Talk:Persecution of Muslims by Meccans/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled 2

This article has no objective sources. All are propagandist muslim accounts.

Shouldn't this be revised or something? I'm not a Qu'ran specialist but it seems that even the few sources this article has have turned into 404's 31.151.99.220 (talk) 10:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

We should include non-Muslim sources as well. The sources of this article are of course propagandist and non-academic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.137.39.36 (talk) 00:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

This article seems to rely on modern sources. This seems unnecessary when early sources such as Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Saad are so readily available. Some of the problems with the article as it is currently written are:

1. The first "assault" of 613-614 was not really an act of "persecution",as Ibn Ishaq makes it clear that it was a Muslim (Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas) who struck the first blow. It was certainly a "conflict" but not really relevant to the subject of this article.
2. Ibn Ishaq gives many interesting details of how the non-slave classes were persecuted, harassed or discriminated against. These should be included.
3. Yasir ibn Amir, the husband of Sumayya and father of Ammar, was tortured, but the records of his torture do not assert that he was killed. It is therefore practically certain that he died naturally.
4. In fact, despite the confident statement that, "Some were killed," there is only one known death. Sumayya was murdered by Abu Jahl. There is no record that any other Muslim died violently before the Battle of Badr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grace has Victory (talk • contribs) 08:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
5. Umm Ubays and Zinnira are sometimes said to be the same person, though not by Ibn Ishaq, who actually lists five female slaves ransomed by Abu Bakr.
6. The assassination attempt on Muhammad was after the Second Aqaba, so it was more in the light of "revenge", "judicial punishment" or "pre-emptive strike" than a "persecution". It certainly belongs in the history of early Islam, but probably not on this page.
7. The grammar is horrible.

I can't help with non-Muslim sources. In fact, I doubt that there are any. Non-Muslims had little interest in early Muslims of the lower classes. But the pro-Muslim sources do not give an entirely pro-Muslim picture, so they are a good beginning.Grace has Victory (talk) 08:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

This is not Breitbart or Fox news. PhD William Montgomery Watt is a world renown historian on Islam. And this article is sourced very well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.60.38 (talk) 00:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Untitled

This article is a joke. In Mecca there was religious tolerance before Mohammed. Then Mohammed started to insult and offend other gods and religions and was he the one who caused troubles.

Here are the proofs:

When the apostle openly displayed Islam as Allah ordered him, his people did not withdraw or turn against him, so far as I have heard, until he spoke disparagingly of their gods. When he did that, they took great offence and resolved unanimously to treat him as an enemy. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 167)

"[Muhammad] declared Islam publicly to his fellow tribesmen. When he did so, they did not withdraw from him or reject him in any way, as far as I have heard, until he spoke of their gods and denounced them." (al-Tabari Vol.VI, p.93)

[The Meccans] said they had never known anything like the trouble they had endured from this fellow. He had declared their mode of life foolish, insulted their forefathers, reviled their religion, divided the community and cursed their gods (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 183).

The Meccans even tried to pay Mohammed to make him stop his threatens to other religions and he initially accepted:

They decided to send for Muhammad and to negotiate and argue with him... When he came and sat down with them, they explained that that they had sent for him in order that they could talk together. No Arab had ever treated his tribe as Muhammad had treated them, and they repeated the charges... If it was money he wanted, they would make him the richest of them all; if it was honor, he should be their prince; if it was sovereignty, they would make him king. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 188)

But then again he started to attack. So the "persecution" is just ridiculous. The Meccans were just responding to the attacks of the muslims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neceseco (talk • contribs) 10:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Stay off the anti-Islam websites, this is a site for facts, as backed up by actual Islamic historians like PhD William Montgomery Watt, and no as someone who has a Masters in Islamic and Middle Eastern history, the pagans of Mecca were some of the least tolerant, killing women for being born a women, persecuting Muslims, engaging in really brutal human sacrifices.