Greta75
Posts: 9968
Joined: 2/6/2011
Status: offline
|
Wow, that Muslim person is outright lying in that link!
To even claim that the non-muslim violated the pact especially when Muslims violated the pact first?
Here is the full story:
A member of Tribe A (later allied with Mecca) is murdered by members of Tribe B (later allied with Muhammad).
Tribe A murders a member of Tribe B in revenge.
Tribe B then murders three members of Tribe A in revenge.
After committing these murders, Tribe B joins the Muslim alliance.
In response, Tribe A joins the Meccans.
Tribe A then seeks revenge for the last murders by killing members of Tribe B.
This is detailed in Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 803, in which Tribe A is called the Banu Bakr and Tribe B is the Khuza’a. Although the Khuza’a had started the original chain of murder, the fact that they were attacked by the tribe allied with the Meccans after allying with the Muslims constituted a technical breach of the treaty - which Muhammad then capitalized on by marching his superior forces into Mecca and establishing the authority of Islam by force.
On the surface then, it would appear that the Meccans were the first to violate the treaty. Even though most Muslims admit that the Meccans did not want a war, they still insist that Muhammad was justified in taking Mecca because of the treaty violation.
But, in fact, Muhammad was the first to violate the Treaty of Hudaibiya. Even the Qur’an acknowledges this, which means any knowledgeable Muslim must as well.
The terms of the treaty specified that any Muslim who flees Mecca for Medina (where Muhammad resided) must be returned. But when a group of Muslims did exactly that a few weeks after the treaty signing, Muhammad did not return all of them, but kept the women. A verse from Allah arrived conveniently to justify his decision (60:10).
Today’s Muslims have only one answer for this: Allah gave Muhammad His personal permission to break the treaty. It is an obvious double standard, but one that they are comfortable with, since Muslims believe their religion makes them superior. (It remains unclear as to why Allah had Muhammad sign on to terms that were intended to be violated).
Eschewing technicalities at this point, the apologists then begin to talk of the seriousness of violations, claiming that the killing of those tribe members allied with the Muslims constituted a graver offense. They are correct, of course, but there is yet another piece to the story that drives home the double standard all the more:
As it turns out, Muslims were murdering Meccans after the treaty signing and prior to the revenge killings between the allied tribes!
Bukhari 50:891 tells of a man named Abu Basir who embraced Islam and then killed a Meccan. Muhammad sends the man to live on the coast, where he forms a group of seventy Muslims who support themselves by attacking Meccan caravans. According to the Hadith, he and the other Muslims “killed them and took their property.” Muir words it as follows, “They waylaid every caravan from Mecca (for since the truce, traffic with Syria had again sprung up) and spared the life of no one.”
Attacking and killing Meccans was an obvious violation of the treaty of Hudaibiya, but the victims did not want war with Muhammad and thus did not march against him. Yet, Muhammad jumped on the first excuse to attack the Meccans, even though they were not threatening him. His adversaries wanted peace, but he wanted power. Needless to say, they had little choice but to surrender to him without a fight.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/muhammad/hudaibiya.aspx
And THIS is good reading too for the circumstances leading up to why Muhammed said this Verse:Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."
And if you read the whole historical context between Muhammad and the Meccans. They were kind to him, but he was mean to them and derogatory towards their beliefs. They tossed him out after 13 yrs of putting up with his shit!
Then later, he used this miserable excuse of a so-called "pact violation" to trangress against them and take over their whole city. Till today, Mecca is the MOST religious intolerant city in the world, allowing no other religious people inside except Muslims.
This is the legacy. Where is the peaceful role model? Muslims are so good at feigning victimhood.
< Message edited by Greta75 -- 5/17/2016 7:54:05 PM >
|
RE: Muslims and Christians - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread