Call toward Peace and Rights of Orphans in light of Divine Attribute THE RECKONER, WHO TAKES ACCOUNT

Thanks. Nothing more need be said. Best Regards.

Why did he spread Islam by the sword then?

He may use the words, but they don't match his actions.

Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah be on him and all chosen men, and no other prophet used sword to spread message.

Religion must be judged in early times before corruption take in. Fact of the matter is Muhammad (p.b.o.h) and his followers were attacked and tortured by Meccans who could not stand the reawakening of belief that God is one. They did their best to eliminate the faith.

Muslims suffering continued for thirteen long years. Then they were allowed to defend.

In the second year of migration of Muhammad (p.b.o.h), infidels went after Muslims to wipe them in battle of Badar. Muslim mens were 300.
In the third year of migration, in battle of Ohad, Muslims were 700.
The fifth year of migration, in battle of Trench, Muslims were 3000.
In the sixth year of migration, Peace Treaty at Hoodabia took place and battles stopped and believers informed others about there belief with total peace.
In eighth year of migration, Mecca fell, and 10,000 Muslim men came in.

What does these recorded in history numbers tell?
It prove that during 4 years of unrest, Muslims rose to 3000.
But in 2 years of peace, some more 7000 people joined Muhammad (peace and blessings on him) and totaling to 10,000.

Hence, imaginary sword does not exists.

I like that sentence..

Now now Tranquility,

Why did The Prophet go back to Mecca? And what did he do when he got to Mecca? you leave those little tidbits out.

You left out the alliances he forged at Medina, for tribes to convert to Islam, not because they believed per se, but because it was either a convenient means of control for the sheiks, or politically it was to their advantage, or for pure survival. That tactic continued well after Medina and Mecca.

You also left out the flow of The Prophets 'change of teaching/directions' and how it coincided with his military powers.

- He first preached peace, not even self defence.
- He then preached peace, but allowed self defence
- As he grew in power (and as he wanted to go back and take Mecca) he preached conversion by any means, including the sword
- as he won more converts that way and grew in power still, he then made it a duty to convert by any means, including the sword

- He suffered a military defeat and was looking at annihilation if he kept up the 'duty', so he changed it again to 'if your enemy is stronger than you, convert by any means possible/subversion until you are once again militarily stronger than him'

That appears to be why it's okay to lie in the name of the glory of Islam.

There is a reason why the Taliban / Al Qeida are called fundamentalists, even though these days, 'extremists' is being used more and more.

You also leave out how he removed parts of what he had written, suddenly calling them 'The Satanic Verses'...but forget that those verses were political incredibly inconvenient to him at that point in time.

As with his acceptance of the Jews, upon which he based his ideas of God. It wasn't until they refused to acknowledge him a prophet did he turn against them.

At every turn, as you read the founding, it seems apparent he did what he did for power, for political efficiency and for his greater glory.

1= Faithfuls suffered for long times before they were given permission by God to defend themselves:

Those who have been driven out from their homes unjustly only because they said, Our Lord is Allah. And if Allah did not repel some people by means of others, there would surely have been pulled down cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques, wherin the name of allh is oft commemorated. And Allah will surely help one who helps Him. Allah is indeed Powerful, Almighty. (22:41)

2= Because life is sacred, according to the Quranic teachings, Companions (on them be peace) hesitated to go to battles and they were many a times reminded to stand up for defense. Many limitations were imposed as war-ethics to save lives. They were not war minded.

3= Mecan infidels chased the migrated faithfuls to Medinas and waged battles. Trouble makers were infidels, not the faithfuls. The proof of it resides in the fact that the battles of Badar, Ohad, Trench were fought close or very near to new place of faithfuls, the Medina.. Were faithfuls power hungry, battles would have been fought near Mecca, the head quarter of then infidels.

4= The following incidence would not have ever happened if the Muhammad, the holy prophet (p.b.o.h.) were power hungry:
The Prophet saw a dream, he and his companions are perfroming pilgrimage to Kaaba. They (1500 faithfuls) started the journey to offer this worship. Eventhough, faithfuls may have had easily gone to Kaaba to pay their worship, the Prophet was careful to get permission from Meccans to avoid any possible confrontation. He might had taken advantage of unprepared infedals but he did not. Instaed, he camped at Hoodaybia site, near Mecca. Infedals would not allow the faithfuls to perform pilgrimage in that year. A Treaty was signed called Treaty of Hoodaybia. The terms in it were apparently as insult to faitfuls. Companions were not happy but just for the sake of peace, Muhammad (p.b.o.h) accepted the terms. While, it was being written, some persecuted Muslims requested for help at the spot, which was in violation of the Treaty, the Prophet asked the faithfuls to continue show patience. Prophet and companion returned back without performing pilgrimage.

5= The Prophet enterd Mecca in 8th year of migration with 10,000 men, if he was power hungry, this was the day to take all kinds of revenge of past persecution (ranging from social boycott which took life of his wife Khadija and uncle Abutalib to heinous muders of innocent poor faithfuls by tearing them apart with tying their legs to animals, running in opposite directions). But Prophet made it the day of forgiveness.

6=When a spiritual phenomenon evolves at some place, neighbouring countires watch carefully, lest the new faith latter become a force. Roman and Persian were watching too……..[ Once Kusro Pervaiz, the Persian emperor sent his mens to arrest the Prophet to bring him to his court. The Prophet took care of mens as guests and asked them to stay for a while, he prayed to his Allah and told the mens that this night my Allah had killed your god. Perplexed ambassadors traveled back and at the first station they were served new orders with a new royal seal. It was written by Khusro’s son, he wrote: I am the new king now and I killed my father, he was an oppressor. I cancel his order to arrest the Prophet of Arabia.]………..Along the subsequent Islamic reigns, both super powers of their times, the Roman and Persians, had skirmishes with faithfuls. Their armies were far superior in numbers and in weapons. The ratio had always been 10:1 in their favours. With very meek state of arms and men, could faithfuls ever had thought to strike first with hunger of power??

7= Yes, far down the history, faithfuls showed weaknesses and forgot the true practices. Djal, the promised evil of the time, is encircling their faith to damage it and they sleep. Their clergy is happy with political ambitions rather than looking after the morals and progress of the faithfuls with peaceful means.

8= Revival of faith by the vary hands of God is the promised solution.

9= Thinking and saying bad about other religions' heads can not improve the already fragile international peace.

10=Would it not be helpful if people write what their favorite philosophy of life has to offer to world peace.

Hi Tranquility,

Obviously you don't quite grasp the nature of power. Everything you wrote in there - did not the Prophet come out with more power?

For those seeking power, there are many paths. You assume that power drives people to violent revenge in all situations? This is a failing in logic and the understanding of human nature.

Revenge in itself is not a necessity for power, though petty people often indulge in it.

As for your point 9. The founding of Islam is historically recorded. These aren't 'bad things' as you put them, but historical recordings - his teachings changed as his political circumstances changed. You can put whatever slant on that you like, but it would only be at the cost of ignoring the very obvious.

You have very little room to talk about international peace either, considering how many 'separatist movements' are founded due to Islam. Thailand has one currently going on, China has one currently going on, India and Pakistan separated because of it, and as far as I'm aware, Islamic populations are involved in 80% of the worlds conflicts. It is also a very famous teaching of the Islamic faith that divides the world into The Abode of Islam, and The abode of war.

The problem I see with your point 10, is the Islamic religion lends itself to war, and it's prophet and leader engaged in war for religious ends himself. To me, it's little surprise that 10% of the 1 billion + muslims are considered 'extremists' (people never stop an think that = 100,000,000 muslims), and no surprise that 50% of the population are somewhat supportive of Al Qeida and like Muslims who 'fight for Islam'