and your belief that you should be more than the title of just "Muslim" but someone who investigates their faith and it's contexts, finally for your well written response

Hopefully you will take the time to read my response to what you have written as I have you

However Surah 9 doesn't precedes Surah 60. It is Surah 9 that is the second last one to be revealed or the last. Look at Islamic history, Surah 60 is after the treaty of Hudaybiyah however Surah 9 is revealed after the capture of Mecca and incursions into Ghassanid/Byzantine territory so at least two years has passed between the Surahs. So you may wish to read more about the order in which the Qu'ran is or even wonder why is it longest to shortest? We can read not just recite. Read your favorite novel longest to shortest and see what happens? Perhaps you could investigate your faith by reading a Qu'ran in order and a copy of Ibn Ishaq/Hisham Sirat Rasulallah and wonder at the connections to an eternal book?

Interestingly the polytheists, you have inferred from the text are the Quraysh which is correct but have you not considered what is going on in those four months? They are given a set time of four months to leave Mecca/convert or well die.

"So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful." 9-5

Think who would take the property and possessions of those that left in exile or death? Is this the act of God's eternal tablet or is it the action of men?

Also the Polytheists were now barred from the Kabba and making their pilgrimages to Mecca, once the "freedom from obligations" was over i.e. the specified treaty

Sahil Bukari 1-365

On the Day of Nahr (10th of Dhul-Hijja, in the year prior to the last Hajj of the Prophet when Abu Bakr was the leader of the pilgrims in that Hajj) Abu Bakr sent me along with other announcers to Mina to make a public announcement: "No pagan is allowed to perform Hajj after this year and no naked person is allowed to perform the Tawaf around the Ka'ba. Then Allah's Apostle sent 'All to read out the Surat Bara'a (At-Tauba) to the people; so he made the announcement along with us on the day of Nahr in Mina: "No pagan is allowed to perform Hajj after this year and no naked person is allowed to perform the Tawaf around the Ka'ba."

Does this sound like no compulsion to the polytheists of Arabia or coercion in their religion?

Who broke the treaty? Was it the Quraish or is it Muhammad? The terms of the treaty said that any Muslim that had fled to Yuthrib (Medina) would be returned. Where they returned or was Surah 60:10 revealed in response by God or man? Is this the literal words of God that has always existed or is it Muhammad reacting to situation of weakness, remember the treaty of Hudaibiya was seen at the time as a disaster for the Muslims and Muhammad's own companions that went to Mecca.

Bukari 3.891

Umar bin Al-Khattab said, "I went to the Prophet and said, 'Aren't you truly the Apostle of Allah?' The Prophet said, 'Yes, indeed.' I said, 'Isn't our Cause just and the cause of the enemy unjust?' He said, 'Yes.' I said, 'Then why should we be humble in our religion?' He said, 'I am Allah's Apostle and I do not disobey Him, and He will make me victorious.' I said, 'Didn't you tell us that we would go to the Ka'ba and perform Tawaf around it?' He said, 'Yes, but did I tell you that we would visit the Ka'ba this year?' I said, 'No.' He said, 'So you will visit it and perform Tawaf around it?' " Umar further said, "I went to Abu Bakr and said, 'O Abu Bakr! Isn't he truly Allah's Prophet?' He replied, 'Yes.' I said, 'Then why should we be humble in our religion?' He said, 'Indeed, he is Allah's Apostle and he does not disobey his Lord, and He will make him victorious. Adhere to him as, by Allah, he is on the right.' I said, 'Was he not telling us that we would go to the Kaba and perform Tawaf around it?' He said, 'Yes, but did he tell you that you would go to the Ka'ba this year?' I said, 'No.' He said, "You will go to Ka'ba and perform Tawaf around it.

Remember 9:29 is about slaying the people of the book, the Ahl al-Kitāb (Jews and Christians) not the Polytheists around Arabia.

Regarding your second question. It actually is eternal guidance, because now I know that fighting against them is something that is not forbidden, like how it was during the first half of the mission of the prophethood. Not many people mention this, but the wars only started after we got ourselves a legit 'state'. For the first (around) 10 years of the prophethood, where the Muslims were perhaps treated in the worst way imaginable during our history, fighting back was completely forbidden, while denouncing your faith through tongue was allowed if it saved your life. The first instance of anything that might resemble a suicide attack was actually done by the other side, as far as I know. Hence, if some muslims points out this fact and says that we should never fight back no matter what they do, we point towards this verse and say 'Nope, this abrogates that". Thus, it is allowed, as long as certain conditions are met.

The Muslims were treated in the worst way imaginable in our history? Well that would be accepted if it was so far. Even Karen Armstrong, whose writings, I enjoy but are incredibly selective doesn't point to anything resembling "the worst way treated in their history" . I'd say one day as a Shia under IS is much worse. There was only one recorded death in Mecca of a Muslim between 610-622 of Umm Summayah who may have been speared by Abu Jahl but where is this found, not the Sirat, not the Qu'ran? What is your source for a suicide attack by the Quraish? It's not in the Sirat unless I missed it Think on it, why would the powerful people of Mecca need to do such a thing when they were numerous and powerful while the Muslim only numbered 100-200 people at most before the Hijra?

The Quriash were at a loss on what do with him, they couldn't kill him (which no doubt some of them would have wanted to, Umar did, however if you believe the Qu'ran is eternal, then they actually couldn't no matter what they did to him) due to his ties with Abu Talib (in my opinion, the real hero of the Meccan period of Islamic history, he must have had the patience of an saint when it came to both Muhammad and his tribes' opinion of him, unless you're Shi'a then it's a great shame where he is now ) so they tried to negotiate with him

They decided to send for Muhammad and to negotiate and argue with him... When he came and sat down with them, they explained that that they had sent for him in order that they could talk together. No Arab had ever treated his tribe as Muhammad had treated them, and they repeated the charges... If it was money he wanted, they would make him the richest of them all; if it was honor, he should be their prince; if it was sovereignty, they would make him king. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 188)

To Muhammad's credit, he rejects them and sticks to his faith but this later leads on to the revelation of the Satanic verses but that's outside of our discussion which is Muhammad & Allah's treatment of the Ahl al-Kitāb and the Mushrikūn

So far we have a disagreement

1. 60 1-12 and 9:29 - 30 don't go together and don't have commonality in historical context as they have 2 years between them 628 and 630/1
2. 9:29 is about the people of the book not the polytheists of 60 1-12
3. The Quraish didn't like Muhammad but weren't treating the Muslims the worst they've ever been treated in their 1400 year history. After the death of Abu Talib then things got worse but that was 620 not 610 when he started preaching. They worst they got was embargoed by the Quraish.

Now you'll notice I've put 9:30 there too as it is often missed when 9:29

The Jews say, "Ezra is the son of Allah "; and the Christians say, "The Messiah is the son of Allah ." That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded? 9:30

Believe me, go into a synagogue and tell the Jews that they believe Ezra is the son of God. Or tell them at one point they rose up Ezra to be the son of God. Read the Bible, you may have been told it has been corrupted and we could have a great debate about that but on Ezra really, the Jews changed that back after Muhammad? Remember, if this was a man saying these words i.e. Muhammad who may have heard some Jews in the area of Yuthrib exalting Ezra but this is God who knows everything speaking to Muhammad. Is this true? If this is incorrect, then does the Qu'ran fall? These are the questions I asked myself when I started to try and find what ever is out there (if you ever can).

You have a mind for knowledge/religion and I liked your ideas on virtue and faith. You say you are no expert but no one is but we can try to find out the truth no matter how where it leads us. Hopefully you read and investigate what I have written, I could be wrong

I look forward to hearing your opinions on this.

David

P.s

Sorry for the length too, just seen it lol!

[CHOULO19 24,332]

Left wing Israeli comic highlighting something that NO ONE seems to want talk about and that is the inhuman conditions in the concentration camps for the African asylum seekers in Isreal:

Two stories about cold

Right: A Muslim immigrant from Africa , who works at the Kosher Supermarket in Paris, France, saves 6 Jewish customers from a Jihaddist gunman, by hiding them in the shop fridge room.

* "Stay here , and you'll be safe"

Left: At the same time, a wave of unusual cold hits Israel. The temperature at Holot, a concentration camp for African asylum seekers, drops to Zero. The guards at the camp deny the refugees use of electric heaters.

* "Stay here, and, for all I care, die"

Is there a moral? Not sure about that. The cold can be many things

https://www.facebook.com/myshillustration/photos/pb.384230151590915.-2207520000.1420970999./1055904954423428/?type=3&theater

I'll post something about the "Muslim threat" in the west when I get a chance.

[Fulham Broadway 16,392]

Left wing Israeli comic highlighting something that NO ONE seems to want talk about and that is the inhuman conditions in the concentration camps for the African asylum seekers in Isreal:

https://www.facebook.com/myshillustration/photos/pb.384230151590915.-2207520000.1420970999./1055904954423428/?type=3&theater

Its interesting isnt it, the corporate media making a lot about the Muslim cop, yet largely ignoring the Malian muslim hero that saved the jews in the shop.

That act to me highlights how people have an inbuilt humanist instinct towards their fellow humans above any prescriptive narrative from a supernatural based scripture.

I'll post something about the "Muslim threat" in the west when I get a chance.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

Its interesting isnt it, the corporate media making a lot about the Muslim cop, yet largely ignoring the Malian muslim hero that saved the jews in the shop.

That act to me highlights how people have an inbuilt humanist instinct towards their fellow humans above any prescriptive narrative from a supernatural based scripture.

Because the cop was "doing his job" while the market worker did a truly heroic and as you said instinctive act. Muslims and Africans being instinctively able to do heroic acts does not fit the current "story".

[CHOULO19 24,332]

Only Bashar Al Asad and Kim Jong Un missing from the Paris March today, and maybe Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi himself. What a fucking joke!

A march for the freedom of speech and press and against terrorism led by some of the biggest dictators, war criminals, and creators of terrorism in the world. Seriously, the march included:

1) King Abdullah of Jordan, which last year sentenced a Palestinian journalist to 15 years in prison with hard labour

2) Prime Minister of Davutoglu of Turkey, which imprisons more journalists than any other country in the world

3) Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel, whose forces killed 17 journalists in Gaza last yr (second highest after Syria)

4) Foreign Minister Shoukry of Egypt, which as well as AJ staff has detained journalist Shawkan for around 500 days

5) Foreign Minister Lavrov of Russia, which last year jailed a journalist for "insulting a government servant"

6) Foreign Minister Lamamra of Algeria, which has detained journalist Abdessami Abdelhai for 15 months without charge

7) The Foreign Minister of the UAE, which in 2013 held a journo incommunicado for a month on suspicion of MB links

8) Prime Minister Jomaa of Tunisia, which recently jailed blogger Yassine Ayan for 3 years for "defaming the army

9) The PMs of Georgia and Bulgaria, both of whom have a record of attacking & beating journos

10) The Attorney General of the US, where police in Ferguson have recently detained and assaulted WashPost reporters

11) Prime Minister Samaras of Greece, where riot police beat & injured two journalists at a protest in June last year

12) Sec-Gen of NATO, who are yet to be held to account for deliberately bombing and killing 16 Serbian journos in '99

13) President Keita of Mali, where journalists are expelled for covering human rights abuses

14) The Foreign Minister of Bahrain, 2nd biggest jailer of journos in the world per capita (they also torture them)

15) Sheikh Mohamed Ben Hamad Ben Khalifa Al Thani of Qatar, which jailed a man for 15 ys for writing the Jasmine poem

16) Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas, who had several journalists jailed for insulting him in 2013

17) Prime Minister Cerar of Slovenia, which sentenced a blogger to six months in prison for "defamation" in 2013

18) Prime Minister Enda Kenny of Ireland, where "blasphemy" is considered a criminal offense

19) Prime Minister Kopacz of Poland, which raided a magazine to seize recordings embarrassing for the ruling party

20) PM Cameron of the UK, where authorities destroyed documents obtained by The Guardian and threatened prosecution

21) Saudi ambassador to France. The Saudis publicly flogged blogger Raif Badawi for "insulting Islam" on Friday

Source: https://twitter.com/DanielWickham93

[Weckerz 3,781]

Only Bashar Al Asad and Kim Jong Un missing from the Paris March today, and maybe Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi himself. What a fucking joke!

A march for the freedom of speech and press and against terrorism led by some of the biggest dictators, war criminals, and creators of terrorism in the world. Seriously, the march included:

1) King Abdullah of Jordan, which last year sentenced a Palestinian journalist to 15 years in prison with hard labour

2) Prime Minister of Davutoglu of Turkey, which imprisons more journalists than any other country in the world

3) Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel, whose forces killed 17 journalists in Gaza last yr (second highest after Syria)

4) Foreign Minister Shoukry of Egypt, which as well as AJ staff has detained journalist Shawkan for around 500 days

5) Foreign Minister Lavrov of Russia, which last year jailed a journalist for "insulting a government servant"

6) Foreign Minister Lamamra of Algeria, which has detained journalist Abdessami Abdelhai for 15 months without charge

7) The Foreign Minister of the UAE, which in 2013 held a journo incommunicado for a month on suspicion of MB links

8) Prime Minister Jomaa of Tunisia, which recently jailed blogger Yassine Ayan for 3 years for "defaming the army

9) The PMs of Georgia and Bulgaria, both of whom have a record of attacking & beating journos

10) The Attorney General of the US, where police in Ferguson have recently detained and assaulted WashPost reporters

11) Prime Minister Samaras of Greece, where riot police beat & injured two journalists at a protest in June last year

12) Sec-Gen of NATO, who are yet to be held to account for deliberately bombing and killing 16 Serbian journos in '99

13) President Keita of Mali, where journalists are expelled for covering human rights abuses

14) The Foreign Minister of Bahrain, 2nd biggest jailer of journos in the world per capita (they also torture them)

15) Sheikh Mohamed Ben Hamad Ben Khalifa Al Thani of Qatar, which jailed a man for 15 ys for writing the Jasmine poem

16) Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas, who had several journalists jailed for insulting him in 2013

17) Prime Minister Cerar of Slovenia, which sentenced a blogger to six months in prison for "defamation" in 2013

18) Prime Minister Enda Kenny of Ireland, where "blasphemy" is considered a criminal offense

19) Prime Minister Kopacz of Poland, which raided a magazine to seize recordings embarrassing for the ruling party

20) PM Cameron of the UK, where authorities destroyed documents obtained by The Guardian and threatened prosecution

21) Saudi ambassador to France. The Saudis publicly flogged blogger Raif Badawi for "insulting Islam" on Friday

Source: https://twitter.com/DanielWickham93

Them and 3.5 million other people

[CHOULO19 24,332]

Them and 3.5 million other people

Yeah, but the "famous people" leading march have hijacked it along with the rights of the 3.5 million and the rest of the world to take a genuine stand for free speech. Basically obliterated any chance for the march to actually any change and devoid it from any meaning. It turned into a march for state power and blind patriotism. You think the people in the front will you this to enhance freedom of speech? Most likely the opposite: It will be used to increase racism, spy on ALL citizens, increase restriction on people and media freedom, and justify foreign policies and military actions just like 9/11 did in the US.

Very smart tactic, actually. I remember a couple of years ago we had some marches here against the sectarian regime. More people were increasingly getting involved until some of the sectarian leaders joined the march! Completed destroyed the whole thing and no one showed up for the next one. That was a political lesson hard learned

[DCS1984 28]

1 - I wanted to be respectful of the length of my response, that's why I didn't mention the reason of revelation for surah 60. Right before the conquest of Makkah, there was a man who was worried about his family back home. He was worried that the Quraysh might do something that they shouldn't do to his family because of his connection with the army that they were fighting against. Because of this, right before the army left (it was supposed to be a surprise attack after all), he decided to send the letter secretly through a messenger. Needless to say, the messenger was thereafter caught because of revelation that came down.

This is why the first verse of the Surah are as follows; "O you who have believed, do not take My enemies and your enemies as allies, extending to them affection while they have disbelieved in what came to you of the truth, having driven out the Prophet and yourselves [only] because you believe in Allah , your Lord. If you have come out for jihad in My cause and seeking means to My approval, [take them not as friends]. You confide to them affection, but I am most knowing of what you have concealed and what you have declared. And whoever does it among you has certainly strayed from the soundness of the way."

The connection should be obvious, I hope.

Thank you for your excellent reply.

The man was Khatib ign Abi Balta'ah that wrote the letter and Muhammad forgave him as he had participated in the battle of Badr.

So Muhammad was attempting a surprise attack on the Quraysh? While it is fine strategy, is it not deceit or could he not meet the Quraysh head on like they did? At the battle of Badr, they (the Quraysh) fought head on, at Ubud they fought head on and at the Trench, Muhammad and Salman fought an victorious defensive battle against them. Perhaps "War is deceit" after all.

To be honest, I'm not quite sure how Muhammad was going to surprise the Quraish with an Army of 10,000 men as Abu Sufyan quickly found out and went to Medina to attempt to keep to the 10 year treaty with the Muslims.

Sadly for Abu Sufyan "Muhammad wouldn't not speak to him, that he got no good from Abu Bakr and that he found Umar an implacable enemy, he had found Ali to be the most helpful though he didn't know if it would do any good" So no diplomacy with Abu Sayfan or paying of the blood price here: Muhammad was preparing for war.

It's no wonder when you see that the treaty of Hudaybiyya was such a disaster for the Muslims that had come to do the pilgrimage.

"Then the Apostle summoned Ali and told him to write "In the name of Allah the Compassionate, the Merciful." Suhayl said, "I do not recognize this; but write, "In thy name, O Allah"." The apostle told him to write the latter and he did so. Then he said: "Write "This is what Muhammad the apostle of God has agreed with Suhayl b. Amr."" Suhayl said, "If I witnessed that you were God's apostle I would not have fought you. Write your own name and the name of your father." The apostle said: "Write "This is what Muhammad b. Abdullah has agreed with Suhayl b. Amr: they have agreed to lay aside war for ten years during which men can be safe and refrain from hostilities on condition that if anyone comes to Muhammad without the permission of his guardian he will return him to them; and if anyone of those with Muhammad comes to Quraysh they will not return him to him. We will not show enmity one to another and there shall be no secret reservation of bad faith ..." Sirat -504 (747)

"Narrated Al-Bara bin 'Azib: When Allah's Apostle concluded a peace treaty with the people of Hudaibiya, Ali bin Abu Talib wrote the document and he mentioned in it, "Muhammad, Allah's Apostle." The pagans said, "Don't write: 'Muhammad, Allah's Apostle', for if you were an apostle we would not fight with you." Allah's Apostle asked Ali to rub it out, but Ali said, "I will not be the person to rub it out." Allah's Apostle rubbed it out and made peace with them on the condition that the Prophet and his companions would enter Mecca and stay there for three days, and that they would enter with their weapons in cases." - Bukhari 3.862

"While the apostle and Suhayl were writing the document, suddenly Abu Jandal appeared walking in fetters, having escaped to the apostle. The apostle's companions had gone out without any doubt of occupying Mecca because of the vision which the apostle had seen, and when they saw the negotiations for peace and a withdrawal going on and what the apostle had taken on himself they felt depressed almost to the point of death. When Suhayl saw Abu Jandal he got up and hit him in the face and took hold of his collar, saying, "Muhammad, the agreement between us was concluded before this man came to you." He replied "You are right". He began to pull him roughly by his collar and to drag him away to return him to Quraysh, while Abu Jandal shrieked at the top of his voice, "Am I to be returned to the polytheists that they may entice me from my religion O Muslims?" and that increased the people's dejection. - Sirat page 505.

As you can see, Muhammad was quite happy to erase his title of Prophet given to him by God ( and he was the last one too) for a treaty. Can you imagine Umar doing the same? I can't. Umar would have died trying to complete the pilgrimage not renounce everything they believed in. Read the horror that Ali feels, the man he has believed to be the prophet is asking him to erase that from an official document. They did gain more followers as people could now go to Mecca and Yuthrib if their guardians allowed it but was it worth renouncing his title given to him by God himself? Can you see Jesus saying in the Temple saying to the Temple hierarchy "When I said, "Before Abraham I AM, I meant Before Abraham I am in reverence?" and leaving to live his life to come back later and say "was only tricking you" or "circumstances forced my hand to lie about my calling"? It would destroy the Christian faith completely.

Putting it into another context, imagine Moses and Aaron infront of Pharaoh at the exodus

"Let my people go!"

"No!"

Moses and Aaron see that they are two amongst the whole of Egypt - Much like Muhammad was vastly outnumbered by the Meccans at Mecca at this point

"Let the tribe of Benjamin go!"

Pharaoh thinks on it as he doesn't want to offend the god of the Israelites who have caused some plagues on his land and the tribe of Benjamin are the least "....ok, here's a treaty sign here"

Moses signs on behalf of the one and only god

Pharaoh says "Don't write: 'Moses, Servant of the one true god', for if there was one true God we would not fight with you."

Moses asked Aaron to rub it out, but Aaron said, "I will not be the person to rub it out."

So Moses rubbed it out and made peace with them on the condition that the tribe of Benjamin could leave to the promised land

Later Moses calls it a victory and comes back with Aaron and the tribe of Benjamin and frees the other 11 tribes.

That's the closest, I could get in a Jewish version, I doubt Judaism would have kept Moses in such a high regard if he erased his monotheistic God's name when he was with Pharaoh.

I'm sorry, I don't exactly see what's so wrong in forbidding them from doing that. Is it not common for the winning army to take advantage and lay down laws that protect it's victory? Even ignoring the fact that this is much of a kindness when you consider what they did to them, wouldn't it be silly of an army to just take over the 'capital' city of it's nation and leave, saying "We told you we were going to win.", just to prove a point? We don't dismiss practicality, after all. There is a statement being made here to the Arabs. And if the prohibition was actually negative you'd never see the mass turning of the people towards Islam. And I think we both know if it was really a 'coercion', human beings, don't quite react the way the people of Makkah reacted, a city that remains Muslim to this day. Compare that to laws like banning some particular drug, if people actually feel like they're being forced to do something, they actually do it even more. The property could easily be sold or transferred to someone else for ownership. The fact that many of these leaders even survived the ordeal proves how justly they were treated, to me. Four months is a long enough time to settle quite a bit of stuff, when they'd only asked for around two months.

The victorious army that conquered Mecca did take the city and it was probably a lot less bloody than it could have been if not for Abu Suyfan's "conversion". The four months after the conquest is for the Polytheists to leave Mecca, they are no longer to stay in the city or they will be killed. It was theological cleansing. Which of the polytheist leaders survived and kept their faith?

Also, regarding your question about the treaty. It is clearly recorded that it was that Banu Bakr attacked Banu Khuza'a. The former being aligned with the Qureysh with the later being muslims. They were helped by the Qureysh, while they attacked the clan. According to our recorded history, a member of Banu Khuza'a even reached the boundary of the haram, where no fighting takes places because of it's a sanctuary of non-violence for the entire Arab people. When he'd said that that they couldn't attack him now, the reply was that 'There is no god today' and killed him. This wasn't the only death, though. Much more can be said about this, that's for sure.

"According to Ibn Humayd – Salamah – Ibn Ishaq, who said: After sending his expedition to Mut’ah, the Messenger of God stayed in Medina during Jumada II and Rajab. Then the Banu Bakr b. ‘Abd Manat b. Kinanah assaulted [the tribe of] Khuza’ah while the latter were at a watering place called al-Watir belonging to Khuza’ah in Lower Mecca. The cause of the strife between Banu Bakr and the Banu Khuza’ah was a man from the Banu al-Hadrami named Malik b. ‘Abbad. This man of the Banu al-Hadrami had a covenant of protection at that time with al-Aswad b. Razn. Malik set out on a journey as a merchant. When he was in the middle of Khuza’ah territory, THE KHUZA’AH ASSAULTED HIM, KILLED HIM, AND TOOK HIS PROPERTY. The Banu Bakr therefore attacked and killed a man from Khuza’ah. Just before Islam, the Khuza’ah in turn assaulted Salma, Kulthum, and Dhu’ayb, the sons of al-Aswad b. Razn al-Dili – they were the leading men and dignitaries of the Banu Bakr – and killed them at ‘Arafah, by the border markers of the sacred territory.

According to Ibn Humayd – Salamah – Muhammad b. Ishaq – a man from the Banu al-Dil, who said: In pagan times two payments of blood money would be paid for each of the sons of al-Aswad, while a single payment of blood money would be paid for us; and that because of their excellence [compared with us].

Matters stood thus between the Banu Bakr and Khuza’ah when Islam intervened to separate them and occupy people’s minds. When the peace of al-Hudaybiyah was concluded between the Messenger of God and Quraysh (this information is according to Ibn Humayd – Salamah – Muhammad b. Ishaq – Muhammad b. Muslim b. ‘Abdallah b. Shihab al-Zuhri – ‘Urwah b. al-Zubayr – al-Miswar b. Makhramah, Marwan b. al-Hakam, and other learned men of ours), among the terms they imposed on the Messenger of God and that he granted to them was that whoever wanted to enter into a treaty and pact with the Messenger of God might do so, and whoever wanted to enter into a treaty with Quraysh might do so. The Banu Bakr entered into a pact with Quraysh, and Khuza’ah entered into a pact with the Messenger of God.

The truce having been concluded, the Banu al-Dil of the Banu Bakr took advantage of it against Khuza’ah. To RETALIATE for the sons of al-Aswad b. Razn they wanted to kill the persons from Khuza’ah WHO HAD KILLED THEIR MEN. Nawfal b. Mu’awiyah al-Dili set out with the Banu al-Dil (at that time he was a leader of the Banu al-Dil, though not all the Banu Bakr followed him). He made a night raid on the Khuza’ah while the latter were at their watering place of al-Watir, and they killed a man [of the Khuza’ah]. They tried to drive each other away and fought. Quraysh aided the Banu Bakr with weapons, and some members of Quraysh fought on their side under cover of darkness until they drove Khuza’ah into the sacred territory.

According to al-Waqidi: Among the members of Quraysh who helped the Banu Bakr against Khuza’ah that night, concealing their identity, were Safwan b. Umayyah, ‘Ikrimah b. Abi Jahl, Suhayl b. ‘Amr, and others, along with their slaves.

Resumption of the account of Ibn Ishaq, who said: When they reached the sacred territory, the Banu Bakr said: "Nawfal, we have entered the sacred territory. Be mindful of your God! Be mindful of your God!" To which he replied blasphemously: "Today he has no God! Banu Bakr, TAKE YOUR REVENGE! By my life you steal in the sacred territory; WILL YOU NOT TAKE YOUR REVENGE IN IT?"

The night that the Banu Bakr attacked the Khuza’ah at al-Watir, they killed a man of Khuza’ah named Munabbih. Munabbih was a man with a weak heart. He had gone out with a tribesman of his named Tamim b. Asad. Munabbih said to him: "Tamim, save yourself! As for me, by God, I am a dead man whether they kill me or spare me, for my heart has ceased beating." Tamim ran away and escaped; Munabbih they caught and killed. When the Khuza’ah entered Mecca, they took refuge in the house of Budayl b. Waqa’ al-Khuza’i and the house of one of their mawlas named Rafi‘.

When Quraysh leaguered together [with Banu Bakr] against Khuza’ah and killed some of their men, breaking the treaty and covenant that existed between them and the Messenger of God by violating the Khuza’ah, who had a pact and treaty with him. ‘Amr b. Salim al-Khuza’i, one of the Banu Ka‘b, went to the Messenger of God in Medina. This was one of the things that prompted the conquest of Mecca…

(The History of Al-Tabari: The Victory of Islam, translated by Michael Fishbein [state University of New York Press (SUNY), Albany, 1997], Volume VIII, pp. 160-163)

Who started this feud? Why was Muhammad in alliance with people who would attack a man under protection? This was one of the worst crimes that you could do in 7th century Arabia as was killing in the holy place, though the Banu Bakr seemed to have been taunted by the Khuza'ah member (not an excuse though).

About 9:29-30, you're right there. I haven't really looked into it, but this is probably a precursor to the future battles against them, intending to make things clear about them as well.

It was before a battle to encourage his men to fight/show no quarter against the Romans/Byzantines and Ghassanids in the Tabouk expedition that ended up being much ado about nothing as there was no fighting.

You are also right about the Ezra. There are many, many Jews who don't say this, if not most. But this was a particular branch of Arab jews who said this as you said. It's important to realize that the Quran acknowledges the diversity of the people of the book, even citing that there are believers among them. Look at this, for example; (And there are, certainly, among the People of the Scripture, those who believe in Allah and in that which has been revealed to you, and in that which has been revealed to them, humbling themselves before Allah) (3:199). Saying that they say so-and-so doesn't mean they all say it. That's why the word 'All' (Arabic: 'Kullu") isn't mentioned. It's either the jews say so-and-so and the christians say so-and-so, not all.

• Who were these Jews? Where were they? Where they numerous? Have the left their mark on history?
• Do you have their writings, the Jews are probably the greatest recorders of their histories?
• Would Jews around the world in 630 also slay those that claimed Ezra was the Son of God in the same context as Christians put Jesus as the verse states?
• The text says THE Jews (alyahoodu) not a small heretical sect somewhere in the middle of no-where. Why would God focus on these people and ignore the vast majority of Jews that have evidently displeased him?

"And indeed, among the People of the Scripture are those who believe in Allah and what was revealed to you and what was revealed to them, [being] humbly submissive to Allah . They do not exchange the verses of Allah for a small price/miserable gain. Those will have their reward with their Lord. Indeed, Allah is swift in account." 3.199 Sahih International & Yussef Ali for the alternate.

This isn't as accepting as you make it out once you put the part you missed in. Without it it's a great passage, with it in my opinion, the Qu'ran has caused problems like what we have above with Ezra and the Qu'ranic view of the trinity as they would be those exchanging the verses from the Taurat and the Injeel for the "wrong ones". If the Qu'ran is accusing Jews of making Ezra "The Son of God" for a small price and it's wrong what does that mean?

The attempted suicide attack was instigated by Umar. He'd come to terms with the fact that he'd be killed, something he was willing to trade for the peace between his people that he believed that he would achieve.

Do you have a source? I have never heard of this If by suicide, you mean charging into the midst of the battle on unequal terms, I could easily see Umar doing this but a suicide attack not so much.

I absolutely agree. Abu Talib was an awesome in the way he did things. I only hope the best for him for what he did.

1. Bukhari :: Book 2 :: Volume 23 :: Hadith 442; Al-Janaa’iz

Narrated Said bin Al-Musaiyab from his father:

When the time of the death of Abu Talib approached, Allah’s Apostle went to him and found Abu Jahl bin Hisham and ‘Abdullah bin Abi Umaiya bin Al-Mughira by his side. Allah’s Apostle said to Abu Talib, “O uncle! Say: None has the right to be worshipped but Allah, a sentence with which I shall be a witness (i.e. argue) for you before Allah. Abu Jahl and ‘Abdullah bin Abi Umaiya said, “O Abu Talib! Are you going to denounce the religion of Abdul Muttalib?” Allah’s Apostle kept on inviting Abu Talib to say it (i.e. ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah’) while they (Abu Jahl and Abdullah) kept on repeating their statement till Abu Talib said as his last statement that he was on the religion of Abdul Muttalib and refused to say, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.‘ (Then Allah’s Apostle said, “I will keep on asking Allah’s forgiveness for you unless I am forbidden (by Allah) to do so.” So Allah revealed (the verse) concerning him (i.e. It is not fitting for the Prophet and those who believe that they should invoke (Allah) for forgiveness for pagans even though they be of kin, after it has become clear to them that they are companions of the fire (9.113).

He didn't turn to Islam on his death bed so he went to hell basically.

2. Muslim :: Book 1 : Hadith 413; Kitab Al-Iman

Ibn ‘Abbas reported: The Prophet (may peace be upon him) said: Among the inhabitants of the Fire Abu Talib would have the least suffering, and he would be wearing two shoes (of Fire) which would boil his brain.

Poor Abu Talib after keeping Muhammad alive from all those that wished to kill him, showing his protection at every turn, raising him when he was orphaned, ending the boycott, for all this he has the best spot in the Fire If you are Shi'a they believe differently. I assume you are Sunni though. Please correct me if you aren't

Also, the embargo is one of the many things actually. The way they treated him, by their words and manners was clinch-worthy. There are reports of one of them throwing an entire carcass on his back when he (saw) was prostrating in prayer, and how he had to stay there like that until his daughter (who wasn't ever there with him) had to take it off. Bilal (ra), one of the muslim slaves, was dragged on the street tied to a camel (or a horse, I'm not sure) as he yelled "Ahad!", "Ahad!" (One! referring to God). These are just some of the instances. And only God knows what else they'd done physically, or psychologically. Remember that they were the authority here, and had feared no repercussions from any other type of authority for what they'd done. The embargo was just one of them, aimed at the entire muslim population, rather than a select few.

Here I was wrong, I had completely forgotten about Bilal and the rock being placed on him in Ibn Ishaq 127. Not a being dragged through the street though. Still you are right, this was a terrible thing. Admittedly for the time, Bihal's owner had the right to do what he wanted as his "right hand possessed" him but you are right that the embargo wasn't the worst thing. Abu Bakr emancipates Bihal which leads to some interesting conversations after Muhammad's death later.... Do you have a source for the carcass story?

"The boycott was a hard piece of business for the Quraysh. Mecca was a small town, and many of those being boycotted were friends and family by marriage or kin. Just as with all boycotts there had been subtle cheating and help for those being boycotted. It was hard to eat well, buy new clothes and marry, all the while knowing others in the small town were suffering from the boycott. Because many didn't want friends and family to suffer, they began to hold clandestine meetings on the subject. A large meeting was held at the Ka'aba, where the boycott document was still posted. A boycott needs a very large majority to succeed and there wasn't one in Mecca. The Quraysh were too soft hearted to press the issue and the boycott failed" Ibn Ishaq 248,249 - This is from the Abridged version - I have the full Ibn Ishaq/Hisham but it does make for hard reading in comparision.

There's a really good series on the Seerah, with excellent production values. If you have the time, you can watch it too. It's very educational, and enjoyable. You can watch it if you want, though I'd understand your time restraints. It's about Umar, before and after conversion, and the events that took place throughout the Seerah. It's worth it, and much better than reading what I have to say. The beginning might be a little dull, but it's only setting the stage for the major events to take place, I hope you benefit from it.

This I have to thank you for, the book I was writing for the Byzantine/Persian war and the rise of Islam narrative history will find use for this. I have watched the first episode and there is some mistakes, especially with the Byzantines and the Ghassanid's relationship. They were both Christian but the Ghassanid's were in the Byzantines eyes heretical followers of the Monophiyiste faith (Jesus only had once nature - Divine) they would not be talking about the same Church. They hated each others faith, think Sunni/Shi'a, things in common but miles apart. Syrian Arabs were far away from the the Pan Arabism (Nasser would be proud ) that the show showed, for example it's likely that Umar and the Ghassanid chief would be speaking Aramaic, then Greek and the Arabic as there was no reason at all for the Syrians to learn Arabic nevermind the Quraysh dialect. The Ghassanid's were not the vassal rulers of Damascus at all but located in Tabouk which I pointed out earlier that Muhammad was going on to attack in 630. Fortunately no one seems to care that the Persians were ravaging the lands around Damascus at the time either but I guess that will be addressed later.

Aside from that it is very good, I enjoyed the first episode and hopefully will find the time to watch the remaining 30! Hearing the Qu'ran recited and seeing how much I could understand was good too, though I am very very poor in Arabic. Does Muhammad appear though, won't it be difficult not to show him? There is a lot to look forward to in this I hope. Ali's reaction to Abu Bakr's raising to Caliph should be good.

Mhm, I did look around too. It's certainly different to believe in that you actually believe in with both mind and heart. I like your questions btw, you showcase a strong knowledge on some parts that really surprises me... even though your questions should really use answering. I tried to make this as short as I could, though I don't think I met much success there.

Alas I have failed also thank you for your kind comments on my knowledge, many of my questions on Islam really need answering, I agree Thank you for keeping this civil and while I maybe asking questions of the Qu'ran and Muhammad, hopefully I have tried to make you understand my doubts about the validity of their/his claims.

Many thanks

David

[Fulham Broadway 16,392]

If Charlie Hebdo had been published in the UK

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/what-if-icharlie-hebdo-i-had-been-published-in-britain/16443

[jasonlol 154]

Left wing Israeli comic highlighting something that NO ONE seems to want talk about and that is the inhuman conditions in the concentration camps for the African asylum seekers in Isreal:

https://www.facebook.com/myshillustration/photos/pb.384230151590915.-2207520000.1420970999./1055904954423428/?type=3&theater

I'll post something about the "Muslim threat" in the west when I get a chance.

Concentration camps? Dude you have some serious bias when it comes to jews. There are plenty of Africans in Israel but these camps you are referring to are new and their to hold people who are immigrating illegally through border while they figure out whether to grant them asylum or send them back, granted they are not 5 star hotels but that's the point, if they were it wouldn't discourage illegal immigration. Truth is Israel simply isn't capitalist enough to handle mass waves of immigrants,

[jasonlol 154]

Only Bashar Al Asad and Kim Jong Un missing from the Paris March today, and maybe Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi himself. What a fucking joke!

A march for the freedom of speech and press and against terrorism led by some of the biggest dictators, war criminals, and creators of terrorism in the world. Seriously, the march included:

1) King Abdullah of Jordan, which last year sentenced a Palestinian journalist to 15 years in prison with hard labour

2) Prime Minister of Davutoglu of Turkey, which imprisons more journalists than any other country in the world

3) Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel, whose forces killed 17 journalists in Gaza last yr (second highest after Syria)

4) Foreign Minister Shoukry of Egypt, which as well as AJ staff has detained journalist Shawkan for around 500 days

5) Foreign Minister Lavrov of Russia, which last year jailed a journalist for "insulting a government servant"

6) Foreign Minister Lamamra of Algeria, which has detained journalist Abdessami Abdelhai for 15 months without charge

7) The Foreign Minister of the UAE, which in 2013 held a journo incommunicado for a month on suspicion of MB links

8) Prime Minister Jomaa of Tunisia, which recently jailed blogger Yassine Ayan for 3 years for "defaming the army

9) The PMs of Georgia and Bulgaria, both of whom have a record of attacking & beating journos

10) The Attorney General of the US, where police in Ferguson have recently detained and assaulted WashPost reporters

11) Prime Minister Samaras of Greece, where riot police beat & injured two journalists at a protest in June last year

12) Sec-Gen of NATO, who are yet to be held to account for deliberately bombing and killing 16 Serbian journos in '99

13) President Keita of Mali, where journalists are expelled for covering human rights abuses

14) The Foreign Minister of Bahrain, 2nd biggest jailer of journos in the world per capita (they also torture them)

15) Sheikh Mohamed Ben Hamad Ben Khalifa Al Thani of Qatar, which jailed a man for 15 ys for writing the Jasmine poem

16) Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas, who had several journalists jailed for insulting him in 2013

17) Prime Minister Cerar of Slovenia, which sentenced a blogger to six months in prison for "defamation" in 2013

18) Prime Minister Enda Kenny of Ireland, where "blasphemy" is considered a criminal offense

19) Prime Minister Kopacz of Poland, which raided a magazine to seize recordings embarrassing for the ruling party

20) PM Cameron of the UK, where authorities destroyed documents obtained by The Guardian and threatened prosecution

21) Saudi ambassador to France. The Saudis publicly flogged blogger Raif Badawi for "insulting Islam" on Friday

Source: https://twitter.com/DanielWickham93

Btw its 17 Since 2001 and its a war zone... context matters

[jasonlol 154]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/quenelle-comedian-dieudonne-praises-terrorist-killer-as-far-as-i-am-concerned-i-feel-i-am-charlie-coulibaly-9972035.html

Remember when half you guys , led by choulou were claiming this guy wasn't anti Semitic, simply anti Zionist. Ye that's funny.

[jasonlol 154]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B67UatcCMAAQsG1.jpg:large

Simple solution for France

[Fulham Broadway 16,392]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B67UatcCMAAQsG1.jpg:large

Simple solution for France

Not really. France prides itself on being a secular state, ie all the cults/religions islam, christianity, hinduism, judaism etc are separate from state affairs.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

Concentration camps? Dude you have some serious bias when it comes to jews. There are plenty of Africans in Israel but these camps you are referring to are new and their to hold people who are immigrating illegally through border while they figure out whether to grant them asylum or send them back, granted they are not 5 star hotels but that's the point, if they were it wouldn't discourage illegal immigration. Truth is Israel simply isn't capitalist enough to handle mass waves of immigrants,

Not my words, that is the caption that is used by the left wing Israeli comic which you would see if you clicked on the link.

Btw its 17 Since 2001 and its a war zone... context matters

No, it's 17 during the summer alone.

And it's a small land filled with 1.8 million civilians. Just because they drop millions of tons of explosives on their heads, doesn't make it a "war zone"!

[KevinAshburner 1,270]

Hi all I know that when I post stuff about The ILLUMINATI on TalkChelsea and I know people don't like it or pay attention to my posts and ignore it but I care about all of you and I just want you to see what I see that all I ask.

Hi guys I want to let you know that many people like me and others around the World that has been chosen in The Last Days to keep those not in the know what is really happening.

This is no Joke. The Only Terrorist Organization in The World is "The ILLUMINATI".

PARIS AND BRITAIN WILL BE NUKED BY THE WORLD ELITISTS.

their is many more sources and information about it online but I am to lazy to look for it and many sites, blogs are being shut down who expose the ILLUMINATI'S World Plan to bring in The World Order of One Government.

French president says on national TV that The ILLUMINATI is attacking Paris.

Published on Jan 10, 2015

This is gonna get ugly.

12 killed in Paris. Fast Facts. Britain to be Nuked? Illuminati Freemason Symbolism.

Published on Jan 7, 2015

An investigative Look into the Symbolism of the end of the age and WW3 surrounding the Paris tragedy. The July Column (French: Colonne de Juillet) is a monumental column in Paris commemorating the Revolution of 1830. It stands in the center of the Place de la Bastille and celebrates the Trois Glorieuses — the "three glorious" days of 27–29 July 1830 that saw the fall of King Charles X of France and the commencement of the "July Monarchy" of Louis-Philippe, King of the French. It was built between 1835 and 1840.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/quenelle-comedian-dieudonne-praises-terrorist-killer-as-far-as-i-am-concerned-i-feel-i-am-charlie-coulibaly-9972035.html

Remember when half you guys , led by choulou were claiming this guy wasn't anti Semitic, simply anti Zionist. Ye that's funny.

No, actually we said that the gesture itself was not antisemitic because the people who invented it and were using it were identifying it as anti-establishment.

[jasonlol 154]

Not my words, that is the caption that is used by the left wing Israeli comic which you would see if you clicked on the link.

No, it's 17 during the summer alone.

And it's a small land filled with 1.8 million civilians. Just because they drop millions of tons of explosives on their heads, doesn't make it a "war zone"!

Gaza is iran's and the greater Islamist movements launch pad to strike Israel(aka the west, people who have a more individualist value set), you know full well its a war zone, and I goggled it and found no credible source on 17 journalists in summer were killed in gaza.