Hamas threatens attacks against Israeli targets abroad

[Thunder]

Accusing a jew of being a Holocaust denier is only ok when you it, Parky?

do you have broken record syndrome?

you have posted the same sentence, three times.

translation: "I refuse to do any minimum research to prove what Orthodox Jewish organizations think about NK"

 

[bigjelmapro]

Glad you liked it.

Good to see another set of points you glossed over. Thanks.

Olmert and Barak have already voiced their concerns. And they're not the only ones. So it's not as if what I'm saying is all that loony.

Voicing concerns != impossibility.

That's not what I said. It's a matter of whether these were theives or not. The Muslims claim they were, because the Quraish took Muslim property from Mecca and sold it.

You're assuming all Quyraish were guilty, of which the self-proclaimed prophet was part of as well. Still doesn't justify breaking the laws Mohammed put in place including the slaughter and dismemberment of unarmed merchants. Could I clarify this any more? Or should I give an strong correlation to a modern example (which will probably be excused as a strawman no less) so you can finally fathom this concept?

The relevance is that you talked about an "Islamic endgame", with various references to genocide. But it's clear you can't answer the question: "For how many years did Muslims rule Jerusalem before they became the majority religion?" You seem to think it's a simpler question than I do. And the answer to the question would shed light on Islam's general attitude to living with other faiths.

Then perhaps give an explanation as to this question's relevance to this, as I see it, irrelevant and rhetorical question?

Did you miss the posts where I've explained how this general attitude has changed? And the word's right there, endgame, unless you can perhaps give a proper example how this is not the endgame?

Oh yeah, and I found in the Hamas charter where it defines itself as a wing of the Muslim brotherhood from your last misplaced comment. So a bit more than influenced I dare say:

The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the wings of Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine. Muslim Brotherhood Movement is a universal organization which constitutes the largest Islamic movement in modern times. It is characterised by its deep understanding, accurate comprehension and its complete embrace of all Islamic concepts of all aspects of life, culture, creed, politics, economics, education, society, justice and judgement, the spreading of Islam, education, art, information, science of the occult and conversion to Islam.

 

[FireGarden]

You're assuming all Quyraish were guilty, ...

No, I'm not.

Oh yeah, and I found in the Hamas charter where it defines itself as a wing of the Muslim brotherhood from your last misplaced comment. So a bit more than influenced I dare say:

No mention of Qutb in that quote. As I said before (post 197): Qutb and the Brotherhood's leadership disagreed -- before Hamas came to be.

Here's the quote from the article I gave earlier:
http://www.nixoncenter.org/publications/LeikenBrookeMB.pdf

“Qutb has influenced all those interested in jihad throughout the Islamic world,” said a founding member of al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya, an erstwhile jihadist group known for its vicious campaign against foreign tourists in Egypt during the 1980s. “The Brothers,” he continued sadly, “have abandoned the ideas of Sayyid Qutb.”

[...] Having lost the internal struggle for the Brotherhood, the radicals regrouped outside it, in sects that sought to topple regimes throughout the Muslim world. (Groups such as al Jihad would furnish the Egyptian core of al Qaeda.) These jihadists view the Brotherhood’s
embrace of democracy as blasphemy.

If you infered that I meant Hamas wasn't influenced by the Brotherhood, then I apologise.

 

[bigjelmapro]

No, I'm not.

Then we're clear that merchants traveling to Mecca with items such as animal skins and raisins during the month of Rejab are not targets to be slaughtered. At the most, theft could have been overlooked even if these merchants were deemed to have taken goods when Mohammed and his followers were evicted from Mecca for their number of infractions there. Murder, beheading, and dismemberment, not.

No mention of Qutb in that quote. As I said before (post 197): Qutb and the Brotherhood's leadership disagreed -- before Hamas came to be.

Here's the quote from the article I gave earlier:
http://www.nixoncenter.org/publications/LeikenBrookeMB.pdf

If you infered that I meant Hamas wasn't influenced by the Brotherhood, then I apologise.

Hamas is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, as stated, even if Qutb would disagree with the means in which Hamas and their like-minded terrorist organizations went about enforcing Islamic law aggressively rather than passively. Just like these terrorists refer themselves as the true Muslims based on their interpretations of the teachings of Mohammed and his successive scholars. as still Muslims.

 

[FireGarden]

Then we're clear that merchants traveling to Mecca with items such as animal skins and raisins during the month of Rejab are not targets to be slaughtered. At the most, theft could have been overlooked even if these merchants were deemed to have taken goods when Mohammed and his followers were evicted from Mecca for their number of infractions there. Murder, beheading, and dismemberment, not.

Why would the thefts be overlooked? Would you overlook them?

And I'm not sure "evicted for infractions" is the correct term for the persecution which made the Muslims flee Mecca.

Hamas is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, as stated, even if Qutb would disagree with the means in which Hamas and their like-minded terrorist organizations went about enforcing Islamic law aggressively rather than passively. Just like these terrorists refer themselves as the true Muslims based on their interpretations of the teachings of Mohammed and his successive scholars. as still Muslims.

The point is you tried to link Hamas to Qutb through the Muslim Brotherhood -- which had already moved past Qutb and is criticised by those who DO follow Qutb.

 

[bigjelmapro]

Why would the thefts be overlooked? Would you overlook them?

Are you making an extra effort at being disingenuous here? If these merchants who were slaughtered during the month of Rejab (in addition to the slew of other merchants slaughtered) were involved in the theft of items from Mohammed and his followers in Mecca when they were forced out, then you would have a point, albeit slaughtering them instead of simply taking back what was theirs would have sufficed. Since this wasn't the case and the merchants' identity wasn't verified before the onslaught, you do not.

Are you, in addition to this point, going back on the Quraysh being automatically guilty and worthy of such treatment? This doesn't even come close to the concept of 'eye for an eye'.

And I'm not sure "evicted for infractions" is the correct term for the persecution which made the Muslims flee Mecca.

Mohammed and his followers were evicted from Mecca for threatening to overthrow the establishment there. Additionally, he threatened to throw out polytheistic, pagan, and other monothesitic religions that didn't abide by his newly found faith.

As for persecution, this was probably one of the lightest forms of persecution compared to other religious groups throughout history. There were a few cases of a handful of followers being killed, mainly by their owners (ie slaves), but the brunt of this persecution was via economic sanctions against the followers of Mohammed and Mohammed himself for trying to destabilize Mecca.

So a bit of an exaggeration to use the term persecution in this case.

The point is you tried to link Hamas to Qutb through the Muslim Brotherhood -- which had already moved past Qutb and is criticised by those who DO follow Qutb.

Refer to where I linked the Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and Qutb:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5590377&postcount=189

...with the most recent influence of Sayyid Qutb of the Muslim Brotherhood, of which Hamas considers itself a wing of, to that of Islamists' views and actions pertaining to treatment of kaffirs and how the world should be governed?

So:

Qutb influence in the Muslim Brotherhood. Correct assertion.

Hamas considers itself a wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, as stated in the Hamas charter. Correct assertion.

So point out where I'm wrong here. You said there's no influence, yet haven't been able to provide argument to support this assertion.

Hamas and other terrorist groups disagree with Qutb's teachings of passive resistance and garnering influence, but this does not negate that these groups were influenced by Qutb overall.

 

[FireGarden]

Since this wasn't the case and the merchants' identity wasn't verified before the onslaught, you do not.

Where did this datum suddenly come from?

Mohammed and his followers were evicted from Mecca for threatening to overthrow the establishment there. Additionally, he threatened to throw out polytheistic, pagan, and other monothesitic religions that didn't abide by his newly found faith.

You'll have to cite that.
And the Muslims weren't evicted. They fled, because they couldn't defend themselves from the persecution, which you make light of -- even as you mention executions:

As for persecution, this was probably one of the lightest forms of persecution compared to other religious groups throughout history. There were a few cases of a handful of followers being killed, mainly by their owners (ie slaves), but the brunt of this persecution was via economic sanctions against the followers of Mohammed and Mohammed himself for trying to destabilize Mecca.

So a bit of an exaggeration to use the term persecution in this case.

So you won't acknowledge the killing of slaves as persecution. What hope then that economic sanctions be considered persecution?

Refer to where I linked the Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and Qutb:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5590377&postcount=189

So:

Qutb influence in the Muslim Brotherhood. Correct assertion.

Except that, by the time Hamas was founded, the Brotherhood had moved beyond Qutb.

Hamas considers itself a wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, as stated in the Hamas charter. Correct assertion.

So point out where I'm wrong here. You said there's no influence, yet haven't been able to provide argument to support this assertion.

No. You tried to link Hamas to Qutb, which I think you have failed to do. I did not deny Hamas were influenced by the Muslim Brotherhood -- in fact I clarified that point in post 303.

Hamas and other terrorist groups disagree with Qutb's teachings of passive resistance and garnering influence, but this does not negate that these groups were influenced by Qutb overall.

Qutb's teachings of passive resistance? Are sure about that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qutbism

The main tenet of Qutbist ideology is that the Muslim community (or the Muslim community outside of a vanguard fighting to reestablish it) "has been extinct for a few centuries" having reverted to Godless ignorance (Jahiliyya), and must be reconquered for Islam.

The Muslim Brotherhood, including Hamas, have nationalistic aims which put them at odds with the Qutbist aims. Nationalism is too worldly, too materialistic.

Qutbists think Muslims 'excommunicate' themselves if they commit sins.

Qutb was not a pacifist, as you seem to imply. He is the inspiration of the Jihadist groups I quoted earlier.

 

[bigjelmapro]

Where did this datum suddenly come from?

There's no suddenly at all. I haven't been able to find in any of the hadiths by Al-Bukhari or Muslim or whatnot that the merchants were identified before-hand to be thieves involved with the appropriation of goods taken from Mohammed and his followers in Mecca. Unless of course you are retracting the claim that not all of the Quraysh were guilty and therefore deserved this treatment.

You'll have to cite that.
And the Muslims weren't evicted. They fled, because they couldn't defend themselves from the persecution, which you make light of -- even as you mention executions:

Its on the main wiki page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_in_Mecca

Mohammed simply made the mistake of trying to invoke a coup d'état prior to having the means to do so. Resistance by those in charge of Mecca, which at this point did have a harmony amongst religious groups without discrimination albeit not a perfect one, was an obvious result of Mohammed trying to destabilize Mecca.

So you won't acknowledge the killing of slaves as persecution. What hope then that economic sanctions be considered persecution?

I could only find 2-3 cases where slaves were killed for their religious observance. I don't generally make a trend of persecution from that.

Except that, by the time Hamas was founded, the Brotherhood had moved beyond Qutb.

But not beyond Qutb's influence, as I've stated before. You keep saying the same thing here.

No. You tried to link Hamas to Qutb, which I think you have failed to do. I did not deny Hamas were influenced by the Muslim Brotherhood -- in fact I clarified that point in post 303.

And you have failed to formulate a response as to how Qutb hasn't influenced Hamas through his writings. Hamas trumpets the same points from Qutb's "Our Struggle with the Jews" and employs the same methods of gaining influence amongst the masses via social programs and activities. Only in the 1980's did the rift in the Muslim Brotherhood away from passivity, which was Qutb's approach to gaining influence.

Qutb's teachings of passive resistance? Are sure about that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qutbism

I am sure. In this case and in others you easily get confused with semantics:

"offensive jihad," - waging jihad in conquest[1] - or "armed jihad in the advance of Islam"

Does not imply offensive methods such as Hamas and Al Qaida employs. As explained before, this has been the different approaches between that of Qutb and said terrorist groups. This, however, which was also explained, doesn't negate Qutb's influence on the Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoots, including Hamas and Islamic Jihad regardless of the rift in the 80's.

The Muslim Brotherhood, including Hamas, have nationalistic aims which put them at odds with the Qutbist aims. Nationalism is too worldly, too materialistic.

Hamas's struggles are regional, albeit their hypothetical endgame (mentioned ad nausauem here), is worldly.

Hamas is too materialistic? Please back this one up...

Qutbists think Muslims 'excommunicate' themselves if they commit sins.

Qutb was not a pacifist, as you seem to imply. He is the inspiration of the Jihadist groups I quoted earlier.

Didn't say pacifist, and didn't imply it.

Here you contradict your earlier claims that there isn't a link between Hamas and Qutb. Unless of course you want to reinvent the English language that there's a world of difference between the words 'influence' and 'inspiration' and therefore those who are influencing and inspiring each other are not linked?

Short of Hamas officials wearing Tshirts with Qutb's face on it, how could Hamas and Qutb be linked to you? Osama bin Laden shirts could suffice, since there's no denying Qutb's influence on Al Qaida...

 

[FireGarden]

There's no suddenly at all. I haven't been able to find in any of the hadiths by Al-Bukhari or Muslim or whatnot that the merchants were identified before-hand to be thieves involved with the appropriation of goods taken from Mohammed and his followers in Mecca.

LOL,
You didn't invent it because you didn't find the contrary.

Unless of course you are retracting the claim that not all of the Quraysh were guilty and therefore deserved this treatment.

Dream on.

Its on the main wiki page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_in_Mecca

Mohammed simply made the mistake of trying to invoke a coup d'état prior to having the means to do so.

A coup? Where does it say that?
The closest I find is:

Conservative opposition arose to Muhammad's speeches. According to Ibn Sad, the opposition in Mecca started when Muhammad delivered verses that "spoke shamefully of the idols they [the Meccans] worshiped other than Himself [God] and mentioned the perdition of their fathers who died in disbelief."[69] According to Watt, as the ranks of Muhammad's followers swelled, he became a threat to the local tribes and the rulers of the city, whose wealth rested upon the Kaaba, the focal point of Meccan religious life, which Muhammad threatened to overthrow.

So the rulers of Mecca had their source of wealth threatened. Challenging another's monopoly is not cause for persecution.

The wiki article also says:

Some of the ranking and influential leaders of the Quraysh tried (but failed) to come to some arrangements with Muhammad in exchange for abandoning his preaching. They offered him admission into the inner circle of merchants and establishing his position in the circle by an advantageous marriage, but Muhammad refused. During this period, Muhammad urged his followers to be pacifist, commanding them to "deal gently with the infidels".

So the cause of the persecution was which act of violence? Preaching a new (competing rather than complementary) religion. For this, you overlook the killing of slaves and suggest it is an exaggeration to call it "persecution".

I could only find 2-3 cases where slaves were killed for their religious observance. I don't generally make a trend of persecution from that.

And yet you linked to the wiki article which lists some persecution, including violence and the fleeing of Muslims from Mecca to Ethiopia. Do you think they went for a holiday?

Does not imply offensive methods such as Hamas and Al Qaida employs. As explained before, this has been the different approaches between that of Qutb and said terrorist groups. This, however, which was also explained, doesn't negate Qutb's influence on the Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoots, including Hamas and Islamic Jihad regardless of the rift in the 80's.

So those that lionise Qutb (eg: al-Qaida) they are the ones who don't follow Qutb's teachings. But those who disagree and distance themselves from Qutb (like the Muslim Brotherhood), they are the ones who were influenced by Qutb -- but specifically not by his "teachings of passive resistance".

I still don't understand it. But I'm willing to say it if it'll help you move on.

Hamas is too materialistic? Please back this one up...

In whose view are they too materialistic? In the view of the Qutbists, to whom religion is the be all and end all. Being nationalistic is being too materialistic/worldly.

Didn't say pacifist, and didn't imply it.

It's a natural inference from the pharase: "Hamas and other terrorist groups disagree with Qutb's teachings of passive resistance and garnering influence."

Here you contradict your earlier claims that there isn't a link between Hamas and Qutb. Unless of course you want to reinvent the English language that there's a world of difference between the words 'influence' and 'inspiration' and therefore those who are influencing and inspiring each other are not linked?

No contradiciton. Hamas is not the Jihadist group I quoted earlier.

Short of Hamas officials wearing Tshirts with Qutb's face on it, how could Hamas and Qutb be linked to you?

Perhaps they could lionise Qutb in the way that al-Qaeda does.

 

[bigjelmapro]

LOL,
You didn't invent it because you didn't find the contrary.

Only thing the hadiths state is that these merchants were attacked from behind and then identified to be of the Quryash tribe. Nothing more. Other hadiths mention intelligence gathering prior to other cases of slaughtering merchants, not all being Quryash.

Dream on.

So what are you stating then? This isn't a simply issue of resolving theft and being booted out of Mecca.

A coup? Where does it say that?

So the rulers of Mecca had their source of wealth threatened. Challenging another's monopoly is not cause for persecution.

So no issue with replacing a monopoly of multiple religions and stability, with a monopoly booting out all other religions except one?

So the cause of the persecution was which act of violence? Preaching a new (competing rather than complementary) religion. For this, you overlook the killing of slaves and suggest it is an exaggeration to call it "persecution".

Where did I overlook it and where did I call it an exaggeration?

And yet you linked to the wiki article which lists some persecution, including violence and the fleeing of Muslims from Mecca to Ethiopia. Do you think they went for a holiday?

Why would one allow people to stay who are associated with a group threatening to destablize and boot you out of Mecca?

So those that lionise Qutb (eg: al-Qaida) they are the ones who don't follow Qutb's teachings. But those who disagree and distance themselves from Qutb (like the Muslim Brotherhood), they are the ones who were influenced by Qutb -- but specifically not by his "teachings of passive resistance".

I still don't understand it. But I'm willing to say it if it'll help you move on.

Passive resistance to gain influence, as in Egypt, where Qutb preached. Qutb was the main propagandist from the Muslim Brotherhood at the time. Both influenced groups like Al Qaida, Islamic Jihad and Hamas. There were disagreements between groups, but the influence remains.

You're still peddaling the idea that since some groups disagreed with some of Qutb's teachings, mainly that of gaining influence amongst its people, that it somehow negates all of Qutb's teachings and influence.

Am I getting this assumption wrong? If so, please explain.

In whose view are they too materialistic? In the view of the Qutbists, to whom religion is the be all and end all. Being nationalistic is being too materialistic/worldly.

I don't know. I thought you were stating that Hamas's agenda is too materialistic. That's why I posed the question.

It's a natural inference from the pharase: "Hamas and other terrorist groups disagree with Qutb's teachings of passive resistance and garnering influence."

I think you're getting assumption confused with inference/deduction. Nowhere did I state or infer that Qutb is a pacifist. Garnering influence and passive resistance, ie Qutb in Egypt, does not imply that Qutb is a pacifist and that violence is off the table in every situation.

No contradiciton. Hamas is not the Jihadist group I quoted earlier.

Perhaps they could lionise Qutb in the way that al-Qaeda does.

But no link still exists between Hamas and Qutb? I asked earlier why you think Hamas is too materialistic or in this case, have nationalist aims (I don't see that in their charter beyond establishing an Islamic state instead in Israel).

Is lionising the only method to link the two?

 

[FireGarden]

Only thing the hadiths state is that these merchants were attacked from behind and then identified to be of the Quryash tribe. Nothing more. Other hadiths mention intelligence gathering prior to other cases of slaughtering merchants, not all being Quryash.

So you want me to believe that the Muslims attacked people without knowing who they were -- not even knowing that they were from the Quryash, which is more extreme than your first claim that the merchants were killed for simply being Quryash.

And you cite nothing concrete to back up your claims.

So what are you stating then? This isn't a simply issue of resolving theft and being booted out of Mecca.

So you keep saying. But your word doesn't convince me.

So no issue with replacing a monopoly of multiple religions and stability, with a monopoly booting out all other religions except one?

So you're claiming that the rulers of Mecca were psychic and knew that Mohammed was going to boot them out for no reason at all. Knowing this, they persecuted the Muslims in order to help them out by giving them a pretext for doing what they were going to do anyway.

You could at least try citing some violence by the Muslims from before they were persecuted.

Where did I overlook it and where did I call it an exaggeration?

post 306:

As for persecution, this was probably one of the lightest forms of persecution compared to other religious groups throughout history. There were a few cases of a handful of followers being killed, mainly by their owners (ie slaves), but the brunt of this persecution was via economic sanctions against the followers of Mohammed and Mohammed himself for trying to destabilize Mecca.

So a bit of an exaggeration to use the term persecution in this case.

I apologise. You said "a bit of an exaggeration."

Why would one allow people to stay who are associated with a group threatening to destablize and boot you out of Mecca?

You haven't backed up these allegations, except with the wiki link which said: "Conservative opposition arose to Muhammad's speeches," and made references to how some people's wealth depended on the Kaaba.

You have cited not one act of Muslim violence which predates the persecution of Muslims.

Passive resistance to gain influence, as in Egypt, where Qutb preached. Qutb was the main propagandist from the Muslim Brotherhood at the time. Both influenced groups like Al Qaida, Islamic Jihad and Hamas. There were disagreements between groups, but the influence remains.

You're still peddaling the idea that since some groups disagreed with some of Qutb's teachings, mainly that of gaining influence amongst its people, that it somehow negates all of Qutb's teachings and influence.

Some people disagreed with the idea of gaining influence? Do you include Hamas in this? Are you saying that Hamas did not want to gain influence?

I don't know. I thought you were stating that Hamas's agenda is too materialistic. That's why I posed the question.

I said what I said in the context of highlighting the difference between the Muslim Brotherhood and Qutbists. Nationalism is too worldly a thing for Qutbists. Hamas are nationalist, and thus too worldly (in the opinion of Qutbists).

"Worldly" being the other word I used in that sentence, to highlight which meaning of "materialistic" I intended.

 

[bigjelmapro]

So you want me to believe that the Muslims attacked people without knowing who they were -- not even knowing that they were from the Quryash, which is more extreme than your first claim that the merchants were killed for simply being Quryash.

And you cite nothing concrete to back up your claims.

That's the issue here. All of the other merchant attacks had hadiths, predominantly Bukhari, stating that there was intelligence gathering involved prior to an attack on a caravan. This attack in 623 during the month of Rejab didn't have any of these hadiths, only a convenient addition to the Quran when Mohammed found himself in a quagmire and royally pissing off a number of his converts in Medina for contradicting himself (which is not the first, but many cases of contradition). There's a reason the following relevation occurred after the booty was gathered:

They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: 'Fighting therein is a grave (offence); but graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members.' Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith if they can. And if any of you Turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will abide therein [Quran 2:217].

There's no mention of guilt in this verse or the hadiths regarding this surrah if these merchants were in fact Quryash prior to the attack led by Abdullah Ibn Jahsh, only that they were attacked from behind as a target of opportunity.

You can, however, at any point counter any of these claims, rather than outright denying them.

Interesting article that mentions this, amongst other topics of interest:
Muslim Scholars’ Open Letter to Pope: A Pack of Lies and Deception

So you're claiming that the rulers of Mecca were psychic and knew that Mohammed was going to boot them out for no reason at all. Knowing this, they persecuted the Muslims in order to help them out by giving them a pretext for doing what they were going to do anyway.

Who are you referring to as 'they'? The slave masters who were insulted by the conversion of slaves that insulted their religion?

Mohammed's intentions were no secret as he thoroughly insulted the polytheist and pagan religions situated there and said they should not be present in and around the Ka'aba. History shows quite well the steps taken against non-Islamic religions first in Medina, then Mecca and throughout by Arabian peninsula, apart from of course the safe haven of non-Muslim religions in Jeddah that exists today. This has perpetuated from the early mid-6th century until today.

You could at least try citing some violence by the Muslims from before they were persecuted.

I can't tell if this is an intentional approach to negate my points (knowing that there wasn't violent resistance at this point) or if this is an actual question.

The issue here with Mohammed and his followers, before they were expelled from Mecca, is that they caused instability in a city that accepted all religions and creeds and denounced the monopoly by the Quryash of the Ka'aba where Mohammed wanted the monopoly of the Ka'aba himself.

post 306:

I apologise. You said "a bit of an exaggeration."

Yes, a bit of an exaggeration to use the term. As I've stated above, it wasn't wide-swept and systematic persecution as compared to other cases of persecution which was wide-swept and systematic by those in power. Hence my reluctance to call this persecution in the literal sense. I've mentioned my reasoning for this above. Additionally, what I said is not the same what you accused me of. But nice play of words there.

You have cited not one act of Muslim violence which predates the persecution of Muslims.

Because I never made the claim of violence by the Muslims that predates this persecution. As for persecution, already responded to it. You're being redundant here.

Some people disagreed with the idea of gaining influence? Do you include Hamas in this? Are you saying that Hamas did not want to gain influence?

Now I know you're being disingenuous. I said the means in which influence is gained. I've said this repeatedly, but somehow you find this entertaining to gloss over this.

I said what I said in the context of highlighting the difference between the Muslim Brotherhood and Qutbists. Nationalism is too worldly a thing for Qutbists. Hamas are nationalist, and thus too worldly (in the opinion of Qutbists).

"Worldly" being the other word I used in that sentence, to highlight which meaning of "materialistic" I intended.

But we aren't discussing the difference between the Muslim Brotherhood and the Qutbists here (which I don't disagree with in the first place!). I've stated that there was influence amongst the jihadist terrorist groups from Islamic jihad, Hamas to Al Qaida by Qutb to varying degrees, and thus, would suffice to link Qutb to Hamas.

Your response to this is that Hamas has nationalist ideals, that this somehow voids any and all influence by Qutb on Hamas. And my favorite rebuttal, since Qutb died before the rift between the Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic Jihad, and the Qutbists occurred, that this influence and link is null and void.

As for nationalist ideals/goals by Hamas, I still want to see. And no, this wasn't the view of the Qutbists when you first made this claim. All I see in the Hamas charter is the establishment of an Islamic state in place of Israel and all of Palestine under Sharia law, which does adhere to the brunt of Qutb's teachings, merely the means to get there wasn't (albeit Qutb in his views to gain influence only referred to Egypt in terms of passive resistance, which was a country already ruled by Muslims, just not the right ones).

 

[FireGarden]

That's the issue here. All of the other merchant attacks had hadiths, predominantly Bukhari, stating that there was intelligence gathering involved prior to an attack on a caravan. This attack in 623 during the month of Rejab didn't have any of these hadiths, only a convenient addition to the Quran when Mohammed found himself in a quagmire and royally pissing off a number of his converts in Medina for contradicting himself (which is not the first, but many cases of contradition). There's a reason the following relevation occurred after the booty was gathered:


There's no mention of guilt in this verse or the hadiths regarding this surrah if these merchants were in fact Quryash prior to the attack led by Abdullah Ibn Jahsh, only that they were attacked from behind as a target of opportunity.

So you mean this raid then:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakhla_raid

Though there is no mention that the merchants were attacked from behind -- the wiki article claims the Muslims were seen and presented themselves as pilgrims. There is also no support of your claim that the merchants were identified as Quraish only after they had been attacked.

Also the merchants weren't all killed. One was killed, one escaped and two captured. (Your own link agrees with wiki on this).

In the short battle that ensued, Waqid b. Abd Allah killed Amr b. Hadrami, the leader of the Quraysh caravan. Nawfal b.Abd Allah escaped. The Muslims took Uthman b. Abd Allah and al-Hakam b. Kaysan as prisoners.

[...] However, Muhammad refused to accept the ransoms from the Quraysh until the two of his men, Sa’d b. Abi Waqqas and Utbah b. Ghazwan returned from searching the straying camel. He was afraid that the Quraysh might kill them if they found them. When Sa’d and Utbah returned unharmed, Muhammad released the two Quraysh prisoners on payment of their ransom of one thousand six hundred (1,600) Dirhams.

[...] The Islamic name of this first successful raid is the ‘Nakhla Raid.’ It was also the first raid on which the Muslims seized their first captive, and the first life they took.

Which contradicts your previous claims:

Only thing the hadiths state is that these merchants were attacked from behind and then identified to be of the Quryash tribe.

A prime example consisted during 623 AD when a group of unarmed merchants from the Quraysh tribe (to which Mohammed still belonged to) were traveling to Mecca with trading goods like raisins and animal skins. They were slaughtered, beheaded, and dismembered. These merchants were not providing logistical support or were carrying weapons bound for Mecca.

Your own link also contradicts your claim that Mohammed made up the rules of fighting in Rejab:

So they were robbed since these goods didn't belong to the raiding Mohammed party (since they weren't traveling from Mecca, but to it), it was during Rejab, these men were unarmed, they weren't providing support for any armies in Mecca, and Mohammed didn't abide by the rules of engagement that he made up.

http://www.islam-watch.org/MA_Khan/Scholars2Pope.htm

However, it was the last day of Rajab – a sacred period in the Arabian custom during which fighting and violence were prohibited. This breach of centuries-old sacred custom, devoutly respected by the Arabs, created great dissatisfaction amongst the citizens of Medina including the Muslim converts.

An Islamic reference to the Nakhla raid, from a biography of Mohammed:
http://mercytomankind.net/TheLifeOfMohamedDir/AbdullahIbnJahshRaid.html

Arriving at Nakhla, Abdullah and those with him observed a caravan carrying goods belonging to Quraysh, led by Amr ibn Al-Hadrami - Quraysh who had persecuted them, taken their property, and driven them out of their homes. This seemed to be an opportunity to exact revenge, but they hesitated as it was the last day of Rajab, one of the four holy months during which the Arabs did not fight. At least they were unsure whether it was the last day of Rajab or the first day of the month after it, as such matters cannot be decided in advance and depend upon the sighting of the new moon. If they waited until the next day, however, the caravan would enter the precincts of Mecca and be out of their reach. They thought of all they had suffered at the hands of Quraysh, and then charged forward, capturing the caravan. During the fight one man fired an arrow at Amr ibn Al-Hadrami, killing him.

So which story makes more sense?
Your story: the Muslims attacked people without bothering to find out who they were.
The Muslims story: they knew these people to be oppressors and theives.

I choose the latter.
You've nothing to support your version, which doesn't even agree with the link you gave to support it.

Who are you referring to as 'they'? The slave masters who were insulted by the conversion of slaves that insulted their religion?

All those who engaged in the persecution -- including the economic persecution.

Mohammed's intentions were no secret as he thoroughly insulted the polytheist and pagan religions situated there and said they should not be present in and around the Ka'aba. History shows quite well the steps taken against non-Islamic religions first in Medina, then Mecca and throughout by Arabian peninsula, apart from of course the safe haven of non-Muslim religions in Jeddah that exists today. This has perpetuated from the early mid-6th century until today.

Again with this.
I asked you before: how long did Muslims rule Jerusalem before they were a majority in the city? You know the relevance: it negates what you are trying to portray Islam as.

And, even if you were right, how would citing all the things which happened after many Muslims fled Mecca help you argue that the Meccans knew what was coming and were acting in pre-emptive self-defence? It doesn't. Because the Meccans weren't psychic and you cannot cite any violence from before many Muslims fled from Mecca.

I can't tell if this is an intentional approach to negate my points (knowing that there wasn't violent resistance at this point) or if this is an actual question.

It is a question which negates your point. You even admit there was no violence from the Muslims before the persecution. So on what basis do you defend the persecution?

The issue here with Mohammed and his followers, before they were expelled from Mecca, is that they caused instability in a city that accepted all religions and creeds and denounced the monopoly by the Quryash of the Ka'aba where Mohammed wanted the monopoly of the Ka'aba himself.

You're back to defending the right of those with a monopoply to defend their monopoly with violence. Even against those who only speak out against them. So, if today I was to challenge the power of the Catholic Church (with atheist speeches) this would permit what kind of response? Please elaborate. And, if that response included persecution of those who took up atheism, would I be wrong to respond? And, if I did respond, would this then vindicate the persecution meted out by the Catholics?

Yes, a bit of an exaggeration to use the term. As I've stated above, it wasn't wide-swept and systematic persecution as compared to other cases of persecution which was wide-swept and systematic by those in power. Hence my reluctance to call this persecution in the literal sense. I've mentioned my reasoning for this above. Additionally, what I said is not the same what you accused me of. But nice play of words there.

I accused you of calling it an exaggeration. Which, I admited, was itself an exaggeration. You merely called it "a bit of an exaggeration".

Because I never made the claim of violence by the Muslims that predates this persecution. As for persecution, already responded to it. You're being redundant here.

But you've not justified the persecution except to point out that others have suffered worse. People can be killed/staked to the ground in the sun/have rocks piled on their body/be robbed... but worse things happen at sea! Being economicly shunned isn't persecution in the real sense.

So now that we've sketched out the bigjel-scale of persecution... Let's get onto the matter of answering if the persecution was justified.

Now I know you're being disingenuous. I said the means in which influence is gained. I've said this repeatedly, but somehow you find this entertaining to gloss over this.

No. You didn't say "means".
You also didn't give any details as to how they differed.

I have given more details as to how the Qutbists and the Brotherhood differed. You've waffled on about how Hamas didn't like Qutb's teachings of passive resistance -- teaching of pacifism which don't advocate pacifism, to boot.

But we aren't discussing the difference between the Muslim Brotherhood and the Qutbists here (which I don't disagree with in the first place!).

That's right!
We're discussing your attempt to link Hamas to Qutb via the Brotherhood. This doesn't work because, as you agree, the Brotherhood and Qutb have disagreements.

So you are going to have to take a different, more detailed route.

I've stated that there was influence amongst the jihadist terrorist groups from Islamic jihad, Hamas to Al Qaida by Qutb to varying degrees, and thus, would suffice to link Qutb to Hamas.

I don't understand that sentence.
If you are trying to link Hamas to Qutb via al-Qaeda, then you should be aware that Hamas recently fought against an al-Qaeda cell in Gaza -- just after the latter declared an Islamic Emirate. (See articles below for more Salafist/Hamas rivalry).

Your response to this is that Hamas has nationalist ideals, that this somehow voids any and all influence by Qutb on Hamas.

My claim is: nationalist ideals are too worldly for Qutbists. You'll have to link Hamas to Qutb some other way.

As for nationalist ideals/goals by Hamas, I still want to see.

You are claiming now that Hamas are not nationalist? Then you describe the kind of nation they are fighting for.

And no, this wasn't the view of the Qutbists when you first made this claim.

I don't understand this sentence, either.

All I see in the Hamas charter is the establishment of an Islamic state in place of Israel and all of Palestine under Sharia law, which does adhere to the brunt of Qutb's teachings, merely the means to get there wasn't (albeit Qutb in his views to gain influence only referred to Egypt in terms of passive resistance, which was a country already ruled by Muslims, just not the right ones).

So, again....
The Jihadists that lionize Qutb and seek to overthrow governments in Muslim countries (like that of Mubarak in Egypt) through violent means... they don't follow Qutb. I guess they should pay more attention to what the bloke said.... No not the takfiri stuff, that might encourage them to use violence in Egypt, like they have done in the past.

I'm thinking of people like Zawahiri, another former member of the Brotherhood, one of those very influenced by Qutb and believed to be responsible for attacks in Egypt.


Here's another Salafist:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,566740,00.html

Abu Mustafa is not fond of speaking with journalists. It is still risky for the group to come out of hiding, since Hamas -- the Palestinian Islamist group which controls the Gaza Strip -- views Salafis with suspicion.

[...] Abu Mustafa says, he and his comrades in arms realize they need to be patient. There's a long way to go before they can begin their struggle for global influence. First, they have to take care of an enemy closer to home: Hamas.

So far, Hamas has done what it can to keep the Salafis under control. They know the ultra-radicals are just waiting to take over Hamas' position of leadership. "They are traitors," Abu Mustafa says of Hamas. "Compared to us, they are Islamism lite."

Nevertheless, he's willing to be merciful. "We will give them the chance to turn away from the false path," he says. And what happens if they don't take up the offer? "Then there will be confrontation," Abu Mustafa promises, bringing his fists together. Still, he doesn't think it likely that the Salafis will have to take up arms against Hamas. "It won't be necessary. They will destroy themselves."

[...] "Hamas represents an American style of Islam. They have tried to curry favor."

[...] For his part, Abu Mustafa claims he is not afraid of death. He says he is not fighting for worldly things. And he hopes he will fall in the struggle for his beliefs.

"On the other hand," he says before pushing himself up and limping back to his car, "I would love to see my daughter wed. Maybe she will marry first, and then I will become a martyr."

Oh noes! he has worldly concerns. He's almost as American as Hamas!


You might also find this blog interesting:
http://lynch.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/01/07/zawahiri_cant_believe_his_luck

I found the speigel interview via the above, which had led to this:
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/01/04/worse-outcomes-than-a-strengthened-hamas/

Pick your way through the links, if you like. But they're blogs, I give them as sources of links.

 

[bigjelmapro]

So you mean this raid then:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakhla_raid

Though there is no mention that the merchants were attacked from behind -- the wiki article claims the Muslims were seen and presented themselves as pilgrims. There is also no support of your claim that the merchants were identified as Quraish only after they had been attacked.

It was a legitimate assumption that this caravan was not identified as belonging to the Quraysh, as presented in the article linked, those running the caravan identified themselves as pilgrims. I'll have to dig up the article that states that they were attacked from behind, since the article only mentions that they were attacked they were preparing food. So this is not so far-fetched from the article given.

Also the merchants weren't all killed. One was killed, one escaped and two captured. (Your own link agrees with wiki on this).

There are other articles that state that 2 were killed and the other 1 or 2 (some sources disagree that there were 3 or 4 total) were taken captive and sold into slavery.

And I didn't say all were killed either.

Which contradicts your previous claims:

Your own link also contradicts your claim that Mohammed made up the rules of fighting in Rejab.

I admit that he didn't make up the concept of non-violence during Rejab. I will state again: I don't see the relevance of splitting hairs over who made up the concept of Rejab has to do with anything? In addition to my admission to the adoption of this practice several posts ago. Its passe.

So which story makes more sense?
Your story: the Muslims attacked people without bothering to find out who they were.
The Muslims story: they knew these people to be oppressors and theives.

Link given in the beginning states nothing along the lines of the Muslim raiding party knowing the caravan's identity (other than pilgrims) or whether they were involved in any appropriation of goods when Mohammed fled Mecca. So are you or are not arguing that this caravan was identified as Quraysh and thus automatically guilty of stealing from them (guilt by association)? You have no evidence to support your position.

You state oppressors once again, who were they? The slave owners or the Quraysh leadership who imposed economic sanctions against Mohammed for trying to destablize Mecca?

Sounds more to me that you believe the romantisized version of events and are playing the role of the apologist. Even the link provided states that Mohammed's intentions were to force the Quraysh 'to come to terms with them'.

All those who engaged in the persecution -- including the economic persecution.

So sanctions translates into persecution now? Again, nice play of words.

Again with this.
I asked you before: how long did Muslims rule Jerusalem before they were a majority in the city? You know the relevance: it negates what you are trying to portray Islam as.

And again. Relevance? You keep digging up the same rebuttal that is irrelevant to the point I've made (care to re-read it?). Instead of trying to play the card of me trying to attack all of Islam and dub them as 'evil-doers', which is what I understand from your posts, how about actually arguing the points.

And, even if you were right, how would citing all the things which happened after many Muslims fled Mecca help you argue that the Meccans knew what was coming and were acting in pre-emptive self-defence? It doesn't. Because the Meccans weren't psychic and you cannot cite any violence from before many Muslims fled from Mecca.

Who argued 'pre-emptive self-defence'? As I've stated before. Mohammed preached and only managed to get a small amount of followers. Then he started to insult the state of religious equality enforced by the Quraysh in Mecca and the Ka'aba stating that polythiesm is a disgrace and should not be allowed there. These insults escalated to the point where Quraysh imposed economic sanctions on Mohammed since he threatened the stability of Mecca. Then it got to the point where he was expelled from Mecca and went to Medina. At this point, several months later, Mohammed started attacking caravans with the intention of acquiring wealth (not to attain what was lost in Mecca) and thus followers with this new found wealth. At this point, with the raids in full motion, did the Quraysh in Mecca take offensive action against these bandits (which is what they were). So nothing pre-emptive about it.

Short exerpt:

What started the Battle of the Trench?

Many causes feed into any conflict, but one stands out. Muslim raiders harassed Meccan trade. Modern Saudi biographer Safi-ur-Rahman al-Mubarakpuri expresses the right idea: . . . "t was wise for the Muslims to bring the commercial routes leading to Makkah [Mecca] under their control" (p. 201). Then he lists eight raids between 623 and the Battle of Badr in AD 624. In each one, Muslims were the aggressors, to accomplish the big objective of strangling Mecca’s trade. These raids that sometimes involved hundreds of men continued steadily from that time to the Battle of the Trench. The Meccans had had enough. So they wanted to finish off Islam, once and for all.

From Muhammad’s point of view, he wanted the Kabah shrine in Mecca, and if this goal involved hindering Meccan trade, then so be it. Two early Medinan suras or chapters (2 and 8) reveal his outlook. Sura 2:189-196 and 216-218 command Muslims to fight the Quraysh because this tribe wanted to control their own shrine, even if this entailed prohibiting the Muslims, who were hampering the large tribe’s trade, from visiting it. Next, Sura 2:125-129 asserts without a shred of evidence that Abraham built and purified the shrine, and now Muhammad the monotheist is the best representative of this patriarch. He claimed this while he lived in Mecca, too (Sura 14:35-41). So in effect the shrine belonged to him by revelation, before it actually did by conquest (in early AD 630). Finally, in Sura 8:30-40, the prophet recounts his persecution back in Mecca and why the Quraysh are not the rightful guardians of the shrine. They barred people from it—never mind that about eight years later the prophet will bar pagans from the shrine. All Arab polytheists will be forced to convert or die.

It is impossible (for me at least) to escape the impression that if Muhammad had put aside this desire to control the Kabah, then much of the conflict between him and the Quraysh would never have erupted in the first place. But the shrine was a popular place of religious pilgrimage, so how could he allow religious freedom for polytheists?

It is a question which negates your point. You even admit there was no violence from the Muslims before the persecution. So on what basis do you defend the persecution?

Who says I'm defending persecution of a handful of slaves who coverted to Islam, and whose slave owners were insulted by the offense that Mohammed posed on the slave owners' beliefs? I fail to see how this negates my point. Sounds more to me that you are making up a side-argument to save face.

You're back to defending the right of those with a monopoply to defend their monopoly with violence. Even against those who only speak out against them. So, if today I was to challenge the power of the Catholic Church (with atheist speeches) this would permit what kind of response? Please elaborate. And, if that response included persecution of those who took up atheism, would I be wrong to respond? And, if I did respond, would this then vindicate the persecution meted out by the Catholics?

Difference between speaking out against them and thoroughly insulting a number of adherents to other belief systems. And I'm not defending anything, just stating that the reaction to Mohammed by the Quraysh is not far-fetched. In addition, the fleeing of the followers of Mohammed after Mohammed left himself was also common for those who didn't have the protection of a clan. Mohammed himself went through this fearing for his life whilst not being under the protection of a clan.

And here again, you're stating systematic of Mohammed and his followers by the Quraysh, which is not true.

As for your straw man argument, would this 'challenge' involve a claim of ownership of the catholic church (ie the vatican, if it would represent the ka'aba) and that nobody else should be permitted in the vatican besides your group of followers? Obviously, with all the attached libelous attacks.

But you've not justified the persecution except to point out that others have suffered worse. People can be killed/staked to the ground in the sun/have rocks piled on their body/be robbed... but worse things happen at sea! Being economicly shunned isn't persecution in the real sense.

So now that we've sketched out the bigjel-scale of persecution... Let's get onto the matter of answering if the persecution was justified.

You're running here with the claim that the Quraysh instituted a system of persecution (which I rebutted many times not to be) and that I'm somehow justifying any of the cases of persecution of slave converts by their slaveowners. So redundant, yet again.

No. You didn't say "means".
You also didn't give any details as to how they differed.

I have given more details as to how the Qutbists and the Brotherhood differed. You've waffled on about how Hamas didn't like Qutb's teachings of passive resistance -- teaching of pacifism which don't advocate pacifism, to boot.

I said 'methods' instead of 'means' in some posts and 'means' in others, so sorry for my inconsistency (/sarcasm). How about you get yourself a thesaurus and stop bothering me with this obsessive behavior regarding semantics (even when there's no argument of semantics).

Again, passive resistance != pacifism.

Again, we're not arguing the difference between Qutbists and the Muslim Brotherhood, only that Qutb has influenced Hamas and that a link exists as such. If you want to argue this side-argument in the corner, then by all means. These deflections are getting a bit tiresome and these responses a bit lengthy especially when you're arguing points that I've never claimed in the first place.

That's right!
We're discussing your attempt to link Hamas to Qutb via the Brotherhood. This doesn't work because, as you agree, the Brotherhood and Qutb have disagreements.

So you are going to have to take a different, more detailed route.

There isn't a link because they have disagreements? There's no influence because they have disagreements?

Thanks for admitting this illogical stance of yours.

I don't understand that sentence.
If you are trying to link Hamas to Qutb via al-Qaeda, then you should be aware that Hamas recently fought against an al-Qaeda cell in Gaza -- just after the latter declared an Islamic Emirate. (See articles below for more Salafist/Hamas rivalry).

Listen mate. I don't care about rivalries, disagreements or squabbles. I've only stated there's influence and thus a link.

My claim is: nationalist ideals are too worldly for Qutbists. You'll have to link Hamas to Qutb some other way.

As per the statement you didn't understand. You argued that Hamas have nationalist ideals/goals. I asked you to provide evidence for this. Then you inserted that this is the viewpoint of Qutbists, which wasn't your original point. I agree with the points you made of Qutbists view of Hamas. Just not yours of Hamas.

You are claiming now that Hamas are not nationalist? Then you describe the kind of nation they are fighting for.

An Islamic state governed by sharia law. Anti-capitalist, anti-western, and a precursor to Hassan al-Banna's vision of an Islamic empire. So a stepping stone from the superificial term of 'nationalist', which apart from a fleeting mention of it in Hamas's charter, I don't see the term's orthodox use of a unique national Palestinian identity rising above Hamas's plans for a vanilla Islamic state.

...
So, again....
The Jihadists that lionize Qutb and seek to overthrow governments in Muslim countries (like that of Mubarak in Egypt) through violent means... they don't follow Qutb. I guess they should pay more attention to what the bloke said.... No not the takfiri stuff, that might encourage them to use violence in Egypt, like they have done in the past.

Gone through a few links. I don't disagree with how different terrorist groups adhere to Qutbist principles more than others. I would like to point out again that this is not the argument I've made and that this post has gone in a direction which feels more like a need for you to expose your knowledge regarding Qutbism rather than me simply stating that a link exists between the Muslim Brotherhood, Qutism, and Hamas/Islamic Jihad, which is the point I've made. Sure there's disagreements in the direction and methods, but that's it, they're disagreements.

This is all I've said and am going to say. But thanks for the links.

 

[FireGarden]

It was a legitimate assumption that this caravan was not identified as belonging to the Quraysh, as presented in the article linked, those running the caravan identified themselves as pilgrims.

The article says the Quraysh thought the Muslims were pilgrims.

There are other articles that state that 2 were killed and the other 1 or 2 (some sources disagree that there were 3 or 4 total) were taken captive and sold into slavery.

And I didn't say all were killed either.

You said "They were slaughtered, beheaded, and dismembered." without qualifiaction. This clearly implies all.

Link given in the beginning states nothing along the lines of the Muslim raiding party knowing the caravan's identity (other than pilgrims) or whether they were involved in any appropriation of goods when Mohammed fled Mecca.

The wiki link doesn't say the caravan was identified as pilgrims.

So are you or are not arguing that this caravan was identified as Quraysh and thus automatically guilty of stealing from them (guilt by association)? You have no evidence to support your position.

I provided the link and quoted. You seemed to miss it:
http://mercytomankind.net/TheLifeOfMohamedDir/AbdullahIbnJahshRaid.html

Arriving at Nakhla, Abdullah and those with him observed a caravan carrying goods belonging to Quraysh, led by Amr ibn Al-Hadrami - Quraysh who had persecuted them, taken their property, and driven them out of their homes. This seemed to be an opportunity to exact revenge, but they hesitated as it was the last day of Rajab, one of the four holy months during which the Arabs did not fight. At least they were unsure whether it was the last day of Rajab or the first day of the month after it, as such matters cannot be decided in advance and depend upon the sighting of the new moon. If they waited until the next day, however, the caravan would enter the precincts of Mecca and be out of their reach. They thought of all they had suffered at the hands of Quraysh, and then charged forward, capturing the caravan. During the fight one man fired an arrow at Amr ibn Al-Hadrami, killing him.

You state oppressors once again, who were they? The slave owners or the Quraysh leadership who imposed economic sanctions against Mohammed for trying to destablize Mecca?

One of them is named in the link above as Amr ibn Al-Hadrami -- he was leading the caravan.

So sanctions translates into persecution now? Again, nice play of words.

Sanctions against those who have committed no crime... Yes, it is persecution.

And again. Relevance? You keep digging up the same rebuttal that is irrelevant to the point I've made (care to re-read it?). Instead of trying to play the card of me trying to attack all of Islam and dub them as 'evil-doers', which is what I understand from your posts, how about actually arguing the points.

Again, there were no qualifications in your words to indicate who you were targeting.

Who argued 'pre-emptive self-defence'?

You do. You have offered no justification for the persecution of Muslims except for things they did AFTER being persecuted. Oh... And they offered an alternative religion.

As I've stated before. Mohammed preached and only managed to get a small amount of followers. Then he started to insult the state of religious equality enforced by the Quraysh in Mecca and the Ka'aba stating that polythiesm is a disgrace and should not be allowed there. These insults escalated to the point where Quraysh imposed economic sanctions on Mohammed since he threatened the stability of Mecca.

You make these allegations with no evidence that any stability was threatened. And you pretend there was some kind of pagan Golden Age in Mecca -- also without providing evidence.

Then it got to the point where he was expelled from Mecca and went to Medina.

No, he was not expelled. He fled because his uncle, who had enough influence to protect him, died. btw, according to many traditions, this uncle never converted to Islam.

At this point, several months later, Mohammed started attacking caravans with the intention of acquiring wealth (not to attain what was lost in Mecca) and thus followers with this new found wealth. At this point, with the raids in full motion, did the Quraysh in Mecca take offensive action against these bandits (which is what they were). So nothing pre-emptive about it.

The "pre-emptive" referred to the persecution, which you cannot justify so you minimise it and move the start of everything to violence by Muslims. But that's not where things started. When you stop pretending that this was were things started, then you can begin to see other motives for the actions.

Short exerpt:

Your url didn't come through. But did you notice how you, again, reference battles from after Muslims were persecuted. From AFTER they fled from Mecca to Ethiopia, etc.

The event you reference is not the beginning of the violence.

Who says I'm defending persecution of a handful of slaves who coverted to Islam, and whose slave owners were insulted by the offense that Mohammed posed on the slave owners' beliefs? I fail to see how this negates my point. Sounds more to me that you are making up a side-argument to save face.

You do attempt to minimise it and remove it from the context of Muslim actions at the time. That is a form of defence.

What do you think should have been done in response to the persecution?

Difference between speaking out against them and thoroughly insulting a number of adherents to other belief systems.

So violence is okay after strong insults?

And I'm not defending anything, just stating that the reaction to Mohammed by the Quraysh is not far-fetched.

So you're not defending it but you want to point out that the reaction -- the persecution -- was not far-fetched. Is that the same as not beyond the pale? ie: that it is understandable, even acceptable?

In addition, the fleeing of the followers of Mohammed after Mohammed left himself was also common for those who didn't have the protection of a clan. Mohammed himself went through this fearing for his life whilst not being under the protection of a clan.

Mohammed was far from the first to leave. As I stated before, many fled to Ethiopia -- around 615.

As for your straw man argument, would this 'challenge' involve a claim of ownership of the catholic church (ie the vatican, if it would represent the ka'aba) and that nobody else should be permitted in the vatican besides your group of followers? Obviously, with all the attached libelous attacks.

When did Mohammed first say that Pagans shouldn't be allowed to the Ka'aba?

And, yes, the Vatican belongs to me. I bought it from Bob. I currently have no plans to throw the Catholics out. Let's see how things progress. Maybe they won't try to kill me or my followers.

Again, passive resistance != pacifism.

So passive resistance includes violence?

Again, we're not arguing the difference between Qutbists and the Muslim Brotherhood, only that Qutb has influenced Hamas and that a link exists as such.

But you argue that this influence exists because Hamas is part of the Muslim brotherhood. What else have you provided?

There isn't a link because they have disagreements? There's no influence because they have disagreements?

That's not it at all.
The point is you have to be more direct in describing those links than merely saying they must exist. You have not.

The fact the Qutbists denegrate the Brotherhood indicates that some of the differences are quite substantial.

Listen mate. I don't care about rivalries, disagreements or squabbles. I've only stated there's influence and thus a link.

Try to do so in more detail.

As per the statement you didn't understand. You argued that Hamas have nationalist ideals/goals. I asked you to provide evidence for this. Then you inserted that this is the viewpoint of Qutbists, which wasn't your original point. I agree with the points you made of Qutbists view of Hamas. Just not yours of Hamas.

What I said was always regarding what Qutbists think of Hamas. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

An Islamic state governed by sharia law. Anti-capitalist, anti-western, and a precursor to Hassan al-Banna's vision of an Islamic empire. So a stepping stone from the superificial term of 'nationalist', which apart from a fleeting mention of it in Hamas's charter, I don't see the term's orthodox use of a unique national Palestinian identity rising above Hamas's plans for a vanilla Islamic state.

I don't see why wanting a state, even an Islamic state, isn't a form of nationalism.

Gone through a few links. I don't disagree with how different terrorist groups adhere to Qutbist principles more than others. I would like to point out again that this is not the argument I've made and that this post has gone in a direction which feels more like a need for you to expose your knowledge regarding Qutbism rather than me simply stating that a link exists between the Muslim Brotherhood, Qutism, and Hamas/Islamic Jihad, which is the point I've made.

But you've not detailed those links.
When an organisation splits, people need terms to describe the two parts. In this case, the mainstream Brotherhood (while not totally repudiating everything the splitters ever provided) are one strand. The splitters have a name: Qutbists.

To apply that name to a group without giving details is to imply that the group belongs to the splitters. Hamas do not. That is why you should give more detail when trying to link Hamas with Qutb.

 

[bigjelmapro]

The article says the Quraysh thought the Muslims were pilgrims.

Yes, with the shaved head bit. You could combine it with the response below.

You said "They were slaughtered, beheaded, and dismembered." without qualifiaction. This clearly implies all.

Oh yeah, forgot that ambiguous statement I made over 4 pages ago which has no relevance to any of the the arguments at hand (I see a trend).
How about asking me for clarification rather than making an accusation from a statement that in normal use would usually have inserted the term ‘all’ if the intention was to unequivocally imply all? Here again, we aren’t in disagreement.

The wiki link doesn't say the caravan was identified as pilgrims.

Yep. Misread it. The caravan was still not identified until by name after the raid, not before. Unless you are using the site below which conveniently justifies the bandits’ actions.

I provided the link and quoted. You seemed to miss it:
http://mercytomankind.net/TheLifeOfMohamedDir/AbdullahIbnJahshRaid.html

Nope. I didn't miss it. I equate this to evangelical websites and the use of them as some sort of historical account is quite frankly, unorthodox and definitely subjective.

I did quote a small excerpt of how Mohammed and his followers used the attacks on along their trade route as 'to make Quraysh come to terms with them.'

One of them is named in the link above as Amr ibn Al-Hadrami -- he was leading the caravan.

Yep. A scapegoat. He's mentioned in passing as a justification for bloodshed.

Sanctions against those who have committed no crime... Yes, it is persecution.

Then perhaps apply this to modern times, which I assume is more fair and just than the 7th century, that sanctions is a form of persecution outright. I cannot find any evidence against other religions that were critical of the Quraysh having economic sanctions imposed upon them and certainly not reactions as harsh against the Quraysh.

Again, there were no qualifications in your words to indicate who you were targeting.

Perhaps as a litmus test from the abundance of posts I've made on this forum, you can ascertain that what you allege has never been my intention and will never been my intention. You can go cherry picking through all the posts I've made, as you have done above, and manage to find an ambiguous post and run with some interesting allegations. Again, how this has any relevance other than putting me on the defensive, I don't see.

You do. You have offered no justification for the persecution of Muslims except for things they did AFTER being persecuted. Oh... And they offered an alternative religion.

Offering is one thing, forcing and insulting another set of religious beliefs is another thing. Again, you are once again insinuating a systematic persecution by the Quraysh, outside of isolated cases of violence from slave owner to slave, which you have failed to provide evidence for outside of being isolated cases.
Again, you are stating as if I'm justifying any of the violence that did occur before Mohammed and the brunt of his followers left Mecca, which I have not. We are talking about the 7th century here, this can be seen as a natural reaction to Mohammed in what he was preaching.

As a counter-example, how would you account for the Christian evangelism and Jewish preaching during the same century and prior, both of whom were critical of the 260 pagan idols in the Ka’aba as well? To my knowledge, the Quraysh didn’t persecute these monotheistic religions either for their criticism against the Ka’aba or their control of it. So the reaction by the Quraysh, as stated by Mohammed and his justification for his plundering and killing, is unfounded (as systematic) and definitely not a justifiable reaction.

Another interesting article, this time by an x-Muslim:

On Good and Evil - Muslim Umma Lessons from the Nakhla Raid

You make these allegations with no evidence that any stability was threatened. And you pretend there was some kind of pagan Golden Age in Mecca -- also without providing evidence.

And what do I get from you? Evidence from whitewashing websites to justify attacks against any and all Quraysh? I didn’t claim a ‘Golden Age’, I claimed stability and Mecca as a melting pot of a number of different belief systems. Do you claim that after 630 AD that Mecca and those who ruled it have the same outlook towards other belief systems just as under the Quraysh?
Give a counter claim with something a bit less laughable than Mohammed's intentions were so 'merciful' and 'egalitarian' as these links of your would like me to believe. Compare this to the actual result of the eviction of all the other religions from the Ka'aba (fact) and the subjugation of all non-Muslim (fact) on the Arabian peninsula during Mohammed's reign (and subsequent caliph rulers following Mohammed's teachings).

Or would you like to justify or white wash this further that this was all justifiable from the isolated cases violence from slave-owner to slave and economic sanctions against Mohammed AND (let me not forget) the appropriation of goods from Mohammed and his followers when they left Mecca? If the raids and theft were limited to simple survival and living a pious life, then sure, you would have a point. Rather, as seen by countless examples, this was merely a power struggle and using theft as a means to force tribes into treaties with Mohammed.

So do you or do you not think these were appropriate actions?

No, he was not expelled. He fled because his uncle, who had enough influence to protect him, died. btw, according to many traditions, this uncle never converted to Islam.

And? This is where his support ended. This clan protection, along with an abundance of pre-Islamic practices/traditions adopted by Islam, trumps the belief system of said person, at this point anyhow. Whether the death of his uncle, and end of his protection, or whether the resistance Mohammed faced from his proclamations of his prophecy and only true religion in Mecca was the straw that broke the camel's back, is moot.

The "pre-emptive" referred to the persecution, which you cannot justify so you minimise it and move the start of everything to violence by Muslims. But that's not where things started. When you stop pretending that this was were things started, then you can begin to see other motives for the actions.

As long as you can stop pretending that this was systematic and everything and any violence by Mohammed thereafter is a perfect reaction to the ridicule he faced in Mecca. There’s nothing to minimize if it’s already blown out of proportion.
A similar concept would be for me to state that pimp violence against their hookers is a form of institutionalized and persistent persecution by the local government where the pimp resides.

Your url didn't come through. But did you notice how you, again, reference battles from after Muslims were persecuted. From AFTER they fled from Mecca to Ethiopia, etc.

Google is your friend: Muhammad and Massacre of the Qurayza Jews
So economic sanctions justifies theft and slaughter? Good to know where your moral compass lies. As for those who fled to Ethiopia, wouldn’t you attribute this to the lack of clan protection Mohammed’s followers had?

The event you reference is not the beginning of the violence.

You’re obsessed with where the beginning lies, yet ignore provocation and the failed logic that this was not encountered to the extent, as Mohammed and his scholars explain, by any other group residing in and around Mecca.

You do attempt to minimise it and remove it from the context of Muslim actions at the time. That is a form of defence.

And you merely exaggerate the context in order to justify simple theft and murder as a justifiable means of defense, a defense, which boggles the mind as even being a form of defense.

There was no organized reaction (as in past the raiding and reaction to the raiding, as in full-blown battles) by the Quraysh until after the Nakhla raid, which was the point where the relationship between the Quraysh and Mohammed soured for the worse.

What do you think should have been done in response to the persecution?

So you're not defending it but you want to point out that the reaction -- the persecution -- was not far-fetched. Is that the same as not beyond the pale? ie: that it is understandable, even acceptable?

Persecution, as in your perception of it, economic sanctions, yes, is not far-fetched. Begs to question what could have invoked such a stern reaction by the Quraysh. You sure it was just another introduction of a religion of the dozens already existing there?

When did Mohammed first say that Pagans shouldn't be allowed to the Ka'aba?

When he claimed ownership of it by divine right.

But you argue that this influence exists because Hamas is part of the Muslim brotherhood. What else have you provided?

You keep asking what I've already provided.

The fact the Qutbists denegrate the Brotherhood indicates that some of the differences are quite substantial.

Yet again, we aren't arguing differences, we're arguing influence.

I don't see why wanting a state, even an Islamic state, isn't a form of nationalism.

As I've previously stated, Hamas doesn't preach a distinct Palestinian nationalistic identity. Hamas doesn't preach a form of nationalism which is reminiscient of Western

But you've not detailed those links.
When an organisation splits, people need terms to describe the two parts. In this case, the mainstream Brotherhood (while not totally repudiating everything the splitters ever provided) are one strand. The splitters have a name: Qutbists.

To apply that name to a group without giving details is to imply that the group belongs to the splitters. Hamas do not. That is why you should give more detail when trying to link Hamas with Qutb.

We're making some progress: "while not totally repudiating everything the splitters ever provided".

Links to Hamas' preaching and that of Qutb, ie "Our Battle Against the Jews" and "Milestones:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qutbism
-"vigilance against Western and Jewish conspiracies against Islam"
-"adherence to Sharia as a complete way of life that will bring not only justice, but complete freedom from servitude, peace, personal serenity, scientific discovery and other benefits;"
-"vigilance against Western and Jewish conspiracies against Islam "

This is enamated by Hamas and its leadership. These are just a few points where Hamas would be connected the Qutb. Definitely not a carbon copy of eachother, but that wasn't my point to begin with. Simply to state influence.

 

[FireGarden]

Yep. Misread it. The caravan was still not identified until by name after the raid, not before. Unless you are using the site below which conveniently justifies the bandits’ actions.

It makes more sense than your claim, which is that the merchants were attacked without first being identified. A claim you base only on absence of evidence to the contrary rather than any positive evidence to support the claim.

Then perhaps apply this to modern times, which I assume is more fair and just than the 7th century, that sanctions is a form of persecution outright.

Sanctions against people who have committed no crime... That is persecution.

Offering is one thing, forcing and insulting another set of religious beliefs is another thing.

Where was the force? You have not been able to cite any. And insults justify persecution? I don't agree.

Again, you are once again insinuating a systematic persecution by the Quraysh, outside of isolated cases of violence from slave owner to slave, which you have failed to provide evidence for outside of being isolated cases.

So more details of the bigjel-scale of persecution emerge. Killing a few slaves, putting them under rocks until they recant... Doesn't count as persecution unless it was done enough.

Again, you are stating as if I'm justifying any of the violence that did occur before Mohammed and the brunt of his followers left Mecca, which I have not.

You've removed it from the discourse because you don't want to consider it as motive for attacking caravans. "Whitewash" might be more accurate than "justify", but there is some overlap.

We are talking about the 7th century here, this can be seen as a natural reaction to Mohammed in what he was preaching.

See... You call it a natural reaction. What am I supposed to infer from that?

As a counter-example, how would you account for the Christian evangelism and Jewish preaching during the same century and prior, both of whom were critical of the 260 pagan idols in the Ka’aba as well? To my knowledge, the Quraysh didn’t persecute these monotheistic religions either for their criticism against the Ka’aba or their control of it. So the reaction by the Quraysh, as stated by Mohammed and his justification for his plundering and killing, is unfounded (as systematic) and definitely not a justifiable reaction.

Really, where was this preaching and evangelising done? How successful was it? How much of a risk to the tourist trade -- err, sorry, pilgrim trade -- at Mecca did it become?

Another interesting article, this time by an x-Muslim:

On Good and Evil - Muslim Umma Lessons from the Nakhla Raid

I got this far:

To try to survive, Muhammad set out to attack the rich caravans of Quraysh. After all, they were the ones who pestered him many years in the past, day in and day out. His first few attempts were flat out failures.

He uses the word "pester" to describe the torture and killing of slaves and the rest of the persecution which led to Muslims fleeing to Ethiopia in 615.

Somehow I don't think "pester" is the proper word.

Compare this to the actual result of the eviction of all the other religions from the Ka'aba (fact) and the subjugation of all non-Muslim (fact) on the Arabian peninsula during Mohammed's reign (and subsequent caliph rulers following Mohammed's teachings).

More references to what happened after the persecution started.

Or would you like to justify or white wash this further that this was all justifiable from the isolated cases violence from slave-owner to slave and economic sanctions against Mohammed AND (let me not forget) the appropriation of goods from Mohammed and his followers when they left Mecca? If the raids and theft were limited to simple survival and living a pious life, then sure, you would have a point. Rather, as seen by countless examples, this was merely a power struggle and using theft as a means to force tribes into treaties with Mohammed.

I've not claimed the raids were a matter of survival. I've claimed they were trying to get justice for stolen goods and persecution.

Neither have I blamed all events on the persecution. Things have a habit of escalating, such as the Battle of Badr which happened when Abu Sufyan's caravan sidestepped an attempted raid.

You've still not said how you would have reacted to the persecution. You see a slave being tortured because he is a Muslim. What do you do? Do you turn a blind eye saying, "Oh, better to leave things alone. If I step in, it might escalate into a big war."

As long as you can stop pretending that this was systematic and everything and any violence by Mohammed thereafter is a perfect reaction to the ridicule he faced in Mecca. There’s nothing to minimize if it’s already blown out of proportion.

Referring to sanctions, theft and the killing of slaves as "ridicule" isn't in any way minimising anything of any importance. It certainly isn't an attempt to whitewash or justify anything.

Apparently...

A similar concept would be for me to state that pimp violence against their hookers is a form of institutionalized and persistent persecution by the local government where the pimp resides.

I don't get that analogy.

So economic sanctions justifies theft and slaughter?

Where did I say that?

As for those who fled to Ethiopia, wouldn’t you attribute this to the lack of clan protection Mohammed’s followers had?

Protection from what? Are you admiting they were persecuted?

There was no organized reaction (as in past the raiding and reaction to the raiding, as in full-blown battles) by the Quraysh until after the Nakhla raid, which was the point where the relationship between the Quraysh and Mohammed soured for the worse.

So the Quraysh didn't react to the reaction until after the reaction to the reaction that... Wait, I'm confused. What preceeded the persecution of Muslims? Preaching. Successful preaching. Nobody would have bothered if the preaching wasn't successful. And some insults.

What do you think should have been done in response to the persecution?

I support self-defence, even through violence.

Persecution, as in your perception of it, economic sanctions, yes, is not far-fetched. Begs to question what could have invoked such a stern reaction by the Quraysh. You sure it was just another introduction of a religion of the dozens already existing there?

So, having admited you are unable to cite any violence from before the persecution, you must resort to: "I wonder what they did to deserve it? It must have been something to get such a stern reaction."

When he claimed ownership of it by divine right.

Cite this, please. Remember, the question is: "When did Mohammed first say that Pagans shouldn't be allowed to the Ka'aba?"

Not: "When did Mohammed first say that the Ka'aba was special to Islam?"

We're making some progress: "while not totally repudiating everything the splitters ever provided".

Links to Hamas' preaching and that of Qutb, ie "Our Battle Against the Jews" and "Milestones:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qutbism
-"vigilance against Western and Jewish conspiracies against Islam"
-"adherence to Sharia as a complete way of life that will bring not only justice, but complete freedom from servitude, peace, personal serenity, scientific discovery and other benefits;"
-"vigilance against Western and Jewish conspiracies against Islam "

This is enamated by Hamas and its leadership. These are just a few points where Hamas would be connected the Qutb. Definitely not a carbon copy of eachother, but that wasn't my point to begin with. Simply to state influence.

So no attempt to just throw Qutb in there and hope to link Hamas with al-Qaeda. I'm so relieved.

 

[bigjelmapro]

It makes more sense than your claim, which is that the merchants were attacked without first being identified. A claim you base only on absence of evidence to the contrary rather than any positive evidence to support the claim.

There's no evidence that they were identified before-hand. The raiding party led by Abdallah Bin Jahsh is a known leader and is well-known for his violence. I simply don't believe that these merchants didn't recognize this fellow along with any other members of his raiding party simply because they had shaven heads and were mistaken for pilgrims. Hence my position that the merchants didn't recognize them or that the raiding party didn't identify the merchants as being Quraysh or the more extreme accusation from the link you gave, that the any or all of the merchants were identified as being guilty of theft of Mohammed and his followers' goods.
Until you provide more concrete evidence rather than these subjective, religious sites that state Mohammed as some pious man, this point stands.

Sanctions against people who have committed no crime... That is persecution.

Then this is your position to whoever endures sanctions, be they in Iran, Gaza, or North Korea, is a form of persecution. Fair enough. I simply don't agree with this position that economic sanctions to the followers of a leader who claims ownership of the Ka'aba, exclusive access, and insults other religions as persecution. I see it as a natural reaction by the Quraysh, which I again, don't see against any other monotheistic religion who insulted the idolty practiced at the Ka'aba enduring similar reactions by the Quraysh in the form of economic sanctions.

Where was the force? You have not been able to cite any. And insults justify persecution? I don't agree.

Claiming ownership of the Ka'aba and threatening exclusive access and the resulting economic sanctions on Mohammed was the result.

So more details of the bigjel-scale of persecution emerge. Killing a few slaves, putting them under rocks until they recant... Doesn't count as persecution unless it was done enough.

I've stated my position clearly several times. Stop parroting the same drivel ignoring this distinction.

You've removed it from the discourse because you don't want to consider it as motive for attacking caravans. "Whitewash" might be more accurate than "justify", but there is some overlap.

I haven't removed anything. I don't see it as a motivation in wholesale attacks against the trading routes of the Quraysh, enslavement and murder of its merchants. If Mohammed and those who endured persecution, to various levels from ridicule to being murdered, from their slave-owners is the issue (Mohammed not enduring this level of persecution I might add), then they should take it up with those who committed this persecution, not simply attack those who go in the general direction of Mecca. Its a justification Mohammed used falsely to justify their theft, enslavement, and murder rampage.

See... You call it a natural reaction. What am I supposed to infer from that?

Infer from it that during the 7th century, that this might be a realistic reaction by those in charge in Mecca. Simple. Not that I would personally assume that this approach by the Quraysh is proper and justifiable.

Really, where was this preaching and evangelising done? How successful was it? How much of a risk to the tourist trade -- err, sorry, pilgrim trade -- at Mecca did it become?

Throwing a few cogs in the wheels I see. The point I've made is that this preaching of other religions existed. I don't see any similar reaction, errm, persecution by the Quraysh for said preaching.

I got this far:

He uses the word "pester" to describe the torture and killing of slaves and the rest of the persecution which led to Muslims fleeing to Ethiopia in 615.

Somehow I don't think "pester" is the proper word.

Then re-read the quote. Its in respect to Mohammed and the ridicule and 'pesting' he endured whilsts in Mecca and not in respect to his followers or anybody else for that matter. It’s definitely not in respect to those slaves that were killed or tortured by their slave-owners.

More references to what happened after the persecution started.

There's the bit, yet again, that you missing that the Quraysh didn't react until the Nakhla Raid in force. Prior to this it was economic sanctions. You're arguing in circles here.

I've not claimed the raids were a matter of survival. I've claimed they were trying to get justice for stolen goods and persecution.

The link you gave does claim the first bit. So you are claiming that it’s justifiable to attack caravans headed to Mecca regardless if they were involved in theft or the cases of persecution. The Nakhla Raid was the first successful one. There doesn't include the raids where Mohammed and/or his followers were not successful. Are you claiming that all these raids were a form of justice?

You've still not said how you would have reacted to the persecution. You see a slave being tortured because he is a Muslim. What do you do? Do you turn a blind eye saying, "Oh, better to leave things alone. If I step in, it might escalate into a big war."

Personally, I would step in. You do have to take into consideration that much of the violence was between slave-owner and slave. Slaves don't have any real rights or freedoms. Mohammed abided by the same regulations of this time in regards to the treatment of slaves. So not much difference there.

The violence on slaves in this region during the 7th century, to my knowledge, hasn't resulted in a war. It’s the raids that resulted in the escalation.

Referring to sanctions, theft and the killing of slaves as "ridicule" isn't in any way minimising anything of any importance. It certainly isn't an attempt to whitewash or justify anything.

You're running with your false premise as stated above.

I don't get that analogy.

It’s pretty straightforward. One can't blame the government for the actions of the pimp.

So the Quraysh didn't react to the reaction until after the reaction to the reaction that... Wait, I'm confused. What preceeded the persecution of Muslims? Preaching. Successful preaching. Nobody would have bothered if the preaching wasn't successful. And some insults.

Simple. Mohammed preached, claimed that the Ka'aba should belong to his God Allah and that should only be restricted to those who worship allah. This continued to the point where the Quraysh imposed economic sanction against Mohammed. Mohammed left to Mecca, started raids to the point of his successful raid in question (Nakhla raid), then Quraysh reacted in force against further raids.

There wasn't successful preaching. Muslims only composed a small portion before leaving Mecca. Cite otherwise.

Still begs the question, why did the Quraysh react with sanctions against Mohammed when preaching occurred from other religions in Mecca.

I support self-defence, even through violence.

So wholesale violence against any of those associated or living within Mecca. Thanks for the clarification.

So, having admited you are unable to cite any violence from before the persecution, you must resort to: "I wonder what they did to deserve it? It must have been something to get such a stern reaction."

No. Its simply that I'm not following your attempt to steer this debate with the false premise that there was violence in order to justify the economic sanctions against Mohammed.

The point stands that you cannot cite counter examples where non-Islamic preaching in Mecca resulted in sanctions against those preaching.

Cite this, please. Remember, the question is: "When did Mohammed first say that Pagans shouldn't be allowed to the Ka'aba?"

Not: "When did Mohammed first say that the Ka'aba was special to Islam?"

When Mohmmaed had the revelation of al-Baqara (The cow) of the Quran, namely that of the verses 2:125-129. These state that the Ka’aba was built (and re-built) for the devotion to one God and should be restricted as such.
Took me a while to find an online version, but the following excerpts on page 10 (under III) onwards state this (along with the Quranic verses) in addition to the Quraysh’s concerns.
Islam, a way of Life

So no attempt to just throw Qutb in there and hope to link Hamas with al-Qaeda. I'm so relieved.

So finally you admit that Hamas was influenced by Qutb, even partly so. Which is all I sought out to prove. Moving on.

 

[FireGarden]

There's no evidence that they were identified before-hand. The raiding party led by Abdallah Bin Jahsh is a known leader and is well-known for his violence.

Was he indeed? I've not heard of him in any other story. And the wiki link says (and you agree) that this raid we are talking about was the first succesful Muslim raid and the man who died was the first to be killed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakhla_raid

The Islamic name of this first successful raid is the ‘Nakhla Raid.’ It was also the first raid on which the Muslims seized their first captive, and the first life they took.

Perhaps you could cite the "well-known" violence.

I simply don't believe that these merchants didn't recognize this fellow along with any other members of his raiding party simply because they had shaven heads and were mistaken for pilgrims. Hence my position that the merchants didn't recognize them or that the raiding party didn't identify the merchants as being Quraysh or the more extreme accusation from the link you gave, that the any or all of the merchants were identified as being guilty of theft of Mohammed and his followers' goods.

So all you have is an argument from incredulity, rather than an argument from data.

Where was the force? You have not been able to cite any. And insults justify persecution? I don't agree.

Claiming ownership of the Ka'aba and threatening exclusive access and the resulting economic sanctions on Mohammed was the result.

You consider any of that to be force?

Throwing a few cogs in the wheels I see. The point I've made is that this preaching of other religions existed. I don't see any similar reaction, errm, persecution by the Quraysh for said preaching.

You've already admitted that the persecution wasn't in response to violence. So all you have is a response to words. It's hardly a defence to say: "But they didn't persecute others who said words!" Even if the Muslims were the first people ever to be persecuted by the leaders of Mecca (and we don't know that for sure) it doesn't excuse the persecution.

But you want to pretend it does, by asking questions like "what could have invoked such a stern reaction by the Quraysh?" Sounds to me like an attempt to blame the victim.

Then re-read the quote. Its in respect to Mohammed and the ridicule and 'pesting' he endured whilsts in Mecca and not in respect to his followers or anybody else for that matter. It’s definitely not in respect to those slaves that were killed or tortured by their slave-owners.

So, if some of your friends are killed, that is just being pestered? I don't think you really believe that.

So you are claiming that it’s justifiable to attack caravans headed to Mecca regardless if they were involved in theft or the cases of persecution.

My link claims the merchants were identified as persecuters. I still disagree that the Muslims attacked at random.

The Nakhla Raid was the first successful one. There doesn't include the raids where Mohammed and/or his followers were not successful. Are you claiming that all these raids were a form of justice?

I have no reason to think otherwise.

Slaves don't have any real rights or freedoms. Mohammed abided by the same regulations of this time in regards to the treatment of slaves. So not much difference there.

You might want to read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_slavery

There wasn't successful preaching. Muslims only composed a small portion before leaving Mecca. Cite otherwise.

Succesful enough for Mohammed to be asked to mediate in Medina.

So wholesale violence against any of those associated or living within Mecca. Thanks for the clarification.

You're determined in this foolishness. I've not justified violence against all those in Mecca. And you know it.

No. Its simply that I'm not following your attempt to steer this debate with the false premise that there was violence in order to justify the economic sanctions against Mohammed.

I'm not steering it that way. I'm pointing out that there was no violence -- or any other crime -- to justify economic sanctions.

The point stands that you cannot cite counter examples where non-Islamic preaching in Mecca resulted in sanctions against those preaching.

Why would I need to?

When Mohmmaed had the revelation of al-Baqara (The cow) of the Quran, namely that of the verses 2:125-129. These state that the Ka’aba was built (and re-built) for the devotion to one God and should be restricted as such.

And it was revealed when?

Took me a while to find an online version, but the following excerpts on page 10 (under III) onwards state this (along with the Quranic verses) in addition to the Quraysh’s concerns.
Islam, a way of Life

Do you realise that, on the previous page -- and in relation to the "Truth hath come" quote which is highlighted -- your source makes reference to the year 630?

So, unless you want to claim the the Quraysh were psychic, you'll have to go on looking for something which happened before the persecution.

So finally you admit that Hamas was influenced by Qutb, even partly so. Which is all I sought out to prove. Moving on.

I'm sure that was your only intent.

 

[bigjelmapro]

Was he indeed? I've not heard of him in any other story. And the wiki link says (and you agree) that this raid we are talking about was the first succesful Muslim raid and the man who died was the first to be killed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakhla_raid

Perhaps you could cite the "well-known" violence.

Another bout in citing. So there weren't any failed raids prior to this? Nope, no violence occurred there. I'm assuming that your concept of a razzia excludes any form of violence, unless someone happens to get killed.

So all you have is an argument from incredulity, rather than an argument from data.

Sounds a bit more concrete than you quoting evangelist-equivalent sites as objective historical accounts. And this is considered ‘data’ in your eyes.

You've already admitted that the persecution wasn't in response to violence. So all you have is a response to words. It's hardly a defence to say: "But they didn't persecute others who said words!" Even if the Muslims were the first people ever to be persecuted by the leaders of Mecca (and we don't know that for sure) it doesn't excuse the persecution.

At this point I’m still waiting for your admission that the isolated cases of violence (namely slave owner against slave) isn’t included in this persecution accusation against the Quraysh (wholesale) and therefore this wholesale attack against the Quraysh is not justifiable as a form of justice. Its simply thievery and murder by all counts.

But you want to pretend it does, by asking questions like "what could have invoked such a stern reaction by the Quraysh?" Sounds to me like an attempt to blame the victim.

Sounds more to me like you don’t have any counter examples. Additionally, that you are blaming the Quraysh for killing.

So, if some of your friends are killed, that is just being pestered? I don't think you really believe that.

You’re stubborn. Replied already to this, you’re still running with yet another false premise.

My link claims the merchants were identified as persecuters. I still disagree that the Muslims attacked at random.

I don’t agree with this site you provided as I haven’t read any other pro-Islam sites which directly state that this is the story, neither does Bukhari, Pickthall, Muslim or any of the hadiths. They weren’t identified as persecutors and not as those who stole/appropriated Mohammed’s possessions in Mecca in any other site that I’ve found.

And not random, never claimed this. The raiding party was instructed to lie in wait for potential targets along a stretch of the trading route, not for a specific target.
Now at this point, you can continue stating the same thing for the nth time or provide some credible evidence.

You might want to read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_slavery

Did I say Islam? Nope. Avoiding yet another deflection.

Successful enough for Mohammed to be asked to mediate in Medina.

‘Asked to mediate’. I like that one. Perhaps you can provide another shining example/link of Mohammed’s passiveness in Medina from those wonderful sites of yours. Perhaps another whitewashing link where Mohammed passively took over Medina and all those who opposed him? The Jewish tribes?

Actually, on second thought, since I'm not that newbish to this subject, save it. Would really enjoy not giving you another tangent to go on.

You're determined in this foolishness. I've not justified violence against all those in Mecca. And you know it.

No, just against the Quraysh and those associated with them. But keep pedaling.

I'm not steering it that way. I'm pointing out that there was no violence -- or any other crime -- to justify economic sanctions.

At this point you would like to pay attention to the premise of yours. That one needs violence as a precursor to economic sanctions, or what the book linked, boycott, in order to justify said sanctions, which is simply not true.

However, it doesn’t keep you from falsely attributing the persecution, as in beyond ridicule and verbal attacks, to the Quraysh and running with the assumption that attacks along the trading routes to Mecca are a form of justice.

Why would I need to?

It’s called a counter example. Ever heard of it? Or do you think I wouldn’t notice that I’m doing all the leg-work whilst you’re sitting there confirming or denying (mostly) of what I say. Not playing this game anymore. Thanks.

And it was revealed when?

Obsession with time. You won’t get a timestamp and a signed calendar if that’s what you’re asking, simply that it happened before other events, ie the economic sanctions.

Do you realise that, on the previous page -- and in relation to the "Truth hath come" quote which is highlighted -- your source makes reference to the year 630?

So, unless you want to claim the the Quraysh were psychic, you'll have to go on looking for something which happened before the persecution.

And you do realize that a couple paragraphs down from where I quoted it mentions the death of Mohammed’s uncle, first convert (his wife as well), Quranic verses revealed prior to his fleeing Mecca the first time, and the migration of the first families of Mohammed’s followers in 615?
Please show me where Mohammed has access to Michael J. Fox’s Delorian. This isn’t a sequential account.

Moving on from here as well since obviously you're running of fumes here.