Exit Geert; enter Ehsan.

[varian]

The counter offensive continues.

Ehsan Jami’s Deflower Power?
March 27th, 2008 by Andrew Bostom

His new animated film reportedly shows the Muslim prophet, accompanied by his child bride Aisha, on the way to a mosque to “deflower” her. Wilders’ film (and the reaction to it) may be humdrum, in comparison!

As the world awaits the release of Geert Wilder’s much anticipated film, “Fitna,” we learn that ex-Muslim Ehsan Jami’s animated feature entitled, “The Life of Mohammed,” will also be released within weeks. Jami (b. 1985) is an Iranian émigré to the Netherlands, and member of the city council of Leidschendam-Voorburg, belonging to the Dutch Labour Party. He was one of two founders of the Central Committee for Ex-Muslims in 2007, is a routine recipient of death threats, and at one point, beatings.

Today from Expatica (Netherlands) we learn that Jami’s animated film on Islam, which “..is bound to come up against opposition. The Contact body for Muslims and the Government has already announced it will take legal steps against the film,” is nevertheless slated to be released April 20th.

An acute decapitation prevention alert may be in order for Mr. Jami, if and when his film is shown, based upon these pre-release details:

“Netwerk [a current affairs program] showed a drawing from the film, which is entitled The Life of Mohammed. The drawing shows the prophet Mohammed in the company of his 9-year-old wife Aisha. The prophet is on his way to a mosque to deflower his bride.”

http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2008/03/27/ehsan-jahmi%e2%80%99s-deflower-power/

[andak01]

I'm sorry, but Varian, this makes you happy?

[varian]

What this shows is that Islam has been in denial of their history for centuries. It may be perfectly ok for Islam to constantly offend the sensitivities of many around the world on a daily basis, but woe unto the world if they fire back. What you have blamed whites for in the Americas is similar to what Islam aspires to for the whole world. I know, I know, you only hang around and know of peaceful Muslims. Well good for you.

You constantly make snide remarks about all other religions, but eternal woe unto anyone who would dare offer a counter to your positions or anything taught in the myriad mythological tales of Islam. In comparison to many other religious figures and 'prophets', Muhammad offers a dismal comparison. If he is the greatest person who has ever graced the human plane on this Earth for you, them so be it. If the Jews and Judaism can't be "chosen", then it is blatantly obvious that Islam and Muslims aren't either, therefore for many of us Islam is just another man-made, flawed religion. Nothing more, nothing less!!! This production will show Muhammad in an unflattering way, because Muhammad personally performed many unflattering acts. Humans do that.

[andak01]

After you've finished watching Fitna for the fifth time, watch this speech and think about it's meaning and ask yourself which makes you a better human.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=uPxJ5NdELyo

[andak01]

What this shows is that Islam has been in denial of their history for centuries. It may be perfectly ok for Islam to constantly offend the sensitivities of many around the world on a daily basis, but woe unto the world if they fire back. What you have blamed whites for in the Americas is similar to what Islam aspires to for the whole world.

I'm sorry? What I have blamed whites for (my ancestors)? Do you deny that there was slavery in America? Do you deny that there was Jim Crow? Do you deny that there was genocide of the Indians? I'm not blaming my ancestors, just stating well known facts. In the context of those facts is the world history of Islam, also bloody, also imperial, also at times oppressive. Islam doesn't aspire to anything, it is a religion with many different interpretations. Islam is not a monolith. It cannot be summed up in a fifteen minute short.

I know, I know, you only hang around and know of peaceful Muslims. Well good for you.

It goes a lot deeper than that. I only defend peaceful Muslims. Muslims that commit acts of violence against civilians I repeatedly condemn and go so far as to celebrate when they are imprisoned or killed. The killers of Daniel Pearl or the Bali bombers or the many so-called number two or number three Al-Qaida operatives, I have no words of praise or defense for them. They should get what's coming to them at the end of a noose or a bomb. I accept the existence of Israel. If someone wants to kill me for doing so, I'll accept such a death. I'm not a cheerleader for everything that Israel does, but they have as much right to exist as any other state.

You constantly make snide remarks about all other religions, but eternal woe unto anyone who would dare offer a counter to your positions or anything taught in the myriad mythological tales of Islam.

Snide remarks? That's my freedom of speech. Perhaps I should go on youtube and produce a video about how bad Christianity or Judaism is and sit back and wait for the applause. On second thought, I've got more constructive things to do with my time. And the same people that defended Wilder's freedom of speech are unlikely to feel the same when their own values are at stake.

If the Jews and Judaism can't be "chosen", then it is blatantly obvious that Islam and Muslims aren't either, therefore for many of us Islam is just another man-made, flawed religion. Nothing more, nothing less!!! This production will show Muhammad in an unflattering way, because Muhammad personally performed many unflattering acts. Humans do that.

Well there's one thing we agree upon. Muhammad was human. He wasn't God and never claimed to be.

[KettleWhistle]

Well, he spoke much, but really said nothing. The thing is, in much of the Western world such things really don't need to be said. After all the hoopla about fitna movie, I expected it to be at least somewhat generally offensive and inciting. I didn't find it to be this way. IMO, Muslims with some commonsense ought to reflect on it and take it as a fair criticism.

[andak01]

If you are suggesting that some Muslims don't have common sense, that's a fair criticism and one that every Muslim should ponder.

[varian]

I don't need a god for these truths to be evident. To me these truths are self evident in creation. A faith in a god should only take me to a higher level in applying these truths. Faith in a man may or may not modify how this is applied in one's life, but the basics are ingrained for me. The 'bully' has always been the antagonist to these truths. The 'bully' needs to be defended against, and sometimes requires a high personal price. Just as you say that you have never experienced the Islam presented on this forum, I have never experienced the type of xtianity that many have spoken about on this forum. When I search, I find that much said about the history of the movement was true sometime in the past, but this bigotry has never been part of my personal experience. I have never seen xtianity as being grounded in persecution and murder, but then I have never been to Europe either. Some statements are so foul that they don't need a context to explain them. That is what I believe that Fitna questions. Foul deeds and foul statements.

[andak01]

I've already brought forth some pretty foul sounding statements from the Bible and it was always mentioned that I require context. Why is it the Bible and the Torah require context and the Quran does not?

[KettleWhistle]

If you are suggesting that some Muslims don't have common sense, that's a fair criticism and one that every Muslim should ponder.
I was thinking more along the lines of why Geert Wilders needs protection from people trying to kill him, and someone like this guy (http://youtube.com/watch?v=whgv-4t-Q5k&feature=related) doesn't.

[varian]

Those statements aren't being used to justify murder today in some god's name. Perhaps because some already understand more fully the context of what is being presented, the basis for them being used doesn't apply. Some believe that Jesus was a fictional character, but be that as it may, a sword was part of his 'ministry' on only one occasion. One was hurt, but no one was ever killed. According to some he was also bisexual because some verses spoke about the young disciple that he 'loved.' Some say he was a drunkard because he drank wine at someone else's home. Others say that he was a womanizer that associated with prostitutes and other women of questionable character. And of course like so many recognized prophets in Jewish writings, he castigated the Jewish leadership including the priests and high council (find some of the posts about Olmert). Even if all of these incidents were true or taken out of context they would never rise to the level of war, murder, child abuse or even sedition against Rome. Overall his ministry was fairly altruistic when it came to the common people. A lunatic, false prophet or false messiah? Perhaps!!! But a war monger, never.

[farmall]

I find the test to be simple:

Expose the nonsense in every religion (or any other political ideology), then sort by how many members of each come to kill you for doing it.

The books of superstition don't matter, the believers do.

[andak01]

Some believe that Jesus was a fictional character, but be that as it may, a sword was part of his 'ministry' on only one occasion. One was hurt, but no one was ever killed.

And neither Jesus nor his apostles were attacked up until his arrest. He was totally at the mercy of Ceasar. Had the Muslims stayed in Mecca there would have been no Muslims.

According to some he was also bisexual because some verses spoke about the young disciple that he 'loved.' Some say he was a drunkard because he drank wine at someone else's home. Others say that he was a womanizer that associated with prostitutes and other women of questionable character. And of course like so many recognized prophets in Jewish writings, he castigated the Jewish leadership including the priests and high council (find some of the posts about Olmert). Even if all of these incidents were true or taken out of context they would never rise to the level of war, murder, child abuse or even sedition against Rome. Overall his ministry was fairly altruistic when it came to the common people. A lunatic, false prophet or false messiah? Perhaps!!! But a war monger, never.

It all depends on what you think of someone's enemies as to whether you consider them war mongers. Was Roosevelt a war monger? Churchill? Was King David a war monger? Moses (SAW)?

[andak01]

I find the test to be simple:

Expose the nonsense in every religion (or any other political ideology), then sort by how many members of each come to kill you for doing it.

The books of superstition don't matter, the believers do.

I suppose we can count you among the Jews that would kill us for the crime of being Muslim?

[Mediocrates]

The basic issue is not what inspires us to violence. Anything can inspire us to violence. Religion (or country or flag or sex or money or power) is inspirational. That's why people who want other people to commit atrocities use it so effectively. Were the southern secessionists more or differently religious than Yankees? Did Yankees find some kink in the NT that allowed them to abandon slavery (which by the way they did not albeit it was not very prevalent)?

I've been reading a long history about immigrant Jewish experience in NYC 1880-1930 particularly the history of labor unions, socialists and anarchists. The anarchists openly espoused violence against the system. They openly hated religion, BECAUSE who they viewed as Capitalists did not. But they were just as cynical and nihilist about their 'faith' as all the others. It's like the Marx Brother's Song "Whatever it is, I'm against it!"

[Groucho]
I don't know what they have to say,
It makes no difference anyway,
Whatever it is, I'm against it.
No matter what it is or who commenced it,
I'm against it.

Your proposition may be good,
But let's have one thing understood,
Whatever it is, I'm against it.
And even when you've changed it or condensed it,
I'm against it.

I'm opposed to it,
On general principle, I'm opposed to it.

[chorus] He's opposed to it.
In fact, indeed, that he's opposed to it!

[Groucho]
For months before my son was born,
I used to yell from night to morn,
Whatever it is, I'm against it.
And I've kept yelling since I first commenced it,
I'm against it!

No, in the end, religious figures who quote scripture to prod others to kill are either cynical politicians who actually believe little of what they say, or, they are deluded psychopaths who believe everything they say. That they use the Quran or the KJB or any other holy book they've managed to master and memorize is hardly the point. Take a look at Scientologists if you want to see mass gullibility and the capacity to fool and manipulate people. You could form a religion on the TV show "Lost" if you wanted to.

[Yala]

I suppose we can count you among the Jews that would kill us for the crime of being Muslim?

Farmall is Jewish???

[bararallu]

I elect Andak to inspect the Brit Milah :reb:

[Angry Lord]

I've already brought forth some pretty foul sounding statements from the Bible and it was always mentioned that I require context. Why is it the Bible and the Torah require context and the Quran does not?

There maybe some "pretty foul sounding" statements in Bible and Torah as you say but do christians or Jews of today use them to legitimize mass murder of people of other religion like Islam does?

When was the last time a christain,jews,<enter any other religion except islam> blew himself targetting muslims in the name of his/her religion?

Why is that muslims who kill non-muslims are called Ghazis, Shaheeds?

The aim of every muslim suicide bomber is to enter heaven by committing mass murder. If other peaceful muslims dont give him an Islamic burial then he will not enter heaven since a proper burial according to islam is necessary for a muslim to enter heaven.

This simple act will immediately act as deterent to other muslims from committing suicide bombings and show to the world that there are indeed peaceful muslims within Islam and every muslim does not support terrrorism.

[andak01]

There maybe some "pretty foul sounding" statements in Bible and Torah as you say but do christians or Jews of today use them to legitimize mass murder of people of other religion like Islam does?

They were used in exactly that way prior to secular governments. And if this forum is any indicator, they will be used that way again. Do a search on Amelek here and see how many threads there are comparing Palestinians and Muslims to Amelek. Michael Savage on national talk radio quotes from the Biblical prophecies to describe Israel's nuclear destruction of the ME. All those commentators lack is a theocracy to back them. They'd nuke Mecca and all that's in it.

When was the last time a christain,jews,<enter any other religion except islam> blew himself targetting muslims in the name of his/her religion?

Why is that the new definition of terrorism? That's only a method. IRA used to strap victims to bombs and make them drive a truck in to blow it up. Tamil Tigers use suicide bombers. The Kamikaze's of Japan blew themselves and their planes up. Suicide warfare has a long history. Suicide terrorism is simply a new combination. But the result is the same as if a death squad knocks on the door and kills a family or if a plane drops bombs from overhead without caring how many civilians are killed.

Why is that muslims who kill non-muslims are called Ghazis, Shaheeds?

Because they believe that they are being attacked, that Islam is being attacked and they are defending Islam. Getting them to stop is to stop the training process that convinces them of this. That isn't Islam, it's brainwashing. I've studied Islam and I don't want to kill innocent people. Quite the contrary. The process needs to be stopped at the training and recruitment level. And that's more likely to happen if Muslims reform madrassas than if madrassas are closed down. In the second case, the appearance that Islam is being attacked is an easier case to make. And Muslims are reforming the madrassas, perhaps not in Gaza, but in Morocco, in Pakistan, in Turkey, in Saudi Arabia. It's a slow process.

The aim of every muslim suicide bomber is to enter heaven by committing mass murder. If other peaceful muslims dont give him an Islamic burial then he will not enter heaven since a proper burial according to islam is necessary for a muslim to enter heaven.

That's an interesting point. I should investigate the fiqh concerning that. Recognize that the places that spawn terrorists are also losing civilian population at a fairly high rate, higher than those they are attacking. That makes it easier for the populous to side with the Shahids because again they are told by their mind benders that they are being attacked and ten the bombs come and "see I told you". THis is a very difficult war to fight. Killing the enemy doesn't necessarily lead to victory.

This simple act will immediately act as deterent to other muslims from committing suicide bombings and show to the world that there are indeed peaceful muslims within Islam and every muslim does not support terrrorism.

Muslims do a lot to show that. But I always see a set of predefined hoops we have to jump through. It used to be we need to march. We'll we marched and nobody recognized or remembered it. Then we need to make speeches. Well we made speeches and wrote books. Muslims took them to heart, but the West ignored them.

[Berti Pane]

Andak I dont know how can Turkey reform something that never existed in Turkey. The madrassas were officially closed 84 years ago,just after the foundation of the Republic.

[farmall]

"Farmall is Jewish???"

Farmall is an atheist, though he has a distant Polish Jew in the family tree (IIRC back in the 1800s, I don't care enough to track it down and the relatives who mentioned it are long dead).

Of course, that heredity might make me part of the International Jewish Conspiracy Hive Mind, in which case I want me some o' dat power and influence! :rofl:

[Mil]

Who cares what Muhammed did. The problem is not with Muhammed but with the many societies where Islam is practiced.

These are third world dictatorships, theocracies, and autocracies with medieval social values.

[Mediocrates]

India, Indonesia, the Philippines are not particularly backwards, relatively speaking. India is the largest democracy in the world for example.

[pagan]

And neither Jesus nor his apostles were attacked up until his arrest. He was totally at the mercy of Ceasar. Had the Muslims stayed in Mecca there would have been no Muslims.

Hold on..You cannot get away with such big lies..:tdown:

Notwithstanding, the truth is that Meccans did not drive the Muslims out of their homes. They emigrated on their own volition and because of Mohammad’s insistence. At first he ordered his followers to immigrate to Abyssinia and then when he found enough disciples in Medina, he sent them thither.

The truth is that despite the fact that Muhammad constantly insulted the religion of the Quraish and infuriated them with his abrasive behavior there is not a single incidence of physical violence or persecution against him or his followers recorded in Islamic annals.

Muslims today would not tolerate any criticism against their religion. They would kill at once any person who dares to question their belief. This is what the prophet taught them to do. But Arabs prior to Muhammad were more tolerant. They used to live with the Jews and Christians in harmony without any sign of religious animosity between them. Yet the ultimate test of tolerance came when Muhammad started to taunt their gods. Despite that kind of libeling the Quraish evinced incredible degree of tolerance and although being offended, never harmed Muhammad or any of his cohorts.

Compare this to the treatment of the Baha’is in Iran. Baha’is do not insult Muhammad or his Allah, they do not reject the Imams nor disagree with any part of Quran. All they say is that their messenger is the Promised One of the Muslims. This is nothing compared to Muhammad’s affronts of the beliefs of the people of Quraish. Nevertheless Muslims have not spared any act of atrocity against the Baha’is. They killed many of them, jailed them, tortured them, beat them, denied them of their human rights and treated them with utter inhumanity. None of that was done against Muhammad and his followers in Mecca even though he constantly accosted their gods with showers of taunts and would imprecate their sacred beliefs as if daring them to persecute.

When the Meccans had enough of it and could no more stand Muhammad’s mocking of their deities, a body of their elders repaired to Abu Talib, the uncle of the Prophet and complained: - “This Nephew of thine hath spoken opprobriously of our gods and our religion: and hath abused us as fools, and given out that our forefathers were all astray. Now, avenge us thyself of our adversary; or, (seeing that thou art in the same case with ourselves,) leave him to its that we may take our satisfaction.” Abu Talib spoke to them softly and assured them he would counsel his nephew to be more deferential. But Muhammad would not change his proceedings. So they went again to Abu Talib in great vexation; and warned him that if he would not restrain his nephew from his offensive conduct, they would have to restrain him themselves. They added thus: - “and now verily we cannot have patience any longer with his abuse of us, our ancestors, and our gods. Wherefore either do thou hold him back from us, or thyself take part with him that the matter may be decided between us.”

This is all that is recorded about the persecution of the Muslims in Mecca. The above is a warning but falls short of issuing a threat. In fact until Abu Talib was alive and even after his death until Muhammad stayed in Mecca no harm was inflicted upon him and nor any of his followers suffered persecution.

The only physical violence reported against a Muslim is the beating of Omar of his own sister who had embraced Islam, which led to his own acceptance. This however cannot be called a real religious persecution but a family violence as Omar was an irritable man with an unpredictable temper who would lose his composure easily and resort to violence. Yet even this hadith may not be true because in another Hadith narrated by Omar himself he describes his story of conversion to Islam differently.

So the question arises, if there were no persecution against the Muslims, who forced them out of their homes? We know that many of them abandoned Mecca and emigrated first to Abyssinia and then to Medina. Why would they leave their homes if they were not in danger?

The answer to this question can be found with Muhammad and what was going in his mind. It was he who asked them to leave. In fact he ordered them to leave making it a mandate from Allah. The Following verses clarify this perfectly.

“Lo! those who believed and left their homes and strove with their wealth and their lives for the cause of Allah, and those who took them in and helped them: these are protecting friends one of another. And those who believed but did not leave their homes, ye have no duty to protect them till they leave their homes; but if they seek help from you in the matter of religion then it is your duty to help (them) except against a folk between whom and you there is a treaty. Allah is Seer of what ye do.”(Q.8: 72)

These are very harsh words against his own followers who did not leave Mecca and stayed behind. In other part he presses further this point.

They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them, (Q.4: 89)

In the above verse Muhammad is ordering the believers of Mecca to forsake their homes and go to Medina. He goes as far as to instruct other Muslims to kill them if they decide to return home, which is consistent with the cultic nature of Islam. So as we can witness the exodus of the Muslims from Mecca was not due to any persecution by the idolaters. There was no such a persecution even though Muhammad exasperated the Quraish to their limit of forbearance with his triad of insults. The new converts left Mecca because Muhammad asked them to. His pressure tactics was so intense that he even told them that they would go to hell if they stayed behind and did not emigrate.

Lo! as for those whom the angels take (in death) while they wrong themselves, (the angels) will ask: In what were ye engaged? They will say: We were oppressed in the land. (The angels) will say: Was not Allah's earth spacious that ye could have migrated therein? As for such, their habitation will be hell, an evil journey's end;(Q.4: 97)




Muhammad had plans to conquer the Arabia and subdue Persia,
The inevitable question is however: “why?” Why would the Prophet force his followers to emigrate when they were not being persecuted in their own town? Why would he coerce them to leave their own homeland? This tactic was so unorthodox that even western historians and scholars of Islam like Sprenger and Sir William Muir have failed to see the plot that Muhammad was brewing in his mind from the very early days that he realized there are a few people who actually believed him to be the messenger of God.

Muir, in The Life of Mohammad, quotes Hishami:

The Coreish, hearing that Abu Talib lay at the point of death, sent a deputation in order that some contact should be made to bind both parties, after his decease should have removed all restraint upon Mahomet. They proposed accordingly that they should retain their ancient faith, and that Mahomet should promise to refrain from abuse or interference; in which case they on their part would agree not to molest him in his faith. Abu Talib called Mahomet, and communicated to him the reasonable request. Mahomet replied -" Nay, but there is one word, which if ye concede, you will thereby conquer Arabia, and reduce Ajam under subjection." "Good!" said Abu Jahl, " not one such word, but ten." Mahomet replied,-" Then say,-There is no God but the Lord, and abandon that which ye worship beside him." And they clapped their hands in rage;-" Dost thou desire, indeed, that we should turn our gods into one God? That were a strange affair!" And they began to say one to another, "This fellow is obstinate and impracticable. Ye will not get from him any concession that ye desire. Return, and let us walk after the faith of our forefathers till God determine the matter betwixt us and him." So they arose and departed. Hishami, p.136.

From the above story we can establish several facts.

a) The Quraish were not persecuting the Muslims and the their leader but asking him to respect their beliefs.

b) Muhammad was adamant to continue his abrasive and opprobrious behavior towards the people of Mecca and their religion.

c) Muhammad was dreaming to conquer Arabia and “reduce Ajam under subjugation”.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/debates/montazeri2.htm

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

It all depends on what you think of someone's enemies as to whether you consider them war mongers. Was Roosevelt a war monger? Churchill? Was King David a war monger? Moses (SAW)?
was Muhammed a warmonger - YES

[andak01]

Notwithstanding, the truth is that Meccans did not drive the Muslims out of their homes. They emigrated on their own volition and because of Mohammad’s insistence. At first he ordered his followers to immigrate to Abyssinia and then when he found enough disciples in Medina, he sent them thither.

That's a nice fairytale and perhaps you've got some revisionist historian to back it up. But the Muslims that went to Abyssinia were chased all the way there and given refuge by the King. That's history.

The truth is that despite the fact that Muhammad constantly insulted the religion of the Quraish and infuriated them with his abrasive behavior there is not a single incidence of physical violence or persecution against him or his followers recorded in Islamic annals.

What a crock. The Surah The Spider is about him hiding in a cave from being killed and a spider mercifully wove its web over the opening so that he was safe. People still visit that cave to this day.

Muslims today would not tolerate any criticism against their religion. They would kill at once any person who dares to question their belief.

Out of 1.3 billion, yes unfortunately there are some. However, this hasn't always been the case and should never be.

This is what the prophet taught them to do.

He did not teach that every slight was punishable by death. A man once urinated inside a mosque and the Prophet simply told him not to do it again.

But Arabs prior to Muhammad were more tolerant. They used to live with the Jews and Christians in harmony without any sign of religious animosity between them. Yet the ultimate test of tolerance came when Muhammad started to taunt their gods. Despite that kind of libeling the Quraish evinced incredible degree of tolerance and although being offended, never harmed Muhammad or any of his cohorts.

What's your source for this.

Compare this to the treatment of the Baha’is in Iran. Baha’is do not insult Muhammad or his Allah, they do not reject the Imams nor disagree with any part of Quran. All they say is that their messenger is the Promised One of the Muslims.

As I understand, neither do they denigrate Muhammad like you do.

This is nothing compared to Muhammad’s affronts of the beliefs of the people of Quraish. Nevertheless Muslims have not spared any act of atrocity against the Baha’is. They killed many of them, jailed them, tortured them, beat them, denied them of their human rights and treated them with utter inhumanity. None of that was done against Muhammad and his followers in Mecca even though he constantly accosted their gods with showers of taunts and would imprecate their sacred beliefs as if daring them to persecute.

What's your source?

The only physical violence reported against a Muslim is the beating of Omar of his own sister who had embraced Islam, which led to his own acceptance. This however cannot be called a real religious persecution but a family violence as Omar was an irritable man with an unpredictable temper who would lose his composure easily and resort to violence. Yet even this hadith may not be true because in another Hadith narrated by Omar himself he describes his story of conversion to Islam differently.

You don't believe the various accounts that say Muslims were tortured and persecuted, which you actually pretend don't exist, but you do believe anything you can twist to mean they didn't. It's clear how scientific your inquiry is.

So the question arises, if there were no persecution against the Muslims, who forced them out of their homes?

No. THe question is, how do you ignore a multitude of evidence that Muslims were persecuted by the Meccans.

We know that many of them abandoned Mecca and emigrated first to Abyssinia and then to Medina. Why would they leave their homes if they were not in danger?

And we know that they were persecuted. The root form of hijrah translates, exodus. It is variously transliterated hegira, hegirah, hijra.

Hegira

The emigration (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/emigration) of Muhammad (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Muhammad) and his followers (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/follower) from Mecca (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Mecca) to Medina (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Medina) in A.D. 622 to escape persecution.http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Hegira


Ibn Ishaq stated in his 'Maghazi' that some men from the family of Ammar ibn Yassar narrated that Umm Ammar was punished by the family of al-Mughira because of her Islam. And she refused to leave Islam [and so she was punished ] until they killed her. The Prophet [sall'Allahu aleihi was salam] used to go to Ammar, his mother and his father when they were being punished at al-Abtah, during the month of Ramadhan in Mecca. He [sall'Allahu aleihi was salam] would say " Be patient oh family of Ammar- your appointed destination is Jannah."

Mujahid said "The first ones who showed their Islam in Mecca were seven: the Messenger of Allah [sall'Allahu aleihi was salam], Abu Bakr, Bilal, Khatab, Suhaib, Ammar, Sumayyah." As far as the Messenger of Allah [sall'Allahu aleihi was salam] and Abu Bakr then their people prevented them from being harmed. As for the others, they [the mushrikin] seized them, dressed them in a suit of armor and cooked them in the sun. Abu Jahl came to Sumayyah and stabbed her with a spear in her private parts. Abu Shaibah and the author Jarir and Mansur and Mujahid… stated it is mursal with an authentic chain.

Ibn Sa'd narrates with an authentic chain on the authority of Mujahid that the first shaheed in Islam was Sumayyah, the mother of Ammar ibn Yasir. And she was a small old woman. And Abu Jahl was killed on the day of Badr. The Messenger [sall'Allahu aleihi was salam] said to Ammar: "Allah has killed the one who has killed your mother."


http://www.webindia.com/compufield/islamic_world/sumayyah.htm

The Quraysh (of Mecca) intensified their persecutions against Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and his followers. Even influential men who now followed the Prophet were not spared. They were boycotted and several of them were restrained in their own homes. Many of the Muslims with little or no influence were tortured publicly and repeatedly. Finding this continuing situation difficult to bear for his followers, the Prophet allowed some of them to emigrate to Abyssinia in 615 CE. Their total number was about eighty, not counting the small children. They did not all go at the same time. Their flight was secretly planned and carried out unobtrusively in small groups. The emigrants were well received in Abyssinia, and were allowed complete freedom of worship.


The leaders of Quraysh, however, were none the less determined that they should not be left in peace, to establish there, beyond their control, a dangerous community which might be increased tenfold if other converts joined them. So they speedily thought out a plan, and made ready a quantity of presents of a kind that the Abyssinians were known to value most. Leatherwork they prized above all, so a large number of fine skins were collected, enough to make a rich bribe for every one of the Negus's generals. There were also rich gifts for the Negus himself. Then they carefully chose two men, one of whom was 'Amr ibn al-'As, of the clan of Sahm. Quraysh told them exactly what to do: they were to approach each of the generals separately, give him his present, and say:

<B>“Some foolish young men and women of our people have taken refuge in this kingdom. They have left their own religion, not for yours, but for one they have invented, one that is unknown to us and to yourselves. The nobles of their people have sent us to your king on their account, that he may send them home. So when we speak to him about them, counsel him to deliver them into our hands and have no words with them.”</B>... But the Negus was displeased and said:

“Nay, by God, they shall not be betrayed - a people that have sought my protection and made my country their abode and chosen me above all others! Give them up I will not, until I have summoned them and questioned them concerning what these men say of them. If it be as they have said, then will I deliver them unto them, that they may restore them to their own people. But if not, then will I be their good protector so long as they seek my protection."</B>http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/negus.html

In Islamic history and tradition, Ethiopia (Abyssinia or Al-Habasha) is known as the "Haven of the First Migration or Hijra." For Muslims, Ethiopia is synonymous with freedom from persecution and emancipation from fear.

Ethiopia was a land where its king, Negus or Al-Najashi, was a person renowned for justice and in whose land human rights were cherished.

http://www.selamta.net/ethiopian%20muslims%20history.htm

[bararallu]

Of course, that heredity might make me part of the International Jewish Conspiracy Hive Mind, in which case I want me some o' dat power and influence! :rofl:

Get in line buddy. The rest of us shnorers have been camping out on this line for a while now. :D

[bararallu]

India, Indonesia, the Philippines are not particularly backwards, relatively speaking. India is the largest democracy in the world for example.

Lets give Indonesia 20 years, or maybe even 10, and see if it continues to be a bastion of modernity. The Wahabis have been busy bees in the country, as they are in the Philippines. Both the latter, and India, should summarily execute any Saudi that sets foot on their soil.