Covenant of Prophet Muhammad(saw) with Christians

sam1528

The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World, Canadian scholar Dr John Andrew Morrow.

Dr Morrow will be visiting Cardiff, London, Cambridge, Oxford and Burnley as part of his first major visit to the United Kingdom.

The book explores the covenants that the Prophet concluded with various Christian communities of his time, which Professor Morrow has discovered in obscure monasteries, collections, and books out of print for centuries. They uniformly state that Muslims are not to attack peaceful Christian communities, rob them, stop churches from being repaired and tear down churches to build mosques.
  
Meticulously researched and thorough in its scope, Morrow traces a new history of tolerance and diversity that is at the very beginning of and tied to the very essence of the Prophet’s call.  It is an audacious, bold, counter-intuitive and challenging work.

Dr Morrow addressing Georgetown University’s Alwaleed Center for Muslim Christian Understanding

Sephiroth

What Christians (always) forget is that all treaties between Muslims and Christians are up to 10 years and after these 10 years, the conditions are reexamined once again.

When Muhammad reached Madinah, he made a peace treaty with Mecca people that they will not attack Mecca and these "peace" lasted 10 years, during which Madinah become powerful in term of military. Once the 10 years have passed and Quraisy send peace ambassador (Abu Sufiyan) to negotiate peace, Muhammad refused to see him and ran to hide in a Mosque. This was because conditions favors Muslims for war with Mecca and Muhammad knows he cannot afford another decade of peace (due to his old age).

Therefore - non-Muslims should NEVER expect a permanent peace with Muslims. Muslims will seek peace ONLY when the conditions are not suitable for them to wage war.

sam1528

Sephiroth posted on 10-6-2014 11:04 AM
What Christians (always) forget is that all treaties between Muslims and Christians are up to 10 years and after these 10 years, the conditions are reexamined once again.

When Muhammad reached Madinah, he made a peace treaty with Mecca people that they will not attack Mecca and these "peace" lasted 10 years, during which Madinah become powerful in term of military. Once the 10 years have passed and Quraisy send peace ambassador (Abu Sufiyan) to negotiate peace, Muhammad refused to see him and ran to hide in a Mosque. This was because conditions favors Muslims for war with Mecca and Muhammad knows he cannot afford another decade of peace (due to his old age).

Therefore - non-Muslims should NEVER expect a permanent peace with Muslims. Muslims will seek peace ONLY when the conditions are not suitable for them to wage war.

Ha ha , another 'pull from the ass' type of argument from you , devoid of any evidence.

In reality , you have to have a timespan of any treaty because conditions change. Learn to argue with facts and reality not via your wet dreams.

Abu Sufian came to see Prophet Muhammad(saw) to try to negotiate out of his problem. This is because the meccans together with Banu Bakr attacked Banu Kuza'ah thus breaking the Hudaibiya Treaty making it null and void. Learn history and engage your brains before motoring your mouth.

This is different from Hindus like you who unilaterally demolished a mosque in Barbri with the baseless claim that your God Ram was born there (a God being born???)

BTW , I thought you gonna to wage war because of the JAIS raid. Chickened out or what? Soon we will read in the papers that a crazy Hindu meenachi have been arrested and sent to Tg Rambutan due to holding a harmful object and shouting for a Hindu Holy war by the side of a road. Ha ha

Sephiroth

by Sam1528

In reality , you have to have a timespan of any treaty because conditions change. Learn to argue with facts and reality not via your wet dreams.

Show me ONE peace treaty which Muhammad had made with non-Muslims during his time, which he KEPT.

sam1528

Sephiroth posted on 10-6-2014 02:50 PM
by Sam1528

Show me ONE peace treaty which Muhammad had made with non-Muslims during his time, which he KEPT.

Is that all? Simple

- Treaty of Hudaibiyah : It was the Meccans who broke the treaty

- Charter of Madinah : It was Bani Quraiza who broke the treaty. Even with that , they were judged by S'ad Mu'ad their ally.

When are you declaring a Hindu Holy war because of the JAIS raid? Talk so big , now so quiet aah?

Sephiroth

Source : http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/muhammad/myths-mu-hudaibiya.htm

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.

The dual ethics of Islam are ingrained in the faith, including the disparate treatment of unbelievers.  It should be no surprise that Muhammad held others to standards by which he was personally unwilling to abide.  In this case, he was the first to violate the treaty of Hudaibiya.  Thus did he establish an example for his followers: a promise to non-Muslims is not obligatory for the believer.  As Abu Bakr, himself a military leader, put it:

"If I take an oath to do something and later on I find something else better than the first one, then I do what is better and make expiation for my oath." (Bukhari 78:618)

Muhammad no doubt would have agreed:

"The Prophet said: 'War is deceit'." (Bukhari 52:269)

sam1528

Sephiroth posted on 10-6-2014 03:03 PM
Source : http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/muhammad/myths-mu-hudaibiya.htm

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.

The dual ethics of Islam are ingrained in the faith, including the disparate treatment of unbelievers.  It should be no surprise that Muhammad held others to standards by which he was personally unwilling to abide.  In this case, he was the first to violate the treaty of Hudaibiya.  Thus did he establish an example for his followers: a promise to non-Muslims is not obligatory for the believer.  As Abu Bakr, himself a military leader, put it:

"If I take an oath to do something and later on I find something else better than the first one, then I do what is better and make expiation for my oath." (Bukhari 78:618)

Muhammad no doubt would have agreed:

"The Prophet said: 'War is deceit'." (Bukhari 52:269)

It is so easy to catch you trying to lie. Lets refer to your so called reference of Sahih Bukhari 50:8091 (it should be vol3 bk 50 no891) about Abu Bashir (underlined above) :

When the Prophet returned to Medina, Abu Basir, a new Muslim convert from Quraish came to him. The Infidels sent in his pursuit two men who said (to the Prophet ), "Abide by the promise you gave us." So, the Prophet handed him over to them. They took him out (of the City) till they reached Dhul-Hulaifa where they dismounted to eat some dates they had with them. Abu Basir said to one of them, "By Allah, O so-and-so, I see you have a fine sword." The other drew it out (of the scabbard) and said, "By Allah, it is very fine and I have tried it many times." Abu Bair said, "Let me have a look at it."

When the other gave it to him, he hit him with it till he died, and his companion ran away till he came to Medina and entered the Mosque running. When Allah's Apostle saw him he said, "This man appears to have been frightened." When he reached the Prophet he said, "My companion has been murdered and I would have been murdered too." Abu Basir came and said, "O Allah's Apostle, by Allah, Allah has made you fulfill your obligations by your returning me to them (i.e. the Infidels), but Allah has saved me from them." The Prophet said, "Woe to his mother! what excellent war kindler he would be, should he only have supporters." When Abu Basir heard that he understood that the Prophet would return him to them again, so he set off till he reached the seashore. Abu Jandal bin Suhail got himself released from them (i.e. infidels) and joined Abu Basir. So, whenever a man from Quraish embraced Islam he would follow Abu Basir till they formed a strong group. By Allah, whenever they heard about a caravan of Quraish heading towards Sham, they stopped it and attacked and killed them (i.e. infidels) and took their properties. The people of Quraish sent a message to the Prophet requesting him for the Sake of Allah and Kith and kin to send for (i.e. Abu Basir and his companions) promising that whoever (amongst them) came to the Prophet would be secure.

The actual source in Sahih Bukhari stated that Prophet Muhammad(saw) held up his end of returning Abu Basir to the Meccans. In the end Abu Basir left Madinah and set up camp by the seashore attacking the Meccan caravans. In short , Prophet Muhammad(saw) held up to his end by returning Abu Basir to the Meccans. Abu Basir killed the Meccans but did not want to go back to Mecca and set up camp by the seashore as Prophet Muhammad(saw) would have returned him to the Meccans if he comes back to Madinah.

He (Abu Basir) was the one attacking the caravans. What has it got to do with Prophet Muhammad(saw)? Per the Treaty of Hudaibiyah , Prophet Muhammad(saw) obligation was to return any Meccan who seek refuge in Madinah (even though they revert). Why should Prophet Muhammad(saw) bother about the people who set up camp by the seashore (which is not Madinah if you don't know). That is the problem between the Meccans and their own people.

Can you now explain which part of Treaty of Hudaibiyah did Prophet Muhammad(saw) broke? You don't know - yes? You are just an ignoramus. I am sure you will not answer to this.

This shows that you don't even know what is the actual story. Next time people tell you to eat shit as it is good for Islamophobes like you , you will probably eat shit and declare it taste good.

You did not answer me. When are you going to war because of the JAIS raid? Talk big some more lah ..... now quiet like a churchmouse. Kan dah malu .... ha ha .... tak terjawab langsung

For sure war is deceit. No General worth his salt would make public his actual battle plans. That is why a lot of false info be leaked out to confuse the enemy. You don't seem to employ your intelligence .... eeeer do you have any in the first place?

Sephiroth

by Sam1528

In the end Abu Basir left Madinah and set up camp by the seashore attacking the Meccan caravans. In short , Prophet Muhammad(saw) held up to his end by returning Abu Basir to the Meccans. Abu Basir killed the Meccans but did not want to go back to Mecca and set up camp by the seashore as Prophet Muhammad(saw) would have returned him to the Meccans if he comes back to Madinah.

How do you say Muhammad had held his end (of the bargain) when Muhammad DID NOTHING?

Abu Basir was a Muslim criminal by the definition of the treaty and by laws of the tribe. He is a Muslim and he killed (in cold-blood) a man. Therefore, Muhammad had morale and ethical obligations to uphold the treaty by try and capture Abu Basir and then handed him over to his captive for trial. Muhammad did NOTHING and therefore could be held responsible for Abu Basir's action.

Furthermore, because Abu Basir is a Muslim, he is (indirectly) protected by Muhammad as the treaty stated and any attempt to attack Abu Basir will be considered a violation toward the treaty by the Quraisy. Therefore, it is logical to say Abu Basir was planted by Muhammad to initialize a war-like condition which could break the treaty and allow Muhammad to attack (which what had happened).

For sure war is deceit. No General worth his salt would make public his actual battle plans.

There is a difference between Strategy and cowardly attack. Muhammad was a coward, he hide behind false intention of making peace while he increase his own military power, plant individual like Abu Basir who could act as terrorists to initialize war between tribes and then run away with others seek peaceful solutions. Muhammad wasn't a military strategist, he is just an Arab coward.

sam1528

Sephiroth posted on 10-6-2014 04:30 PM
by Sam1528
How do you say Muhammad had held his end (of the bargain) when Muhammad DID NOTHING?

Abu Basir was a Muslim criminal by the definition of the treaty and by laws of the tribe. He is a Muslim and he killed (in cold-blood) a man. Therefore, Muhammad had morale and ethical obligations to uphold the treaty by try and capture Abu Basir and then handed him over to his captive for trial. Muhammad did NOTHING and therefore could be held responsible for Abu Basir's action.

Furthermore, because Abu Basir is a Muslim, he is (indirectly) protected by Muhammad as the treaty stated and any attempt to attack Abu Basir will be considered a violation toward the treaty by the Quraisy. Therefore, it is logical to say Abu Basir was planted by Muhammad to initialize a war-like condition which could break the treaty and allow Muhammad to attack (which what had happened).

You have problems understanding english? A point in the Treaty Of Hudaibiyah :

If a Quraysh person comes to Muhammad (i.e., after accepting Islam) without the permission of his guardian, Muhammad shall return him to them, but if one of the Muhammad’s people come to the Quraysh, he shall not be returned.

If you had bother to read (or if you know how to read) from your own referenced source , Sahih Bukhari vol3 bk50 no891 it clearly stated that Prophet Muhammad(saw) returned Abu Basir to the Meccans and if Abu Basir came back to Madinah , Prophet Muhammad(saw) was going to return him back to the Meccans because Abu Basir came to Prophet Muhammad(saw) after the treaty. Isn't such fulfilling the obligations to the said treaty? The Treaty did not stipulate that it was Prophet Muhammad(saw) obligation to capture Abu Basir for the Meccans. You are making up stories (aka lying) as you go along.

What Abu Basir did was between the Meccans and him , nothing to do with Prophet Muhammad(saw). Why are you arguing with another 'pull from the ass facts'? Abu Basir killed the Meccans who were escorting him back to Mecca as he did not want to go back there by force. He had to set up camp by the seashore as he couldn't go to Madinah.

Where did you get this 'pull from the ass fact' that Abu Basir was an agent provocateur planted by Prophet Muhammad(saw) to break the treaty? From your wet dreams of course as all the historical evidence points to the fact that Prophet Muhammad(saw) kept his part of the said treaty. In other words , I 've caught you lying.

There is a difference between Strategy and cowardly attack. Muhammad was a coward, he hide behind false intention of making peace while he increase his own military power, plant individual like Abu Basir who could act as terrorists to initialize war between tribes and then run away with others seek peaceful solutions. Muhammad wasn't a military strategist, he is just an Arab coward.

Ha ha , you are a bad liar. Your own source stated that Abu Basir has to set up camp by the seashore because if he goes to Madinah , Prophet Muhammad(saw) would return him to to Meccans. It was him , not Prophet Muhammad(saw) who attacked the caravans. I can understand why the caravans were attacked. This is a classic war initiative by the lesser power of the conflicting sides throughout the ages in world history. This is what we call 'commerce raiding' or 'guerre de course' (french) or 'handelskreig' (german).

The tactic employed by the early Muslims was identical to that used by the United States from its very inception.  Using the same “open seas” analogy, we see that the Prophet of Islam engaged not in “piracy” but in “commerce raiding”, which has been an accepted form of warfare throughout history and across all cultural lines.

The distinction between the act of piracy and commerce raiding is an important one to make.  There are two major reasons why piracy is considered illegitimate as compared to commerce raiding: firstly, pirates do not possess proper authority; secondly, “pirates attack merchants without distinction.”  Conversely, commerce raiding is vested in proper authority, and commerce raiders only attack commercial ships belonging to enemy nations.  Clearly, Muhammad’s expeditions fall into the latter category: he was the leader of a community, and he only targeted enemy caravans.

Commerce raiding is known in French as guerre de course (“war of the chase”) and in German as handelskrieg (“trade war”).  Both France and Germany have a long history of using this tactic, which is considered respectable and even celebrated.  This tactic also has a venerated position in American history, being used against the British during the Revolutionary War (1775-1783).

This is evident that you are not a well read person. Only believing in the views that support your Islamophobe standpoint. You don't even have the ability to seek out the truth. Intelligence and being honest is not your forte

I have all the evidence ...... you have none but try to lie. This is just too easy for me.

Ha ha , I told you that you would be quiet over your claim for a Hindu Holy war. Haaaa , go lah and proclaim a Hindu Holy war because of the JAIS raid. You talk big only , when the time comes for you to act out your empty threat , you are the first to chicken out. You call yourself a hardliner? More like a chicken hearted ...... yes? ..... ha ha

Sephiroth

by Sam1528

Sahih Bukhari vol3 bk50 no891 it clearly stated that Prophet Muhammad(saw) returned Abu Basir to the Meccans and if Abu Basir came back to Madinah , Prophet Muhammad(saw) was going to return him back to the Meccans because Abu Basir came to Prophet Muhammad(saw) after the treaty.

Yes, I can clear read your statement and you have misunderstood mine. I have stated THREE points by which Muhammad had BROKEN the treaty before the Quraisy :

1. He handed Abu Basir to the Meccans at first but did not take any actions on the behalf of the Meccans after Abu Basir had escape their custody and started his pirate ways. Question :- Is Abu Basir's life (life of a SINGLE Muslim) worth more than the price of Peace?

2. Did Muhammad take any actions as a Muslim toward stopping another muslim (Abu Basir) from conducting his pirate ways toward the Meccans? Answer - he did not. By that point, we can say that Muhammad condone and supported Abu Basir indirectly and later, when Meccans did perform actions toward him (Abu Basir), Muhammad used it as an excuse to break the treaty.

3. IF Muhammad did love peace like what Muslims claims, what actions did Muhammad take to renew the treaty later? Answer - NOTHING. Muhammad did not do anything to improve peace but was waiting for the right time to attack.

Therefore, I stand with my notion that Muhammad was not a brilliant strategist BUT an Arabic Coward who used Abu Basir as (probably) the first Muslim terrorists, the same way the Arabs are using the Talibans and other Muslim terrorists today.

It was him , not Prophet Muhammad(saw) who attacked the caravans.

And WHAT did your Muhammad do to stop him? NOTHING. Muhammad had the moral and ethical obligations to uphold the treaty he had agreed with the Meccans and Abu Basir's (a Muslim) action was clearly against the treaty. BUT Muhammad did NOTHING. This brings the high possibility that it was Muhammad who planted Abu Basir to act as terrorists to attack the caravans going to Mecca.

sam1528

Sephiroth posted on 10-6-2014 09:49 PM
by Sam1528
Yes, I can clear read your statement and you have misunderstood mine. I have stated THREE points by which Muhammad had BROKEN the treaty before the Quraisy :

1. He handed Abu Basir to the Meccans at first but did not take any actions on the behalf of the Meccans after Abu Basir had escape their custody and started his pirate ways. Question :- Is Abu Basir's life (life of a SINGLE Muslim) worth more than the price of Peace?

2. Did Muhammad take any actions as a Muslim toward stopping another muslim (Abu Basir) from conducting his pirate ways toward the Meccans? Answer - he did not. By that point, we can say that Muhammad condone and supported Abu Basir indirectly and later, when Meccans did perform actions toward him (Abu Basir), Muhammad used it as an excuse to break the treaty.

3. IF Muhammad did love peace like what Muslims claims, what actions did Muhammad take to renew the treaty later? Answer - NOTHING. Muhammad did not do anything to improve peace but was waiting for the right time to attack.

Therefore, I stand with my notion that Muhammad was not a brilliant strategist BUT an Arabic Coward who used Abu Basir as (probably) the first Muslim terrorists, the same way the Arabs are using the Talibans and other Muslim terrorists today.

I did not misunderstood you. I am saying that you are being disengenous (aka being a liar) in your argument as historical evidence is against you. The reference that you cite have refuted you. You are just arguing from your 'wet dreams'.

(1) Why should Prophet Muhammad(saw) take action on behalf of the Meccans? The Treaty of Hudaibiyah clearly stated that any Meccan who revert and go to Madinah should be returned. Prophet Muhammad(saw) did exactly such. What Abu Basir did was between him and the Meccans. Why should Prophet Muhammad(saw) get involved? Why are you trying to force your own views? Issit because you have no evidence? Can you deal with the historical evidence instead of trying to speculate with your own wet dreams?

(2) Why should Prophet Muhammad(saw) take any action against Abu Basir? There is nothing in the Treaty of Hudaibiyah that states he should take any action against Abu Basir. In fact it has been pointed out in my previous response that what Abu Basir did (raiding the Meccan caravans) was not piracy (as he only attacked the Meccan caravans) - this is what we call 'commerce raiding'. The Treaty of Hudaibiyah wasn't broken by the actions of Abu Basir but the by the action of the Meccans who together with Banu Bakr attacked Banu Khuz'aa , allies of the muslims. Therefore it was the Meccans who broke the treaty.

Ooi meenachi , don't try to be silly. If you are ignorant don't try to lie. You will be caught. Why are you arguing that when the Meccans decided to take action against Abu Basir , Prophet Muhammad(saw) used it as an excuse to break the treaty? FYI , Abu Basir has got nothing to do with Banu Bakr / Banu Khuz'aa. In fact , Prophet Muhammad(saw) went out of his way to instruct Abu Basir to cease attacking the Meccan caravans after an appeal by the Meccans. However Abu Basir died before the instruction got to him :

...After a period of some months the Meccans appealed to Muhammad in desperation to take the raiders into his community and bring the raids to a halt. Muhammad seems to have agreed to do so , but only after some considerable delay. When a letter from Muhammad finally reached Abu Basir's camp instructing him to cease his brigandage , Abu Basir had already died ... (pg 168)

Ha ha , muka tak malu ... dah nak mula membohong?

(3) You are really ignorant of history. When the Meccans together with Banu Bakr attacked Banu Khuz'aa , they have already broken and nulified the Hudaibiyah Treaty. Prophet Muhammad offered them 3 choices but the Meccans in their arrogance decided to dissolve the treaty.

Betrayal of the Quraish. According to the terms of the treaty of Hudaibiya the Arab tribes had the option to be allied with the Quraish or the Muslims. As a consequence the Banu Bakr joined the Quraish, and Banu Khuza'ah joined the Muslims. In disregard of the treaty, Banu Bakr attacked the Banu Khuza'ah, and even when the Banu Khuza'ah sought the sanctuary of the Ka'aba, many persons of the Banu Khuza'ah were chased and put to death. The Banu Khuza'ah appealed to the Muslims to come to their aid in accordance with the terms of the treaty. The Holy Prophet admitted the obligation of the Muslims to come to the aid of the Banu Khuza'ah. He accordingly gave an ultimatum to the Quraish making three alternative demands, i.e. to pay the blood money for the victims, or terminate their alliance with Banu Bakr, or consider the Hudaibiya pact to be abrogated. In a fit of arrogance the Quraish replied that they would neither pay blood money, nor terminate their alliance with Banu Bakr, and that they were prepared to consider the Hudaibiya pact as having been abrogated. The Holy Prophet welcomed this stand, and he decided to take action.

They then realized their folly and sent Abu Sufyan to try to negotiate a reinstatement of the treaty. What matter of silliness is this? The Meccans  were the ones who took the initiative to dissolve the Hudaibiyah Treaty but then tried to reinstate it when the counterparty decided to take action. Such decisions are irreversible. Too bad. Why should Prophet Muhammad(saw) and the muslims want peace with the Meccans who broke the treaty at their whims and fancies and were arrogant to a point of unilaterally dissolving the treaty?

It is very evident that you have NOTHING in terms of historical evidence. Your arguments are just for the sake of blind argument. Abu Basir issue was an internal Meccan issue which you lack in intelligence trying to understand it. You are just giving opinions from your wet dreams and / or 'pull from the ass facts'. Can you start arguing from historical facts with the proper evidence? You can't because you don't have any facts. Terrorism? Oh , you mean like the Hindus killing muslims and demolishing the Barbri Mosque because of the dubious claim that your God Ram was born there?

And WHAT did your Muhammad do to stop him? NOTHING. Muhammad had the moral and ethical obligations to uphold the treaty he had agreed with the Meccans and Abu Basir's (a Muslim) action was clearly against the treaty. BUT Muhammad did NOTHING. This brings the high possibility that it was Muhammad who planted Abu Basir to act as terrorists to attack the caravans going to Mecca.

The question that you have been avoiding. Why should Prophet Muhammad(saw) do anything to stop Abu Basir? His obligation per the Treaty of Hudaibiyah is just to return any muslims from Mecca back to the Meccans. There is nothing in the Treaty of Hudaibiyah that adresses the actions of Abu Basir. You demonstrated ignorance and tried to lie in arguing that when the Meccans decided to take action against Abu Basir , Prophet Muhammad (saw) took it being an excuse to nullify the Hudaibiyah Treaty. Ha ha , what has Abu Basir got to do with the Banu Bakr / Banu Khuz'aa issue as he was already dead. You must be so embarrassed by now.

You have been caught being ignorant of history yet you still persist trying to argue like the ignoramus you are. 'Highly possible' type of argument from you is another way of saying that you can only speculate because you do not have any historical evidence. These arguments are the arguments of the less learned who do not have any facts on hand but too arrogant to admit that they are unlearned in this issue. From my previous link :

The early Muslims were not pirates or marauders.  They, like the revolutionary Americans, engaged in guerre de course (commerce raiding) against the oppressive party, the Quraysh.  Just as the American exploits against British shipping have been celebrated for their valor, so too were the Muslim military expeditions against the Quraysh courageous.  The Muslims were facing off against caravans protected by heavily-armed convoys.  In the very first such campaign, for instance, Muhammad dispatched Hamza “with thirty riders” against a Qurayshite caravan armed with “three hundred riders from Mecca” led by Abu Jahl. [66] The second such operation involved “sixty or eighty riders” from the Muslims, who “encountered a large number of Quraysh” [67] consisting of “more than two hundred riders led by Abu Sufyan.” [68] Even in these military raids, the Muslims were heavily outnumbered.  Using our World War II comparison, it would be like the U.S. navy engaging in operations against enemy merchant marines that were flanked by battleships and aircraft carriers.

The perceptive reader also ought notice that these caravans were led by early Islam’s arch-enemies, such as Abu Jahl, Abu Jahl’s son Ikrima, Abu Sufyan, etc.  These raids were not opportunistic acts of piracy against random persons, but rather, were legitimate military operations against a far superior foe.

Going by your logic , the early Americans , British ; in fact the whole world were / are terrorists , pirates and mauraders. Pakai otak sikit boleh tak?



Why are you avoiding the issue of you being too chicken to declare a Hindu holy war? You talk big but when it matters most , you are just another chicken hearted keyboard warrior. Tsk tsk , you must be so embarrassed that you have been caught out being yellow ..... ha ha

Sephiroth

by Sam1528

(1) Why should Prophet Muhammad(saw) take action on behalf of the Meccans?

Answer :- Because Muhammad - as a (self-proclaimed) leader of Muslims have the morale and ethical responsibility to control his flock, including those who would jeopardize the peace treaty he had agreed upon.

Not doing anything doesn't mean you are free from responsibility.  Muhammad behave the same way secular Muslims behave today with terrorism. They don't take any actions and believe that they are free from being held responsible. In Muhammad's case, there is only TWO possibility for his (lack of) action :

1. He is a lazy old Arab man who is incapable of controlling his own flock. OR
2. He wanted Abu Basir to become terrorists - terrorizing the caravans and force the Meccans to take actions which in return could break the treaty and allow Muhammad to attack.

My logical deduction is that Muhammad took the second option. He had no reasons to continue holding to the peace treaty now that Muslims have grown stronger in term of military might. He wanted to attack Mecca but he cannot do while the treaty still available, otherwise, other non-muslims will not believe Islam is peaceful. He must force Meccans to break the treaty and Abu Basir was his pawn to do it.

Abu Basir issue was an internal Meccan issue  ...

No, Abu Basir was a Muslim and therefore he was Muhammad's problem. Muhammad supposed to take charge, including attacking Abu Basir to stop his pirate ways. MUHAMMAD DID NOTHING.

Sephiroth

Source : http://www.fazaileamaal.com/1103_jandal_basir.htm

Hadhrat Abu Basir (Radhiyallaho anho) came to understand from this that he would be returned to Qureysh again when they demanded him. He therefore left Madinah and fled to a place in the desert on the sea shore. Abu Jandal (Radhiyallaho anho) also managed his escape and joined him there. More Muslims of Mecca followed, and in a few days quite a small group of such fugitives gathered in the wilderness. They had to undergo untold sufferings in the desert, where there was neither habitation nor vegetation. They, however, being bound by no treaty proved a great nuisance for the Qureysh by dealing blows after blows on their caravans passing that way. This compelled the Qureysh to approach the Prophet (Sallallaho alaihe wasallam) and beseech him to intervene and call the fugitives to Madinah, so that they might be bound by the terms of the treaty like other Muslims, and the caravans might pass in safety. It is said that Hadhrat Abu Basir (Radhiyallaho anho) was on his deathbed when the letter sent by the Prophet (Sallallaho alaihe wasallam) permitting his return to Madinah reached him. He died while holding the Prophet's (Sallallaho alaihe wasallam) letter in his hand.

Did Muhammad on purpose agreed to the treaty so a third party (Muslim terrorists) could be created? A party which bond by no laws and treaties signed by mainstream Muslims? So that non-muslims - enduring the hardship at the hands of the terrorists could approach mainstream Muslims for "help" and this mainstream muslims could then maneuver themselves into a better negotiation position?

Even today, we could see the same tactic used by Muslims worldwide. For example, Malaysia had - twice - played the Devil's Advocate between Abu Sayyaf group in the Philiphines and the Muslim Separatists in Thai-Malaysia border. And in both cases, things seems to have become "calmer" in the surface but only made things worse under the surface. Abu Sayyaf changed tactics and enters Malaysia's borders freely to kidnap and ransom non-Muslims there. Sulu Muslims openly claim Sabah as their own and there have been dozens of arrests of known terrorists in Malaysia (like a month ago, six Nigerians were arrested in Kepong).

IF this is true, then Muhammad was a more dangerous Arab than anyone could imagine. This proves that he had created the Muslim terrorists (first could be the Abu Basir group) by playing at discontent of Muslims against non-Muslims and allow the Muslims to take dangerous steps to safeguard their own faith (including terrorism).

sam1528

Sephiroth posted on 11-6-2014 09:28 AM
by Sam1528
Answer :- Because Muhammad - as a (self-proclaimed) leader of Muslims have the morale and ethical responsibility to control his flock, including those who would jeopardize the peace treaty he had agreed upon.

Not doing anything doesn't mean you are free from responsibility.  Muhammad behave the same way secular Muslims behave today with terrorism. They don't take any actions and believe that they are free from being held responsible. In Muhammad's case, there is only TWO possibility for his (lack of) action :

1. He is a lazy old Arab man who is incapable of controlling his own flock. OR
2. He wanted Abu Basir to become terrorists - terrorizing the caravans and force the Meccans to take actions which in return could break the treaty and allow Muhammad to attack.

My logical deduction is that Muhammad took the second option. He had no reasons to continue holding to the peace treaty now that Muslims have grown stronger in term of military might. He wanted to attack Mecca but he cannot do while the treaty still available, otherwise, other non-muslims will not believe Islam is peaceful. He must force Meccans to break the treaty and Abu Basir was his pawn to do it.

Your own unlearned opinion again. Why should Prophet Muhammad(saw) do something outside of the Hudaibiyah Treaty? You answer is because of moral and ethical 'flock' responsibility? However Abu Basir , belong to the Meccan 'flock' according to the said treaty as Prophet Muhammad(saw) was treaty bound to return any muslim from Mecca. Can you argue based on the facts of the treaty instead from your wet dreams?

In addition , after desperate pleading by the Meccans , Prophet Muhammad(saw) thru the goodness in him instructed Abu Basir to cease his actions but Abu Basir died before the instruction reached him. How is it that Abu Basir became his pawn in order to break the treaty per your argument? The incident between Banu Bakr (and Quraish) killing members of Banu Khuz'aa occured after the death of Abu Basir. The chronology of events does not add up for you. This shows that you are an ignoramus , a desperate ignoramus. Why are you trying to lie that Prophet Muhammad(saw) used Abu Basir as a pawn to break the Hudaibiyah treaty whereas
(1) Abu Basir was already dead when the incident between Banu Bakr (and Quraish) with Banu Khuz'aa
(2) The Meccans unilaterally dissolved the Hudaibiyah Treaty when Prophet Muhammad(saw) gave them 3 options referencing to the said Treaty

Your conclsion is from your ignorance of history plus you are trying to impose your brand of revisionist history. In other words you are disingenuous.

No, Abu Basir was a Muslim and therefore he was Muhammad's problem. Muhammad supposed to take charge, including attacking Abu Basir to stop his pirate ways. MUHAMMAD DID NOTHING.

How can Abu Basir become Prophet Muhammad(saw) problem because according to the Treaty of Hudaibiyah , Prophet Muhammad was contract bound to return Abu Basir to the Meccans. Thus , Abu Basir (in reference to the said treaty) belong to the Meccans hence the responsibility of the Meccans. How can Abu Basir be a pirate per your argument? Piracy means ANY merchant caravans are raided. However in the case of Abu Basir (or the muslims) , ONLY Meccan merchant caravans were raided. Therefore it falls under the category of 'commerce raiding' a legitimate strategy of war. Oops , you just lack the intelligence to understand. too bad


You are still very quiet over the fact that you chicken out for a Hindu Holy war. Go ahead lah , tak big some more. Ha ha , so what is teh status of your so called Hindu Holy War? Truly you are just a legend in yoru own mind ..... kesian ....

sam1528

Sephiroth posted on 11-6-2014 10:01 AM
Source : http://www.fazaileamaal.com/1103_jandal_basir.htm

Did Muhammad on purpose agreed to the treaty so a third party (Muslim terrorists) could be created? A party which bond by no laws and treaties signed by mainstream Muslims? So that non-muslims - enduring the hardship at the hands of the terrorists could approach mainstream Muslims for "help" and this mainstream muslims could then maneuver themselves into a better negotiation position?

Even today, we could see the same tactic used by Muslims worldwide. For example, Malaysia had - twice - played the Devil's Advocate between Abu Sayyaf group in the Philiphines and the Muslim Separatists in Thai-Malaysia border. And in both cases, things seems to have become "calmer" in the surface but only made things worse under the surface. Abu Sayyaf changed tactics and enters Malaysia's borders freely to kidnap and ransom non-Muslims there. Sulu Muslims openly claim Sabah as their own and there have been dozens of arrests of known terrorists in Malaysia (like a month ago, six Nigerians were arrested in Kepong).

IF this is true, then Muhammad was a more dangerous Arab than anyone could imagine. This proves that he had created the Muslim terrorists (first could be the Abu Basir group) by playing at discontent of Muslims against non-Muslims and allow the Muslims to take dangerous steps to safeguard their own faith (including terrorism).

How can Prophet Muhammad(saw) agree to a treaty so that a third party could be created? The incident with Abu Basir occured AFTER the Treaty of Hudaibiyah. Unless you are telling me that Prophet Muhammad(saw) knew such would happen in future. Your argument has no logical merit. This is the problem with Islamophobes like you. You are trying to throw anything and everything and now your arguments are contradicting one another.

You are in a difficult spot now. Your contradicting yourself. Abu Basir died before the conflict between Banu Bakr (and Quraish) and Banu Khuz'aa. How can Abu Basir be an agent provocateur for Prophet Muhammad(saw) to break the Hudaibiyah treaty?

Abu Sayyaf would not have been in existence if the Mindanao peace process have been wrapped up. It was the Phillipine Supreme Court that overturned the initial peace agreement :

A ceasefire agreement was reached in 2003. In the ensuing year, an international monitoring team (IMT) headed by Malaysia started to operate.

The fighting reduced after the IMT was set up, with the number of armed skirmishes dropping from 569 in 2003 to fewer than 20 a year over the next four years.

The peace process nearly derailed in 2008 when the Philippine Supreme Court overturned an agreement on ancestral domain that both sides had inked, causing armed hostilities to flare up. The talks resumed three years later.

You again demonstrate your ignorance.

I am beginning to suspect that I am arguing with an ignoramus who does not know what is happening around her but blabber off with her own version of reality.

Ha ha , another 'pull from the ass fact' from you. Ooi meenachi , Abu Basir died before the skirmish between Banu Bakr (and Quraish) and Banu Khuz'aa. You mean to tell me Abu Basir came back from the grave and provoke this incident? Why are you farting from your mouth?


I think everyone is laughing at you for your NATO (No Action Talk Only). When are you declaring a Hindu Holy War because of the JAIS raid? Ha ha , go lah and declare a Hindu Holy War. Why so quiet but before this talk so big ...

Sephiroth

by Sam1528

Why should Prophet Muhammad(saw) do something outside of the Hudaibiyah Treaty? You answer is because of moral and ethical 'flock' responsibility? However Abu Basir , belong to the Meccan 'flock' according to the said treaty as Prophet Muhammad(saw) was treaty bound to return any muslim from Mecca.

Where did it say that Abu Basir belong to Meccan flock? He is outside Mecca and living by attacking Meccans caravan. How is he become Maccan flock? Question here is - Was Abu Basir a Muslim? Are the Muslim affairs falls into Muhammad's responsibility?

How is it that Abu Basir became his pawn in order to break the treaty per your argument?

I have already explain to you how Muhammad created the World's first Muslim terrorist through Abu Basir. He was to live separately from the mainstream society - he cannot go back to Mecca and he cannot go to Madinah, he cannot attack fellow Muslims which leaves him the only options to attack non-Muslims, which he did. Muhammad did not do anything - including attack him (to enforce the treaty) or to advise him to return to Mecca (or go somewhere else). Muhammad DID NOTHING - and that is how Abu Basir become his pawn.

Abu Basir died before the conflict between Banu Bakr (and Quraish) and Banu Khuz'aa.

Issue of Banu Bakr and Quraisy have nothing to do with Abu Basir and Madinah. It is between the bad blood of two tribes (Banu Bakr and Quraisy). While Muhammad did nothing when comes to Abu Basir's actions (of attacking the caravans), Muhammad was eager to "protect" the interest of Banu Bakr just because they were Muslims' allies. In another word, Muhammad did not care about anyone except his own conquests.

Piracy means ANY merchant caravans are raided. However in the case of Abu Basir (or the muslims) , ONLY Meccan merchant caravans were raided.

Which by itself means that Muslims have broken the treaty. IF Abu Basir attacked caravans belonging to Muslims and Meccans, then he is a pirate by any definition. HOWEVER, he attacked ONLY the caravans belongs to Meccans - which means he was a terrorists and NOT a pirate. Same way Abu Sayyaf group attacks and kidnap ONLY NON-MUSLIMS from Sabah and Malaysia behaving like Muhammad and "negotiate" on their behalf.

sam1528

Sephiroth posted on 11-6-2014 11:47 AM
by Sam1528
Where did it say that Abu Basir belong to Meccan flock? He is outside Mecca and living by attacking Meccans caravan. How is he become Maccan flock? Question here is - Was Abu Basir a Muslim? Are the Muslim affairs falls into Muhammad's responsibility?

Is Abu Basir a 'runaway' from Mecca or not? Go back to your post#6 , your reference of Sahih Bukhari 50:891. It clearly stated that Abu Basir was a Quraish meaning from Mecca. Therefore he was a Meccan and Prophet Muhammad(saw) was obligated to return him to the Meccans , a stipulation of the Hudaibiyah Treaty. You have lied so much that you have forgotten how to tell the truth. Of course Abu Basir was a muslim but the Hudaibiyah Treaty (my post#9) stated that any Quraish or Meccan need to be returned to the Quraish. This technically makes Abu Basir a responsibility of the Meccans once Prophet Muhammad(saw) fulfill his end of returning him to the Meccans and continue to do so if Abu Basir came to Madinah. You are the one who started to refer to the Hudaibiyah Treaty but so far failed to argue within the boundries of the said Treaty. Hindus like you have no respect for any agreement. Might as well don't have any agreement. You are without facts but persist in trying to twist facts in your argument. It will not work. We argue with facts not auta like you always do.

I have already explain to you how Muhammad created the World's first Muslim terrorist through Abu Basir. He was to live separately from the mainstream society - he cannot go back to Mecca and he cannot go to Madinah, he cannot attack fellow Muslims which leaves him the only options to attack non-Muslims, which he did. Muhammad did not do anything - including attack him (to enforce the treaty) or to advise him to return to Mecca (or go somewhere else). Muhammad DID NOTHING - and that is how Abu Basir become his pawn.

Another BS from you. Initially you argued that Prophet Muhammad(saw) used Abu Basir to break the Hudaibiyah Treaty , your post#10 :
'...By that point, we can say that Muhammad condone and supported Abu Basir indirectly and later, when Meccans did perform actions toward him (Abu Basir), Muhammad used it as an excuse to break the treaty...'.
How can it be done as the incident between Banu Bakr (and Quraish) killing members of Banu Khuz'aa occured after the death of Abu Basir. In fact it was the Quraish who unilaterally abrogated the Hudaibiyah treaty. The Hudaibiyah Treaty did not mention for Prophet Muhammad(saw) to attack any muslims who did not want to go back to Mecca nor advise them to go back to Mecca , it only stated for him to return any Quraish (Meccan) who came to him - which he fulfilled 100%. Why are you trying to lie? You are making things up with 'pull from the ass facts'. 'Commerce Raiding' is an acceptable strategy of war. It was the Meccans who created Abu Basir. Who asked them to forcefully take back a person who does not want to go back? Of course the said person would retaliate. However you lack in intelligence to recognize this fact.

Issue of Banu Bakr and Quraisy have nothing to do with Abu Basir and Madinah. It is between the bad blood of two tribes (Banu Bakr and Quraisy). While Muhammad did nothing when comes to Abu Basir's actions (of attacking the caravans), Muhammad was eager to "protect" the interest of Banu Bakr just because they were Muslims' allies. In another word, Muhammad did not care about anyone except his own conquests.

Then why did you initially argue that Prophet Muhammad(saw) used Abu Basir as an excuse to break the Hudaibiyah Treaty , your post#10? You've lied so much that you have forgotten your initial lie. Like I stated , why should Prophet Muhammad(saw) do anything with Abu Basir as there is nothing in the Hudaibiyah Treaty that oblige him to do so. However in his goodness , he did instruct Abu Basir to cease raiding the Meccan caravans upon desperate appeals by the Meccans. This is something out of the said Treaty. Consider it a favor.

However Banu Khuz'aa had a treaty with the muslims , thus they were allies. The Quraish broke the treaty because they participated with Banu Bakr in the killings of the members of Banu Khuz'aa. Again Prophet Muhammad(saw) upheld his treaty with Banu Khuz'aa and demanded the Quraish to hold their end of the Hudaibiyah Treaty - which the Quraish arrogantly and unilaterally abrogated.

Which by itself means that Muslims have broken the treaty. IF Abu Basir attacked caravans belonging to Muslims and Meccans, then he is a pirate by any definition. HOWEVER, he attacked ONLY the caravans belongs to Meccans - which means he was a terrorists and NOT a pirate. Same way Abu Sayyaf group attacks and kidnap ONLY NON-MUSLIMS from Sabah and Malaysia behaving like Muhammad and "negotiate" on their behalf.

I take it that you are just too old and lacking in intelligence to learn anything. On what basis did the muslims broke the Hudaibiyah Treaty due to the actions of Abu Basir? Can you point out which condition(s) of the Hudaibiyah Treaty that was violated by the muslims due to Abu Basir actions? You won't be able to do so even with 3 lifetimes. This means that you are just farting thru your mouth.

Piracy means indiscriminate raiding of ANY caravans. However Abu Basir ONLY targetted the Meccan caravans. This is a strategy in any war - 'commerce raiding'. Why are you repeating yourself but cannot offer any counter argument? It is because you have no facts to counter my argument. Abu Basir became such because of the actions of the Meccans. Similarly Abu Sayyaf became such because of the actions of the Philipine Government overturning the initial peace agreement. You reap what you sow.



Ha ha , I will keep on mocking you. So when are you going to declare a Hindu Holy War? Talk big some more lah. Suddenly , you are so scared to respond. Next time , don't talk big. The events will somehow come back to haunt you. Ha ha , mulut besar .... hati kecik ....

Sephiroth

by Sam1528

Of course Abu Basir was a muslim ...

Good. You finally accepted that Abu Basir was a Muslim. Now, according to the Treaty, what happens IF a Muslim (or a group of Muslims) were to attack non-Muslims (and their caravans)?

Furthermore, since Abu Basir was a Muslim, is he not Muhammad's responsibility as a leader of a Muslim community? Isn't Muhammad's responsibility to ensure that the Treaty between Mecca and Madinah were enforced and that he had morale and ethical responsibility to stop Abu Basir which was clear violation of the Treaty?

Or are you going to say Muhammad didn't care what Muslims do to non-Muslims outside Madinah?

How can it be done as the incident between Banu Bakr (and Quraish) killing members of Banu Khuz'aa occured after the death of Abu Basir.

Why are you kept referring to Banu Bakr and Quraisy incident? It has nothing to do with Abu Basir.
As I have stated before, the tribal warfare between Banu Bakr and Quraisy are TRIBAL MATTERS, not a religious matters. Muhammad took advantage of the tribal warfare and change it to a religious warfare.

he Hudaibiyah Treaty did not mention for Prophet Muhammad(saw) to attack any muslims who did not want to go back to Mecca nor advise them to go back to Mecca ...

So you agreed that Muhammad DID NOTHING while Abu Basir continued his piracy which endangered the Treaty. Thank you.

why should Prophet Muhammad(saw) do anything with Abu Basir as there is nothing in the Hudaibiyah Treaty that oblige him to do so.

Answer :- Because Abu Basir was a Muslim and Muhammad was the Muslim leader. Muhammad not doing anything = he didn't care about Muslims OR he wanted Abu Basir to continue in his piracy. These are the only TWO possibilities for Muhammad's inaction.

This is a strategy in any war - 'commerce raiding'.

So you have agreed that what Abu Basir was doing was not piracy but act of War. Thank you again. You are being very helpful in demystifying Muhammad as anything BUT an old Arabic warmonger who doesn't care about anything or anyone.

Sephiroth

by Sam1528

Unless you are telling me that Prophet Muhammad(saw) knew such would happen in future.

No, Muhammad did not know the future. He simply DID NOT care about anything else but himself. He made sure no blame comes to him directly and step aside so others could shield him and take the blunt effect from non-Muslims.

It wasn't even the first time he used this method. While he was in Mecca, this evil Arabic man used his own uncle to shield him from the Quraisy who demanded him to stop spreading Islam, while his followers were tortured and killed all around him. That is the sort of evil man Muhammad was.

This is the problem with Islamophobes like you.

I'm not Islamicphobia, I'm Islam disgusted.

Abu Sayyaf would not have been in existence if the Mindanao peace process have been wrapped up.

Wrong - Islam has no rights in the Philiphines or any other nations in Asia. ONLY place Muslims should talk about Islamic rights is in Saudi Arabia. Therefore, it falls onto shoulders' of every non-Muslims to fight Muslims and Islam here.

sam1528

Sephiroth posted on 11-6-2014 01:23 PM
by Sam1528
Good. You finally accepted that Abu Basir was a Muslim. Now, according to the Treaty, what happens IF a Muslim (or a group of Muslims) were to attack non-Muslims (and their caravans)?

Furthermore, since Abu Basir was a Muslim, is he not Muhammad's responsibility as a leader of a Muslim community? Isn't Muhammad's responsibility to ensure that the Treaty between Mecca and Madinah were enforced and that he had morale and ethical responsibility to stop Abu Basir which was clear violation of the Treaty?

Or are you going to say Muhammad didn't care what Muslims do to non-Muslims outside Madinah?

No wonder you are going about in circles chasing your own backside. The Treaty of Hudaibiyah :

“In your name, O Allah. These are the terms of the truce between Muhammad, the son of Abdullah and Suhayl, the son of Amr (of Mecca).

Both parties have agreed to lay down the burden of war for ten years. During this time, each party shall be safe, and neither shall injure the other; no secret damage shall be inflicted, but uprightness and honor shall prevail between them.

The Muslims shall return this year without performing Umrah (the pilgrimage). In the coming year, you may enter it with your companions, staying therein for three days, bearing no arms except the arms of the traveler, with swords remaining in their sheaths.

If a Quraysh person comes to Muhammad (i.e., after accepting Islam) without the permission of his guardian, Muhammad shall return him to them, but if one of the Muhammad’s people come to the Quraysh, he shall not be returned.

Whoever wishes to enter into covenant with Muhammad can do so, and whoever wishes to enter into covenant with the Quraysh can do so.”

Prophet Muhammad(saw) fulfilled his obligation of returning any Quraish (Meccan) who came to him. Where does it state he needed to be responsible for these people if the Quraish (Meccan) allowed the said person to escape and set up camp elsewhere? You are trying to force your own view into the agreement. In short you are trying to twist and lie. Why are you doing such? The condition for peace is between the muslims who were in Prophet Muhammad(saw) jurisdiction and the Quarish (Meccans). Was Abu Basir in Prophet Muhammad(saw) jurisdiction per the said treaty? Yes or no? He would returned to the Quraish anytime he set foot in Madinah.

Why are you arguing that the actions of Abu Basir violated the Hudaibiyah Treaty. The Quraish admitted that it did not violate the said treaty. That is why they appealed to Prophet Muhammad(saw) for a favor in trying to stop the actions of Abu Basir. Ha ha , you come about 1400 years later with no knowledge whatsoever and argue that Prophet Muhammad(saw) violated the Hudaibiyah Treaty because of the actions of Abu Basir. How silly can you get? Only people of lesser intelligence would argue like you.

This means that you are arguing outside the boundry of the Hudaibiyah Treaty. In other words , you are just farting thru your mouth.

Why are you kept referring to Banu Bakr and Quraisy incident? It has nothing to do with Abu Basir.
As I have stated before, the tribal warfare between Banu Bakr and Quraisy are TRIBAL MATTERS, not a religious matters. Muhammad took advantage of the tribal warfare and change it to a religious warfare.

Then why did you initially argue that Prophet Muhammad(saw) used Abu Basir as an excuse to break the Hudaibiyah Treaty , your post#10? This shows that you do not understand what was going on and now you are exercising damage control as your ignorance has been exposed. There was no war between Banu Bakr and Quraish. Again you are muddled up in your argument. You don't have the facts in your argument.

The Quraish unilaterally abrogated the Hudaibiyah Treaty. Prophet Muhammad(saw) acted accordingly being the aggrieved party of the said treaty.

So you agreed that Muhammad DID NOTHING while Abu Basir continued his piracy which endangered the Treaty. Thank you.

Why should Prophet Muhammad(saw) do something which is outside the boundry of the treaty? What is your justification to insist such? An agreement is an agreement , we follow what is stipulated in it , nothing more nothing less. What is your justification that Abu Basir was into piracy? I stated it was 'commerce raiding' and I provided the evidence. Where is your evidence apart from farting thru your mouth?

Answer :- Because Abu Basir was a Muslim and Muhammad was the Muslim leader. Muhammad not doing anything = he didn't care about Muslims OR he wanted Abu Basir to continue in his piracy. These are the only TWO possibilities for Muhammad's inaction.

This again shows that you are arguing outside of the boundry of the Hudaibiyah Treaty. You stated that Prophet Muhammad(saw) did not honor any agreement. However it has been shown with evidence that Prophet Muhammad(saw) honored the agreement he signed up. Why are you insisting that Prophet Muhammad(saw) should now go beyond the agreement by trying to stop Abu Basir? Going outside an agreement without prior approval of the counterparty means dishonoring the said agreement. He only did such when the Quraish appealed to him meaning there was mutual agreement for such action.

You are contradicting yourself. First you insist that an Agreement is to be adhered to but when you are have been exposed , you are now arguing for Prophet Muhammad(saw) to act outside of the Hudaibiyah Treaty. You are just a fraud.

So you have agreed that what Abu Basir was doing was not piracy but act of War. Thank you again. You are being very helpful in demystifying Muhammad as anything BUT an old Arabic warmonger who doesn't care about anything or anyone.

The moment the Quraish (Meccans) acted to kill Prophet Muhammad(saw) which prompted the hijra (migration) , it was already a declaration of war.

If Ibn Ishaq’s dating is to be accepted, this could explain why the Qurayshite leaders decided to finalize their plot to assassinate Muhammad.  Ibn Ishaq writes:

    When the Quraysh saw that the apostle had a party and companions not of their tribe and outside their territory, and that his companions had migrated to join them, and knew that they had settled in a new home and had gained protectors, they feared that the apostle might join them, since they knew he had decided to fight them.  So they assembled in their council chamber…to take counsel what they should do in regard to the aspotle, for they were now in fear of him…

    The discussion [among the Qurayshite leaders] opened with the statement that now that Muhammad had gained adherents outside the tribe they were no longer safe against a sudden attack and the meeting was to determine the best course to pursue… [42]

Ibn Kathir writes:

    [The] Quraysh were concerned that the Messenger of God would leave and join [the people of Medina], since they knew that he had decided to do battle with them. They therefore gathered in the Dar al-Nadwa, the house of assembly…[and] discussed there what they should do about the Messeger of God, since they now feared him….They would kill him. [43]

The state of war between the Quraysh and the Muslims thus already existed by this point in time

Who started the war and who were the initial aggresors? All history points to the Quraish (Meccans). How do you justify that Prophet Muhammad(saw) was a warmonger as he was the one targetted to be killed by the Quraish? Another 'pull from the ass fact' from you?



Mocking you again. So what happen to your so called Hindu Holy War? Why so scared to respond? Ha ha , talk big some more lah. Now you are so embarrassed and cannot even lift your face to respond to me mocking you.