The Awakening Sunni Giant (Recomended)

[muse]

Thanks for pointing out this out.
OK. in feb 1982,
(a) Assad the Sr. butcher killed few hundred MB militants.
However at the same time
(b) Assad the Sr. butcher killed 10,000 to 20,000 Syrian civilians .
I was talking about (b) as a huge massacre.
However if you want to limit the discussion on (a) only, we can do that too.
peace

I regret that you wish to take it that way - I would encourage you to avoid such a course.

 

[FaujHistorian]

I quoted a relatively neutral conflict so as not to make it into a anti muslim tirade

But tell me What was the nature of raids that Muhammad organized on Meccan carvans or the harassment of Tribes until they submitted to his authority, if it was not spreading religion by force.

And no the excuse of defensive warfare would not cut as he was left in peace barring some jibes and harrasment which anyone claiming to be a prophet would have to undergo until he developed political ambitions.

You my dear are well read.

I admire such people.


However I must say that if you go into the history, try to see the triggers for a given event.



And wiki pages are not always your friend on that. they may describe an event, in this case, the raids on the Makkan caravans.

But the wiki will not fully describe or explain what events occurred before such raids.


So let me help you how to question wiki info.


For the event of "raids on Makkah Carvans"


Q1. Was anyone forcibly converted to Islam during these raids.

Q2. What did Makkans do to the residents (mostly Muslims) of Medina before such raids

Q3. What did Makkans do the Muslim residents (a minority group) of Makkah.


And perhaps more questions.


And if you my dear fail to ask critical questions, then you will be looking at things as a 3rd grader child, who thinks a government published history book is as sacred as Gita or Quran.


Hope you understand.


Thank you

 

[FaujHistorian]

Thanks for pointing out this out.

OK. in feb 1982,

(a) Assad the Sr. butcher killed few hundred MB militants.

However at the same time

(b) Assad the Sr. butcher killed 10,000 to 20,000 Syrian civilians .
I was talking about (b) as a huge massacre.

However if you want to limit the discussion on (a) only, we can do that too.
peace

I regret that you wish to take it that way - I would encourage you to avoid such a course.

I have quoted by post.

Please explain.


Was (a) incorrect?

or (b) wrong?

or there is a (c) that I missed?


I can't figure out what I quoted wrong and what to avoid?


peace

 

[ranjeet]

Arabic Goliath versus Persian David with a tinge of religious seasoning !!!

 

[FaujHistorian]

Arabic Goliath versus Persian David with a tinge of religious seasoning !!!

Nah bro!

Look at the numbers

80 million Iranians vs. 20 million Saudis (+few mil of UAE) hardly makes Arabs ad Goliath and Iran as David.



there is no David or Goliath. Just mortal enemies facing each other.

 

[Sam1980]

It is very easy to manipulate Muslims!

 

[Developereo]

But tell me What was the nature of raids that Muhammad organized on Meccan carvans or the harassment of Tribes until they submitted to his authority, if it was not spreading religion by force.

You have to remember that Muhammad (pbuh) was also the leader of his tribe, and his duties included safeguarding and promoting the economic interests of his tribe, quite apart from any secular considerations.

These conquests were not about spreading religion; they were purely tribal back and forths.

 

[ranjeet]

I don't care bro how many Saudis or Iranians are at each other's throat ... but here in subcontinent we have enough flag bearer's Ummah who would take sides on sectarian difference on a purely ethnic issue.

 

[MooshMoosh]

www.arabiranforumfight.com

 

[Developereo]

It is totally unfair that you ignore bur-rooh-ullah Khomenis' huge @rse crimes

and start blaming historians who simply point out what happened.

Nowhere am I excusing the behavior of the ayatollahs or the mullahs.
In fact, my whole point throughout has been to blame these opportunists on either side.

Today if I write history of WW2. it will be $tupid for anyone to blame me for Hitler's rise, or jewish holocaust.

If a bunch of Jews and Germans were at each others' throat as revenge for WW2, and you came along and justified their actions, then it would be wrong.

Most Jews and Germans have moved on from WW2 -- and that was only 70 years ago.

To keep bringing up 1000 year old events, when we should instead be focusing on commonalities rather than differences, is counter productive. It's all about setting the narrative and shaping public opinion for tolerance and mutual respect, not dredging up ancient grudges.

 

[anonymus]

Q2. What did Makkans do to the residents (mostly Muslims) of Medina before such raids

Q3. What did Makkans do the Muslim residents (a minority group) of Makkah.

I knew about the event when Muslims were forced to leave mecca in face of constant harassment. My point was completely different.

Q1. Was anyone forcibly converted to Islam during these raids.

Depend on your definition of force.

Persian conversion to Islam would be an important example of role force plays in advancement of a religion.

Persians did not converted to Islam because Arabs started putting them to sword but because Zorasters were reduced in social standing by Arabs. Non muslims could not ride a horse with saddle, had to pay zaziya, had to prostrate before muslims while doing so.Since Persian population was highly Urban,it was converted swiftly .Same could be seen within Indian subcontinent also. Except areas where muslims had an unbroken rule, mainly today's Pakistan and Bangladesh, muslims were concentrated in Urban pockets.


The whole point is that harassment and disbarring someone from privileges is as much a use of force as threatening someone with sword or guns.


The whole point was that even Islam established itself like any other religion, by force whether it was harassment in the beginning or outright threats later on.

 

[BlueWarrior]

I doubt Saudi Arabia will do anything to Hezbollat because of Iran who controls them, I think because they fear Iran's influence in the region for three obvious reason. They saw how Iran stood up strong for eight years during the war between 1980 to 88, Saudi Arabia failed to handle the situation alone during the Kuwait invasion and hundreds were killed against the rebels in Yemen. The Saudi's or the GCC doesn't have any experience in modern warfares and the equipments they own are for shows. I wouldn't advice them to confront Iran alone unless if they can form a coalition force.

What they meant by serious measure is arming the opposition groups to quickly weaken the regime's force and Hezbollat. So, it's just a minor news.

 

[twilight]

and what is gaol of this Giant ...... I find out that you Wahhabi never ask this question from yourselves and always ignore this ...

what is the goal/subject !?

 

[TheThreePashas]

I doubt Saudi Arabia will do anything to Hezbollat because of Iran who controls them, I think because they fear Iran's influence in the region for three obvious reason. They saw how Iran stood up strong for eight years during the war between 1980 to 88, Saudi Arabia failed to handle the situation alone during the Kuwait invasion and hundreds were killed against the rebels in Yemen. The Saudi's or the GCC doesn't have any experience in modern warfares and the equipments they own are for shows. I wouldn't advice them to confront Iran alone unless if they can form a coalition force.

What they meant by serious measure is arming the opposition groups to quickly weaken the regime's force and Hezbollat. So, it's just a minor news.

A lot has changed since the days of the Iran-Iraq war or the Gulf War. I think the Gulf War really shook the Saudis and caused them to take their defense more seriously

 

[iranigirl2]

A lot has changed since the days of the Iran-Iraq war or the Gulf War. I think the Gulf War really shook the Saudis and caused them to take their defense more seriously

We shall see!