History is bunk, said Henry Ford. Anyone can distort it. After ten years effort, the prophet gained an insignificant number of followers. The death of Abu Talib left him without protection, his compromise formula through the 'Satanic Verses' had failed, and he had no alternative but to run for life. Afterwards, raiding the caravans had been the only way of sustenance of himself and his brigands. Please read go through the Wikipedia about the subject.
On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 2:48 AM, qar <qrahman@netscape.net> wrote:
I think it is better to allow Mr. Hannan to reply on the personal insult.
I'll just say, one more time your understanding of history is "Borrowed" and "Out of context".
For example, I'll share a little more information about the alleged "Looting" of the caravan of Abu Lahab. You may want to know that, prophet Muhammad (PBUH) did (what Mahatma Gandiji did much later in India) suffered in the hands his own people for many years in his home town. He had to starve, spat upon, stoned, mocked for many years. He put up with such abuses without lifting his hands for many years. There were more attempts on his life by the same people. He did not attack anyone but kept forgiving them.
At the end with a heavy heart he left his home town to avoid conflict. Therefore he NEVER gotten into ANY wars to save his own life. Only took up arms to defend his community ( Jews, Muslims and idol worshipers in it)
Once he reached Media (After being invited by the people of that city!!) he established a pluralistic community (One of a kind for his time!) with specific rights (And guaranteed protection of lives, religious practice, properties for non-Muslims!!) for people of all faiths. However desperate people of Mecca wanted to wipe the new Muslim community from the face of the earth. This time prophet Muhammad (PBUH) decided to protect himself for the first time. During his life he participated in 23 wars and out of that his community was attacked 22 times!!
I could not find the caravan of abu lahab incident( If you supply the books or articles that mentioned this incident, I'll be grateful to you!) . However some caravan raids took place. These caravans raids was a response to actions by Meccan leaders to cease properties of Muslim in Mecca. After being persecuted by non-Muslim leaders of Mecca, they left the city peacefully to avoid any conflicts between families and tribes. However Meccans Kept attacking the Muslims of Medina. After that, they took over their properties and started severe persecution on Muslims who did not leave Mecca. So these raids were a measure to PREVENT future attacks and persecution of Muslims who wanted to live peacefully after being persecuted around TEN long years!!
For esxample, if you study the raid known as "Battle of Waddan", you will discover that, The aim was to intercept the caravans of the Quraysh and the Banu Damra. First time when they did not find any Quraysh (The people who were persecuting Muslims in Mecca!!) it was left alone. Then Banu Damra ( Tribe) caravan was attacked. However they ended up signing a treaty of non-aggression. Banu Damrah pledged to not attack Muslims or side with the Quraysh; and Muhammad pledged to not attack the caravans of Banu Damrah or seize their goods. [ Source: Mubarakpuri, The Sealed Nectar (Free Version), p. 127.]
If anyone analyze such actions, it would be clear these raids were designed to prevent attacks and persecution of Muslims in Medina and Mecca. Muslims under prophet Muhammad (PBUH) ONLY focused on those people who were attacking Muslims, stealing their properties in Mecca and persecuting Muslims. Therefore, describing this as ordinary looting would be VERY inaccurate to say the least.
Bottom line is Muslims never "Attacked" anyone to attain wealth or power during the time of prophet Muhammad (PBUH). I have studied several books to confirm that fact. ALL conflicts during his time were aimed to defend the newly form Muslim community. Meccans wanted to wipe them out, so they were forced to defend themselves. I'll share some references, if anyone want to verify
Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources [Paperback]
Martin Lings (Author)
Islam: A Short History (Modern Library Chronicles)-----Karen Armstrong
Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum (The Sealed Nectar)
These myths were "Cooked" by orientalists and Christian missionaries against all eastern religions. Very inaccurate ( I am being polite here!) description of Hinduism (Sanatana dharma) was also hatched. That was one of the main reason for Swami Vivekananda's visit to Chicago. Swamiji (As some of you may know) ended up staying in the US for few years and successfully answered to ignorant hate-speech against his faith.
If you are interested to know more about prophet Abraham (PBUH), you may want to pick up the following book. Which covers Judaism, Islam and Christian point of view on this noble man.
Abraham: The Friend of God [Paperback]
Jerald F. Dirks
The Abrahamic Faiths: Judaism, Christianity, And Islam Similarities & Contrasts [Paperback]
Jerald F. Dirks
If you have any questions regarding this topic, feel free to ask me.
Peace!!
-----Original Message-----
From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sat, Oct 1, 2011 4:53 am
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Re: Is Religion a Crazy-Glue?No It is the basis of life and morals
Hannan is an incorrigible fool. Spanish looted South America in the name of Christianity, Arabs did the same in the name of Islam to the Persians and Egyptians. What were the roles of Sultan Mahmud, Muhammad Ghori, Alauddin Khilji, Nadir Shah, Muhammad shah Abdalli etc. in India. Even the Sufi saints colluded with them! What does the Sura Anfal all about? Is it not how to share the loot from the opponent. Was it not revealed after the caravan of Abu Lahab, uncle and former brother in law of the prophet, was looted. If religions in general upheld the moral values, states all over the world would not be guided by the Roman laws mostly made by Augustus.
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 1:59 PM, S A Hannan <sahannan@sonarbangladesh.com> wrote:
[Attachment(s) from S A Hannan included below]Religion is the basis of life, it generates values and make people moral. Secularism fails to do that. Secularism creates selfish and consumerist people. Atheism has never been basis of any civilization. Abuse of religion is an aberration and not the norm, it can be controlled.Islam in particular and all religions in general uphold moral values. Their leaders have explained the so-called misconceptions or contradictions.Please read the attached article.Shah Abdul HannanFrom: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com [mailto:mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jiten Roy
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 7:58 AM
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [mukto-mona] Re: Is Religion a Crazy-Glue?There are many people who believe religion creates a bond between co-religionists. Is this just another 'faith,' which has no basis, much like religion itself?Even though we provide examples after examples indicating contraindications, yet they will find some excuses to keep their faith alive. You have heard many times the same argument – Oh, they are just a few misguided ones. My question is - why do religions create such misguided people, in the first place? There must be something that is misguiding people. Instead of fixing the source of the misconception, often people support the source of the problem saying that – they are just a few, and it's not a problem. So, the misconception remains alive forever. This is a universal problem with all religions. I am not trying to isolate any particular religion here.The universal truth about all religions is that – they are full of contradictions and misconceptions, which will always misguide people. The bottom line is – all religious people are suffering from eternal confusion, and the psyche of a religious person is entrapped in a cocoon. It is hard to get out of it. Religion is really a crazy-Glue?Jiten Roy
--- On Wed, 9/28/11, S A Hannan <sahannan@sonarbangladesh.com> wrote:
From: S A Hannan <sahannan@sonarbangladesh.com>
Subject: RE: [mukto-mona] Re: The sprit of Bangalee nationalism?
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, September 28, 2011, 4:01 AMThis is not fairy are diluting the substance of the argument by some erratic actions of a section.Shah Abdul Hannan.
From: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com [mailto: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Jiten Roy
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 8:33 AM
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [mukto-mona] Re: The sprit of Bangalee nationalism?
--- On Tue, 9/27/11, S A Hannan <sahannan@sonarbangladesh.com> wrote:
From: S A Hannan <sahannan@sonarbangladesh.com>
Subject: RE: [mukto-mona] Re: The sprit of Bangalee nationalism?
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, September 27, 2011, 7:48 PMMr Shubimol Chakrabarty, yes, religion is the strongest bond of nationhood compared to other bonds .Mr Jinnah said that Muslim majority areas should form independent state and Hindu majority areas of subcontinent should form another state and in both states minorities would remain there with all human rights.Shah Abdul Hannan
From: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com [mailto: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of subimal chakrabarty
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 7:17 AM
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Re: The sprit of Bangalee nationalism?Pretty funny! What kind of statement is this?What about the bondage between Muslims and Hindus of Bangladesh? Is it "thin"? Do they belong to "Bangladeshi jati"?Do Hindus of West Bengal and Muslims of West Bengal belong to "Indian jati"? Is it "thin" or "thick"?I think the purpose of Mr. Hannan's statement is to fish in the troubled waters. He is thinking more in terms of religious divide. This reminds me of Jinnah's Two-Nation Theory. Mr. Hannan seems to be talking in the same line. According to Jinnah all the Indian Hindus constituted one nation and all the Indian Muslims constituted another nation. He forgot about other religious groups.Pretty funny!Mr. Hannan should recognize that religion is only one element (it may even be absent) in the structure of a nation. Hindu majority India and Hindu majority Nepal did not form one nation. All the Christian dominated countries in Europe did not form one nation.From: S A Hannan <sahannan@sonarbangladesh.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 10:46 AM
Subject: RE: [mukto-mona] Re: The sprit of Bangalee nationalism?There is no Bangalee Jati as there is no Gujrati jati or Bihari jati or punjabi Jati Bond of unity of bangla speaking Muslims of Bangladesh and Banglaspeaking Hindus of West bengal is very thin.They belong to Bangladeshi jati or Indian jati respectively. For becoming jati you require much stronger bond.Shah Abdul hannan
From: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com [mailto:mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jiten Roy
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 7:58 AM
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [mukto-mona] Re: Is Religion a Crazy-Glue?
__._,_.___
****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration:
Call For Articles:
http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68
http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585
****************************************************
VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/
****************************************************
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
-Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190
Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___