Posted on 10/27/2001 6:33:03 AM PDT by ml/nj
From Chapter 1, Historical Outline:
In the year 622, on the invitation of the Ansar - a group of pagans converted to Islam - Muhammad and his small band of followers left Mecca for Yathrib (Medina). The population then consisted of polytheistic clans, of Jewish tribes that had long been established in Arabia, and Arabs converted to Judaism. ...
The arrival of Muhammad and his followers provoked no opposition from the Jews. ...
In 624 Muhammad, joined by more followers, called upon the Qaynuqa, one of the Jewish tribes of Medina, to recognize his prophetic mission. When they refused, he besieged and overcame them. On the intercession of one of their protectors - a recent convert to Islam - their lives were spared, but they were expelled from the city, their lands and a part of their possessions being confiscated by the Muslims. The following year the Jewish Nadir tribe suffered a similar fate: Muhammad burned down their palm groves and divided all their fields and houses among the community of Believers. [footnote]
In 627 the Meccans sent a united force to lay siege to the Muslims in Medina, but they withdrew suddenly on a stormy night without fighting. However, guided by the angel Gabriel, Muhammad then turned his host against the Jewish tribe of the Qurayza who had been neutral during the seige. Because the Jews refused conversion, Muhammad attacked and overwhelmed them. Trenches were then dug in the marketplace of Medina, and the Jews - six to nine hundred of them, according to traditional Muslim sources - were led forth in batches and decapitated. All the menfolk perished in this way, with the exception of one convert to Islam. The Prophet then divided the women, children, houses, and chattels among the Muslims.[footnote]
... In 628, taking advantage of a treaty of nonbelligerency (Hudaybiya) with the Meccans[footnote], he attacked the oasis of Khaybar, one hundred and forty kilometers northwest of Medina, cultivated by another Jewish tribe. The assailants came to the oasis at night and in the morning attacked the peasants as they were coming out to work in the fields, carrying spades and baskets.[footnote] Their palm groves were burned down. After a siege lasting month and a half, the inhabitants surrendered under the terms of a treaty known as the dhimma. According to the agreement Muhammad allowed the Jews to continue cultivating their oasis, on the condition that they ceded to him half of their produce; he also reserved the right to break the agreement and expel them whenever he wished.[footnote] Subsequently, all the Jewish and Christian communities of Arabia submitted to the Muslims under the terms of a dhimma similar to that granted at Khaybar. ...
The Emigrants had no regular source of income and so Muhammad decided to raid passing Meccan caravans; this was an old Arab custom. Moreover, by plundering the Meccans, he would be doing God's work.
In the month of Rajab AH 2 (January 624) a party of seven to twelve Muslims was sent out to observe a caravan. Instead they attacked it, killing one Meccan, capturing two and one escaping. This was the first life that Islam took in combat but certainly not the last. Muhammad was upset because Rajab was a month holy to Mecca and he refused to take his twenty percent share of the booty. However Gabriel revealed a sura to him wherein Allah approved, so Muhammad accepted his share.
From "Two Faces of Islam"
If the Sunnah are criticized, Muslim apologists try to explain that it all happened 1400 years ago. For example, razzia (raids on caravans -Muhammad organized 82 of these, leading 26 himself) were an old Arabian custom from the days of Jahiliyya. This may have been so but Muhammad is supposed to be, not a man of the seventh century, but the "seal" (last) of the prophets, perfect for all time to come.
A refutation of the false allegations that prophet Muhammad (pbuh) led raids on Meccan caravans.
This is in reference to Ventaka Swamy's letter of April 10th, in India Post, titled "Here are the References". It is becoming obvious that he is trying desperately to meet my challenge "...to provide one single incident with documented evidence that the Prophet himself led raids on merchants caravan". He himself has mentioned in his letter that "the sources of Islam are two revelations Wahy, which is the Koran and customs which is Sunnah". In spite of mentioning this, he goes on to cite a book: The Life of Muhammad, translated and edited by A. Guillaume. Perhaps he is not aware of the fact that this book doesn't fall in either of the two sources of Islam he has. His serious mistake is inexcusable, and brings down his credibility.
The only arguments given here are:
1. Muhammed may have allowed the thievery, but he didn't participate directly, and
2. Islam recognizes no history outside of it's internally produced propaganda. Both are ludicrous.
With Muhammed, quite the opposite is true. In spite of the recent attempts at revisionism (due to the embarrassing fact that a thieving prophet contradicts the qu'ran), the accounts of his caravan raiding days are pervasive and ancient. I can't imagine how you could have missed them, outside of willing ignorance.
Dennis, you can go to: images.google.com and type in Mecca, Saudi Arabia in Google Search (or, probably anything else you're interested in). BTW, take a look at page 3 - looks like they got a Dome in S.A.
_____________________
Hey, Phil, look - more education (from images.google.com):
Did you know?
Only Muslims are permitted to enter Mecca.
So much for "tolerance."
I wasn't spreading hate. I was spreading history.
Do you find anything inaccurate or misleading in what I posted?
ML/NJ
I wasn't preaching hate. I was teaching history.
If you find it to be inaccurate or incorrect, I would like to hear about it (with reasonable academic references).
ML/NJ
I just happened to sit in on a Western Civ class last week at the University of Virginia where the topic was the Rise of Islam. The professor pointed out (the obvious) that it took 300 years from the time of Jesus for Christianity to become a dominant religion, but that it only took 100 years from the time of Muhammad for Islam to become a dominant religion. (but stating the obvious is good because it makes one think)
I think if you discover the reason that Islam spread so much faster than Christianity, you will discover that its appeal to the poor was primarily that they would be allowed to continue breathing if they converted.
ML/NJ
You're very selective about what you post from the Bible, aren't you. For example, it wasn't only Sarah who wanted Ishmael out of the house, was it? And what did the Bible say about Ishmael's hand being against every man?
And do you remember what it says about the Amalekites?
And Islam today is so "tolerant" of other faiths, isn't it? One need look around the globe to see how Muslim majorities treat those of other faiths. You can also look at countries with significant Muslim minorities to see how well they "get along" with members of the majority faith.
The Palestinians.
You can even find Islamic website named>
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
