I would like my friends to calculate the figure of Meccans killed in war with Muhammad- the Prince of Peace, during the life time of Muhammad. It will make a civilized comparison for humanity, I think.
Battle of Uhud 70 Muslims killed 44-45 Meccans killed
Battle of the Trench Muslim casualties light, heavy Meccan losses.
Right after that was the Siege of the Banu Qurayza where the Muslims decided that the men should be killed and women and children enslaved.
After that in 630, Muhammad marched on Mecca with a force said to number more than ten thousand men, and with minimal casualties, Muhammad took control of Mecca. He declared an amnesty for past offenses, except for ten men and women who had mocked and made fun of him in songs and verses. Some of these were later pardoned
So yeah, a lot of people were killed on the way to and going into Mecca. I know you'll ask for proof, so try...
Ali, Abdullah Yusuf (1987). The Holy Qur'an: Text, Translation & Commentary Armstrong, Karen (1992). Muhmmad: Biography of the Prophet Crone, Patricia (1987). Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam Hodgson, Marshall (1974). The Venture of Islam: The Classical Age of Islam Lings, Martin (1983). Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources Nicolle, David (1993). Armies of the Muslim Conquest Ramadan, Tariq (2007). In the Footsteps of the Prophet Watt, W. Montgomery (1956). Muhammad at Medina
I know Christianity has had a long and bloody history. I don't embrace that, but I don't deny it either. True I wasn't physically around for the Crusades, Inquisition, witch hunts etc., but I believe they happened.
As far as I know from what I have read, Jesus didn't lead any attacks on caravans or cities.
The concern of the Ahmadiyya peaceful Muslims is the present era. The problems faced by humanity cannot be resolved in history. Every religion and nation has its own history and claims. These issues could be resolved in the roots only. Hence, the present discussion.I have presented things here from the Wikipedia, a neutral source.
What Miraz (supreme actor) of Ahmedi ..... so die of wash room ..... and who claims to Mary, Jesus, Adam , Noah and much more even once God !! therefore Miraz a Top class liar...... shame on him ............ And Ahmedi are not muslims because they believe in false Prophet Mirza and ignore the Ayat of Quran and Hadith of Prophet of islam Muhammad (saw) about the Muhammad (SAW) as SEAL OF PROPHET .......
Please check your sources as to how many people were killed on way to and going into Mecca; besides what you have already mentioned in your post " except for ten men and women who had mocked and made fun of him in songs and verses. Some of these were later pardoned".
Srđa Trifković is a Serbian-American writer and was foreign-affairs editor for the paleoconservative magazine Chronicles (1998–2009). He has a PhD in history from the University of Southampton. He is also director of the Center for International Affairs at the Rockford Institute. Trifkovic was also an unofficial spokesman for the Republika Srpska government in the 1990’s. He is the author of Sword of the Prophet, a book on the history and doctrines of Islam. Srđa is also the former consultant to President Vojislav Koštunica. He comments on Balkan politics, and is a regular columnist for several conservative publications in the United States.
I have checked Srđa Trifković's book on the Wikipedia; it seems to be more on the current political scenario in the World rather than a history book on the life of Muhammad.
I might agree on many points presented by him on the Militant Muslims presently and in the past. He might have only studied the History of the West; I don't see any depth in his writings on roots of Islam or on the Life of Muhammad.
We Ahmadi peaceful Muslim; do see always Religion and State separately. You may like to view a Press Conference of Mr. Nasim Mahdi, Vice- President of our Community in America on FOXNEWS in this connection:
Regarding Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, between Muhammad and the Meccans, Wikipedia adds:
Thus, Muhammad was left with "no alternative" but march on to Mecca. With the 10,000 men of his army, he marched on to Mecca where he ordered his troops not to harm women, children, old people, those who surrender, those who are sick, those who are weak, not to destroy houses, and destroy trees or gardens.
Thus, there was no bloodshed in the conquest of Mecca.
Islam spread widely and quickly during the two years that the treaty was in effect.
While Muhammad had 1,400 followers when he signed the treaty in Hudaybiyya, he had well over 10,000 for his conquest of Mecca two years later.
"Thus, Muhammad was left with "no alternative" but march on to Mecca. With the 10,000 men of his army, he marched on to Mecca where he ordered his troops not to harm women, children, old people, those who surrender, those who are sick, those who are weak, not to destroy houses, and destroy trees or gardens."
As per your quote above....
Why would someone have an "army" if he intends to spread Islam pecefully?
We would someone give specific instructions for not harming certain groups of people if he intends not to harm anyone at all?
Lets take a look at our peaceful prophets messages:
Um Haram informed us that she heard Muhammad the Great prophet saying, "Paradise is granted to the first batch of my followers who will undertake a naval expedition."
Um Haram added, I said, 'O Allah's Apostle! Will I be amongst them?'
He replied, 'You are amongst them.'
Muhammad then said, 'The first army amongst' my followers who will invade Caesar's City will be forgiven their sins.' I asked, [/b]'Will I be one of them, O Allah's Apostle?' He replied in the negative." [/b]
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 175 Narrated Khalid bin Madan.
This is not in Quran; all teachings of Muhammad must emanate from Quran; where we have the context and reason/wisdom of the things happened in Muhammad's time; it is better than seeing things live. It is the root source among Muslims, whatever the denomination.
Hadith was not collected in Muhammad's time; it was collected some 250/300 years of Muhammad, and there is no consensus on their authenticity; it does not provide the context of the things.
Why do you bank upon the auxiliary sources; shows your weak viewpoint?
Hence; we only depend on the root; the first source of guidance for all the Muslims that is Quran; and in fact the only powerful historic source of Muhammad's life and his time. It is for your convenience also; you find all things that matter in a compact source.
you set up a forum topic without fact about a certain place where Islam has spread peacefully.. and then despite what anyone writes, you always sum up with "I think we can not agree that Islam spread peacefully"
Muhammad was born in the year CE 570 and he died in CE 632; he died at the age of 62/63 years. He lived in Mecca upto the age of 52/53 years. He migrated to Medina in CE 622; and live there for about ten years.
Out of this in the last four years; the period between Treaty of Hudaybiyyah and the peaceful conquest of Mecca there were no killings of Meccans.
Now going to the post of our friend sabrebIade on page 2, four days ago, the previous battle between the Meccans and the Muslims was Battle of Trench.
“Battle of the Trench Muslim casualties light, heavy Meccan losses”
It is Muhammad's arguments that convinced the Meccans; so they attacked Muhammad and his followers lest their blind faith would come to an end.
You could see Medina people were only 3000 in numbers when 10000 Meccans attacked Medina; but after a year or two, when the Meccans tore away the Treaty of Hudaibiyya, and Muslims marched to Mecca; Muslims have increased to 10000 people. They all peacefully joined ranks of Muhammad.
If you ponder; you will agree with me; no compulsion.
1. Muhammad was born in the year CE 570 and he died in CE 632; he died at the age of 62/63 years. He lived in Mecca up to the age of 52/53 years. He migrated to Medina in CE 622; and lived there for about ten years. 2. Out of this in the last four years; the period between Treaty of Hudaybiyyah and the peaceful conquest of Mecca there were no killings of Meccans. 3. Now going to the post of our friend sabrebIade on page- 2 (http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/43398?page=2) the previous battle between the Meccans and the Muslims was Battle of Trench. “Battle of the Trench Muslim casualties- light, heavy Meccans losses” 5. It was the Meccans who in large numbers preferred to attack at Medina; Muhammad had to defend his position with much less numbers; so it was the Meccans who were the aggressors and were at fault, and those who were killed were the responsibility of the Meccans on both sides. 6. Before the Battle of trench; the battle of Uhud was fought:
Battle of Uhud
Part of the Muslim-Quraysh Wars Date 19 March, 625 Location: The valley that is located in front of Mount Uhud, and it is located about 5 miles (8.0 km) from Medina Result Tactical Meccan victory Strategically indecisive
Belligerents Muslims Quraysh-led Meccan coalition Commanders –Muslim: Muhammad Hamza ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalibbr>Ali ibn Abi Taleb Muslim Strength: 700 infantry,2-4 cavalry
Commanders -Meccans Abu Sufyan ibn Harb Khalid ibn al-Walid Ikrimah ibn Abi-Jahl Meccan Stregth: 3,000 infantry, 200 cavalry
Muslim Casualties and losses :70 Meccans Casualties and losses: 44-45
It was the Meccans who were the aggressors as they attacked Medina with much large numbers than Muslims in Medina. The casualties of Muslims of 70+casualties of Meccans 45= 115, was therefore the responsibility of Meccans; Muhammad only defended his position.
So we have observed that going reverse from the opening of Mecca for Muhammad upto the Battle of Uhud; the Meccans attacked Medina; they were the agressors and in large numabers they attacked and Muhmmad had to defend his position with much less numbers and he won with the mercy of the Creator-God Allah YHWH. The Meccans being aggressors were responsible for the killings that happened.
1. Muhammad was born in the year CE 570 and he died in CE 632; he died at the age of 62/63 years. He lived in Mecca up to the age of 52/53 years. He migrated to Medina in CE 622; and lived there for about ten years.
2. Out of this in the last four years; the period between Treaty of Hudaybiyyah and the peaceful conquest of Mecca there were no killings of Meccans.
3. It were the Meccans who attacked Medina ,in large numbers, in the battle of Trench, battle of Uhud and battle of Badr; hence they were responsible for any blood shed done and causalities suffered by both sides.
I think it should not be difficult to understand for anybody.
Hi friendsMeccans attacked Muhammad at Medina:The Battle of Uhud (Arabic: غزوة أحد Ġazwat ‘Uḥud) was fought on March 19, 625 AD (3 Shawwal 3 AH in the Islamic calendar) at the valley located in front of...
Prophet Muhammad was the most peaceful man on the earth ever and he is and he will be. People who say that religion teaches aggression should know that all the prophets Muhammad, Jesus and Moses who followed their...
Hi friendsIt is a wrong notion that Islam spread with sword or bloodshed. Islam never needed it; Islam’s brilliant teachings are sufficient to convince anybody for its natural spread.This can be well observed from the...