₦airaland Forum

onetrack:
I can't tell you the exact number as it is not recorded, however the Muslims who wrote about it mention specifically the fact that people who converted to Islam then renounced it after Muhammad's death. It's called the "Ridda Wars" because "Ridda" means apostasy, in this case people who apostasized from Islam. Go read about the Ridda Wars, this is not a disputed part of early Islamic history.

And there are no non-Muslims in Mecca because Muhammad ordered the Muslims to expel all non-Muslims from the Arabian Peninsula (ethnic and religious cleansing, which would be a crime against humanity today).

The same Muhammad that spared all non-muslims when he conquered Mecca right seriously think before you post

Oladim001:
The same Muhammad that spared all non-muslims when he conquered Mecca right seriously think before you post

It's a 'sahih' hadith. Are you saying you don't believe it? Are you Muslim?

onetrack:
It's a 'sahih' hadith. Are you saying you don't believe it? Are you Muslim?

Mr....i asked this;

Apart from banu nadir and banu qurayza that were expelled in the lifetime of the prophet for breaking their peace treaty and waged war against Muhammad pbuh, can you pls tell me another major expulsion that happened? i'm willing to learn

You are yet to give me answers, yet you seem to still hold on to views that Muslims expelled non-muslims(unjustly) from Arabia.

lexiconkabir:
Mr....i asked this;

Apart from banu nadir and banu qurayza that were expelled in the lifetime of the prophet for breaking their peace treaty and waged war against Muhammad pbuh, can you pls tell me another major expulsion that happened? i'm willing to learn

You are yet to give me answers, yet you seem to still hold on to views that Muslims expelled non-muslims(unjustly) from Arabia.

The only histories from this time are reported by Muslims only; we don't have the story from the Jews; I'm quite sure that they would say that Muhammad broke the treaty. I cannot accept blindly a one-sided report on the Banu Qurayza.

Do you deny that Muhammad said to expel the non Muslims from Arabia? Are you a Quranist?

onetrack:
The only histories from this time are reported by Muslims only; we don't have the story from the Jews; I'm quite sure that they would say that Muhammad broke the treaty. I cannot accept blindly a one-sided report on the Banu Qurayza

How hypocritical! When the war of Ridda wasnt hidden, and the fact that some people renounced islam after the death of Muhammad wasnt hidden either you didnt doubt the story, but when the same sources tells you that banu qurayza were expelled for breaking their treaty and waged war against Muhammad, you are now saying you cant take the story, smh

Do you deny that Muhammad said to expel the non Muslims from Arabia? Are you a Quranist?

Your main point is non-muslims were expelled from Arabia which makmakesed Arabia an 100% muslim populated region(officially), so I'm asking to tell me the expulsion that took place, apart from the ones i mentioned earlier(justifying why).

And no! I am amongst the people of Sunna.

lexiconkabir:
How hypocritical! When the war of Ridda wasnt hidden, and the fact that some people renounced islam after the death of Muhammad wasnt hidden either you didnt doubt the story, but when the same sources tells you that banu qurayza were expelled for breaking their treaty and waged war against Muhammad, you are now saying you cant take the story, smh

Far from it. I don't accept any one sided source uncritically. It may be that the entire thing is completely made up (ridda wars and expulsions of the Jews). However for you, you are required to accept at face value the sahih hadiths which describe many of these things.

Your main point is non-muslims were expelled from Arabia which makmakesed Arabia an 100% muslim populated region(officially), so I'm asking to tell me the expulsion that took place, apart from the ones i mentioned earlier(justifying why).

And no! I am amongst the people of Sunna.

No. My main point is that Muhammad ordered the expulsions of all non-muslims while he lay dying. He also cursed the Christians and the Jews. Whether or not the Christians and Jews were finally expelled after his death doesn't change his dying wishes (according to the hadith).

onetrack:
Far from it. I don't accept any one sided source uncritically. It may be that the entire thing is completely made up (ridda wars and expulsions of the Jews). However for you, you are required to accept at face value the sahih hadiths which describe many of these things.

Then, why use it to justify that some people left islam after the death of Muhammad, when you don't accept the story?

No. My main point is that Muhammad ordered the expulsions of all non-muslims while he lay dying. He also cursed the Christians and the Jews. Whether or not the Christians and Jews were finally expelled after his death doesn't change his dying wishes (according to the hadith).

No mister, here is your statement:

And there are no non-Muslims in Mecca because Muhammad ordered the Muslims to expel all non-Muslims from the Arabian Peninsula (ethnic and religious cleansing, which would be a crime against humanity today).

Your reply was a result of the following assertion made by me:

moreover the mecca of today is 100% of muslim officially, was that how it was in the past?

So you tried to make it seem as if mecca became 100% Muslim populated by expulsion of non Muslims, so I'm asking you to tell us any major expulsion that took place apart from the two i stated earlier.

lexiconkabir:
Then, why use it to justify that some people left islam after the death of Muhammad, when you don't accept the story?

Because you are required to believe it as a sunni Muslim and I am asking you to say whether or not you agree with Muhammad's demand to expel the non-Muslims. Since it is a sahih hadith, you accept that Muhammad said this. Whether he actually said it or not no one can know.

No mister, here is your statement:

And there are no non-Muslims in Mecca because Muhammad ordered the Muslims to expel all non-Muslims from the Arabian Peninsula (ethnic and religious cleansing, which would be a crime against humanity today).

Your reply was a result of the following assertion made by me:

moreover the mecca of today is 100% of muslim officially, was that how it was in the past?

So you tried to make it seem as if mecca became 100% Muslim populated by expulsion of non Muslims, so I'm asking you to tell us any major expulsion that took place apart from the two i stated earlier.

We know that there were non-Muslims in Mecca, since it existed before Muhammad. Whether they were Jewish, pagan, or Christian we can only guess based on what Muslims wrote about the inhabitants.

We also know that non-Muslims are forbidden to enter Mecca today, and I wonder what justification they use for this. At some point the population must have converted or fled. Muslim historians have written about the Ridda wars. Whether they actually happened or not, who can verify? However, Islamic scholars have accepted that these events occurred, and if they did then that would show that the population did not simply convert out of a strong belief that Muhammad was a prophet, which was the point I was trying to make.

onetrack:
Because you are required to believe it as a sunni Muslim and I am asking you to say whether or not you agree with Muhammad's demand to expel the non-Muslims. Since it is a sahih hadith, you accept that Muhammad said this. Whether he actually said it or not no one can know.

In simple terms you were being hypocritical when using it for justification.

We also know that non-Muslims are forbidden to enter Mecca today, and I wonder what justification they use for this.

Every religion has its sacred sites(as far as in know) where non-adherent of that faith is not allowed to enter, so you need to get your facts right.

At some point the population must have converted or fled.

When you cant prove something its best you dont say it! This statement of yours shows uncertainty, i wonder why you hold on to conjectures that cant be proven just to stay against islam.

Muslim historians have written about the Ridda wars. Whether they actually happened or not, who can verify? However, Islamic scholars have accepted that these events occurred, and if they did then that would show that the population did not simply convert out of a strong belief that Muhammad was a prophet, which was the point I was trying to make.

Ridda wars wasnt even borne out of people disbelieving in Muhammad pbuh after he died, the main reason was the rebel group claimed they accepted Muhammad as prophet of Allah and didnt owe Abu Bakr anything(i.e they didnt want to pledge allegiance), here is an excerpt from wikipedia;

The Ridda wars (Arabic: حروب الردة), also known as the Wars of Apostasy, were a series of military campaigns launched by the Caliph Abu Bakr against rebel Arabian tribes during 632 and 633 AD, just after Muhammad died.[1] [size=18pt]The rebels' position was that they had submitted to Muhammad as the prophet of God, but owed nothing to Abu Bakr.[/size]

lexiconkabir:
In simple terms you were being hypocritical when using it for justification.

But you accept this history, right? I'm just using Islamic history to make a point. ANd you fail to deny this.

Every religion has its sacred sites(as far as in know) where non-adherent of that faith is not allowed to enter, so you need to get your facts right.

A practice I find objectionable because it implies that non-believers are somehow inferior or impure. It creates a sense of prejudice in people.

When you cant prove something its best you dont say it! This statement of yours shows uncertainty, i wonder why you hold on to conjectures that cant be proven just to stay against islam.

You can't prove Muhammad is a prophet but you keep claiming it. Let me continue to reference Islamic history even if there are clear doubts about much of it.

Ridda wars wasnt even borne out of people disbelieving in Muhammad pbuh after he died, the main reason was the rebel group claimed they accepted Muhammad as prophet of Allah and didnt owe Abu Bakr anything(i.e they didnt want to pledge allegiance), here is an excerpt from wikipedia;

The Ridda wars (Arabic: حروب الردة), also known as the Wars of Apostasy, were a series of military campaigns launched by the Caliph Abu Bakr against rebel Arabian tribes during 632 and 633 AD, just after Muhammad died.[1] [size=18pt]The rebels' position was that they had submitted to Muhammad as the prophet of God, but owed nothing to Abu Bakr.[/size]

'Ridda' means apostasy which means someone who has quit his religion. If they were not apostates, why call them apostasy wars (some of them continued to accept Muhammad as a prophet but others, like the followers of Musaylimah, considered him to be the prophet of the age and not Muhammad). It is also mentioned that the rebellious tribes were ignoring the azaan (call to prayer) which would seem a wholesale rejection of Islam by at least some of the rebel groups.

From the New World Encyclopedia:

Some withheld the Zakat, the alms tax (2 ½ percent of disposal income), though they did not challenge the prophecy of Muhammad. Others apostatized outright and returned to their pre-Islamic religion and traditions, classified by Muslims as idolatry.

So there is conflicting accounts.