Debunking Fitna -- Geert Wilders' Movie

[Lawrence of Arabia]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7d9_1206624103

8:60

Prepare for them whatever force and cavalry ye are able of gathering to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies, of Allah and your enemies.

He shows 8:60 alongside clips of the planes slamming into the World Trade Center.

Most critics of Islam that use the Qur'an to justify their bigotry and ignorance quote it out of context.


This part of the Qur'an is advising Muslims to keep a sizable force to fight off the Quraish in the case that they attack once again. The Muslims had won a victory at Badr, though they were not even well-equipped and
had made no preparation for the war. But they are told that they must in future keep themselves well prepared and avail themselves of all sources of strength, so that the enemy should by their very preparedness assume a peaceful attitude. It was evident that the weakness of the Muslims was a temptation for their opponents to attack them. Disbelievers is the word used throughout much of the Qur'an in regards to their enemies that followed a different faith. It does not refer to all non-Muslims everywhere.

In the verses previous to 8:60, it speaks about how their enemies frequently dishonored treaties whenever it suited them.

56 Those with whom thou maketh an agreement, then they break their agreement every time, and they keep not their duty.

57 So if thou overtake them in war, scatter by them those who are behind them, that they may be mindful.

58 And if thou fear treachery on the part of a people, throw back to them (their treaty) on terms of equality. Surely Allah loves not the treacherous.

59 And let not those who disbelieve think that they can outstrip (Us). Surely they cannot escape.

60 And make ready for them whatever force you can and horses tied at the frontier, to frighten thereby the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides them, whom you know not — Allah knows them. And whatever you spend in Allah’s way, it will be paid back to you fully and you will not be wronged.

8:60 does not permit terrorism in any way, shape, or form. It is truly disappointing that someone would even try to pass it off as a decree to kill disbelievers. Critics love to use Sura 8 and 9 as proof that the Qur'an advocates terrorism, violence, and intolerance; the problem is, however, they never care to read the context.

4:56

Those who have disbelieved our signs, we shall roast them in fire. Whenever their skins are cooked to a turn, we shall substitute new skins for them.

This verse clearly is referring to the damnation of hell. It is not saying Muslims themselves are going to roast people, as that word itself differs from the Qur'an translation I used (written long before Islamofascism became a common word). If one believes that, then they believe the verse that follows after it, and should pay heed to the verse before it.

55 So of them is he who believes
in him, and of them is he who turns
away from him. And Hell is
sufficient to burn.

56 Those who disbelieve in Our Messages, We shall make them enter Fire. As often as their skins are burned, We shall change them for other skins, that they may taste the chastisement. Surely Allah is ever Mighty, Wise.

57 And those who believe and do good deeds, We shall make them enter Gardens wherein flow rivers, to abide in them forever. For them therein are pure companions and We shall make them enter a pleasant shade

It is clear that it is talking about the basic "Those who do wrong will suffer in hell while those who do right will enter heaven"




Despicably, Wilders then shows the video of, who I assume to be, a Palestinian girl saying that the Qur'an tells us that Jews are apes and pigs.

Sura 7 -- al-Araf, verses 163-167 - This speaks of a story of a town on the Red Sea where Jews were fishing on the sabbath day, the only day in which fish were towards the top of the water. And onto them, Allah said "Be ye apes, despised and rejected." It is just not definite if the disobedient Jews were literally turned into apes, or whether they were to be despised and rejected like them.

There was also a story about the disciples asking, that if Allah did exist, he should bring down a table of food for them to eat. He warned them that if they were to eat the food from the table, and then go blaspheme, they would be punished. They did blaspheme and were turned into pigs.

This, by no means, is saying that all Jews are apes and pigs. It specifically is talking about the Jews in those two stories.

47:4

Therefore, when ye meet the unbelievers, smite at their necks and when ye have caused a bloodbath among them, bind a bond firmly upon them

The revelation of Sura 47 belongs to a period when war with the Quraish had not yet begun but when circumstances had arisen which showed war to be inevitable. Portions of the chapter may have been revealed during the Holy Prophet’s flight from Makkah, but, as a whole, it must be assigned to the first year of the Flight, and therefore it is to be placed before the battle of Badr.

4 So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, smite the necks; then, when you have overcome them, make (them) prisoners, and afterwards (set them free) as a favor or for ransom till the war lay down its burdens. That (shall be so). And if Allah please, He would certainly exact retribution from them, but that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will never allow their deeds to perish.

It's a bit amusing how Wilders (like most critics of the Qur'an) cherry-pick the contents of the verses to portray them in a light favorable to their (narrow) view. The truth is of little importance.

4:89

They but wish that ye reject faith as they do, and thus be on the same footing as they, so take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah. But if they turn renagades, seize them and kill them where ever ye find them and take no friends or helps from their ranks.

This is not saying to not be kind to those who are unbelievers. That would be a foolish thing to say. This sura is talking about the conflict with, again, the Quraysh. This verse is speaking about those who said they were Muslims, but then went back to fight on behalf of the the disbelievers (the Quraysh). They are the ones referred to with the word "hypocrite"

88 Why should you, then, be two parties in relation to the hypocrites while Allah has made them return (to disbelief ) for what they have earned? Do you desire to guide him whom Allah leaves in error? And whomsoever Allah leaves in error thou canst not find a way for him.

89 They long that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved so that you might be on the same level; so take not from among them friends until they flee (their homes) in Allah’s way. Then if they turn back (to hostility), seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take no friend nor helper from among them

90 Except those who join a people between whom and you there is an alliance, or who come to you, their hearts shrinking from fighting you or fighting their own people. And if Allah had pleased, He would have given them power over you, so that they would have fought you. So if they withdraw from you and fight you not and offer you peace, then Allah allow you no way against them.

91 You will find others who desire to be secure from you and secure from their own people. Whenever they are made to return to hostility, they are plunged into it. So if they withdraw not from you, nor offer you peace and restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them. And against these We have given you a clear authority.

Verse 90 elaborates upon verse 89, showing clearly that even waverers were not to be killed or fought against if they refrained from fighting, though they may have gone over to disbelief after accepting Islam. Most Islamic scholars agree that the persons referred to in this verse were disbelievers and not Muslims, and they are generally supposed to have been the Bani Mudlaj. Note also that we have here the clear injunction that if any people offered peace, they were not to be fought against.

8:39

Fight them until there is no dissension, and the religion is entirely Allah's

39 And fight with them until there is no more persecution, and all religions are for Allah. But if they desist, then surely Allah is Seer of what they do.

That is, if they desist from fighting and put an end to their mischief, Allah’s decree of punishment will not be executed. Allah sees what men do, and if they mend their ways, He will not punish them. The state of religious liberty which Islam aimed at is put tersely in the two opening statements — that there is no more persecution and all religions are for Allah.

This verse is not telling Muslims to fight all non-Muslims until they convert to Islam for the sake of Allah. This revelation told Muhammad and his followers to fight the Quraish until they no longer wished to fight.





Overall, this movie is just attempting to rabble-rouse the west to think that all Muslims want to do is convert us to Islam or die trying. They want us to think that Muslims can not be friends with Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, or atheists.

To these people, I think it is fitting what is said in 7:179 of the Qur'an.

And certainly We have created for hell many of the jinn and the men — they have hearts wherewith they understand not, and they have eyes wherewith they see not, and they have ears wherewith they hear not. They are as cattle; nay, they are more astray. These are the heedless ones.

I am not a Muslim. I am not even a theist. However, I will not allow their ignorance to become my ignorance.

[Serious Spamurai]

+ rep, Ya Mujahid al-Lisan. I would've done this, but I couldn't be bothered to watch more than 3 minutes of what I've already seen before along with clips of September 11, July 7, Madrid and some crap from al-Aqsa tv.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

The movie largely relies upon extreme videos to send a message across. It's just sensationalist , really. I guess Geert Wilders is too busy showing the video of beheadings and terrorist attacks to recognize that Muslims are overwhelmingly opposed to this behavior.

Then he tries to mix in cultural phenomena like honor killings as if they are part of Islam. The idiocy and hatred is, at times, overwhelming.

[Serious Spamurai]

Indeed, I could tell that's what it was going to do after the first 30 seconds. Old propaganda techniques, work on the ignorant, but transparent to everyone else.

[Exarch]

i just realized that lawrence of arabia was raped by turks..

[Lawrence of Arabia]

i just realized that lawrence of arabia was raped by turks..

I just realized you are trying to get an emotional response out of me whilst not even contributing to the discussion. Bravo, good troller, bravo!

Besides, I heard that it might have been made-up.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...14/nlawr14.xml

[jankren]

I heard Lawrence of Arabia was a homosexual.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

I heard Lawrence of Arabia was a homosexual.

I heard he sacrificed Turks to Baphomet, but even so...when did my avatar become so important for debate?

:hmmm:

EDIT:

In a letter to a homosexual man, Lawrence wrote that he did not find homosexuality morally wrong, yet he did find it distasteful. In the book T. E. Lawrence by His Friends, many of Lawrence's friends are adamant that he was not homosexual but simply had little interest in the topic of sex. Not one of them suspected him of homosexual inclinations. Like many men of the time, Lawrence had little pressure to pursue women. Unlike most men of his time, he also had little inclination. E.H.R. Altounyan, a close friend of Lawrence, wrote the following in T. E. Lawrence by His Friends:

"Women were to him persons, and as such to be appraised on their own merits. Preoccupation with sex is (except in the defective) due either to a sense of personal insufficiency and its resultant groping for fulfilment, or to a real sympathy with its biological purpose. Neither could hold much weight with him. He was justifiably self sufficient, and up to the time of his death no woman had convinced him of the necessity to secure his own succession. He was never married because he never happened to meet the right person; and nothing short of that would do[...]"

[Heinz Guderian]

wow. i had know idea of your talents of referenced analysis. I'm pretty impressed. rep+

[Wautd]

I havn't seen it yet but I get the feeling that Fitna is to Islam like Expelled is to science: a pile of steaming *censor* meant to provoke

[Cleisthenes]

There is some truth in the position that Islam was founded in violence. I will stick my neck out to say that much, knowing that the particular audience here will be having heart palpitations at the heresy and foaming about how "ignorant" I am because I read Ibn Ishaq, rather than listen to modern revisionism.

I am so heartily sick of discussing this subject, but...

This part of the Qur'an is advising Muslims to keep a sizable force to fight off the Quraish in the case that they attack once again. The Muslims had won a victory at Badr, though they were not even well-equipped and
had made no preparation for the war ... It was evident that the weakness of the Muslims was a temptation for their opponents to attack them.

What nonsense! Not prepared for war? The Battle of Badr was initiated by the Muslims. They were shadowing a caravan from Mecca to Syria with the intent of plundering it. That was something the Muslims often did to survive in that tiny oasis town of Yathrib: plunder the caravan routes from Mecca.

As for when verses were revealed, you as well as I know that the Koran was compiled in the time of Umar from the scattered memories of aging oral reciters and bits of writing. None of it is in chronological order. No ability to firmly link a verse to a time or event is possible. Rather, as in so many other post-modern debates, context is used to justify everything away--even a contrived context that really can't be known or presumed.

[Sher Khan]

There is some truth in the position that Islam was founded in violence. I will stick my neck out to say that much, knowing that the particular audience here will be having heart palpitations at the heresy and foaming about how "ignorant" I am because I read Ibn Ishaq, rather than listen to modern revisionism.

I am so heartily sick of discussing this subject, but...

Yeah? Well I read Fulcher of Chartre, and so I learned the First Crusade was victorious with help of God and the mystical powers of the Holy Lance.

Or, you could read Bernard Lewis and I Thomas Asbridge and not get swept up by our sources.

What nonsense! Not prepared for war? The Battle of Badr was initiated by the Muslims. They were shadowing a caravan from Mecca to Syria with the intent of plundering it. That was something the Muslims often did to survive in that tiny oasis town of Yathrib: plunder the caravan routes from Mecca.

As a professional raider, I can assure you that sending out small raiding parties is quite different from having a ready army to fight an actual battle.

As for when verses were revealed, you as well as I know that the Koran was compiled in the time of Umar from the scattered memories of aging oral reciters and bits of writing. None of it is in chronological order. No ability to firmly link a verse to a time or event is possible. Rather, as in so many other post-modern debates, context is used to justify everything away--even a contrived context that really can't be known or presumed.

And without this context, you couldn't even make an argument where so-and-so verse is evil.

The majority of the context clues are in the verses themselves, and don't rely on outside sourcing for backing.

[Cleisthenes]

Yeah? Well I read Fulcher of Chartre, and so I learned the First Crusade was victorious with help of God and the mystical powers of the Holy Lance.

Or, you could read Bernard Lewis and I Thomas Asbridge and not get swept up by our sources.

I've read Bernard Lewis. He is a carefully measured voice, well-calibrated to be popular in the modern age with its tastes for non-confrontational treatment of very delicate issues, but he pales beside Donner in scholarship. Yet a man who reads modern secondary sources alone, and urges others to follow him in this folly, lacks a true desire for understanding, content merely to swallow with shut eyes and open mouth what is more modern political convenience than true ancient history, like a fledging intellect feeding upon regurgitations from a mother bird. The real history is in the primary sources.

And how is Ibn Ishaq, the earliest Muslim biographer of the Prophet, writing a book nearly as revered as the Koran and ahadith, to be overcome? He was a Muslim writing for the benefit of the Caliph of Baghdad, so he generally to be assume pro-Muslim in his approach.

There's no need for revisionism concerning the passage regarding Asma bint Marwan, for example. It's pretty clear that Mohammed ordered the poetess killed after she wrote a poem insulting him. The only way to get past that conclusion is to assume that Ibn Ishaq was somehow an anti-Muslim conspiracist who just happened to be a Muslim serving in the court of a Muslim Caliph, and whose work was popular with other Muslims for centuries.

Hmm... yeah.

As a professional raider, I can assure you that sending out small raiding parties is quite different from having a ready army to fight an actual battle.

If you can't stand the heat... The Muslims knew that their raids would eventually attract the armed attention of Mecca. I'm just pointing out that the first post by Lawrence casts the Muslims as choirboys on the defensive. From the Flight to the Battle of Badr, there is a two year lull.

And without this context, you couldn't even make an argument where so-and-so verse is evil.

I wouldn't characterize anything as evil, not even that bugbear of modern times, Hitler. We all operate on very human impulses to which any of us could succumb in a weak moment. Homines sumus; humani nihil nobis alienum est to paraphrase Terence. However, some of us are more war-like and brutal by nature and breeding, and some aren't.

Mohammed was war-like and brutal. Umar and Abu Bakr were war-like and brutal. That's true on the face of it, because the Early Islamic Conquests can't be ignored. Read Donner's exhaustive tome on these.

The majority of the context clues are in the verses themselves, and don't rely on outside sourcing for backing.

Just guesses. Some verses sound earlier, because they are less war-like, and sound more like a peaceful demagogue in a marketplace than a hunted outlaw in a small oasis refuge; others, which speak graphically of Jews, could be from the period when Mohammed was assaulting the jewish enclave of Khaybar--but in all of this there is no chronology, only supposition.

Claims to needing context therefore are misguided, when no clear context was thought to be particularly needed at compilation time in the reign of Umar, long after the events, and mid-way through the conquest of the Middle-East and the Al-Maghreb.

But look, I fought this wholebrawl out, the esteemable Rush Limbaugh acting as my wingman, with some sharp and knowledgeable Muslim forum-goers last year. And also earlier some time in 2005. It wearies me.

The only reason I continue to pipe up on this matter is that I hear people talking as if an educated opinion that the early Islamic faith was violent is somehow an impossible position despite quite a breathtaking body of evidence that it was. Needless to say, whenever this debate crops up, there are always ignorant people on both sides of this argument, and well-read people on both sides. Choosing the more acceptable side to the modern political trends doesn't automatically make one an enlightened scholar.

It makes you akin to a beer-soaked football fan rooting on the sidelines for a team you perceive to be winning at the moment.

[Torment]

Ugh, vanity parades like this disgust me. Everyone is fully aware that Wilders is full of crap and, more importantly, that Wilders doesn't care about being full of crap seeing as this film is just propagandistic fearmongering ,aka politics, yet people still go on and post major analyses just to show the world exactly how smart they are and how "ignorant" everyone else is.

In short: yeah we know, "true" Islam is a kickass religion of peace and universal justice. Now go out and get a ing life.

Edit: as tradition dictates, whenever my post gets marred by one of those ridiculous smillyfaces, I have to edit my post and post at least ten more cuss words:

ing ety with a and a ing !!!

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Ugh, vanity parades like this disgust me. Everyone is fully aware that Wilders is full of crap and, more importantly, that Wilders doesn't care about being full of crap seeing as this film is just propagandistic fearmongering ,aka politics, yet people still go on and post major analyses just to show the world exactly how smart they are and how "ignorant" everyone else is.

No, I wrote this so people who haven't read the Qur'an wouldn't be taken up in the sensationalism that is Fitna. If you have a problem with that, why do you need to let us all know about it?

I am not trying to grandstand here. I really have no desire to parade intellectual superiority over anyone.

In short: yeah we know, "true" Islam is a kickass religion of peace and universal justice. Now go out and get a ing life.

You're trolling on here, and telling us (or, presumably, me) to get a life? Interesting.

And how is Ibn Ishaq, the earliest Muslim biographer of the Prophet, writing a book nearly as revered as the Koran and ahadith, to be overcome? He was a Muslim writing for the benefit of the Caliph of Baghdad, so he generally to be assume pro-Muslim in his approach.

He also lived 140 years after the events in which he wrote of.

There's no need for revisionism concerning the passage regarding Asma bint Marwan, for example. It's pretty clear that Mohammed ordered the poetess killed after she wrote a poem insulting him.

Okay, I guess we can delve into the world of questionable accuracy that are Hadith. (I am copying this from one of my other posts, that is why it is in a different color)

Ibn Umar in Kitab al-Jihad wrote:

A woman (on the opposing side) was found killed in one of the battles fought by the Holy Prophet, so the Holy Prophet forbade the killing of women and children

Keep that account in mind when you then hear how when the wife of Abdul Haqaiq placed herself between him and the raised swords of the Prophet's followers. Remembering the order of the Prophet not to kill any of the enemy's women and children, they had to withhold their swords.

So if Muhammad forbade the killing of women and children that accompanied enemy armies, why would he then approve or applaud the killing of someone over insulting poetry? Not to mention ordering or approving of such an act would be a direct contradiction of what he said Allah's message was as given in the Qu'ran, the most reliable text in Islam.

I guess it might as well be mentioned that the isnad -- chain of reporters of the Hadith -- accused Muhammad Ibn Al-Hajjaj Al-Lakhmi of forging it.

So according to its isnad, the report is forged - because one of its reporters is accused of fabricating hadith.

The only way to get past that conclusion is to assume that Ibn Ishaq was somehow an anti-Muslim conspiracist who just happened to be a Muslim serving in the court of a Muslim Caliph, and whose work was popular with other Muslims for centuries.

Hardly, but you are welcome to believe whatever you please. His biography of Muhammad should be counted on for accuracy less than the Bukhari Hadith. Ibn Ishaq knew no one that knew Muhammad, and a lot of the sources he used for the biography come from various descendants of the Beni Qurayza and Muslims that weren't even born during Muhammad's lifetime.

[Sher Khan]

I've read Bernard Lewis. He is a carefully measured voice, well-calibrated to be popular in the modern age with its tastes for non-confrontational treatment of very delicate issues, but he pales beside Donner in scholarship. Yet a man who reads modern secondary sources alone, and urges others to follow him in this folly, lacks a true desire for understanding, content merely to swallow with shut eyes and open mouth what is more modern political convenience than true ancient history, like a fledging intellect feeding upon regurgitations from a mother bird. The real history is in the primary sources.

But neither is it folly to seriously question the nature of the primary source. Donner's work on the movements and players of the early conquests is without reproach, but they are without the insight and social understanding on the levels Lewis presents, which when discussing Islam as more than a serious of political conquests weighs far more heavily than a list of conquests.

And how is Ibn Ishaq, the earliest Muslim biographer of the Prophet, writing a book nearly as revered as the Koran and ahadith, to be overcome? He was a Muslim writing for the benefit of the Caliph of Baghdad, so he generally to be assume pro-Muslim in his approach.

No, his accumulated work found within Hisham and Tabari is an account of what has been said over time, and he treats it as such instead of any gospel truth (as in, only God knows the truth of it). The only thing that can be said for certain is that the work is in a pro-Abbasid slant and nothing more.

There's no need for revisionism concerning the passage regarding Asma bint Marwan, for example. It's pretty clear that Mohammed ordered the poetess killed after she wrote a poem insulting him. The only way to get past that conclusion is to assume that Ibn Ishaq was somehow an anti-Muslim conspiracist who just happened to be a Muslim serving in the court of a Muslim Caliph, and whose work was popular with other Muslims for centuries.

Or that the story, like all others, has an unknown source and came down to Ishaq in this form. The only thing that can be said on the story is that the Muslim population at that time and in future citations agree morally with the oneupmanship-ish story. Any further is unquestioning supposition.

If you can't stand the heat... The Muslims knew that their raids would eventually attract the armed attention of Mecca. I'm just pointing out that the first post by Lawrence casts the Muslims as choirboys on the defensive. From the Flight to the Battle of Badr, there is a two year lull.

The point of a raid is to strike fast with a small force and retreat before any counterattack is launched. That Medinah Muslims supposedly did not have the manpower to field a comparable army to Mecca does not deter a raiding party, and at worst would make Mecca begin a siege of their city, putting the advantage of defense in the Muslim camp.

The unpreparedness comes when a raid fails, and is caught by the counterattack. In such a case, the Muslims then field their own levied forces, which are inadequate due to focus on small incursions rather than a prepared standing army.

I wouldn't characterize anything as evil, not even that bugbear of modern times, Hitler. We all operate on very human impulses to which any of us could succumb in a weak moment. Homines sumus; humani nihil nobis alienum est to paraphrase Terence. However, some of us are more war-like and brutal by nature and breeding, and some aren't.

Mohammed was war-like and brutal. Umar and Abu Bakr were war-like and brutal. That's true on the face of it, because the Early Islamic Conquests can't be ignored. Read Donner's exhaustive tome on these.

Umar and Abu Bakr of course, they were quite prolific in that regards.

But Muhammad? He goes no further than subjugation of the Arab tribes, and conquest by alliance and treaty was enough for him.

The proceeding caliphate, on the other hand, subjugated completely the Arab tribes. They are on quite different levels, and I'm afraid comparison is more polemic than level-headed observation.

Just guesses. Some verses sound earlier, because they are less war-like, and sound more like a peaceful demagogue in a marketplace than a hunted outlaw in a small oasis refuge; others, which speak graphically of Jews, could be from the period when Mohammed was assaulting the jewish enclave of Khaybar--but in all of this there is no chronology, only supposition.

Claims to needing context therefore are misguided, when no clear context was thought to be particularly needed at compilation time in the reign of Umar, long after the events, and mid-way through the conquest of the Middle-East and the Al-Maghreb.

We argue using ghosts, that much is certain.

But look, I fought this wholebrawl out, the esteemable Rush Limbaugh acting as my wingman, with some sharp and knowledgeable Muslim forum-goers last year. And also earlier some time in 2005. It wearies me.

Ah, I appreciate my youthful vigor. But the points Rush brought were questionable rather than worthy of esteem, regardless.

The only reason I continue to pipe up on this matter is that I hear people talking as if an educated opinion that the early Islamic faith was violent is somehow an impossible position despite quite a breathtaking body of evidence that it was. Needless to say, whenever this debate crops up, there are always ignorant people on both sides of this argument, and well-read people on both sides. Choosing the more acceptable side to the modern political trends doesn't automatically make one an enlightened scholar.

Language does count, because the early Islamic faith being violent is questionable, while the early Islamic world being violent is not.

[Heinz Guderian]

What nonsense! Not prepared for war? The Battle of Badr was initiated by the Muslims. They were shadowing a caravan from Mecca to Syria with the intent of plundering it. That was something the Muslims often did to survive in that tiny oasis town of Yathrib: plunder the caravan routes from Mecca.
.

The Meccan caravan was carrying the stolen goods of those "raiders" after they were driven out of Mecca. They gathered all the possessions of those that had left and sold them off. The caravan was about to be attacked on its return home after they had sold off their loot. The raiders were attacking a caravan which was carrying funds from possessions stolen from them. I'd be pretty pissed off if someone stole all my possessions and pawned them off. I'd want to accost them on their return from the pawn ship.

[Cleisthenes]

The Meccan caravan was carrying the stolen goods of those "raiders" after they were driven out of Mecca. They gathered all the possessions of those that had left and sold them off. The caravan was about to be attacked on its return home after they had sold off their loot. The raiders were attacking a caravan which was carrying funds from possessions stolen from them. I'd be pretty pissed off if someone stole all my possessions and pawned them off. I'd want to accost them on their return from the pawn ship.

Pure rubbish. The raids were ongoing in the two years from the Flight, not just the one raid that spawned the confrontation at Badr. Did Mohammed have that much wealth left behind, enough for continued raids? This weak apologism doesn't even constitute a hand-waving argument, but a sophistical snare to entrap the unlearned and unwary. Besides Mohammed and his family, most of his followers at the time of the Flight were not wealthy. The rich and numerous Quraysh would have scoffed at the pittance that Mohammed owned. Victim politics has made it into the 7th century, I see.

An uncited passage in Wikipedia will be of this quality.

[Heinz Guderian]

Did Mohammed have that much wealth left behind, enough for continued raids? Besides Mohammed and his family, most of his followers at the time of the Flight were not wealthy.

do you have any source for this that i can see for myself right now?

The rich and numerous Quraysh would have scoffed at the pittance that Mohammed owned. Victim politics has made it into the 7th century, I see.

Since your a fan of wikipedia these are weasel comments. From where did you deduce that "scoffing" took place?

An uncited passage in Wikipedia will be of this quality.

That cuts deep bro.

Cut to the heart and your too blame, you give love a bad name

[NaptownKnight]

The entire movie was fear mongering, that's it. As Lawernce pointed out they cut out excerpts of something that is harmless when complete. I wonder, if someone did this to the Bible, they would most definetly get similar results.