Moment of Clarity (14 Viewers)

[Rami]

based on your definition of "valid arguments", a well thought one. these seemed like a valid one for me.



so why did Mohammad led his followers to attack Mecca then? he didn't follow quran?

I don't know who you are talking too exactly but I'll step in anyways. No he defiantly did not disobey God. I for now do not have a definite answer Ill have to look it up. But generally you cannot take a verse like that and apply it to a point in history like that. First of all you have to see when the verse was sent down to Muhammad PBUH. As the Quran was sent down to him throughout 23 years, so if this verse is after Makkah incident you cannot reason with such reasoning. Second of all you have to realize the situation at those times. There was a peace treaty between Muslims and the people of Makkah, but the people of Makkah broke that treaty. Third of all, this makkah war IIRC there was not much bloodshed except for a few skirmishes on the outskirts of makkah and not at the holy mosque. When the prophet entered Makkah he asked the people of Makkah (bear in mind these are his cousins, uncles, and tribe who prosecuted him, tortured his followers, and fought him for 20 years) "what do you think I will do with you?" they answered "Your generous and son of a generous", he replied "go you are free".

Anyways all this is just from the top of my head, I will get back to you with a more thorough and satisfactory answer soon.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Alucard Belmont]

I don't know who you are talking too exactly but I'll step in anyways. No he defiantly did not disobey God. I for now do not have a definite answer Ill have to look it up. But generally you cannot take a verse like that and apply it to a point in history like that. First of all you have to see when the verse was sent down to Muhammad PBUH. As the Quran was sent down to him throughout 23 years, so if this verse is after Makkah incident you cannot reason with such reasoning. Second of all you have to realize the situation at those times. There was a peace treaty between Muslims and the people of Makkah, but the people of Makkah broke that treaty. Third of all, this makkah war IIRC there was not much bloodshed except for a few skirmishes on the outskirts of makkah and not at the holy mosque. When the prophet entered Makkah he asked the people of Makkah (bear in mind these are his cousins, uncles, and tribe who prosecuted him, tortured his followers, and fought him for 20 years) "what do you think I will do with you?" they answered "Your generous and son of a generous", he replied "go you are free".

Anyways all this is just from the top of my head, I will get back to you with a more thorough and satisfactory answer soon.

based on quran is a FACT. it should hold through all passage of time.

Without the mass army advantage Muhammad had on the invasion of Mecca. you thought they will surrender?
The mongolian is able to make some cities surrender without a fight to,because of their much more superior army.

don't you think that Religion shouldn't spread without the power of violence?

 

[Zé Tahir]

based on your definition of "valid arguments", a well thought one. these seemed like a valid one for me.



so why did Mohammad led his followers to attack Mecca then? he didn't follow quran?

Good !

ok.

Him and his followers were actually thrown out of Mecca. It led to the Hijjra(exile). Mecca at that time was a very "famous" place. Caravans would go through there and each year pagan pilgrims came from all over. So the place lived off these things and events. When Prophet Muhammad came and started saying there is only one God and he was the messenger, the leaders of Mecca wanted him out. So they kicked out his followers and tried to kill him, but he escaped and went to city of Medina. There he had much more success and the followers grew. The Meccans got ticked off at the fact that the religion was growing depsite their efforts. There were series of battles fought and and the 8th year of Hirja though, the Muslims captured Mecca.

Here is a quote though to makes things clearer:

The conquest of Mecca

By 628, the Muslim position was strong enough that Muhammad decided to return to Mecca, this time as a pilgrim. In March of that year, he set out for Mecca, followed by 1,600 men. After some negotiation, a treaty was signed at the border town of al-Hudaybiyah. While Muhammad would not be allowed to finish his pilgrimage that year, hostilities would cease and the Muslims would have permission to make a pilgrimage to Mecca in the following year.

The agreement lasted only two years, however, as the Meccans broke the treaty in 630. As a result, the prophet Muhammad marched on Mecca with an enormous force, said to number 10,000+ men. The Meccans submitted without a fight, and thus, there was no bloodshed. The prophet Muhammad promised a general amnesty to all the Meccans and ensured them that no harm will be done to them. Most Meccans converted to Islam, as a result of this, and Muhammad destroyed the idols in the Kaaba. Henceforth the pilgrimage would be a Muslim pilgrimage and the shrine a Muslim shrine

 

[Alucard Belmont]

I already knew the stuffs about how Mecca treat Muhammad and his followers. and he was great person for that general amnesty.

but one point still remain.. do you need an army to spread religion?
if that religion is true,Don't you think that Mecca should have converted to Islam without all the bloodshed. yes, even before the Meccans chase Muhammad out of Mecca to Medina.

 

[Zé Tahir]

I already knew the stuffs about how Mecca treat Muhammad and his followers. and he was great person for that general amnesty.

but one point still remain.. do you need an army to spread religion?
if that religion is true,Don't you think that Mecca should have converted to Islam without all the bloodshed. yes, even before the Meccans chase Muhammad out of Mecca to Medina.

Mecca was converted without bloodshed dude. And Islam during the time of Prophet Muhammad was on the defensive. It was not spread by force. If you are speaking generally, than that's pointless. We both know that force was used to spread religion. That argument will go on forever.

 

[Alucard Belmont]

Buddishm doesn't spread by force. and now it is one of major religion in the world.

and well, you're right. this is pointless. let's stop all these arguments. and talk about something else.

 

[Rami]

based on quran is a FACT. it should hold through all passage of time.

Without the mass army advantage Muhammad had on the invasion of Mecca. you thought they will surrender?
The mongolian is able to make some cities surrender without a fight to,because of their much more superior army.

don't you think that Religion shouldn't spread without the power of violence?

Yes it should hold if the incident was after the verse not vice versa, anyways this is not the point, and as I said before I will get back to you on which preceded the other. And as I said before the Prophet did not disobey the Quran, since the Mekkans broke the peace treaty by attacking one of the Muslim's allies, and that there was no war at the holy mosque (or temple according to your version of translation) only the outskirts. Anyways I do not wish to talk about this issue right now until I read more into it.

Who said that it was spread through violence? Read Ze's post and you will see it said "most" not all of them converted to Islam. Who did not want to convert was left alone, but the fact is that the pagan's of makkah knew that Muhammeds message was true but they were too proud to admit it and were afraid that their prestige within the Arab tribes would be lost. But when they were overwhelmed and lost all their earthly attachments, they saw the light and joined Islam. A lot of them after that had great deeds and served Islam well, so the coercion theory doesn't really hold, since a coerced would not be devoted to achieve great deeds and serve his/her coercer.

 

[LoScoglio]

I'm sorry if I hinted that, but I didn't say Islam promoted violence. I said violence was justifiable for muslims, but it isn't for christians. As for the prosecution argument: I can very well understand Mohammed's humanity in using violence, but Jesus also went through prosecution and never used violence. He tells us to turn the other cheek.

I started reading Zé Tahir's long post, but after I realised the guy was proving Jesus couldn't have been God's son, I had had enough. Believing Christ was God's son is a huge pillar of christian belief. You can't rationally explain that, you have to believe it. So please don't come along with "evidence" Jesus couldn't have been God's son, because we all know it's impossible to give birth when there hasn't been sex in the first place.

 

[ßöмßäяðîëя]

Damn, this thread really took off.

 

[Rami]

And we know who to thank dont we?

 

[Snoop]

I gave up to post here,because I understood that you can't argue about religion with Muslims,they can't control their anger when you say something against their religion, but I would argue about it when I see members like Nawaf, that can take any argument about it.

 

[Maresca]

I'm sorry if I hinted that, but I didn't say Islam promoted violence. I said violence was justifiable for muslims, but it isn't for christians. As for the prosecution argument: I can very well understand Mohammed's humanity in using violence, but Jesus also went through prosecution and never used violence. He tells us to turn the other cheek.

I started reading Zé Tahir's long post, but after I realised the guy was proving Jesus couldn't have been God's son, I had had enough. Believing Christ was God's son is a huge pillar of christian belief. You can't rationally explain that, you have to believe it. So please don't come along with "evidence" Jesus couldn't have been God's son, because we all know it's impossible to give birth when there hasn't been sex in the first place.

Just one quetion here for everybody: don´t you think that God could send the quran throw angels when he can make a person born without having a father??

 

[Hambon]

I gave up to post here,because I understood that you can't argue about religion with Muslims,they can't control their anger when you say something against their religion, but I would argue about it when I see members like Nawaf, that can take any argument about it.

The reason u cannot have a proper discussion with us Snoopy is because the statements you make are pulled out of your ass and have no facts or any valid arguments behind it.....once you start discussing things in a better fashion hostility will go down.....like i said earlier in some post ...you cant just walk up to a Hindu and tell him cows arent shit, your just looking for trouble if you do that.....

 

[Rami]

I'm sorry if I hinted that, but I didn't say Islam promoted violence. I said violence was justifiable for muslims, but it isn't for christians. As for the prosecution argument: I can very well understand Mohammed's humanity in using violence, but Jesus also went through prosecution and never used violence. He tells us to turn the other cheek.

Saying Muhammad did this while Jesus did not or vice versa is just disgraceful, as both are infallable and believe it or not shared almost, if not all, beliefs. I as a Muslim would never think comparing two prophets

The messenger believeth in that which hath been revealed unto him from his Lord and (so do) believers. Each one believeth in Allah and His angels and His scriptures and His messengers - We make no distinction between any of His messengers - and they say: We hear,

I am going to take the "turn the other cheek" thingy for granted, and take your word for it that Jesus in all his confrontations did just that. But the thing is both were commanded from God and were infallible, so if Jesus said "turn the other cheek" and NEVER resorted to violence in all of its different forms, then its just because God commanded him to do so. And the same goes for Muhhamad, he went into war and peace all with god's command. I am assuming here that the Muslim God is the same as the Christian God here.

 

[loyada]

one believe that Jesus is son of GOD and the other don't ---- and as we know religion is not a rational thing --- so a rational discussion is impossible when one don't believe the other's religion and vice-versa.

 

[swag]

I'm sorry if I hinted that, but I didn't say Islam promoted violence. I said violence was justifiable for muslims, but it isn't for christians.

I actually had a bit of the opposite impression myself, IMO, and you're talking to someone who grew up Catholic as a kid.

Take a look at what happened to Jerusalem. Under Islamic rule, things were far more open and peaceable than when it was under Christian rule, where pretty much any non-Christian was executed -- man, woman or child. I think any Christian who thinks that their religious lineage has cleaner hands than a religion like Islam really needs to do some introspection and learn more about the history of their Church, IMO. It's bogus information like this that continues to spread misunderstanding and irrational intolerance.

I just don't think you can make generalizations like that.

 

[Rami]

I actually had a bit of the opposite impression myself, IMO, and you're talking to someone who grew up Catholic as a kid.

Take a look at what happened to Jerusalem. Under Islamic rule, things were far more open and peaceable than when it was under Christian rule, where pretty much any non-Christian was executed -- man, woman or child. I think any Christian who thinks that their religious lineage has cleaner hands than a religion like Islam really needs to do some introspection and learn more about the history of their Church, IMO. It's bogus information like this that continues to spread misunderstanding and irrational intolerance.

I just don't think you can make generalizations like that.

And Andalusia a three-way love triangle...Love ya greg

 

[Maresca]

I actually had a bit of the opposite impression myself, IMO, and you're talking to someone who grew up Catholic as a kid.

Take a look at what happened to Jerusalem. Under Islamic rule, things were far more open and peaceable than when it was under Christian rule, where pretty much any non-Christian was executed -- man, woman or child. I think any Christian who thinks that their religious lineage has cleaner hands than a religion like Islam really needs to do some introspection and learn more about the history of their Church, IMO. It's bogus information like this that continues to spread misunderstanding and irrational intolerance.

I just don't think you can make generalizations like that.

good post.
It is obvious that no relligion wants viollence. It is more about how the people interprate a relligion. That this things had happend In jerusalem does not mean that christian relligion wants viollence. this situation had been created because of the situation of that time. And what we see now in world under the name of islam also do not mean that islam wants violence

 

[Vinman]

Just one quetion here for everybody: don´t you think that God could send the quran throw angels when he can make a person born without having a father??

now, this post makes more sense than any other I've read...or one's that I've posted !!

No one can really explain some things that have gone on...its all a matter of FAITH, and that goes for all of our religions/beliefs



just to take it a step further...no one can really explain exactly what happens when we die

scientifically, since the body no longer functions, we no longer exist.

now, that doesnt necessarily mean that our spirit doesnt survive, and go elsewhere

 

[loyada]

now, this post makes more sense than any other I've read...or one's that I've posted !!

No one can really explain some things that have gone on...its all a matter of FAITH, and that goes for all of our religions/beliefs



just to take it a step further...no one can really explain exactly what happens when we die

scientifically, since the body no longer functions, we no longer exist.

now, that doesnt necessarily mean that our spirit doesnt survive, and go elsewhere

True

its all a matter of FAITH