Hamas threatens attacks against Israeli targets abroad

[FireGarden]

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.

Another bout of goal-post moving. Your claim was that Abdallah Bin Jahsh was so well known that: "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."

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

Your argument from incredulity sounds concrete to you?

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.

I've already said that attacks against random Quraysh aren't justified. Mohammed himself was Quraysh. You haven't convinced me that the attacks were random.

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

Sounds to me that you have no cause for the persecution other than a response to preaching. And, no, I don't blame all the Quraysh.

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

Actually... I was pointing out the facile stupidity of your reply, which was along the lines of: "It's alright to say that Mohammed was merely pestered by the leaders in Mecca because he himself wasn't killed -- only a few slaves who had converted."

That's merely being pestered? Did you have a different defence of the use of "pestered"?

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 claim "random" in the sense that any Quraysh would do. I disagree.

And the cite I gave is credible enough for the claim involved. As well the biography of Mohammed I gave, wiki states that the parties had seen each other and the Muslims were thought to be pilgrims on their way to Mecca.

Your claim is much more extraordinary and needs more than your incredulity regarding the recognisability of allegedly famous raiders.

‘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?

Were did I claim he passively took over Medina? You asked me for evidence he was successful, and I gave you some: He was asked to mediate in Medina.

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

Not even that.

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.

By why would I need a counter-example? As I said: even if this is the first time that the Quraysh persecuted a group of people, you still have to justify the persecution. And you can't. You've even claimed that you weren't trying to, which is the weird thing about this all too long conversation.

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.

So all I'll get is a claim with no evidence to back it up. The highlighted text in your link is a quote of when Mohammed destroyed the idols -- and the date for that is given by your own source.

As for sura 2:125-129.

Sura 2 was mostly revealed in Medina:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Baqara
(Apart from the last three of the 286 verses, which don't mention the Kaaba).

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?

And which of those do you think are cause for persecution?

You didn't actually quote anything. There is a portion of text which was highlighted (due, I assume, to the google query that was made). I've addressed that. There is no way the highlighted text refers to before Mohammed left Mecca. Your own source is clear on that.

 

[bigjelmapro]

Another bout of goal-post moving. Your claim was that Abdallah Bin Jahsh was so well known that: "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."

Actually it was in reference to the statement of your referring to violence during these razzias, which you assumed were devoid of violence based on the lack of success of plundering and lack of death. So no goal-post moving involved, unless it was your intention to do so.
Bin Jahsh was the leader of the raiding party and known as a relative of Mohammed. He attained this position of leader from previous raids. Whether he himself was known by the merchants is moot, what is known by these merchants is that there were a number of razzias against Quraysh caravans over the last few months, albeit mostly unsuccessful. The intent of thievery was there, the intent to murder was there (ie from previous raids when Volume 4, Book 52, Number 256: Narrated As-Sab bin Jaththama was revealed, justifying murder of innocents, including women and children), and previous unsuccessful raids by these Muslims made these Quraysh trade caravans weary of being attacked.
For clarification, the Quraysh did react to the unsuccessful, unprovoked raids of Mohammed during the same month of the Nakhla raid. So I’m correcting myself that the first reaction of the Quraysh was following the Nakhla raid. Overall, this doesn’t change much.
Raid on Muhammad’s Milch Camels at Badr

Raid on Muhammad’s Milch Camels at Badr (Badr I) by Kurz ibn Jabir al-Fihri —December, 623CE

After those six unprovoked and hostile attacks on the Quraysh caravans, the Quraysh had had enough. It was now time for them to retaliate and send a strong message to Muhammad that his highway robbery cannot go unpunished forever. With this end in view, Kurz ibn Jabir al-Fihri, allay of the Quarysh raided the vicinity of Medina where Muhammad’s milch camels were pasturing. This was conducted ten days after Muhammad returned to Medina from his unsuccessful plundering attempt at the Quraysh caravan at al-Usharayh. Having heard of this attack, Muhammad swiftly went out looking for Kurz until he reached the Safwa valley, close to Badr. This was the first raid at Badr or Badr I. Kurz escaped the capture; Muhammad returned to Medina and stayed there for the next three months. It is said that later, Muhammad caught Kurz and he (Kurz) converted to Islam.

The shaven head of Ukkash b Mihsan, as in 1 of the raiders not all, and the timing of Rejab probably made this specific caravan less weary of attack.
All in all, this ties in with your allegation with that questionable link you gave, that the raiding party recognized one or more of the caravan members. You haven’t made the case where this would be a reasonable assumption.

Your argument from incredulity sounds concrete to you?

Broken record? Your links where the guilt of theft from Mohammed is retroactively applied to a number of the merchants (if more than 1) of this caravan is baseless. Your link simply states that so and so was a perpetrator, nothing more. No surrahs, no hadiths, no supporting evidence.

I've already said that attacks against random Quraysh aren't justified. Mohammed himself was Quraysh. You haven't convinced me that the attacks were random.

Yet again, not stating random. What I've stated is in opposition to your statement that this is a form of justice in response to the appropriation of goods from Mohammed and his followers when they left Mecca along with the position of whom no guilty party was mentioned. Simply some baseless finger pointing in the link given. You haven’t provided any evidence that this attacks on the caravans were a form of justice and were nothing more than simple thievery.
But I like the sly attempt at a fallacy here.

Sounds to me that you have no cause for the persecution other than a response to preaching. And, no, I don't blame all the Quraysh.

I’ve given the reasons why the Quraysh responded against Mohammed with economic sanctions/boycott, whether you want to admit that these reasons exist or not. And not playing this absolutist game either now. It’s such a weak angle to play.

Actually... I was pointing out the facile stupidity of your reply, which was along the lines of: "It's alright to say that Mohammed was merely pestered by the leaders in Mecca because he himself wasn't killed -- only a few slaves who had converted."

That's merely being pestered? Did you have a different defence of the use of "pestered"?

No, no you weren’t. This is yet another lame attempt to pull the wool over my eyes. The original allegation you made:

I got this far:

Originally Posted by bigjel's source
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.

I’ve already responded to this, yet now you’re somehow trying to peddle something different. If you wish to continue with this questionable debating practice of yours, by all means, continue, just don’t expect a response.

You claim "random" in the sense that any Quraysh would do. I disagree.

Actually, I claim that any caravan would do travelling along this trading route. Because this was after all a razzia, like the many before and many after, whose only intent was to plunder.

Were did I claim he passively took over Medina? You asked me for evidence he was successful, and I gave you some: He was asked to mediate in Medina.

You attribute his success as a self-proclaimed prophet to him being asked to mediate between two squabbling tribes?

By why would I need a counter-example? As I said: even if this is the first time that the Quraysh persecuted a group of people, you still have to justify the persecution. And you can't. You've even claimed that you weren't trying to, which is the weird thing about this all too long conversation.

Asked for a counter-example where a similar action was taken against another religious group prior to Mohammed to support your allegation that the Quraysh imposed sanctions/boycotts (in your case persecution) simply for preaching. You haven't given one, albeit, there was preaching from other religious groups.

So all I'll get is a claim with no evidence to back it up. The highlighted text in your link is a quote of when Mohammed destroyed the idols -- and the date for that is given by your own source.

As for sura 2:125-129.
(Apart from the last three of the 286 verses, which don't mention the Kaaba).

So what are we arguing here? Since one of the longest chapters in the Quran was mostly revealed when Mohammed was in Medina means that none was revealed in Mecca? The destroying of the idols was a recitation.

And which of those do you think are cause for persecution?

It’s given. Read what the concerns of the Quraysh were and their reasoning for imposing a boycott/sanctions on Mohammed.

You didn't actually quote anything. There is a portion of text which was highlighted (due, I assume, to the google query that was made). I've addressed that. There is no way the highlighted text refers to before Mohammed left Mecca. Your own source is clear on that.

Not going to write out that entire bit I provided. You haven’t addressed anything. You stated that a previous section referenced 630 hence the following bit I referenced couldn’t possibly refer to anything before 630. There’s a sequence there and details and reasons given to Mohammed’s departure.

 

[FireGarden]

Actually it was in reference to the statement of your referring to violence during these razzias, which you assumed were devoid of violence based on the lack of success of plundering and lack of death. So no goal-post moving involved, unless it was your intention to do so.
Bin Jahsh was the leader of the raiding party and known as a relative of Mohammed. He attained this position of leader from previous raids. Whether he himself was known by the merchants is moot, what is known by these merchants is that there were a number of razzias against Quraysh caravans over the last few months, albeit mostly unsuccessful.

Your claim again: "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."

And now you say whether he was known by the merchants is moot. Do you see the inconsistency?

For clarification, the Quraysh did react to the unsuccessful, unprovoked raids of Mohammed during the same month of the Nakhla raid. So I’m correcting myself that the first reaction of the Quraysh was following the Nakhla raid. Overall, this doesn’t change much.
Raid on Muhammad’s Milch Camels at Badr

You call them unprovoked, again. So you know for a fact that the Muslims had forgiven all the persecution which had gone before? You don't know this? Then how do you call the raids "unprovoked"? Oh, yes... You have divined that the raids were conducted at random, without bothering to determine the identities of those being raided. You method of divination is not convincing, though.


I don't know the point of your link. Nor do I think much of the website. Have you read their FAQs?

The shaven head of Ukkash b Mihsan, as in 1 of the raiders not all, and the timing of Rejab probably made this specific caravan less weary of attack.
All in all, this ties in with your allegation with that questionable link you gave, that the raiding party recognized one or more of the caravan members. You haven’t made the case where this would be a reasonable assumption.

What's unreasonable about it? The Muslims were seen by the merchants and taken for pilgrims. Why do you think that the merchants were not seen by the Muslims? Or do you think it unlikely that they would recognise a man who persecuted them?

Broken record? Your links where the guilt of theft from Mohammed is retroactively applied to a number of the merchants (if more than 1) of this caravan is baseless. Your link simply states that so and so was a perpetrator, nothing more. No surrahs, no hadiths, no supporting evidence.

It's not theft from Mohammed -- it's theft from, and persecution of, Muslims. The Quran and hadith don't contain every detail.

The link I gave earlier is a quote from a book, whose contents are listed here: http://mercytomankind.org/TheLifeOfMohamedDir/TheLifeOfMohamed.html

Unfortunately, they don't name the author and the book link doesn't seem to lead anywhere. Wiki lists some who wrote biographies of Mohammed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophetic_biography#Authors_of_Sirah

On the early biographies wiki says:

The sirat literature include a variety of materials such as political treaties, military enlistments, assignments of officials, etc. which were recorded by successive generations of Muslims. In principle, the biographies of Muhammad would have been assembled from reports of what he did, just as what he said was recorded in the form of hadith. However, the sirat literature is technically different from hadith literature as it is in general not as concerned with validation through the chain of transmitters (isnad), although in the earliest sirat many of the narratives are accompanied by isnads. This is probably due to a number of reasons. First, the story of Muhammad's life was probably quite well-known and frequently re-told amongst Muslims, as well as to new converts, from the early days of Islam.

Yet again, not stating random. What I've stated is in opposition to your statement that this is a form of justice in response to the appropriation of goods from Mohammed and his followers when they left Mecca along with the position of whom no guilty party was mentioned. Simply some baseless finger pointing in the link given. You haven’t provided any evidence that this attacks on the caravans were a form of justice and were nothing more than simple thievery.
But I like the sly attempt at a fallacy here.

Yes, you are stating random -- in the sense that any Quraysh would do and that the identity of those attacked didn't matter to the Muslims.

I have given more evidence than you. You only have your incredulity regarding whether the merchants would have failed to recognised the raiding party as a raiding party.

I’ve given the reasons why the Quraysh responded against Mohammed with economic sanctions/boycott, whether you want to admit that these reasons exist or not. And not playing this absolutist game either now. It’s such a weak angle to play.

The only reason for persecution you give (from before the persecution) is Mohammed's preaching. You don't even accept that this preaching was successful enough to warrant action -- at least you called me out on it earlier.

No, no you weren’t. This is yet another lame attempt to pull the wool over my eyes. The original allegation you made:

I’ve already responded to this, yet now you’re somehow trying to peddle something different. If you wish to continue with this questionable debating practice of yours, by all means, continue, just don’t expect a response.

Yes, you responded to it by saying that "pestered" is good enough word for what happened:

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 Muslims were killed. But you think it is acceptable for your source to refer to what happened as "Mohammed being pestered". And why? Because you have the same agenda as your source: minimise the persecution, and most definitely don't consider it as any grounds for retaliation. You want to pretend that Mohammed was upset by ridicule -- not by the killing of Muslims.

And, no, I'm not trying to pull the wool over your eyes. I'm not even talking to you, but at you -- just in case anybody else is reading.

Actually, I claim that any caravan would do travelling along this trading route. Because this was after all a razzia, like the many before and many after, whose only intent was to plunder.

That's an even more bizarre claim. "Any caravan would do" but... "It's not random. Really it isn't".

You attribute his success as a self-proclaimed prophet to him being asked to mediate between two squabbling tribes?

Do you attribute his being asked to mediate to his being a politically weak merchant -- running his wife's business? Strange that.

Asked for a counter-example where a similar action was taken against another religious group prior to Mohammed to support your allegation that the Quraysh imposed sanctions/boycotts (in your case persecution) simply for preaching. You haven't given one, albeit, there was preaching from other religious groups.

It is YOU, not me, who has failed to come up with any cause for the persecution other than preaching. I go further by saying that the preaching was successful. You still seem to disagree with that.

Given your failure -- but diehard intention to blame the victims -- you are left with claiming "well it must have been something the Muslims did. They had to deserve it." But until you can name the something, you have nothing but your claim.

So what are we arguing here? Since one of the longest chapters in the Quran was mostly revealed when Mohammed was in Medina means that none was revealed in Mecca? The destroying of the idols was a recitation.

The last three verses of that chapter were revealed in Mecca. These are not the verses you cited.

It’s given. Read what the concerns of the Quraysh were and their reasoning for imposing a boycott/sanctions on Mohammed.

I'm not reading the entire book. Quote it.

Not going to write out that entire bit I provided. You haven’t addressed anything. You stated that a previous section referenced 630 hence the following bit I referenced couldn’t possibly refer to anything before 630. There’s a sequence there and details and reasons given to Mohammed’s departure.

I've read the paragraph again. The highlighted text is from after Mohammed had defeated the leaders of Mecca. You don't seem to have understood your own source.

Keep telling me I'm wrong, I don't mind. Like I said above, I'm only talking at you. Anybody who is reading this knows that I have not misrepresented your source. I'm referring to one single paragraph spanning pages 21 and 22. You either have very limited reading comprehension, a surplus of wishful thinking, or you think nobody who reads it will call you out on it.

Here's page 21 again.

 

[bigjelmapro]

Your claim again: "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."
And now you say whether he was known by the merchants is moot. Do you see the inconsistency?

Stating what I believe from the lack of information regarding the Nakhla raid and stating that its moot, as in debateable, whether one recognizes the other (raiding party and caravan members), is not inconsistent. I accept that there's a lack of evidence that these people were indeed identified prior to the raid, but the link you provided states that the leader of the caravan and/or other members as the de-facto 'persecutor(s)' and thieves of Muslims and Mohammed Mecca when they first fled. That is the issue I have with the link, I’ve made this readily apparent.
Understand the distinction. And cease with pushing that link of yours as if it’s some historical account. It isn't. It isn't supported by hadith/surrahs/etc.

You call them unprovoked, again. So you know for a fact that the Muslims had forgiven all the persecution which had gone before? You don't know this? Then how do you call the raids "unprovoked"? Oh, yes... You have divined that the raids were conducted at random, without bothering to determine the identities of those being raided. You method of divination is not convincing, though.

And here we are again whitewashing the actions of razzias as some form of justice. The simple fact of these razzias was to attain booty and hence attract more followers to Mohammed’s new found faith. This ties in with the above.

I don't know the point of your link. Nor do I think much of the website. Have you read their FAQs?

I've used it as a source for the details behind the actual razzias themselves, from dates and who was involved. I could care less about the interpretation after the sources are given. But then again, what's the problem with this? Don't you see the hypocrisy in your position defending those sites you've given?
Even Wikipedia suffers from a level of censorship where questioning Mohammed’s motives and questionable practices, or even portraying him in a modicum of bad light which is equivalent to heresy. Groups of writers drive the media content of Wikipedia. And no need to shrug this off by simply asserting that it’s some sort of CT.
These sources are on opposite sides of the spectrum. Additionally, the sites which are pro-Islam tend to gloss over some of the initial razzias (only listing them as unsuccessful) which put Mohammed’s prophetic position into jeopardy.

It's not theft from Mohammed -- it's theft from, and persecution of, Muslims. The Quran and hadith don't contain every detail.
Yes, you are stating random -- in the sense that any Quraysh would do and that the identity of those attacked didn't matter to the Muslims.
I have given more evidence than you. You only have your incredulity regarding whether the merchants would have failed to recognised the raiding party as a raiding party.

The previous (failed) razzias are evidence that these raids’ intentions were to loot, plunder, and sell captives back to the families/tribes they were abducted from for financial gain. The sliver of evidence, which really isn’t evidence at all just finger-pointing, does nothing to negate my points.
You haven’t provided evidence outside of simply pointing the finger at one of the merchants. So whitewashing the actions of Mohammed and his band of bandits and attempting to portray it as a form of justice, which is still wholesale, against the Quraysh.

Yes, you responded to it by saying that "pestered" is good enough word for what happened:
So Muslims were killed. But you think it is acceptable for your source to refer to what happened as "Mohammed being pestered". And why? Because you have the same agenda as your source: minimise the persecution, and most definitely don't consider it as any grounds for retaliation. You want to pretend that Mohammed was upset by ridicule -- not by the killing of Muslims.

No, yet again. I was correcting your allegation from the link in question that it asserted that the ridicule Mohammed himself received (stated as ‘pestering’) is not the same stating those who were tortured/murdered by their slave owners is ‘pestering’ and the latter of which the author was NOT referring to when he stated ‘pestering’.
You are here, once again, accusing the Quraysh with wide brush strokes as being complacent in the cases of where slave owners tortured and/or murdered their slaves for their religious beliefs, and should thus be justifiable targets for plunder (albeit, the first raids show that the target were rich caravans and not those who were deemed guilty of murder and torture).
My only interest in this matter is to portray Mohammed in a realistic light as to what his real intentions were rather than to give the impression that his intentions and motivations were stemmed in simply and solely in seeking justice. My intentions are not to portray the Quraysh as being victims. There is no lack of evidence to support the idea that Mohammed’s prime motivation was for political hegemony in the region and to spread further. Neither is there lack of evidence that he killed and ordered killings for people who opposed his religious doctrine. These aren’t characteristics of pious men and women.

That's an even more bizarre claim. "Any caravan would do" but... "It's not random. Really it isn't".

Not really bizarre at all. This was the Quraysh main trading routes (their monopoly, as previously stated) that were attacked, so not random at all. A counter-example of where attacking certain trading routes would be deemed random, would be the Somali pirate attacks against shipping lines off the coast of Somalia.

Do you attribute his being asked to mediate to his being a politically weak merchant -- running his wife's business? Strange that.

That’s a strange assertion. I have no doubt that Mohammed’s political success in Medina stemmed from him filling the demands of squabbling tribes and that of his razzias. I don’t really attribute his success in Medina to that of preaching his religious doctrine.

It is YOU, not me, who has failed to come up with any cause for the persecution other than preaching. I go further by saying that the preaching was successful. You still seem to disagree with that.

Read below, or above where I referenced the page in question. It wasn’t restricted to preaching.

Given your failure -- but diehard intention to blame the victims -- you are left with claiming "well it must have been something the Muslims did. They had to deserve it." But until you can name the something, you have nothing but your claim.

How many false claims have you got left in that magical hat of yours? Never claimed this, never will.
What I have said is that this was a natural reaction by the Quraysh who saw Mohammed as a threat to the stability they implemented.

I'm not reading the entire book. Quote it.

I did, go back and read the pages I referenced. The link shoots you down to x page, but I’ve clearly stated the part I was referring to.

I've read the paragraph again. The highlighted text is from after Mohammed had defeated the leaders of Mecca. You don't seem to have understood your own source….

No, you’re just reading the wrong part.

 

[FireGarden]

Stating what I believe from the lack of information regarding the Nakhla raid and stating that its moot, as in debateable, whether one recognizes the other (raiding party and caravan members), is not inconsistent. I accept that there's a lack of evidence that these people were indeed identified prior to the raid, but the link you provided states that the leader of the caravan and/or other members as the de-facto 'persecutor(s)' and thieves of Muslims and Mohammed Mecca when they first fled. That is the issue I have with the link, I’ve made this readily apparent.
Understand the distinction. And cease with pushing that link of yours as if it’s some historical account. It isn't. It isn't supported by hadith/surrahs/etc.

So, based (as you admit) on no evidence, you do not believe that the merchants failed to recognise the Muslims -- but you do believe that the Muslims didn't recognise the merchants.

As for the point about calling it moot...
It didn't seem that way when you first stated it. You seemed very sure of yourself. When you said you "simply don't believe....", you didn't mean to imply that the idea was preposterous -- you meant to imply that the idea was debateable. Aha.

And here we are again whitewashing the actions of razzias as some form of justice. The simple fact of these razzias was to attain booty and hence attract more followers to Mohammed’s new found faith. This ties in with the above.

That's what you've failed to prove.

I've used it as a source for the details behind the actual razzias themselves, from dates and who was involved. I could care less about the interpretation after the sources are given. But then again, what's the problem with this? Don't you see the hypocrisy in your position defending those sites you've given?
Even Wikipedia suffers from a level of censorship where questioning Mohammed’s motives and questionable practices, or even portraying him in a modicum of bad light which is equivalent to heresy. Groups of writers drive the media content of Wikipedia. And no need to shrug this off by simply asserting that it’s some sort of CT.

You picked a source which admits to being biased. Wikipedia includes a wide variety of opinions, many of which get debated on the talk pages and referenced in the articles. Wiki doesn't always get it right, but at least I can believe there is an intention to get it right.

The previous (failed) razzias are evidence that these raids’ intentions were to loot, plunder, and sell captives back to the families/tribes they were abducted from for financial gain.

How is that? You still haven't proved that the caravans were attacked without the merchants identities being known.

The sliver of evidence, which really isn’t evidence at all just finger-pointing, does nothing to negate my points.
You haven’t provided evidence outside of simply pointing the finger at one of the merchants. So whitewashing the actions of Mohammed and his band of bandits and attempting to portray it as a form of justice, which is still wholesale, against the Quraysh.

You haven't provided any evidence other than claiming that the identity of the merchants was not known. This is something you base on lack of evidence.

No, yet again. I was correcting your allegation from the link in question that it asserted that the ridicule Mohammed himself received (stated as ‘pestering’) is not the same stating those who were tortured/murdered by their slave owners is ‘pestering’ and the latter of which the author was NOT referring to when he stated ‘pestering’.

Here is the quote again:

http://www.faithfreedom.org/content/good-and-evil-muslim-umma-lessons-nakhla-raid

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.

See, as motive for targeting the Quraysh* they refer to "pestering". They don't give anything else. I suspect for the same reason as you. As I said: to minimise the persecution, and most definitely not to consider it as any grounds for retaliation. To pretend that Mohammed was upset by ridicule -- not by the killing of Muslims.

*Your source, like you, seems to claim that all the Quryash were targeted -- except, I assume, for Mohammad.

You are here, once again, accusing the Quraysh with wide brush strokes as being complacent in the cases of where slave owners tortured and/or murdered their slaves for their religious beliefs, and should thus be justifiable targets for plunder (albeit, the first raids show that the target were rich caravans and not those who were deemed guilty of murder and torture).

No I'm not using a wide brush. Because I'm not claiming that the caravans were attacked merely for being Quraysh. That is your claim. Please try harder to tell the difference between my position and yours.

My only interest in this matter is to portray Mohammed in a realistic light as to what his real intentions were rather than to give the impression that his intentions and motivations were stemmed in simply and solely in seeking justice.

By claiming things you cannot prove.

Not really bizarre at all. This was the Quraysh main trading routes (their monopoly, as previously stated) that were attacked, so not random at all. A counter-example of where attacking certain trading routes would be deemed random, would be the Somali pirate attacks against shipping lines off the coast of Somalia.

This is still random. You are saying that any caravan along a very definite and non-random route (as if the Quraysh were limited in the routes they could take). This gives a set of caravans any of which could be selected with no further criterea -- according to you. That is random.

The Quraysh were a big tribe in Mecca -- your above quote makes it sound like they had a monopoly on trade routes.

That’s a strange assertion. I have no doubt that Mohammed’s political success in Medina stemmed from him filling the demands of squabbling tribes and that of his razzias. I don’t really attribute his success in Medina to that of preaching his religious doctrine.

You're confused. The question is: why was he asked to mediate in Medina? Outside of Islam, he was a nobody. So, if his preaching wasn't succesful, what qualified him to mediate?

Read below, or above where I referenced the page in question. It wasn’t restricted to preaching.

Link to the page, please. It's easy enough.

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

This is page 10. There is no section III on that page. And the excerpts are regarding Mohammed being a prophet. That is the discussion of the page, including the semitic origins of the word "Nabi".

On page 12 however, your source gives:

The Quraysh -- particularly its Umayyad clan -- custodians of the Kaabah and the Zamzam, controllers of the caravan trade, and the oligarchic masters of the city, had special reasons for resistance. The new preaching might jeopardize pilgramages to the Kaabah, next to trade their main source of income. Moreover, the once-poor orphan was introducing such dangerous economic doctrines as the rightful claim of beggars the destitute to a share in the wealth of the rich (70:24-5). Additionally, he advocated a dangerous doctrine, one that would substitute faith for blood as the social bond of community life. If "the believers are naught but brothers" (49:10) was acted upon, the entire family, clan, and tribal unity would be undermined and replaced by religious unity.Then there were dangerous political implications in Muhammad's teaching. Religious success would entail political success, and the new prophet was a potential new ruler. Shrewd merchants that they were, they found nothing in what he offered that they cared to buy.

The opposition at first did not take the upstart seriously. Silence was followed by verbal attack. [examples of insults, then a list of converts to Islam. They say most were poor and/or slaves]

At last the time came for the aristocracy of his tribe, the banu-U-mayyah, to engage in active persecution. This necessitated the migration (in 615) of 83 families of his followers to Christian Abyssinia....

So we have nothing but preaching from Mohammed before the persecution. Islam, if successful, would:

-- threaten pilgramage to Mecca
-- introduce social welfare by granting the poor rights (see quote below)
-- make people consider those from other tribes to be like their own brothers
-- If everyone adopted the new religion, they would prefer Mohammad as their ruler



Some of these get described as dangerous -- but it's clear that the danger is to the status of those who already rule.

There is nothing there that justifies persecution.

btw, the reference to 70:24-25, I looked it up.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/isl/yaq/yaq070.htm

Here it is, from verse 19:

19. Truly man was created
Very impatient;—

20. Fretful when evil
Touches him;

21. And niggardly when
Good reaches him;—

22. Not so those devoted
To Prayer;—

23. Those who remain steadfast
To their prayer;

24. And those in whose wealth
Is a recognised right

25. For the (needy) who asks
And him who is prevented
(For some reason from asking);

So those who pray aren't fretful, impatient or niggardly (miserly). In their wealth there is a recognised right for the needy.

Have I still got the wrong page?

How many false claims have you got left in that magical hat of yours? Never claimed this, never will.
What I have said is that this was a natural reaction by the Quraysh who saw Mohammed as a threat to the stability they implemented.

Nope:

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?

You ask "what could have invoked such a stern reaction?" ie: what did the Muslims do to get treated so badly? And you ask because you do not have an answer. That is classic blaming the victim.

I did, go back and read the pages I referenced. The link shoots you down to x page, but I’ve clearly stated the part I was referring to.

No, you’re just reading the wrong part.

Strange... I read the page you linked to, which includes highlighted text which (I assume) you used as a search template. But, I'm reading the wrong page. If so, I don't see it as my fault.

Do you admit the highlighted quote is from 630?

 

[bigjelmapro]

So, based (as you admit) on no evidence, you do not believe that the merchants failed to recognise the Muslims -- but you do believe that the Muslims didn't recognise the merchants.

It was to establish grounds of doubt that the raiding party recognized one of the merchants as being the perpetrator(s) of thievery, as your link asserts, or rather claims without supporting evidence. You can keep bringing this up in nth ways, but the response will always be the same.
Tying this one off since nothing new will come of it and you have failed to negate my point.

As for the point about calling it moot...
It didn't seem that way when you first stated it. You seemed very sure of yourself. When you said you "simply don't believe....", you didn't mean to imply that the idea was preposterous -- you meant to imply that the idea was debateable. Aha.

So one can’t be sure of oneself or one’s position strongly when I state ‘believe’? Perhaps you could suggest this assertion to the millions of those with religious beliefs as well. And no, before you try to draw a connection with my position and that of the belief of supernatural beings, no, it’s not like that. I base my position on the logic of said events, ie Nakhla raid. You accuse me of being incredulous, but somehow you see your position as being a stronger one based on a link from a pro-Islamic site that simple accuses one or more of the caravan members to be a perpetrator without a shred of corroborating evidence.
Tying this one off too.

That's what you've failed to prove.

What? The concept/motivations of a razzia? That’s not even debatable. Razzias are for plunder, pure and simple. Perhaps you could point to some actual evidence to the contrary, that these razzias of Mohammed’s henchmen are indeed a form of justice against the Quraysh. You haven’t, you simply accuse me of failing.

You picked a source which admits to being biased. Wikipedia includes a wide variety of opinions, many of which get debated on the talk pages and referenced in the articles. Wiki doesn't always get it right, but at least I can believe there is an intention to get it right.

Wikipedia is still biased since it’s written by groups of people with their own agendas. And as I said before, I referenced the failed razzias which are omitted. But somehow your authorless reference still stands? Guess so.

How is that? You still haven't proved that the caravans were attacked without the merchants identities being known.

You haven’t proved that they were. The issue I’m having with this line of thought of yours is that since there’s no mention of when the merchants were identified, that this somehow implies that these merchants were identified prior to the razzia and not after the deed was done. Again, no corroborating evidence and no statements, ie following the Nakhla raid, that the intention was to go after the ‘perpetrators’, whomever or wherever they may be. The surrah following the Nakhla raid justifying violence during Rejab confirms that this razzia was not for pursuing justice, but that Mohammed and his followers were blocked from entry into the Kaaba (which is worse than death apparently). Additionally, Mohammed and his raiding party members are more concerned about official decrees regarding the splitting of booty rather than that justice has been served against these presumed ‘perpetrators’.

See, as motive for targeting the Quraysh* they refer to "pestering". They don't give anything else. I suspect for the same reason as you. As I said: to minimise the persecution, and most definitely not to consider it as any grounds for retaliation. To pretend that Mohammed was upset by ridicule -- not by the killing of Muslims.

So you are accusing the Quraysh as being complacent of the murder of a number of Muslims (re: slaves). I can keep stating this over and over again until you cease pedaling this notion that the killing of Muslims are attributed to the Quraysh and thus are legitimate targets of raids.
If Mohammed was so concerned about these murders he would hold those who committed the acts as responsible and would judge them. Not the caravans. Not those who are leading these trade caravans.
Mohammed could have been upset for waking up on the wrong side of the bed or smelling like a goat when he arrived in Mecca the first time (which one of the hadiths do state, the latter at least). With your line of reasoning, this would have been good reasons also to attack any caravan along the Quraysh trading routes. Or not? You are packaging this all up nicely to make it seem so since you’ve made no distinction no matter how many times I bring it up.

By claiming things you cannot prove.

Like what? His intentions? The excess in raids? Replacing a monopoly on the Kaaba with his? Murdering slews of civilians? Making a fortune on raids? Murdering people who wrote/said satire mocking Mohammed/Islam (ie Dead poets society)? You see piety and justice in bloodshed and plunder, I get that.

This is still random. You are saying that any caravan along a very definite and non-random route (as if the Quraysh were limited in the routes they could take). This gives a set of caravans any of which could be selected with no further criterea -- according to you. That is random.

Really stretching here. You do understand the concept of a trading route, do you not? Mohammed’s criterion was to loot and plunder rich caravans, predominantly going along set routes from Syria. No further distinction was made.

The Quraysh were a big tribe in Mecca -- your above quote makes it sound like they had a monopoly on trade routes.

Quraysh had a monopoly on trade, this would included trade routes of which Mohammed knew the locations of. This isn’t even contested on pro-Islamic sites. Perhaps you’re trying another game of semantics here?

You're confused. The question is: why was he asked to mediate in Medina? Outside of Islam, he was a nobody. So, if his preaching wasn't succesful, what qualified him to mediate?

Preaching and politicking are two different things. Your original assertion is that he was a successful preacher in Mecca, you haven’t been able to support this.

This is page 10. There is no section III on that page. And the excerpts are regarding Mohammed being a prophet. That is the discussion of the page, including the semitic origins of the word "Nabi".

Sorry if you’re easily thrown off.

So we have nothing but preaching from Mohammed before the persecution. Islam, if successful, would:
-- threaten pilgramage to Mecca
-- introduce social welfare by granting the poor rights (see quote below)
-- make people consider those from other tribes to be like their own brothers
-- If everyone adopted the new religion, they would prefer Mohammad as their ruler

Some of these get described as dangerous -- but it's clear that the danger is to the status of those who already rule.

Isn’t it usually the reasons for war? A threat to power? Mind you, the Quraysh didn’t take an offensive approach outside of boycott and sanctions until following the 6th failed razzia. You forget the exclusiveness meaning those who didn’t practice his religious doctrine were excluded. Mohammed preached what he practiced as can be seen post 630.
Mind you, this has been proposed by a number of despots and dictators in our recent history. The story usually doesn’t end up that way once power has been achieved and paranoia sets in, as can be seen by example as the hadiths/surrahs progressed. So I’ve accomplished what I’ve set out to do, which was not to justify the actions of the Quraysh towards Mohammed’s threat towards Mecca’s stability, but rather to put it in perspective that the actions taken were that of a group of people was a natural reaction.

There is nothing there that justifies persecution.

Economic sanctions and boycott, I would see as a reaction by the Quraysh to this threat. If only Mohammed took such steps rather than skipping this step and resorting to bloodshed to those who opposed him.

btw, the reference to 70:24-25, I looked it up.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/isl/yaq/yaq070.htm

Cherry-picking accomplishes what exactly? Nothing much.

You ask "what could have invoked such a stern reaction?" ie: what did the Muslims do to get treated so badly? And you ask because you do not have an answer. That is classic blaming the victim.

Another stretch. Stern reaction was in response to Mohammed’s actions, not those of his followers. Steering hard to port eh? Is this how you usually win arguments? Glad to see that you’ve managed to get another definition correct, how this applies to what I’ve said, yet again, is beyond me.

 

[FireGarden]

It was to establish grounds of doubt that the raiding party recognized one of the merchants as being the perpetrator(s) of thievery, as your link asserts, or rather claims without supporting evidence.

So, based (as you admit) on no evidence, you do not believe that the merchants failed to recognise the Muslims -- but you do believe that the Muslims didn't recognise the merchants.

Your bias is obvious.

Wikipedia is still biased since it’s written by groups of people with their own agendas. And as I said before, I referenced the failed razzias which are omitted. But somehow your authorless reference still stands? Guess so.

Wikipedia has a variety of people with a variety of agendas. That is why I can believe there is an intention to overcome bias.

So you are accusing the Quraysh as being complacent of the murder of a number of Muslims (re: slaves).

No, I am accusing you and your source of trying to minismise the persecution.

You do understand the concept of a trading route, do you not? Mohammed’s criterion was to loot and plunder rich caravans, predominantly going along set routes from Syria. No further distinction was made.

This is picking caravans at random -- from a specified set of caravans. Sounds stupid, but it is your claim. If you can't see that, then consider the request: "pick a number between 1 and 10". That is a request to pick a random number from a specified set.

Preaching and politicking are two different things. Your original assertion is that he was a successful preacher in Mecca, you haven’t been able to support this.

I think I have. Because, other than being a preacher, there is no reason for those in Medina to employ him. They probably wouldn't even have heard of him.

Sorry if you’re easily thrown off.

By wrong citations? Yeah, strange that.

Isn’t it usually the reasons for war? A threat to power? Mind you, the Quraysh didn’t take an offensive approach outside of boycott and sanctions until following the 6th failed razzia.

Except some of them did. Your own source says that very clearly. I quoted it, so there is no denying it.

You forget the exclusiveness meaning those who didn’t practice his religious doctrine were excluded. Mohammed preached what he practiced as can be seen post 630.

But this takes us back to the original question: "When did Mohammed first say that Pagans shouldn't be allowed to the Ka'aba?"

I assume, since you didn't contradict, that you now agree that the quote highlighted in your earlier link was from 630.

Economic sanctions and boycott, I would see as a reaction by the Quraysh to this threat.

Your own source uses the word "persecution" -- so stop running from it. Here it is again: "At last the time came for the aristocracy of his tribe, the banu-U-mayyah, to engage in active persecution. This necessitated the migration (in 615) of 83 families of his followers to Christian Abyssinia...."

Cherry-picking accomplishes what exactly? Nothing much.

LOL.
You highlight a quote from 630 in a link, claim it is from quite a bit earlier, then gripe that I read the wrong bit. I quote a rather long passage from your source and you accuse me of cherry-picking when I quote more context to the verses mentioned by your source.

Another stretch. Stern reaction was in response to Mohammed’s actions, not those of his followers.

No they weren't. Unless we include speaking as an action. You have so far not linked to any violence by Muslims from before the persecution.

And I think it is strange that, at times, you can admit that Mohammed's followers were persecuted and then claim that this was just a reaction to Mohammed. You don't think that the act of conversion was in any way involved? Or was that Mohammed's act too, not the converts' act?

Steering hard to port eh? Is this how you usually win arguments?

Accusing of me of being a lefty? Is that how you usually convince yourself you've won an argument?

 

[bigjelmapro]

So, based (as you admit) on no evidence, you do not believe that the merchants failed to recognise the Muslims -- but you do believe that the Muslims didn't recognise the merchants.
Your bias is obvious.

As is yours. No movement. Just go on pretending that your position is somehow more solid.

Wikipedia has a variety of people with a variety of agendas. That is why I can believe there is an intention to overcome bias.

Yet to see anything on wikipedia critical of Mohammed, on anything. No intention to overcome bias, just cater groups of people who would put up a fuss if anything critical were to come out.

No, I am accusing you and your source of trying to minismise the persecution.

Keep playing this card. You're trying to group these two subjects together at an attempt at character assassination of this writer. Mind you, he's an x-Muslim to boot. I’m not going to go further on this either since there’s no new developments on this either.

This is picking caravans at random -- from a specified set of caravans. Sounds stupid, but it is your claim. If you can't see that, then consider the request: "pick a number between 1 and 10". That is a request to pick a random number from a specified set.

What sounds stupid is this attempt at a rebuttal. Caravans were picked according to the standard of razzias. Those that were thought to contain riches were plundered.

I think I have. Because, other than being a preacher, there is no reason for those in Medina to employ him. They probably wouldn't even have heard of him.

Cite this. Apparently I can't make arguments based on some logic without a slew of quotations, sources, etc. etc., but you can. =)

By wrong citations? Yeah, strange that.

Maximum of 2 pages that threw you off, difficult eh?

Except some of them did. Your own source says that very clearly. I quoted it, so there is no denying it.

Are you referring to the offensive approach here? If so, I’m referring to the attack against Mohammed’s raiding party following the 6th failed razzia.

But this takes us back to the original question: "When did Mohammed first say that Pagans shouldn't be allowed to the Ka'aba?"

Keep going back. Page 10 has a sequence to it, which was stated when I provided the link. Exclusiveness is stated as prior to the economic sanctions/boycott imposed by the Quraysh. No timestamp will be provided =)

Your own source uses the word "persecution" -- so stop running from it. Here it is again: "At last the time came for the aristocracy of his tribe, the banu-U-mayyah, to engage in active persecution. This necessitated the migration (in 615) of 83 families of his followers to Christian Abyssinia...."

So we’re still stuck on this word eh? Was this migration a result of the Quraysh sanctions or the violence their followers incurred from their slave owners and such? The latter I have no issue in referring to as persecution. You’ll be hard-pressed to state that I didn’t refer to it as such. Moving on.

LOL.
You highlight a quote from 630 in a link, claim it is from quite a bit earlier, then gripe that I read the wrong bit. I quote a rather long passage from your source and you accuse me of cherry-picking when I quote more context to the verses mentioned by your source.

We’ve been through this already. The link shoots to the page that I wasn’t referring to. No griping, just your OCD with trivialities rearing its head again. I accuse you of cherry-picking since you’re picking out a surrah which had nothing to do with original point pertaining to exclusiveness in your attempts to present what Mohammed preached as innocuous.

No they weren't. Unless we include speaking as an action. You have so far not linked to any violence by Muslims from before the persecution.
And I think it is strange that, at times, you can admit that Mohammed's followers were persecuted and then claim that this was just a reaction to Mohammed. You don't think that the act of conversion was in any way involved? Or was that Mohammed's act too, not the converts' act?

Provide a counter-example where preaching has resulted in economic sanctions/boycott prior to this. Sorry, not giving in to this redundant attempt at steering the debate regarding Muslim violence.
Plenty of people converted to a number of religions in Mecca without issue. Why would Islam, which is nothing but a rehash of other already existing religions, be any different? It isn’t the religion itself, but rather what Mohammed preached. The results post 630 speak for themselves, don’t you think? Or do you somehow think this was all an epiphany between 615 and pre-630?

Accusing of me of being a lefty? Is that how you usually convince yourself you've won an argument?

Boink! Another one out of right field. But I get the play of definitions and trying to pin it to me. You know, I don’t see this going anywhere. I’ve made my distinctions evident and you keep making the same arguments pretending as if these distinctions haven’t been made. If you wish to continue stating the same thing for the nth+ 1 time, go ahead.

 

[FireGarden]

As is yours. No movement. Just go on pretending that your position is somehow more solid.

I do think it is more solid. You disagree with the link I provided - a biography of Mohammed. But you disagree based on no contradictory evidence. And you disagree in order to support a more extraordinary theory: that the Muslims attacked without considering the identity of the merchants. You seem to think they were willing to take the chance of attacking merchants who, until then, had been friendly. How would they know, if they didn't take the time to find out?

Yet to see anything on wikipedia critical of Mohammed, on anything. No intention to overcome bias, just cater groups of people who would put up a fuss if anything critical were to come out.

LOL.
They have an article "criticism of Mohammad":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Muhammad

It references criticism from Ayaan Hirsi Ali to Daniel Pipes to the Pope.

Keep playing this card. You're trying to group these two subjects together at an attempt at character assassination of this writer. Mind you, he's an x-Muslim to boot. I’m not going to go further on this either since there’s no new developments on this either.

That's not a defence.

What sounds stupid is this attempt at a rebuttal. Caravans were picked according to the standard of razzias. Those that were thought to contain riches were plundered.

You don't seem to understand. You have said that, other than the route the caravans were taking and their richness, "no further distinction was made." You are left with a set of caravans, from which some are selected to be raided. According to you, "no further distinction was made". So, from that particular (non-random) set of caravans, caravans were selected at random.

You may not like it. But that is your claim. Because you refuse to accept that the Muslims would take the time to find out who the merchants are.

Cite this. Apparently I can't make arguments based on some logic without a slew of quotations, sources, etc. etc., but you can. =)

Cite what? That Mohammad was asked to arbitrate? Sure:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_in_Medina

A delegation from Medina, consisting of the representatives of the twelve important clans of Medina, invited Muhammad as a neutral outsider to Medina to serve as the chief arbitrator for the entire community.

Their source is the The Cambridge History of Islam (1977), p. 39.

The question is, if Muhammad's preaching was unsuccessful (as you claim) then why did the leaders of a city approach him? Plenty of people were outsiders. Heck, they could have travelled further than Mecca to find outsiders. Or even found outsiders closer to Medina. I can't imagine that outsiders are hard to find. So why Muhammad? Did he win a lottery?

Maximum of 2 pages that threw you off, difficult eh?

You linked to page 22. I also checked page 10, but that was about Mohammed being a prophet, including the semitic origins of the word "Nabi". Didn't seem to be on topic. So I assumed your link was the reference you wanted me to read -- escpecially because of the highlighted text. Why is that text highlighted? I assume because it was what you were looking for when you googled. Am I wrong?

More to the point, having (apparently) found the other bits you wanted me to read, it turns out that there is nothing there to support your claims. I quoted the relevant passage and summarised it. What is there in it that supports you claims?

According to your source....
Islam, if successful, would:

-- threaten pilgramage to Mecca
-- introduce social welfare by granting the poor rights (see quote above)
-- make people consider those from other tribes to be like their own brothers
-- If everyone adopted the new religion, they would prefer Mohammad as their ruler


Or have I still missed something in your source?

Are you referring to the offensive approach here? If so, I’m referring to the attack against Mohammed’s raiding party following the 6th failed razzia.

Don't pretend to be confused. You know the topic is your attempt at explaining what the Muslims did to earn such a stern reaction from the leaders of Mecca.

Keep going back. Page 10 has a sequence to it, which was stated when I provided the link. Exclusiveness is stated as prior to the economic sanctions/boycott imposed by the Quraysh. No timestamp will be provided =)

No. Page 10 has a discussion of Muhammad being a prophet and origins of the word "Nabi". Here is page 10 again. Perhaps you should read it yourself.

I have already taken the trouble to quote from your source. Perhaps you can do the same -- or at least take the trouble to link to the correct page.

So we’re still stuck on this word eh? Was this migration a result of the Quraysh sanctions or the violence their followers incurred from their slave owners and such? The latter I have no issue in referring to as persecution. You’ll be hard-pressed to state that I didn’t refer to it as such. Moving on.

You want to seperate the two, even though your own source puts the persecution down to the leaders of Mecca. "At last the time came for the aristocracy of his tribe, the banu-U-mayyah, to engage in active persecution. This necessitated the migration (in 615) of 83 families of his followers to Christian Abyssinia...."

You are now arguing with your own source, not just with me. "Active persecution" lead to the migration in 615. That is what your own source says.

We’ve been through this already. The link shoots to the page that I wasn’t referring to. No griping, just your OCD with trivialities rearing its head again. I accuse you of cherry-picking since you’re picking out a surrah which had nothing to do with original point pertaining to exclusiveness in your attempts to present what Mohammed preached as innocuous.

No, the passage I quoted was from the section III you reffered to -- not your link.

The verses I quoted were cited by your source in the passage I quoted. I felt it was necessary to clarify what was open to misunderstanding. Perhaps you should try reading your source again, with special attention to the verses they cite. I've made it easy for you to find -- by quoting it in an earlier post.

Provide a counter-example where preaching has resulted in economic sanctions/boycott prior to this. Sorry, not giving in to this redundant attempt at steering the debate regarding Muslim violence.

Because there was no Muslim violence before the persecution.
And, as I have said, even if the Muslims were the first religion to be persecuted by the leaders of Mecca, then that is still persecution. And it is still unjustified.

Plenty of people converted to a number of religions in Mecca without issue. Why would Islam, which is nothing but a rehash of other already existing religions, be any different? It isn’t the religion itself, but rather what Mohammed preached.

What Mohammad preached was the religion. And he was more successful than other preachers. Successful enough that people from another city asked him to move there and arbitrate. Or can you find another reason for them selecting Mohammad?

The results post 630 speak for themselves, don’t you think? Or do you somehow think this was all an epiphany between 615 and pre-630?

So you are back to claiming that the Meccans could forsee the "inevitable" events of 630. And, yes, it is entirely possible that Mohammad's intention towards pagans changed between the years you mention. ie: the events of 630 weren't inevitable.

 

[bigjelmapro]

I do think it is more solid. You disagree with the link I provided - a biography of Mohammed. But you disagree based on no contradictory evidence. And you disagree in order to support a more extraordinary theory: that the Muslims attacked without considering the identity of the merchants. You seem to think they were willing to take the chance of attacking merchants who, until then, had been friendly. How would they know, if they didn't take the time to find out?

I've stated that the lack of evidence for the reasons behind and those who led the caravan can be seen from the hadiths and the resultant surrah regarding attacking this caravan during Rejab. None stated that this razzia was a form of justice and neither were those leading the caravan a reason for going through with this razzia during Rejab. The only reason that I've come across that has any merit was that this caravan was too rich to be let go. Nothing further is stated in the hadiths or surrah.

The evidence which you have pointed to repeatedly provides nothing other than retroactive reasoning for this razzia as a form of justice.

There's nothing more to discuss here.

LOL.
They have an article "criticism of Mohammad":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Muhammad

It references criticism from Ayaan Hirsi Ali to Daniel Pipes to the Pope.

Guess I missed this source. Thanks for providing it. You have read it though right? References to criticisms are made (under each subject header), and then countered by a number of sources rebuking these criticisms in greater detail. I don't see this on the pro-Mohammed pages of Wikipedia.

The source I provided still stands as providing background information on the previous failed razzias.

You don't seem to understand. You have said that, other than the route the caravans were taking and their richness, "no further distinction was made." You are left with a set of caravans, from which some are selected to be raided. According to you, "no further distinction was made". So, from that particular (non-random) set of caravans, caravans were selected at random.

Mohammed sent out this raiding party on word that it was carrying rich goods. No other distinction was made other than the goods it was carrying.

You may not like it. But that is your claim. Because you refuse to accept that the Muslims would take the time to find out who the merchants are.

Their identity wasn't made clear before this raiding party was sent out. Only the goods carried.

Cite what? That Mohammad was asked to arbitrate? Sure:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_in_Medina

Their source is the The Cambridge History of Islam (1977), p. 39.

The question is, if Muhammad's preaching was unsuccessful (as you claim) then why did the leaders of a city approach him? Plenty of people were outsiders. Heck, they could have travelled further than Mecca to find outsiders. Or even found outsiders closer to Medina. I can't imagine that outsiders are hard to find. So why Muhammad? Did he win a lottery?

On the contrary, you claimed that his preaching was successful hence he was asked to mediate between two squabbling tribes (mind you, this was between Arab tribes and the Jewish ones, the latter of which we both know what happened to). You stated that since his only ability was preaching and he was asked to mediate automatically makes him a successful preacher.

The reason he was asked to arbitrate was due to his abilities as a diplomat, not his ability as a preacher. An additional source which provides information not seen on Wikipedia:
Muhammad Drove out the Jews of Medina for Attacking & Killing Muslims? by M A Khan

Let us start with a review of Prophet Muhammad’s encounter with the Jews of Medina. He relocated to Medina in June 622 CE on the background that his mission at Mecca had failed, had become stagnant, while his faith was making rapid progress in Medina even in his absence acquiring some 76 converts over the previous three years. It should be noted that his mission in Mecca, his hometown, made only 150 converts at least over the previous 13 years of his prophetic mission. The prophet was invited to Medina by his Medinan disciples (those 76 or so), who belonged to the two Pagan tribes, Aws and Khazraj; and he settled down without facing any opposition from any group, including the Jews, who were richer and more influential in Medina. It is anticipated that the Jews might’ve been welcoming of him, as he was converting them to a monotheism, which he presented to the Jews as a sister-religion to Judaism and Christianity. Muhammad continued his preaching unimpeded and the polytheists converted to Islam at a high frequency. But the problem with the Jews started only after Muhammad became too ambitious to present himself also as a prophet, a savior, of the Jews (& Christians) too. So Muhammad initially started pampering the Jews & Christians. He gave Moses a status even higher than his own [Bukhari 4:610,612]. Quranic verses pampered them saying, Allah gave them ‘guidance and light’ in the form of Torah [Q 5:44] and the Jews are “righteous” people [Q 6:153-54], who ‘excelled the nations’ [Q 45:16]. And he adopted many Jewish rituals and customs—fasting, circumcision, praying toward Jerusalem etc.—to make Islam truly look like an Abrahamic creed for the first time. Allah’s and Muhammad’s reason behind all these goody-goody sayings and gestures toward the Jews was to come out later; it was Muhammad’s ambition to become a prophet of Jews as well.
...
Muslims boast about this so-called treaty—known as the ‘Constitution of Medina’ and considered the ideal blueprint of the Islamic state—as an epitome of tolerance, human rights and justice to people of all faiths in Islamic state. I will go into detail of the terms of the treaty, which is readers can find in Ibn Ishasq (p. 231-232): it is nothing but a document, demanding unconditional subjugation of all Medinans to the political and religious commands of Muhammad, a recent refugee in Medina. I will, however, prove that the treaty was never signed by the Jews; they probably never saw it.
..

Read the rest. Gives a pretty clear indication that Mohammed's intentions in Medina were pretty much the same as those in Mecca, exclusive hegemony and subjugation.

More to the point, having (apparently) found the other bits you wanted me to read, it turns out that there is nothing there to support your claims. I quoted the relevant passage and summarised it. What is there in it that supports you claims?

Nah, you summarized and conveniently omitted the bits about Quraysh's reservations about what Mohammed was preaching. Hence the issues I have with your attempts to frame his intentions as innocuous.

Don't pretend to be confused. You know the topic is your attempt at explaining what the Muslims did to earn such a stern reaction from the leaders of Mecca.

Wrong again. My issue lies solely with Mohammed, not with his followers. You're steering here, yet again. I'm not going to give into this drivel.

Because there was no Muslim violence before the persecution.
And, as I have said, even if the Muslims were the first religion to be persecuted by the leaders of Mecca, then that is still persecution. And it is still unjustified.

Which is not my point. I've never stated that there was violence before the sanctions/boycotts. Never stated this. But somehow you find this to be a convenient tactic to negate the justification as seen from the Quraysh of what Mohammed was preaching and saw this as a destablizing factor.

Again: Provide a counter-example where preaching has resulted in economic sanctions/boycott prior to this.

What Mohammad preached was the religion. And he was more successful than other preachers. Successful enough that people from another city asked him to move there and arbitrate. Or can you find another reason for them selecting Mohammad?

As from the above source, what would you consider successful? 100? 200 converts? You're running with a false premise yet again thinking that a successful diplomat is the same as a successful preacher. They aren't.

So you are back to claiming that the Meccans could forsee the "inevitable" events of 630. And, yes, it is entirely possible that Mohammad's intention towards pagans changed between the years you mention. ie: the events of 630 weren't inevitable.

Mohammed followed through with what he preached. As he did in Medina, so he did in Mecca in 630. You see it as a change, I don't see that anything has changed with Mohammed's intentions other than his means to enforce what he preached, which he did in Medina post 622 and Mecca post 630.

 

[FireGarden]

I've stated that the lack of evidence for the reasons behind and those who led the caravan can be seen from the hadiths and the resultant surrah regarding attacking this caravan during Rejab. None stated that this razzia was a form of justice and neither were those leading the caravan a reason for going through with this razzia during Rejab. The only reason that I've come across that has any merit was that this caravan was too rich to be let go. Nothing further is stated in the hadiths or surrah.

First off, this doesn't address the point you quoted -- which was regarding whether the merchants were recognised before the attack.

Secondly, you have already quoted the verse which relates to the caravan in question and it does, indeed, refer to the persecution -- not the richness of the caravan.

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].

The references are to the persecution, which was aimed at preventing people becoming Muslims and/or "turning back" those who had converted. Remember this quote?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_in_Mecca

Sumayya bint Khubbat, a slave of Abu Jahl and a prominent Meccan leader, is famous as the first martyr of Islam, having been killed with a spear by her master when she refused to give up her faith. Bilal, another Muslim slave, suffered torture at the hands of Umayya ibn khalaf by placing a heavy rock on his chest to force his conversion.

The reference you quoted from the quran is to general persecution, not to a particular person. But to read from it that the caravan was attacked merely because it was rich is rather biased. To conclude that the caravan was attacked without first checking to see who the merchants were is rather biased -- it implies that the Muslims would have attacked even if the merchants had previously been friendly to them.

Guess I missed this source. Thanks for providing it. You have read it though right? References to criticisms are made (under each subject header), and then countered by a number of sources rebuking these criticisms in greater detail. I don't see this on the pro-Mohammed pages of Wikipedia.

That is the point I made before. You said those who publish in wiki have an agenda. I pointed out that they have conflicting agendas. That is what leads to me accept that there probably is an intention to overcome bias.

Your source admits to lacking that intention.

Mohammed sent out this raiding party on word that it was carrying rich goods. No other distinction was made other than the goods it was carrying.

Their identity wasn't made clear before this raiding party was sent out. Only the goods carried.

Your claim remains that the Muslims were willing to attack anybody who was rich -- friend or foe. You need to support that with more than the lack of evidence you have already admitted to.

On the contrary, you claimed that his preaching was successful hence he was asked to mediate between two squabbling tribes (mind you, this was between Arab tribes and the Jewish ones, the latter of which we both know what happened to). You stated that since his only ability was preaching and he was asked to mediate automatically makes him a successful preacher.

The reason he was asked to arbitrate was due to his abilities as a diplomat, not his ability as a preacher.

I've found this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilf_al-Fudul

Which shows that Muhammad was at the begininng of arbitration in Mecca. It seems likely that Medina invited Muhammad on those grounds.

I hadn't known about that organisation.

An additional source which provides information not seen on Wikipedia:
Muhammad Drove out the Jews of Medina for Attacking & Killing Muslims? by M A Khan

Read the rest. Gives a pretty clear indication that Mohammed's intentions in Medina were pretty much the same as those in Mecca, exclusive hegemony and subjugation.

So, you are back to claiming the Meccans were psychic? No? Then we still have no good reason for the persecution the Meccans meted out.

And which infomation does wiki not provide? That the Banu Qaynuqa were expelled by Mohammad? Seems to be on this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Qaynuqa

Nah, you summarized and conveniently omitted the bits about Quraysh's reservations about what Mohammed was preaching. Hence the issues I have with your attempts to frame his intentions as innocuous.

If I missed a bit out (even after having quoted bits verbatim -- see earlier post) then you can quote those bits I missed out. It's easy. And a heck of a lot more convincing than pretending your source says something it doesn't.

Wrong again. My issue lies solely with Mohammed, not with his followers. You're steering here, yet again. I'm not going to give into this drivel.

Which is not my point. I've never stated that there was violence before the sanctions/boycotts. Never stated this. But somehow you find this to be a convenient tactic to negate the justification as seen from the Quraysh of what Mohammed was preaching and saw this as a destablizing factor.

Again: Provide a counter-example where preaching has resulted in economic sanctions/boycott prior to this.

Again: even if this is the first injustice committed by the leaders of Mecca, it was an injustice. Mohammad had done nothing but preach. And you say you have no problem with Mohammad's followers, but the leaders of Mecca did because the bulk of the persecution was against Muhammad's followers -- Muhammad being mostly protected by his uncle.

 

[bigjelmapro]

First off, this doesn't address the point you quoted -- which was regarding whether the merchants were recognised before the attack.

You keep asking me for evidence that they weren’t identified prior to the attack. Do you see an issue with this request? The only information given to the raiding party was that there was going to be a caravan passing through a known Quraysh trading route. The raiding party, which wasn’t a raiding party at all to begin with but to observe, didn’t have any intended target. There was no recognition other than the 1 member of the raiding party being mistaken for a pilgrim by the caravan.

Secondly, you have already quoted the verse which relates to the caravan in question and it does, indeed, refer to the persecution -- not the richness of the caravan.
The references are to the persecution, which was aimed at preventing people becoming Muslims and/or "turning back" those who had converted. Remember this quote?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_in_Mecca

It refers to persecution. There’s no definitive article (as you’ve stated below), so it could be referring to simply being blocked access to the Ka’aba, the sanctions against Mohammed and his followers, and/or strangely enough, a form of retribution against the above stated cases of murder between slave and slave-owner. I don't see how the latter applies in attacking caravans headed for Mecca.

The reference you quoted from the quran is to general persecution, not to a particular person. But to read from it that the caravan was attacked merely because it was rich is rather biased. To conclude that the caravan was attacked without first checking to see who the merchants were is rather biased -- it implies that the Muslims would have attacked even if the merchants had previously been friendly to them.

The failed razzias display intent for gathering as much booty as possible, in addition to striking fear in not only the Quraysh, but pagans and non-Muslims alike, not as an attempt to seek justice or rectify any wrongs the Muslims experienced in Mecca. I don’t understand this concept you’re implying that stating that the razzias’ motivator of plunder is a biased position.
To my knowledge, Mohammed was the last of the Muslims to leave Mecca by ~620 and that Mohammed had declared all those remaining in Mecca as hostiles, especially the idolaters. So there were no merchants that had the status of friends or neutrals to the Muslims, especially not those headed to Mecca, which were seen as legitimate targets to the raiding parties.
From a pro-Muslim site, on the footnotes:
Expidition Of Abwa And ‘abdallah B. Jahsh

Rajab was the first of the four months held to be sacred when it was not lawful to fight. The remaining three months where Dhul Q’adah, Dhil Hijjah and Muharram. Arabs observed this custom during the pre-Islamic and in the initial period of Islamic era, and this also finds a mention in the Qur’an (9:36). But the consensus of the doctors of law is that the interdiction in this regard has been repealed by later revelations which say, “Slay the idolaters wherever you find them” (9:5) and “Wage war on all the idolaters as they are waging war on all of you” (9:36). Said b. Al-Musayyab was asked if the Muslims were permitted to fight the disbelievers during the sacred months. He replied, “Yes. This was so during the wars waged by the earlier Muslims for there is not one instance in the history when the battles were suspended during the month of Rajab or for three months of Dhul Q’adah. Dhil Hijjah and Muharram or when Muslim force left the battlefield for their cantonments during the these months.’

Further displays intent. The rest of the article is an interesting read as well.

That is the point I made before. You said those who publish in wiki have an agenda. I pointed out that they have conflicting agendas. That is what leads to me accept that there probably is an intention to overcome bias.
Your source admits to lacking that intention.

I wasn’t comparing the bias between Wikipedia and this site I provided, as I’ve stated a number of times now. Wikipedia still has their bias as can be seen in the criticism of Mohammed page, as I’ve pointed out. Stating that there are conflicting agendas doesn’t negate the issue of having more counter-points on the criticism page drowning out the talking points of the criticism itself.
The source I provided stated the details behind the failed razzias (which doesn’t exist on the Wiki pages) therefore displaying intent of plundering as a prime motivator, not that of seeking justice.

I've found this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilf_al-Fudul

Which shows that Muhammad was at the begininng of arbitration in Mecca. It seems likely that Medina invited Muhammad on those grounds.

Right. Which wasn’t based on Mohammed’s religious preaching success but rather his diplomatic abilities, albeit, these abilities weren’t as passive as one would assume when one thinks of a diplomat. This is especially true in his dealings with the Jewish tribes in and around Medina.

So, you are back to claiming the Meccans were psychic? No? Then we still have no good reason for the persecution the Meccans meted out.

Trying this angle again eh? Answered this ad nauseum, but I guess you find this to be a bit comical to bring it up yet again.

If I missed a bit out (even after having quoted bits verbatim -- see earlier post) then you can quote those bits I missed out. It's easy. And a heck of a lot more convincing than pretending your source says something it doesn't.

Quote: “The objection was not to him as such but to this exclusiveness required in worshipping him. Acceptance of the new doctrine would eliminate all other deities and would thereby alienate the people from their fathers, who worshiped many deities. Besides, the new teachings would consign all those fathers to hell.” This bit was on page 12. The bit following this states the reservations of the Quraysh and what Mohammed was proposing, of which he imposed in Medina within a few years of his arrival and subsequently in Mecca in 630. There were no modifications to these intentions regarding the Ka’aba by Mohammed between the 615 to 630, albeit I would see his increased hostility towards non-Muslims following their rejection of Mohammed’s self-proclaimed prophetic status.
So there in black and white.
Also, this quoted part could attribute to the extreme reaction of the murdering of those two slaves whom converted to Islam by idoltarers.

Again: even if this is the first injustice committed by the leaders of Mecca, it was an injustice. Mohammad had done nothing but preach. And you say you have no problem with Mohammad's followers, but the leaders of Mecca did because the bulk of the persecution was against Muhammad's followers -- Muhammad being mostly protected by his uncle.

And again, provide an example, ie Jews and Christians, whom also rejected idolatry as well, where these people met with similar sanctions and persecution by the Quraysh.

 

[FireGarden]

You keep asking me for evidence that they weren’t identified prior to the attack. Do you see an issue with this request? The only information given to the raiding party was that there was going to be a caravan passing through a known Quraysh trading route. The raiding party, which wasn’t a raiding party at all to begin with but to observe, didn’t have any intended target. There was no recognition other than the 1 member of the raiding party being mistaken for a pilgrim by the caravan.

The biography of Mohammad that I linked to earlier gives the much more likely story that the merchants were recognised. You discount that and prefer to believe the opposite -- and your preference is based on nothing but your bias.

It refers to persecution. There’s no definitive article (as you’ve stated below), so it could be referring to simply being blocked access to the Ka’aba, the sanctions against Mohammed and his followers, and/or strangely enough, a form of retribution against the above stated cases of murder between slave and slave-owner. I don't see how the latter applies in attacking caravans headed for Mecca.

It applies because the two are linked in a way that you say they weren't: you said the Quran only refered to the richness of the caravan, whereas the Quran refers to persecution.

From a pro-Muslim site, on the footnotes:
Expidition Of Abwa And ‘abdallah B. Jahsh

Further displays intent. The rest of the article is an interesting read as well.

But did you read it yourself? Because it says Hadrami was recognised by the Muslims. Just like my source said:
http://mercytomankind.org/TheLifeOfMohamedDir/AbdullahIbnJahshRaid.html

I wasn’t comparing the bias between Wikipedia and this site I provided, as I’ve stated a number of times now. Wikipedia still has their bias as can be seen in the criticism of Mohammed page, as I’ve pointed out. Stating that there are conflicting agendas doesn’t negate the issue of having more counter-points on the criticism page drowning out the talking points of the criticism itself.

Are you saying that you think wiki would be less biased if they left the criticism unanswered?

Quote: “The objection was not to him as such but to this exclusiveness required in worshipping him. Acceptance of the new doctrine would eliminate all other deities and would thereby alienate the people from their fathers, who worshiped many deities. Besides, the new teachings would consign all those fathers to hell.” This bit was on page 12.

But this is religious preaching. And you seem to have difficulty in accepting that the Muslims were persecuted for religious reasons. eg: You keep asking me to name another religion which was persecuted by the leaders of Mecca.

Also, this quoted part could attribute to the extreme reaction of the murdering of those two slaves whom converted to Islam by idoltarers.

Then you DO think that the matters you quoted above are related to the killing of slaves. So why this request?:

And again, provide an example, ie Jews and Christians, whom also rejected idolatry as well, where these people met with similar sanctions and persecution by the Quraysh.

Having argued that the Muslims were persecuted for their religious beliefs, you ask me to provide another example of religious persecution. Why? What would that do? What would it mean if Muslims were the only people to have been persecuted by the leaders of Mecca for their religious beliefs?

The bit following this states the reservations of the Quraysh and what Mohammed was proposing, of which he imposed in Medina within a few years of his arrival and subsequently in Mecca in 630.

I've summarised that bit twice now.

Islam, if successful, would:
-- threaten pilgramage to Mecca
-- introduce social welfare by granting the poor rights (see quote, post 325)
-- make people consider those from other tribes to be like their own brothers
-- If everyone adopted the new religion, they would prefer Mohammad as their ruler

That is what your source says on page 12. I see nothing there to justify persecution.

To clarify the first point...
It is more a worry along the lines of: "If God is everywhere, then what is the point of a holy site?" A matter Muhammad settled by making Mecca the focus of Islam, even maintaining many of the pagan rituals. Religious tourism was no longer threatened. Perhaps not surprisingly, it was after this that some prominent Meccans converted -- including Khalid ibn Walid, who was one of the Meccan leaders at the battle of Uhud.

 

[bigjelmapro]

Every one of the talking points I've repsonded to, but you keep repeating the same positions for each of them as if my position is beyond reasoning. I know of the persecution of the Muslims in Mecca, but I don't attribute the sanctions against Mohammed as anything but a reaction to a person who wanted to dominate the Arabian peninsula, as history has proven this to be the case.

If by now you don't understand my reservations regarding Mohammed's intentions and the history of his actions in both Medina and Mecca as a means to establish his dominance over the Arabian peninsula and circumvent power from the Quraysh, I really don't know how else to state this. Stating some utopian ideals/motivations still does not relinquish Mohammed of his actions against non-Muslims and has been used by a number of more recent dictators as a means to garner power (ie poverty stricken people).

This is all I'm going to say further about this....