@LagosShia

This is a continuation of the Islam Violent thread deleted by the moderator on Zeus knows what ground.

@LagosShia

I wanted you to fully refute the verses and meanings I proffered, how ever it would be useless without mentioning historical events.

The Battle of Badr comes to mind, the Muslim forces went intent on raiding and plundering Abu Sufyan's caravan, the battle resulted as a response by Meccans to defend their property. Raiding is aggression, banditry is criminal. Considering the events and verses purportedly revealed, it quite matches.

@Kay17; Are you a man r a woman so that I can better use your gender to illustrate the situation of Battle and what led to it, in today's conditions, while Lagosshia will see the battle, in his own way and style.

But all muslims knows the difference between outright violence an self defense. You as a human being knows what is outright violence against other without provocation. That will be different from self defense in all forms of self defense.

Heck. Let me educate you about self defense in Islam; What is paramount to every muslim is preservation of lives; yours and those of others. The only time that life can be taken is for the good of the community; as corrupted souls often spread corruption and nothing apparent may be any reason to preserve such a soul.

A person who is in self defense can be considered as a person preserving his life and lives of others in due justice and mercy. For instance, if a band of criminals walked in to a eatery and demanded from everyone [the clientele and management], at gun point, to hand over their corpus; monies and valuables. Let just say that in the process of handing over, or even after it, something happened that caused the "victims" to be able to overpower the criminals, will you be considering the victims as bandit, criminals, unjust persons just in case the people with guns get beat up or even get hurt or worst, die. Will you say the initial victims; management and clientele of the eatery are still the victims or now the criminals and the people who pulled out guns, intending to rob or actually robbed the people are victims now that they got what they deserve of justice or still the criminals who got the thing that they deserve to get; beating or hurt or even dead because they intended to kill if not satisfied with the loot?

If you say the victims at the end in the above scenarios were the original bandits, then you lack ability to see justice where criminals are the one who started the act of crime. If you say the management and the clientele which at the end became successful in overcoming the animals who intended to rob them of their possessions were not the victims, but the aggressors, you will still be unjust, until you say they are the victims but God Almighty helped them overcome their oppressors, shaming and humiliating the oppressors.

The above is the case with Battle of Badr and what led to it. It is a worse case scenario for people to be going through oppression which is worse than killings.

The muslims had suffered through 13 years of Makka; getting killed, getting harassed, getting ignored as if what they had was a plague except the muslims were not bowing to pagans, getting shunned so much that they were banished to the city limit until Allah made the poster of banishment got eaten up by termites off the wall of the Kaaba. this itself is a miracle because the pagans were blinded not to see the agreement notice being eaten by termites.

It was this state that they were in that even marriage agreements were cancelled out, reminding me of that of Aisha [ra] long before the proposal from the messenger [as]. The muslims could not bear the torture which led to the minor hijr to abssynnia known now as ethiopia. At the end of the day, no muslim was allowed to leave with any of his properties as they left Makka for Madina even Umar who was bold enough to announce his from a hill top at the edge of the city. The prophet [as] and his traveling companion [ra] left at night, all depending on Allah, alone.

Makkan's leadership took possession of the properties of the muslims, benefiting themselves from it. It was in this situation that the second year of Hijr came when the Makkans were actually bold enough to use the route of caravan nearest to Madina, instead of others that could be just as convenient; Badr route is closest to Madina.

Do you imagine a man who beat you up and stole you motorbike or less, your bicycle or a man who forced you to leave your neighborhood, making sure that you left without your belongings, but only your life since he thinks he can take your life, too? If later on this man happened to come to your new neighborhood where you are now loved and considered an assets. Imagine him coming to your street riding your machine, wearing your clothing and bling bling. He has been using your belonging to enrich himself, improves his image, elevating his status in town.

Lets imagine it was winter even that you and your friends run into him in your street. Or if you wish, Summer evening when the blood of revenge or avenge is at its peak, remembering all that you have lost and how far you may have gone if only you had the properties left in old neighborhood to use as your starting point. Imagine how furious you will be in eagerness to take back your clothing from this guy? Thats what normal people; they demand back what is theirs. Imagine a man who doesn't demand back what is rightfully his?

Islam preaches that you take back what belongs to you, if you have the chance. Americans say give me life or give me death in the spirit of oppression is worse than killing, in the spirit of these colors dont run.

The Makkans are enriching themselves with the properties in Makka that belonged to the Muslims who are the emigre. Now the emigre has the right to want to take back a mere part of it back even if they had taken the whole of the caravans. Notice that the emigre told the helpers [the Madinan] that this fight; Badr is not obligatory on them.

To me that is justice. The Yorubas say what poorly means; a child not strong enough to have his hand capable of holding and then swinging the sword against the enemy, should never confront the man who murdered his father. The muslims were justified in the battle of Badr, in the same way almost all believed the USA was justified at the beginning of the Afghan's war.


If you could not find the USA as oppressors an bandits at the beginning of the war, how can you find the muslims wrong in the battle of badr, considering that Allah says that the muslims were not interested in fighting, but thrust into it the same thing president bush spoke about as resolve.

I think your first misconception was to think oppression was worse than be murdered. Murder deprives one of his life and future and other rights, losing one's life is losing everything.

Most Muslims claim Islam is peaceful and the war verses only apply to self defence. However the Muslims launch numerous raids against the trade caravans both armed and unarmed. The Muslims' state was not under a direct threat or attack from the Meccan state or the caravans. The Badr battle was one of defence by the Meccans ironically.

The Muslims were out of the reach and oppression of the Meccans, so continued oppression is not a ground for attacking commercial caravans. Recovering their original property from the caravans doesn't make sense as they were traders.

The Battle of Badr was one of defence by the Meccans? There is nothing that one will not read on Nairaland. Where do you learn your history from? You cannot claim to have knowledge of any concept when you rely on its enemies and opponents for your information.

You are very funny with your spurious assertions. Tell us what Hijra was about then.

@Kay17: « #2 on: Yesterday at 09:31:58 PM »
[Quote]I think your first misconception was to think oppression was worse than be murdered. Murder deprives one of his life and future and other rights, losing one's life is losing everything.[/Quote]Someday, you will actually grow up a year to be 18, the legal age in almost every corner of the world. Then you will know that a person oppressed will die every moment until the oppression is lifted, if he ever survived it. Meaning dying a slow death is worse that just sudden death. I do not want to be oppressed and may Allah protect me from it, but definitely I will die and I already accepted it as my final condition, before the soul that carries my body departs the body which will lay down flat.


[Quote]Most Muslims claim Islam is peaceful and the war verses only apply to self defence. However the Muslims launch numerous raids against the trade caravans both armed and unarmed. The Muslims' state was not under a direct threat or attack from the Meccan state or the caravans. The Badr battle was one of defence by the Meccans ironically.[/Quote]What about the muslims who left Makka with just the Jilbab they were wearing? You think they were happy being foreigners in Madina instead of living in home town Makka? If you are a man, your type Kay17 is the husband who allows armed robbers to ra.pe his wife, daughters, sisters and mama. This is type of oppression which no soul should allow if he can do something about it. I will rather fight them and lose my life or I take the lives of the robbers. Thats how real man should aspire to do. There are fights worthy of engaging in. Badr was that type of Battle for Muslims.


[Quote]The Muslims were out of the reach and oppression of the Meccans, so continued oppression is not a ground for attacking commercial caravans. Recovering their original property from the caravans doesn't make sense as they were traders.[/Quote]when you keep my properties and have the gut to remind me that you have it and i cant do anything about it, you better watch out because i will do something about it; try to get it back from you, even if I have to fight you to actually break your arrogance that i couldnt do anything.

Sweetnecta:

@Kay17: « #2 on: Yesterday at 09:31:58 PM »Someday, you will actually grow up a year to be 18, the legal age in almost every corner of the world. Then you will know that a person oppressed will die every moment until the oppression is lifted, if he ever survived it. Meaning dying a slow death is worse that just sudden death.

LOL!!

[Quote]What about the muslims who left Makka with just the Jilbab they were wearing? You think they were happy being foreigners in Madina instead of living in home town Makka? If you are a man, your type Kay17 is the husband who allows armed robbers to ra.pe his wife, daughters, sisters and mama. This is type of oppression which no soul should allow if he can do something about it. I will rather fight them and lose my life or I take the lives of the robbers. Thats how real man should aspire to do. There are fights worthy of engaging in. Badr was that type of Battle for Muslims

[/quote]

The
scenario you made is very different from what that which led to the battle of Badr. In your scenario, you are compelled at the moment to take steps of a defensive nature to protect your life and that of loved ones. And considering armed robbers will be using unjustified and unlawful force to deprive you of your life. But in Badr, Muhammed was committed to attacking a caravan (simple traders) whom the Meccan army rushed to protect. Muhammed was more like a highway robber.

[Quote] when you keep my properties and have the gut to remind me that you have it and i cant do anything about it, you better watch out because i will do something about it; try to get it back from you, even if I have to fight you to actually break your arrogance that i couldnt do anything.

[/quote]

Except if Muhammed was hoping to recover his original property its justified but it wouldn't fall under self defence. But as caravans are nothing but a business trips which all credible states must protect, Muhammed's attacks on them are not justified.

Its an act of the State to do such upon a declaration of war, which Muhammed didn't do.

Kay 17:

LOL!!

The
scenario you made is very different from what that which led to the battle of Badr. In your scenario, you are compelled at the moment to take steps of a defensive nature to protect your life and that of loved ones. And considering armed robbers will be using unjustified and unlawful force to deprive you of your life. But in Badr, Muhammed was committed to attacking a caravan (simple traders) whom the Meccan army rushed to protect. Muhammed was more like a highway robber.

Except if Muhammed was hoping to recover his original property its justified but it wouldn't fall under self defence. But as caravans are nothing but a business trips which all credible states must protect, Muhammed's attacks on them are not justified.

Its an act of the State to do such upon a declaration of war, which Muhammed didn't do.

Kay 17, where were the goods in that Caravan obtained from? Does the fact that the leader of that Caravan later became a prominent Muslim mean anything to you? How does this fact reflect on your argument?

Your last sentence shows that you don't know what you are arguing about. Please do proper research and come back. I am not talking about running to your anti-Islam websites to get even more rubbish.

^^^
I'm surprised at you. The goods or money in that caravan was obviously from Syria!! Besides the Arabs regularly run caravans, long before Muslims left Mecca. And there was no declaration of intent by the Muslims to expect their original property to be in the caravans and recapture it. Besides there had been numerous raids on Meccan caravans prior to Badr.

A prior raid on a Meccan unarmed caravan resulted to the death of a man in a holy month, and Muhammed realized it was wrong and against conventions. Before discovering a convenient verse to justify the act.

Kay 17:

^^^
I'm surprised at you. The goods or money in that caravan was obviously from Syria!! Besides the Arabs regularly run caravans, long before Muslims left Mecca. And there was no declaration of intent by the Muslims to expect their original property to be in the caravans and recapture it. Besides there had been numerous raids on Meccan caravans prior to Badr.

A prior raid on a Meccan unarmed caravan resulted to the death of a man in a holy month, and Muhammed realized it was wrong and against conventions. Before discovering a convenient verse to justify the act.

Tell the truth, you are still rushing to your anti-Muslim websites. Or are you implying that you brought this pseudo-knowledge of Islam you have from Heaven? 

I guess you know better than the leader of the Caravan who died a Muslim along with his wife- see how you are jumping about with your falsehood.

What anti muslim sites?? Its common sense that banditry is NOT self defence!! Address the issue, destroy my misconceptions, don't run to that useless line "No one Knows Islam"

WHY WAS MUHAMMED ATTACKING UNARMED CARAVANS

A leader converted? Probably as a result of force??

Kay 17:

What anti muslim sites?? Its common sense that banditry is NOT self defence!! Address the issue, destroy my misconceptions, don't run to that useless line "No one Knows Islam"

WHY WAS MUHAMMED ATTACKING UNARMED CARAVANS

A leader converted? Probably as a result of force??

Okay, you actually saw him attacking the Caravan? If you didn't, who told you he did? Can this be independently verified? Again, your last sentence shows that you don't know what you are talking about?

This is your first post

Kay 17:

@LagosShia

This is a continuation of the Islam Violent thread deleted by the moderator on Zeus knows what ground.

@LagosShia

I wanted you to fully refute the verses and meanings I proffered, how ever it would be useless without mentioning historical events.

The Battle of Badr comes to mind, the Muslim forces went intent on raiding and plundering Abu Sufyan's caravan, the battle resulted as a response by Meccans to defend their property. Raiding is aggression, banditry is criminal. Considering the events and verses purportedly revealed, it quite matches.

This the basis of my discussion with you and it is obvious that you are arguing from a point of ignorance, don't shy away from the topic you started yourself with wild assertions. Is that how you were taught to do research and debate issues?

Abu Sufyan died a happy Muslim, so where does that leave your point about his "lawful caravan" being robbed by Muslims?

@Kay17: Lets assume that Muhammad [as] always 'discovered' convenient verses to cover up everything, you will believe he is consistent in this 'discovery of always covering up with convenient verses'. Should that not be correct, since his intention is always to avoid being looked as not always right? So if there is a situation that developed and he didn't cover himself up with discovery of convenient verse or verses, then you may just be the one who is wrong in your opinion, above. Will that be a fair assessment of the whole situation, therefore considering his situation in every case a commandment from The Highest Authority; God, or you will chalk everything up to convenience of verses discovered?

Muhammad [as] was the leader if you will the mini-king of Madina, still developing his Kingship when Badr took place. But he was fully KING later when the situation of Surah Abasa happened. I wonder why Muhammad [as] spoke about the secret of that event to anyone, even to his cmmunity then and even to me now in the pages of the Quran. There was not leader, religious or otherwise in history that did what Muhammad did in SUrah Abasa. Even now I have not noticed any leader that has blamed himself for something even the community did not know he did, or even what hey know his responsibility covers. Look at godly Jonathan of Nigeria. Mr. President blamed everyone about Boko Haram except himself, creating an excuse for himself by saying that he is not a lion. Do humans allow lions to rule them except leadership that is bold as a lion? Please read surah abasa and understand your inconsistency or at least answer my suggested question about your 'convenient verses discovered" if you cant fully accept that Muhammad was completely honest about everything, since you are an atheist. Are you not an atheist?

[Quote]« #5 on: Today at 09:13:29 AM »
Quote from: Sweetnecta on Today at 01:11:15 AM
@Kay17: « #2 on: Yesterday at 09:31:58 PM »Someday, you will actually grow up a year to be 18, the legal age in almost every corner of the world. Then you will know that a person oppressed will die every moment until the oppression is lifted, if he ever survived it. Meaning dying a slow death is worse that just sudden death.

LOL!![/[/b]Quote]The laugh is on you, sir because sooner or later you will hit age 40 and discovered that you are no more 17 where you may still be considered as immature.



[Quote]Quote
What about the muslims who left Makka with just the Jilbab they were wearing? You think they were happy being foreigners in Madina instead of living in home town Makka? If you are a man, your type Kay17 is the husband who allows armed robbers to ra.pe his wife, daughters, sisters and mama. This is type of oppression which no soul should allow if he can do something about it. I will rather fight them and lose my life or I take the lives of the robbers. Thats how real man should aspire to do. There are fights worthy of engaging in. Badr was that type of Battle for Muslims

[b]The scenario you made is very different from what that which led to the battle of Badr. In your scenario, you are compelled at the moment to take steps of a defensive nature to protect your life and that of loved ones. And considering armed robbers will be using unjustified and unlawful force to deprive you of your life. But in Badr, Muhammed was committed to attacking a caravan (simple traders) whom the Meccan army rushed to protect. Muhammed was more like a highway robber.[/Quote]If a man was afraid for his life and he abandoned his car which the neighborhood thugs took as their own as a result. If a year or so down the line the weakling of yesterday has became the king of his town saw his car being driven on the highway through his town, do you think that he has the right to tell the toll gate person before the exit to stop the car, call in the cops to make sure he, the king got a chance to investigate the car, now considered by him as stolen and available for full recovery some years later? I think this is the way normal people do.
Personal experience; some 30 plus years ago, i drove from New York City to Newark New Jersey to visit a people who were visiting from 9ja. At the base of Broad Street, if one entered Newark from the Airport route, you will be in real ghetto. It has changed some since then. unfortunately, my car broke down and there was nothing called Cell Phone then, except you has public Phones around. In a nutshell, I was concerned for my life in this territory that was so unfamiliar to me. thank God that that the car was fixed from its minor deficiency. But if I had not been able to get it fixed then and the sun set upon me in that place, I would have had to abandon the car in order to preserve my life. At least that was my thinking. I would not have came back for it at anytime because I know that it would have been striped to the bone. Then imagine for a moment that a year or so later, I saw a person driving that car down Nostrand  and crossing Eastern Parkway in Brooklyn, a neighborhood that I am very familiar with, the least I could do is make sure that it is my property and find a way to call the attention of the cop standing at the corner walking the beat.
Let us imagine that it was the property of President Obama that he as forced to abandon many years ago that was driven to Dc or President Obama saw the man actually forced him to leave California in the 70s among the crowd in front of the White House. the man should be made to know that his power in the 70s is now nothing in 2012. Imagine the man brought a sign saying he beat up the president in 79. Do you think he will have a warm welcome with secret service? A man called Dick Cheney a liar in Texas. The secret service let him get as far as the next traffic light and got him arrested.



[Quote]Quote
when you keep my properties and have the gut to remind me that you have it and i cant do anything about it, you better watch out because i will do something about it; try to get it back from you, even if I have to fight you to actually break your arrogance that i couldnt do anything.

Except if Muhammed was hoping to recover his original property its justified but it wouldn't fall under self defence. But as caravans are nothing but a business trips which all credible states must protect, Muhammed's attacks on them are not justified.
Its an act of the State to do such upon a declaration of war, which Muhammed didn't do.[/Quote]Hello. Is anyone home because if you sold my house or took ownership of it against my will and use the gain to buy a mercedes benz, I have the right when i finally catch up with you to get the mercedes benz from you towards what my house is worth. Think, sir.[/quote]

maclatunji:

Okay, you actually saw him attacking the Caravan? If you didn't, who told you he did? Can this be independently verified? Again, your last sentence shows that you don't know what you are talking about?

This is your first post

This the basis of my discussion with you and it is obvious that you are arguing from a point of ignorance, don't shy away from the topic you started yourself with wild assertions. Is that how you were taught to do research and debate issues?

Abu Sufyan died a happy Muslim, so where does that leave your point about his "lawful caravan" being robbed by Muslims?

But Abu Sufyan was against Muhammed until Mecca was captured. I think this suggests Abu Sufyan had good reason to oppose Muhammed and another in being a muslim.

Kay 17:

But Abu Sufyan was against Muhammed until Mecca was captured. I think this suggests Abu Sufyan had good reason to oppose Muhammed and another in being a muslim.

Really, he could have left Mecca after the capture and wouldn't have been a Muslim if he wanted. He chose to stay because he realized the folly of his previous actions. There is an hadith of Abu Sufyan talking of the prophet whilst he was an unbeliever:
[b]
The Holy Prophet's Letter to Hiraql (Caesar) - Emperor of the Romans - Inviting Him to Islam

It was narrated on the authority of Ibn 'Abbas who learned the tradition personally from Abu Sufyan. The latter said:

I went out (on a mercantile venture) during the period (of truce) between me and the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him). While I was in Syria, the letter of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) was handed over to Hiraql (Caesar), the Emperor of Rome (who was on a visit to Jerusalem at that time). The letter was brought by Dihya Kalbi who delivered it to the governor of Basra, and the governor passed it on to Caesar.

(On receiving the letter) Caesar held a grand court. He donned a Crown and sat on his throne and said: 'Is there anyone from the people of this man who thinks that he is a prophet?' People said: 'Yes.'

So I was called along with a few others from the Quraysh. We were admitted to Caesar and he seated us before him. He asked: 'Which of you has the closest kinship with the man who thinks that he is a prophet?' Abu Sufyan said: 'I.' So they seated me in front of him and seated my companions behind me. Then he called his interpreter and said to him: 'Tell them that I am going to ask this fellow (i.e. Abu Sufyan) about the man who thinks that he is a prophet. If he tells me a lie, then refute him.' Abu Sufyan told (the narrator): 'By God, had there not been the fear that falsehood would be imputed to me, I would have lied.'

(Then) Caesar said to his interpreter: 'Inquire from him about his ancestry.'
I said: 'He is of good ancestry among us.'

He asked: 'Has there been a king among his ancestors?'
I said: 'No.'

He asked: 'Did you accuse him of falsehood before he proclaimed his prophethood?'
I said: 'No.'

He asked: 'Who are his followers - people of high status or low status?'
I said: '(They are) of low status.'

He asked: 'Are they increasing in number or decreasing?'
I said: 'No, they are rather increasing.'

He asked: 'Does anyone give up his religion, being dissatisfied with it, after having embraced it?'
I said: 'No.'

He asked: 'Have you been at war with him?'
I said: 'Yes.'

He asked: 'How did you fare in that war?'
I said: 'The war between us and him has been wavering like a bucket, up at one turn and down at the other (i.e. the victory has been shared between us and him by turns).'

He asked: 'Has he (ever) violated his covenant?'
I said: 'No.'

He asked: 'Did anyone make the proclamation (of prophethood) before him?'
I said 'No.'

He now said to his interpreter: 'Tell him - I asked him about his ancestry and he replied that he had the best ancestry. This is the case with prophets; they are the descendants of the noblest among their people.'

(Addressing Abu Sufyan,) he continued:

'I asked you if there had been a king among his ancestors. You said that there had been none. If there had been a king among his ancestors, I would have said that he was a man demanding his ancestral kingdom.'

'I asked you about his followers, whether they were people of high or low status, and you said that they were of rather low status. Such are the followers of the prophets.'

'I asked you whether you used to accuse him of falsehood before he proclaimed his prophethood, and you said that you did not. So I have understood that when he did not allow himself to tell a lie about the people, he would never go to the length of forging a falsehood about Allah.'

'I asked you whether anyone renounced his religion being dissatisfied with it after he had embraced it, and you replied in the negative. Faith is like this when it enters the depths of the heart (it perpetuates them).'

'I asked you whether his followers were increasing or decreasing. You said they were increasing. Faith is like this until it reaches its consummation.'

'I asked you whether you had been at war with him, and you replied that you had been and that the victory between you and him had been shared by turns, sometimes he suffering loss at your hand and sometimes you suffering loss at his. This is how the prophets are tried before the final victory is theirs.'

'I asked you whether he (ever) violated his covenant, and you said that he did not. This is how the prophets behave. They never violate (their covenants).'

'I asked you whether anyone before him had proclaimed the same thing, and you replied in the negative. I said: If anyone had made the same proclamation before, I would have thought that he was a man following what had been proclaimed before.'

(Then) he asked: 'What does he enjoin upon you?' I said: 'He exhorts us to offer Salat, to pay Zakat, to show due regard to kinship, and to practice chastity.'

He said: 'If what you have told about him is true, he is certainly a prophet. I knew that he was to appear, but I did not think that he would be from among you. If I knew that I would be able to reach him, I would love to meet him; and if I had been with him, I would have washed his feet (out of reverence). His dominion will certainly extend to this place which is under my feet.'

Then he called for the letter of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) and read it. The letter ran as follows:

    In the name of Allah, Most Gracious and Most Merciful

    From Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, to Hiraql, the Emperor of the Romans.

    Peace be on him, who follows the right path.

    After this, I invite you to the fold of Islam. Therefore, if you desire security, accept Islam. If you accept Islam, Allah shall reward you double and if you refuse to do so, the responsibility for the transgression of the entire nation, shall be yours.

    O people of the Book, come to the word that is common between us, that we should worship none other than Allah, should not ascribe any partner to Him, and that none of us should take their fellows as Lords other than Allah.

    If you deny this, you must know that we believe in Oneness of Allah, in all circumstances.

    Seal: Allah's Prophet Muhammad

The dialogue of Caesar, with Abu Sufyan, highly enraged the courtiers. The Caesar, therefore, sent away the Arabs from the court. The love of crown and throne and the opposition of the courtiers, however, did not allow Caesar to accept Islam. But his searching questions and his talk clearly show that he was convinced of the truthfulness of Islam, as he had correctly judged that a person who never in his life, uttered even a trifling lie, could hardly say anything wrong about Allah. He was also certain that worldly riches, splendor, and ascendancy were not the aims and objects of the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.), but the communication of the message of Islam to the entire world, was his mission.

When Caesar was about to return to Constantinople, he again advised his courtiers to follow the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.) as he was the one, they were awaiting. He further mentioned that their books contained the description of the Holy Prophet, Muhammad (S.A.W.), and these clearly and unequivocally indicate that he was the true Prophet of Allah. It was, therefore, in their own interest to follow the guidance given by the Holy Prophet (S. A. W.).

However, the courtiers, said that it would mean their acceptance of the lordship of the Arabs, although their's was the biggest kingdom of the world and their nation the greatest nation of the world. Caesar, thereon, said that although they were not prepared to accept Islam then very shortly they would be overpowered by the Arabs. He was much displeased by the arrogant attitude of the courtiers and immediately left Syria. While departing, he looked at the Syrian territory and said that he was leaving Syria for ever. And it was true, he never returned to Syria.
[/b]

@ Sweetnecta

Abu Sufyan's caravan was one of the many caravans Muhammed targeted, no reasonable man will expect the caravans to be carrying only Muslims goods to and fro for the sake of physical exercise. Normal honest private business is what caravans are all about. They are like cargo ships, so imagine what sort of people attack such ships.

After the MURDER of the poor trader, Muhammed's convenient verse was that his killing was justified! How could that be justified? An unarmed trader! There was no self defence.

How does Abu Sufyan justify violence?

Guy, you are clutching at straws- where are your references?

maclatunji:

Okay, you ACTUALLY SAW HIM ATTACKING the Caravan? If you didn't, who told you he did? Can this be independently verified? Again, your last sentence shows that you don't know what you are talking about?

This is your first post

This the basis of my discussion with you and it is obvious that you are arguing from a point of ignorance, don't shy away from the topic you started yourself with wild assertions. Is that how you were taught to do research and debate issues?

Abu Sufyan died a happy Muslim, so where does that leave your point about his "lawful caravan" being robbed by Muslims?

that's uneducated talk from you! Did I see it??
What fact are you trying to dispute??
Check out this Islamic site.

ahya.org/amm/modules.php?name=Sections&op=viewarticle&artid=159

@kay17

This is a very ignorant argument::

I find it problematic that people try to transpose their values on arabs living thousands of years ago.

Now, first of all, Even in modern warfare; Sealing off trade routes is an important act of war: The muslims were just kicked out of their homes:: They were in a State of war with the Meccans.  In arab culture, being kicked out and robbed of your property is one of the greatest dishonour that can be done to a man.

The permission to fight was already there, but in the light of the status quo, it was wise for the Muslims to bring the commercial routes leading to Makkah under their control. To realize this strategic objective, the Prophet (Peace be upon him) had to choose either of two options:

1. Entering into non-aggression pacts with the tribes inhabiting either the areas adjacent to the routes or between these routes and Madinah. With respect to this course of action, the Prophet (Peace be upon him) had already signed, together with the Jews and other neighbouring tribes, the aforementioned pact of cooperation and good neighbourliness.

2. Despatching successive armed missions for harassment along the strategic commercial routs

With a view to implementing these plans, the Muslims commenced real military activities, which at first took the form of reconnaissance patrols delegated to explore the geopolitical features of the roads surrounding Madinah and others leading to Makkah, and building alliances with the tribes nearby. The Prophet wanted to impress upon the polytheists and Jews of Madinah as well as the bedouins in its vicinity, that the Muslims had smashed their old fears, and had been too strong to be attacked with impunity. He also wanted to display the power of his followers in order to deter Quraish from committing any military folly against him which might jeopardize their economic life and means of living, and to stop them from persecuting the helpless Muslims detained in Makkah,consequently he would avail himself of this opportunity and resume his job of propagating the Divine Call freely. (The sealed Nectar)

maclatunji:

Okay, you actually saw him attacking the Caravan? [/b]If you didn't, who told you he did? Can this be independently verified? Again, your last sentence shows that you don't know what you are talking about?

This is your [b]first post

This the basis of my discussion with you and it is obvious that you are arguing from a point of ignorance, don't shy away from the topic you started yourself with wild assertions. Is that how you were taught to do research and debate issues?

Abu Sufyan died a happy Muslim, so where does that leave your point about his "lawful caravan" being robbed by Muslims?

And you were there yourself? What a way to respond maclatunji

tbaba seem to be more reasonable in his response. His position makes better reading

@brentkuge

Maclatunji is a clown and nothing more.

@tbaba

My argument was that banditry or an aggressive act of war was no

@brentkuge

Maclatunji is a clown and nothing more.

@tbaba

Since most Muslims claim that Islam permits violence only in cases of self defence. My argument was that banditry or an aggressive act of war was not self defence. Such an act against the lifeline of a State (trading) is a declaration of war. Its a provocation. The newly revealed verse to Muhammed justified the killing of an unarmed trader, since he was an unbeliever is cruel and uncivilized

Kay 17:

@brentkuge

Maclatunji is a clown and nothing more.

@tbaba

My argument was that banditry or an aggressive act of war was no

With the seeming conviction with which the two of you make your posts, it is quite interesting that you guys have not graduated from the position of making allegations without any valid evidence.

My questions still stand, he who makes an allegation has the burden of proof to bear. You will surely run to your wacky websites to bring even more rubbish.

By the way Kay 17, if you think I am going to follow a non-active link to view the lame evidence you think you have, you must be high on yourself.

@Kay17; « #14 on: Today at 01:04:35 PM »
[Quote]@ Sweetnecta
Abu Sufyan's caravan was one of the many caravans Muhammed targeted, no reasonable man will expect the caravans to be carrying only Muslims goods to and fro for the sake of physical exercise.[/Quote]You lack historicity of Makka the moment Islam of Muhammad [as] began till the very battle you mentioned. Was there a muslim caravan going to Makka among the pagan's caravan or the muslims frm who are now refugees in Madina realized that the pagans of Makka are using their properties and wealth to enrich themselves, since the muslims cant go back to sell the homes and or carry the movables to Madina? Whats the reason for wanting these Makkan caravans except for that; let us retrieve a little of what you pagans of Makka didn't let us carry with us to start somewhere above the ground level instead of starting below the ground level.


[Quote]Normal honest private business is what caravans are all about. They are like cargo ships, so imagine what sort of people attack such ships.[/Quote]You are so ignorant. When and how do you come to the conclusion that people who oppressed another people for saying their Lord is One God and He is not an idol do not transgress even in trade? It was normal that the arabs used to deny they took properties or trusts of others. It was Islam of Muhammad [as] that rehabilitated them to good citizenry. Let me use the Festac issue to illustrate what you do not know. the 70s saw Nigeria for the first time barking back at the invincible empire of "Great" britain by turning British Petroleum [BP] to African petroleum [AP} you see around because england refused to return the Bini Queen mask which they "took" as colonial masters, truly they "stole" it. Nigeria was justified, so was what the Makka origin muslims of Madina.


[Quote]After the MURDER of the poor trader, Muhammed's convenient verse was that his killing was justified! How could that be justified? An unarmed trader! There was no self defence.[/Quote]I am sure David who killed Goliath was justified and King Saul etc saw convenient verses or narratives in the Bibles to make their points. Self defense is not when you a bit up to a pulp. Even preemptive strike is self defense according to President Bush, and almost all nations of the west against Iraq. What Muhammad [as] did was neither the two extremes of self defense, but the middle course; you have taken from us. You have used it enough to enrich yourselves. Please we are stronger now and since you have the boldness to make a route just through our backyard, we need some of our properties back, now.


[Quote]How does Abu Sufyan justify violence?[/Quote]same way people of Jericho justified violence; both are evil doers who God aided believers led by prophets [as] to humiliate.

@maclatunji

My argument is simple, the violence Muhammed was involved in was not self defence.

@Sweetnecta

As I said earlier, retrieving property, even lawful one is not SELF DEFENCE. Retaliation is not self defence. And murder of the unarmed trader is not. At least Goliath and David were in a fight, so its not at all similar to the trader's case.

Kay 17:

@maclatunji

My argument is simple, the violence Muhammed was involved in was not self defence.

@Sweetnecta

As I said earlier, retrieving property, even lawful one is not SELF DEFENCE. Retaliation is not self defence. And murder of the unarmed trader is not. At least Goliath and David were in a fight, so its not at all similar to the trader's case.

You argue poorly, first it was Abu Sufyan being the victim, after proving to you that Abu Sufyan is no victim, you are now claiming traders were victimised and killed just because of their trade without a name, motive and not even circumstantial evidence and you want us to hail your comments as facts, you must be kidding.

Go and read what led to the Hijra first from reliable sources and come-back to argue or discuss.

^^^
I was complaining about Muhammed lay waiting NUMEROUS caravans, which is robbery. Abu Sufyan a leader in one of the caravans called out to Mecca for help culminating to battle of Badr.

If Abu Sufyan wasn't a victim, why did he seek for help??

Kay 17:

@tbaba

Since most Muslims claim that Islam permits violence only in cases of self defence. My argument was that banditry or an aggressive act of war was not self defence. Such an act against the lifeline of a State (trading) is a declaration of war. Its a provocation. The newly revealed verse to Muhammed justified the killing of an unarmed trader, since he was an unbeliever is cruel and uncivilized

First of all, that is not true::

As individuals or groups, we can only engage in self defence .

A muslim state can engage in self defence, retaliatory or pre-emptive wars.

I have written about this here https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-832418.0.html

For thirteen years, the muslims were maimed, killed and molested. And they were commanded to do nothing. People are not simply killed because they are disbelievers, These are people that led the murder of many muslims when they lived in mecca.

Once the permission to fight for their rights was granted, cutting off the commercial route of trade was an importance step (today we will call it sanctions). It was not an aggressive war; at worst it can be called a retaliatory war. It is not as if innocent people were being attacked, These were the same people that killed them, tortured them and their families.

Before you start painting Abu sufyan or the Quraish as victims, Please read up on what muslims endured for 13 years::

^^^

Thanks tbaba, you have cleared all my doubts and misconceptions. I had always Islam restricted violence to self defence as it was a necessity.

@maclatunji

Rather than dance around like an opium insect and spit out trash, you should have been clear on Islamic grounds for violence.

this debate would have been more interesting if y'all quoted your sources especially the hadith and historical sources only.

this one that someone is requiring another to be there to authenticate an occurrence is taking the debate to the realm of a comedy.

^Your literary appreciation is not up there, it is sarcasm not comedy, the other questions should have given you a clue. Kay 17 is hiding under tbaba12345's indulging him as an escape route when he based his initial argument on Abu Sufyan- 'The Victim'.

I wonder why people take me so seriously all the time, even when I am being sarcastic or joking.

@tiarabubu, I just saw that I didn't put the link for the Abu Sufyan hadith. I was doing some complex task whilst debating with Kay 17 yesterday and forgot to post it. However, I created another thread for it and the link is there. I hardly get out of first gear when arguing here because I know most of the opponents don't know what they are arguing about. It can be amusing all the same.