According to the biography handed down, Mohammed and his followers were persecuted for many years, with some tortured or murdered, by the people of Mecca, the majority, who did not share belief in Islam. He advocated emigration to what is now Ethiopia to avoid conflict, an option which many of his followers took. He made many treaties with non-believers to attempt to assure the safety of his followers. Those who didn't believe in Islam made several attempts to kill him.
Finally, he fled to Medina to avoid one such attempt. He and his followers were welcomed there, and they drew up a civil agreement, ratified by non-Muslim Arabs, Muslim Arabs, and other residents (principly Jews) to protect the lives of everyone in the community. Forced conversion was not included in this agreement. From that position of strength, Mohammed made other treaties of the same type with neighboring settlements, including Mecca.
Three years later, the leaders in Mecca broke the treaty by taking one side in a clan war. Their guy lost, and the family of the other attacked Mecca for revenge. Some of the people asked Mohammed for help. He gathered an army and marched to Mecca. Outside the city, he sent in messages to indicate that anyone who stayed inside and didn't resist would not be harmed. He was as good as his word. The Meccans expected retribution after all the years of persecution. Mohammed said that, as Joseph forgave his brothers, he would forgive the people of Mecca. There was no retribution. Many (not all) of the people of Mecca converted. Was it out of fear? Awe? Gratitude? We don't know. But it wasn't because there was blood in the streets.
Now, does that sound like a bloodthirsty butcher to you?
If you say that this is a story told by Muslims, and they have made him look good, fair enough. I could say the same thing about Jesus. How do we know? All we have is the writings of his followers to judge.
Actually... treaties... non-violent opposition... freedom to practice another religion... peaceful occupation... If Mohammed is the model for Muslim civic behavior, this is encouraging. If the model of Mohammed is warped and damaged by the ignorant, Muslim and non-Muslim, a powerful example will be lost.
Current Events » in reply to I think they were offensive to Christians.
Your ignorance of the story of Mohammed is astounding.
The whole thread (73 posts)
- Making sense of the Muslim outrage over the cartoons.
- They do not understand "Freedom of the Press".
- The more I think about it.
- One Muslim's view:
- "Jesus in a gay bar, with a "Jesus is a fag" caption. I would imagine that fundamental Christians would be outraged."
- re: Da Vinci's Last Supper
- While it was in poor taste, Freedom of the Press permits it.
- I find this hilarious....
- No religion is truthful, and therefore should never trump freedom of expression
- I think they were offensive to Christians.
- Your ignorance of the story of Mohammed is astounding.
- re: Thanks for the information oh most Knowledgable One.
- In reply to the post by the smearer of Catholics, below:
- oh, so you're actually denying the massacre at Medina are you?
- there is some debate about Muhammed yes...but most sources agree he owned slaves, made war, ordered assasinations, and killed jews.
- quite correct
- You're welcome. It comes courtesy of a Hungarian refugee who served in the Hungarian foreign service in Turkey.
- In reply to the post by the smearer of Catholics, below:
- re: Thanks for the information oh most Knowledgable One.
- Your ignorance of the story of Mohammed is astounding.
- Thoughtul post, thanks