NationStates Jolt Archive

Before I begin this question, I should like to ask that no one would cry "racisim" simply because I am criticising Islam. Any more than it is criticism for athiests to criticise Christianity.

It seems to me that Mohammad preached a simmilar (but not the same) message as Jesus in terms of love and understanding. Yet despite this he went out and slaughtered the Qualish army at the battle of Badr. Certianly we can see that Jesus was much better for sticking to his message, even when his life was threatened.

Before I begin this question, I should like to ask that no one would cry "racisim" simply because I am criticising Islam. Any more than it is criticism for athiests to criticise Christianity.

It seems to me that Mohammad preached a simmilar (but not the same) message as Jesus in terms of love and understanding. Yet despite this he went out and slaughtered the Qualish army at the battle of Badr. Certianly we can see that Jesus was much better for sticking to his message, even when his life was threatened.

The Koran isn't supposed to be about Mohammed, and the Bible isn't supposed to be about Jesus. Both texts are equally hypocritical, insofar as both contain instances of self-contradiction.

A more accurate comparison would be whether Jehovah and Allah are hypocrites. Islam doesn't posit that Mohammed was anything more than a man, after all. He isn't said to be of a divine nature at all, whereas Christianity makes the claim that Jesus was of a manifestly divine nature... and this same divine being certainly gave orders for what amount to genocide in the Old Testament in several instances.

The Koran isn't supposed to be about Mohammed, and the Bible isn't supposed to be about Jesus. Both texts are equally hypocritical, insofar as both contain instances of self-contradiction.

I am not discussing the Quran or the Bible. I am discussing Mohammad.


A more accurate comparison would be whether Jehovah and Allah are hypocrites. Islam doesn't posit that Mohammed was anything more than a man, after all. He isn't said to be of a divine nature at all, whereas Christianity makes the claim that Jesus was of a manifestly divine nature... and this same divine being certainly gave orders for what amount to genocide in the Old Testament in several instances.

Do not try to sidestep the issue by comparing someone else. If you genuinely wish to discuss the actions of God in the Old testement, then make a thread about it. This is not what we are discussing here.

He isn't sidestepping the issue, he's attempting to discuss your thread. And it seems you've perhaps contradicted yourself, too: you tell him to stop comparing Mohammad and Jesus, yet you say he wants to discuss the OT. Although it can be claimed in the OT, Jesus was, as you undoubtedly know, especially in the NT. And you brought up Jesus yourself, by saying he stuck to his message better than Mohammad. That's a comparison.

I am not discussing the Quran or the Bible. I am discussing Mohammad.

Do not try to sidestep the issue by comparing someone else. If you genuinely wish to discuss the actions of God in the Old testement, then make a thread about it. This is not what we are discussing here.

What you're doing is attempting to take something out of context in order to compare apples and oranges based upon something you've said in another thread. It's a pretty slippery and dishonest tactic, IMO.

You're attempting to make a comparison between Mohammed and Jesus by removing each of them from the context of their overall settings in the Koran and Christian Bible. The Christian Bible claims that Christ was of a divine nature, and in order to make this comparison, both figures must be viewed in context. And within those contexts, both texts contain elements of hypocrisy.

Of course, as usual, what you're trying to do is prove the superiority of one religion over another in order to reinforce what you already believe, and you'll employ any sort of slimy dishonesty to do it. But in the end, both religions contain contradictions in the course of the events they depict, and one is no more legitimate than the other. Both are based on faith, not logic or testable fact. There's no more reason to think that Mohammed was a hypocrite for carrying out his interpretations of divine inspiration than there is to believe that the same Jehovah who sent a message of love and peace ("the word made flesh," as it were) also ordered genocidal acts at some other point in the same set of stories.

i think its good someones been brave enough to do this post many other peoplee would of been to scared to do a post about this although we have posts like this about christianity and jesus all the time.

[quote]It seems to me that Mohammad preached a simmilar (but not the same) message as Jesus in terms of love and understanding. Yet despite this he went out and slaughtered the Qualish army at the battle of Badr. [quote]

The army defeated by the Muslims at the battle of Badr was that of the Quraysh. To my knowledge there is no such thing as "qualish". When you say "it seems to me that...", where is your information? What makes it seem thus to you? There are verses in the Qur'an that allow armed defence. The Quraysh (also spelt Quraish) army was attacking the Muslims in Madinah (formerly Yatthrib), and the Muslim army was acting in self defence.

I do agree that it's right to observe and study other religions, and it's no worse to ask whether Muhammad was a hypocrite (which I think he wasn't), than to ask similar questions about Christianity, Judaism, or for that matter Atheism. Well done.

[quote]It seems to me that Mohammad preached a simmilar (but not the same) message as Jesus in terms of love and understanding. Yet despite this he went out and slaughtered the Qualish army at the battle of Badr. [quote]

The army defeated by the Muslims at the battle of Badr was that of the Quraysh. To my knowledge there is no such thing as "qualish". When you say "it seems to me that...", where is your information? What makes it seem thus to you? There are verses in the Qur'an that allow armed defence. The Quraysh (also spelt Quraish) army was attacking the Muslims in Madinah (formerly Yatthrib), and the Muslim army was acting in self defence.

I do agree that it's right to observe and study other religions, and it's no worse to ask whether Muhammad was a hypocrite (which I think he wasn't), than to ask similar questions about Christianity, Judaism, or for that matter Atheism. Well done.

He isn't sidestepping the issue, he's attempting to discuss your thread. And it seems you've perhaps contradicted yourself, too: you tell him to stop comparing Mohammad and Jesus, yet you say he wants to discuss the OT. Although it can be claimed in the OT, Jesus was, as you undoubtedly know, especially in the NT. And you brought up Jesus yourself, by saying he stuck to his message better than Mohammad. That's a comparison.

He is talking about the Old Testement. Jesus did not walk the earth in the Old Testement. I am comparing the life of Jesus to the life of Mohammad and within the life of Mohammad there are inherrant contradictions.

He is talking about the Old Testement. Jesus did not walk the earth in the Old Testement. I am comparing the life of Jesus to the life of Mohammad and within the life of Mohammad there are inherrant contradictions.

What he's saying is that God did some pretty effed up things in the Old Testament, and since Jesus is God, then Jesus did those effed up things too.

In response to the question: Mohammed isn't more or less of a hypocrite than most other religious figures. They always contradict themselves, but the thing that keeps them powerful is faith, not fact.

He is talking about the Old Testement. Jesus did not walk the earth in the Old Testement. I am comparing the life of Jesus to the life of Mohammad and within the life of Mohammad there are inherrant contradictions.

Why don't you give some more examples?

The army defeated by the Muslims at the battle of Badr was that of the Quraysh. To my knowledge there is no such thing as "qualish".

Kindly refarin from being unessecarly nitpickty about spelling. Especailly since I have seen mutliple various spelligns of Quraysh, as well as sharia and Quran.


When you say "it seems to me that...", where is your information? What makes it seem thus to you? There are verses in the Qur'an that allow armed defence. The Quraysh (also spelt Quraish) army was attacking the Muslims in Madinah (formerly Yatthrib), and the Muslim army was acting in self defence.


Jesus when attacked by those who wished to crucify him, did not react in self defence at all. He was just lead to the cross and even stopped the Disciples when they attempted to attack the authorities when they came to take Jesus away.

Kindly refarin from being unessecarly nitpickty about spelling. Especailly since I have seen mutliple various spelligns of Quraysh, as well as sharia and Quran.

Jesus when attacked by those who wished to crucify him, did not react in self defence at all. He was just lead to the cross and even stopped the Disciples when they attempted to attack the authorities when they came to take Jesus away.

According to the same New Testament account that states this, Jesus also knew that he had to die. He was charged with doing so. Mohammed was not so charged. Again, apples and oranges.

If you're going to place this within a religious context, then at least do so consistently, not just when it suits your own conclusions. Jesus was supposed to die as a sacrifice; Mohammed wasn't.

What he's saying is that God did some pretty effed up things in the Old Testament, and since Jesus is God, then Jesus did those effed up things too.

And I've already provided links explaining this point.


In response to the question: Mohammed isn't more or less of a hypocrite than most other religious figures. They always contradict themselves, but the thing that keeps them powerful is faith, not fact.

Preaches a message of religous tollerance but orders non believers to be killed wherever they are found

Well, I will go ahead and say it. I'm one of those evangelical Christians you guys hate so much. I belive that it is good to study other religions and try to understand the way they work. These threaads are good for that. I agree that Mohammad was a hypocrite, but aren't all people at some point. I response to the next thing you people will say to opposse me i will say this: Jesus didn't have a sin nature like us(regular humans) because he didn't have a biological father. No, it wasn't Joseph.

Jesus when attacked by those who wished to crucify him, did not react in self defence at all. He was just lead to the cross and even stopped the Disciples when they attempted to attack the authorities when they came to take Jesus away.

Yes, but if the Koran allows to fight in self defense and the battle of Badr was fought because of self defense, then this would not be a valid example of Mohammed's hypocrisy.

It seems to me that Mohammad preached a simmilar (but not the same) message as Jesus in terms of love and understanding. Yet despite this he went out and slaughtered the Qualish army at the battle of Badr. Certianly we can see that Jesus was much better for sticking to his message, even when his life was threatened.

It depends on where Mohammeds priorities were. For instance - if his prime "objective" was to do Allahs will, and Allah wished him to destroy those specific enemies but be nice to others he himself was not a hypocrite. Neither if he believed in always giving others a chance and the benefit of the doubt - but that defending yourself is allowable.

Basicly what you need to know is what the underlying principle(s) of his teachings were...

in this case context is extremely important

if you look at the life of Jesus, he was preaching non-violence inside the roman empire, where judaism, from which christanity spawned from was extremely popular, whilst mohammed formed early islam in a predominantly pagan area.

If jesus was to have even attempted violent action, he and all of the christians would have been slaughtered, also he did not need expansion when judaism in its many forms was all around him, and christianity could reach out to the whole empire without the raise of a sword. You sould also look at how many christians have raised the sword in the name of "gods expansion" and the roman "militia christos" in the 3rd century, they were fighting for christianity, and not to mention the crusades. They all lived by the new testament ideas of spreading the kingdom of god, and how the lambs will go to heaven, yet the goats will burn (buring of heretics i think?). Technically speaking, through its metaphors and parables, the NT does have an underlying violent message, which Jesus spread

Islam was created in a nomadic pagan society, and when they were removed from their city, and threatened they fought for their right to live, with many allies from many other nomadic communities, like many others. Though he may have preached non violence, he fought for the survival of his people, which he also preached in the fight for survival (which come consider a Jihad). survival is an important step for all, no matter what you preach, so i dont think hypocrite is the right word..more prudent.

also the comparison of YHWH (the jeudo-christian god) and allah is ridiculous, they are the same being Al, is the arabic of El, El is the 1st letter of god hebrew name.
al = El
allah = Eloh
old Jeudo-christian name = Elohim. THEY ARE THE SAME GOD!

sorry for the rant :)

and about sources
"a very short introduction to islam"
"the cross and the cresent"
"hans kung: the catholic church"

very good for anyone who wants to get a start on either religions history, hey they helped me at uni!

According to the same New Testament account that states this, Jesus also knew that he had to die. He was charged with doing so. Mohammed was not so charged. Again, apples and oranges.

If you're going to place this within a religious context, then at least do so consistently, not just when it suits your own conclusions. Jesus was supposed to die as a sacrifice; Mohammed wasn't.

But Mohammad preached a message of religious tollerance yet orderd non Muslims to be killed wherever they were found

2:256 Let there be no compulsion in religion

4.89 : They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.

"Kill them wherever you find them" sounds like a blank cheque for expansionism to me

Luke 19:27
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

oh sorry...how did this Jesus quote get in the new testament!

Gal 1:9
As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

and just to add to the effect of the new testaments words...
this is what happens when people of any religion take the words too literally

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
-Adolf Hitler, from Mein Kampf

anyone can use any book to justify violence if they want, its all a matter of how you read it.

Can you say, "fertile ground for an all-out flame war" boys and girls? :rolleyes:

Can you say, "fertile ground for an all-out flame war" boys and girls? :rolleyes:

No kidding. What'd Jesus say about the splinter in someone else's eye and the beam in your own again?

This crap has been fertile ground for things a lot worse than flame wars.

But Mohammad preached a message of religious tollerance yet orderd non Muslims to be killed wherever they were found

2:256 Let there be no compulsion in religion

4.89 : They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.

"Kill them wherever you find them" sounds like a blank cheque for expansionism to me

Of course, 4.89 is followed by 4.90, isn't it?

[4.89] They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.

[4.90] Except those who reach 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 should have certainly fought you; therefore if they withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not given you a way against them.

Of course, 4.89 is followed by 4.90, isn't it?

and what were we saying about context!
i think this one sums it up!

I want to start by qualifying that I am a Pagan. I generally believe something between polytheistic monolatry and pantheism ( there are many 'gods', one of whom I worship, but all those 'gods' are in fact, like us, part of the same unity that I will refer to as the Ein Sof < a reference to my acceptance of Hermetic Qabbalah >).

That clarified, I also state that I accept the existance of Ja-Allaelohim (my personal name for the Abrahamic god. I just don't accept his revelations as attoritative to me. So be it.)

Mohammed was the prophet of Islam ( which specifically means "submission (to the will of Allah)". That clarified, being a Muslim, he had no choice but to abide by the whims of Allah. When Allah told him to be pacifistic, he obeyed. When Allah told him to defend him self and his followers at Medinah, he had to obey. Had he not done so, then he would have been a hypocrite.

I agree with the earlier poster who argued that to try and differientiate between the actions presented in the various Abrahamic revelations is futile, as they are all the same god, making various demands of each group of his followers, but essentially presenting the same message overall: "Worship Me and do as I command or you will suffer torments beyond imagining forever and ever." Whether he was feeling particularly frisky in the fifth century B.C.E, then calmed down around year zero, then got his panties in a bunch a while later is immaterial; if you worship him, you're supposed to do what he says-period.

But that is just my personal view and I could be wrong. In which case I will be suffering torments beyond imagining forever and ever, but that is mine to deal with.

Islam's a fascinating religion to study because of its roots (from judaism and christianity matriceed through the arabian culture of the day), and the levels of documentation around about it. It shows how a religion is formulated.

Can someone who knows more about the origins of islam correct me?

Is it true that originally, Mohammad wanted followers of Islam to pray facing Jerusalem? And was this changed by him to Mecca in an effort to draw in the followers of the arabian (animism?) religions, which already had Mecca as _their_ holy place? Were other elements changed to suit local traditions as well?

For example, changing 'no slaves' to ' yes to slaves, as long as they're not _muslims_' (which I always thought was cheeky, given that, as Islam was just starting, _all_ the existing slaves and everyone else you took prisoner wouldn't be a muslim!), was that the case?

See, I find that interesting if it's true because it suggets the target audience - the class that-could-afford-to-own-slaves is what Mohammad was after. It also suggests an early origin of the limited appeal of conversion-to-Islam within islamic thought - again, you don't want just _anyone_ to become muslim because that gives them a special status.

Another example is monogomous marriages versus polygamy - was it changed from one to the other in an effort to make it easier to get initial converts among the ruling classes? Again, I'm just asking because I don't know - anyone better informed about the history of the origins of Islam?

With the praying to Jerusalem thing, it is weird because Jerusalem is never mentioned in the Koran (well, i dont think it is) the most popular theory is that When Mohammed sought to convert the Jews in the 7th century he adopted several Jewish-style practices - like festival fasting for the day of atonement, a synagogue-like place of worship, kosher like food restrictions and also prayers while facing Jerusalem. But when most Jews rejected Mohammed's ways, the Koran changed the prayer direction to Mecca and Jerusalem lost importance for Muslims.
Mecca is the important place for Muslims due to its links with Abraham nearly sacrificing Ishmael there, and because it is where mohammed lived most his life.

am not sure about the slavery thing though, i know after he moved to medina Mohammed took slaves, which is weird considering most of the founding muslaims were slaves, women and people in poverty!

With the praying to Jerusalem thing, it is weird because Jerusalem is never mentioned in the Koran (well, i dont think it is) the most popular theory is that When Mohammed sought to convert the Jews in the 7th century he adopted several Jewish-style practices - like festival fasting for the day of atonement, a synagogue-like place of worship, kosher like food restrictions and also prayers while facing Jerusalem. But when most Jews rejected Mohammed's ways, the Koran changed the prayer direction to Mecca and Jerusalem lost importance for Muslims.
Mecca is the important place for Muslims due to its links with Abraham nearly sacrificing Ishmael there, and because it is where mohammed lived most his life.

am not sure about the slavery thing though, i know after he moved to medina Mohammed took slaves, which is weird considering most of the founding muslaims were slaves, women and people in poverty!

It is my understanding that when Mohammed changed the direction of prayer from Jerusalem to Mecca it was to test the faith and level of obedeince of His followers and not an attempt to attract Jewish people to His new religion.

I think this is a good maxim for politics. DON'T BASE IMPORTANT DECISIONS IN YOUR LIFE ON OLD BOOKS MAKE YOUR MIND UP YOURSELF.

Read books, the're good, but remember books are written by people and people lie on a regular basis and people have vested interest and opinions. Therefore put, the Koran, the Bible hell the US constitution into museums and libarys read them, but don't take them as...errr... gospel....

Before I begin this question, I should like to ask that no one would cry "racisim" simply because I am criticising Islam. Any more than it is criticism for athiests to criticise Christianity.

It seems to me that Mohammad preached a simmilar (but not the same) message as Jesus in terms of love and understanding. Yet despite this he went out and slaughtered the Qualish army at the battle of Badr. Certianly we can see that Jesus was much better for sticking to his message, even when his life was threatened.

Romans 14:13Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. 14As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. 15If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. 16Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. 17For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.

19Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification.

1 Corinthians 10:31So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. 32Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God— 33even as I try to please everybody in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved.


Your attempts to undermine the faith of Muslims are shameful.

Their faith is different than that found in the New Testament, but the actions of their prophet were not in conflict with their faith. It is only in conflict with how you view their faith and his actions, but I expect this is simply how you framed your argument.

His message was not that one may not defend oneself, so you're going to have to go much further to show how it was unloving. Jesus was a divine being in our faith and muhammed was a prophet in theirs. Perfection is not required of prophets. I preach love and understanding but if I found someone who endangered the lives of those I cared for, they would not likely survive the defense I would mount.

No kidding. What'd Jesus say about the splinter in someone else's eye and the beam in your own again?

This crap has been fertile ground for things a lot worse than flame wars.
I know. How well I know. :(

I wish I could declare a moritorium on this sort of thing, at least through the Holiday Season. SIGH! :headbang:

Oh for the love of ....

Ok, Neo Danube .... search my posts for keywords "Islam" and "Qur'an" ... I've been over this so many times it's not even funny any more. At least 8000 of my posts have been spent pointing out how very, very wrong you* are about Muhammad and Islam.

I will not repeat myself every time some newbie with an ignorant rant and a petition shows up.

*Not you specifically, but the collective "you" that spreads your ignorant ideas.

4.89 : They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.

"Kill them wherever you find them" sounds like a blank cheque for expansionism to me


Read 4.87-88 ... Allah was speaking to Angels about one particular time in one particular battle in one particular place. You have to read an entire book in order to understand it, not just pull out one sentence.

Ok ok ok .... never mind ... I said I wouldn't do this. I'm leaving this thread now.

Wasn't it Jesus who said

"I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword"

If that isn't a contradiction I don't know what is.

Muhammad didn't preach a message similiar to Jesus. And he did change positions several times, such as the Satanic Verses where Muhammad preached that Allah had three goddess daughters, but he later retracted them and said Satan had possed him. The Quran is based on Muhammads teachings, though it was not written by him (I think it was written by the First or Second Caliphate). The Quran generally teaches peace to fellow Muslims, conversion or death to Jews or Christians (Refered to in the Quran as "The people of the book"). The Christian Christ taught peace to all people Christians, Jews, and Roman pagans.

Muhammad did base his religion off a Jew/Christian mix, and in the beginning he was peaceful (I guess this is what you mean by was he a hypocrite?), but when his religion failed to gain converts by means of peace Muhammad turned to violence and fought in about 39 recorded battles, against his fellow Arabs, against Jews, and against Christians. Islam followed Muhammads example of warfare to spread Islam for centuries.

And it can't be racist to criticize Islam for the same reason it can't be racist to criticize Christianity. Those are religions, not races. They include multitudes of races in them but are not limited to one race.

Seeing as everyone is trying to prove themselves intellectually I hereby denounce you all as INDIFDELS and may the mighty armies of Christ and Mohammed rise and rid the the world of the People of Sin. Religion is the source of all society, the Holy Books are the ONLY books to preach truth.
Instead of analysing religion analyse the society you live in, the one with no morals and no respect. Criticise your hippy lifestyles and liberal attitudes for the shit they have brought man.

Before I begin this question, I should like to ask that no one would cry "racisim" simply because I am criticising Islam. Any more than it is criticism for athiests to criticise Christianity.

It seems to me that Mohammad preached a simmilar (but not the same) message as Jesus in terms of love and understanding. Yet despite this he went out and slaughtered the Qualish army at the battle of Badr. Certianly we can see that Jesus was much better for sticking to his message, even when his life was threatened.


I am glad someone brought this point up. A friend of mine once said to me "if Moslems are peaceful people, then why did their prophet(mohammed) say 'to cut them off at their finger tips'(wording not exact i know..someone please correct it)in the last 'revelation' to man, when 600 yrs before he sent a man to preach peace and love and that man lived a peaceful and loving life?"
And that made so much sense to me. As for the point of God being wrathful in the OT, yes that is very true, but once he sent Jesus down, the wrath was subdued and all is well.(until judgemnet day at least). Now look at mohammed. Its a well known fact that he was in a culture that had influence from pagans, christians, and jews. Since he was tired of pagans. he mixed a tiny bit of christianty(the part of the judgement day and Jesus) and a whole lot of judaism. so thus he introduced the idea of "warring for God(allah)" witha sprinkle of "love" on top. and i wish i could of worded that better :p

Preaches a message of religous tollerance but orders non believers to be killed wherever they are found

There may be some passages that sound like that, but it is important to remember that there were no forced conversions or even missionary activity in the world of early Islam. Just like in the Bible, people read what they want to read. It seems as though the Muslims did not put a big emphasis on killing infidels until more extreme interpretations of the religion came along.

It is my understanding that when Mohammed changed the direction of prayer from Jerusalem to Mecca it was to test the faith and level of obedeince of His followers and not an attempt to attract Jewish people to His new religion.

If I remember correctly, it was because three Jewish tribal groups in Medina refused to accept him. My memory is a bit fuzzy though.

Is that supposed to make us laugh?

Because it's not very funny.

Muhammad started his religious journey as a prophet of peace. He started a religion based off of Jewish teachings and Christian teachings. However when he could not gain converts by teaching peace Muhammad turned to violence. Muhammad also turned to changing his teachings. In The Satanic Verses Muhammad preached that Allah had three goddess daughters, he did so to gain the support of his hometown (However he later dismissed these because he said he had been possesed by Satan when he taught them). The Quran is based off of the teachings of Allah's Prophet and the example he lead himself. As with Christianity, a christian that lives a good christian life is living a life like that of their Christ, a good Muslim is supposed to live a life like that of Allah's Prophet (So a good muslim should go on Jihad and kill any non-Muslim, take their land,rape their women. A good muslim also kills any apostate if he fails to repent.). Muhammad himself fought in about 27 recorded battles, and he planned about 39 more. He personally ordered the slaughter of thousands of Jewish prisoners. The Quran was not written by Muhammad it was written by either the first or second Caliph, both of them were related to Muhammad and some of his early converts. The second I belief was assasinated.

Muhammad invented Islam to unite the Saudi Arabs to take over the world and for himself as Allah's unquestionable Prophet would be the unquestioned leader because anything he said was what Allah wanted (And he changed his teachings many times to gratify himself). One could argue that the Christian Christ did the same thing, but he didn't teach violence on earth and even said his kingdom was not of this earth.

The Quran (much like parts of the OT) is filled with violence all targeted at non-muslims, or non practicing muslims.

Good books on Allah's Prophet Muhammad and Islam:

The Life and Religion of Muhammad

The Sword of the Prophet

Wasn't it Jesus who said

"I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword"

If that isn't a contradiction I don't know what is.

Yes, but he was refering to as how His word would not bring happiness and joy to all the world, but rather it would infuriate the evil and what not, or some say that his word is so powerful it can 'cut' all evil to shreds or something. look at what he said before his death. He told peter to put away the sword. those that live by it, will die by it. then again i think he said something the degree that if his kingdom was here on earth his followers would rise up, but obviously since his kingdom is of heaven, his followers are of peace( i would like it if someone knew this passage)

MFUSR]There may be some passages that sound like that, but it is important to remember that there were no forced conversions or even missionary activity in the world of early Islam. Just like in the Bible, people read what they want to read. It seems as though the Muslims did not put a big emphasis on killing infidels until more extreme interpretations of the religion came along.

No there were forced conversions made by Muhammad himself, Iranian Muslim Scholar Al Dashti said this " AFter the move to MEdina he became a relentless warrior, intent on spreading his religion by the sword, and a scheming founder of a state."

Muhammad was just as violent as the terrorists today.After he and 3,000 muslims conqureed Banu Qurayza they took about 2,000 prisoners Muhammad ordered all the males ( around 800) killed at about 5 to 6 at a time.

AFter the Battle of Bedr Muhammad answered Okba a jewish prisoner that he was being killed because of his enmity to Allah and his prophet. The man also asked what would happen to his daughter after his execution. "Hell-Fire!" answered the Prophet, as the man was cut down. "Wretch and persecutor!" he continued "scorner of God, of his Prophet, and of His Word. I thank the Lord, who hath comforted mine eyes by thy death"

Muhammad was also the first Arab who made war during the sacred months when he commanded his followers to attack on of the Meccan caravans, they did it and killed all they found.



If I remember correctly, it was because three Jewish tribal groups in Medina refused to accept him. My memory is a bit fuzzy though.

Correct

I am glad someone brought this point up. A friend of mine once said to me "if Moslems are peaceful people, then why did their prophet(mohammed) say 'to cut them off at their finger tips'(wording not exact i know..someone please correct it)in the last 'revelation' to man, when 600 yrs before he sent a man to preach peace and love and that man lived a peaceful and loving life?"

*sigh*

CONTEXT

Angels, NOT MEN, were instructed as such.

If you're going to make an effort to defame someone's religion, at least read and understand their holy text first.

Yes, but he was refering to as how His word would not bring happiness and joy to all the world, but rather it would infuriate the evil and what not, or some say that his word is so powerful it can 'cut' all evil to shreds or something.

I see ... so you understand context in relation to the Gospel, but not in relation to Qur'an? Facinating.

I'm curious how many of the people who make these ridiculous claims have actually read the religious texts they are arguing about? What? None. I'm shocked. It can't be. No one ever defames a religion from a position of ignorance. EVER. /sarcasm

Whatever you want to call Muhammad be it the truth: butcherer,murderer, evil man, insane, ect. He was most certainly not a hypocrite.

(And you can't call the criticism of Islam racism because it is made up of many races.)

I'm curious how many of the people who make these ridiculous claims have actually read the religious texts they are arguing about? What? None. I'm shocked. It can't be. No one ever defames a religion from a position of ignorance. EVER. /sarcasm

I'm an apostate.

Wasn't it Jesus who said

"I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword"

If that isn't a contradiction I don't know what is.
He was referring to two things:

1. That Christianity would set the members of some families against each other over the new faith of some.

2. That the "sword" of God's Word would be sharp, dividing the hearts of men.

It actually has nothing to do with swords used in combat.

I just want to add something. This is a senstive topic, yet the flames are minimal. (For this sort of thread) I give you all two thumbs up.

This is Neo Kervoskia, oops.

*sigh*

CONTEXT

Angels, NOT MEN, were instructed as such.

If you're going to make an effort to defame someone's religion, at least read and understand their holy text first.
Surely you can't mean ... we should actually do some [ gasp ] research??? OMG! :eek: [/SARCASM]

And make not Allah's (name) an excuse in your oaths against doing good, or acting rightly, or making peace between persons; for Allah is one who heareth and knoweth all things.

225. Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts; and He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Forbearing.

(The Qur'an (Yusuf Ali tr), Surah 2)

I just want to add something. This is a senstive topic, yet the flames are minimal. (For this sort of thread) I give you all two thumbs up.

This is Neo Kervoskia, oops.
Neo = New = Not Old = Not Like Me! [ suspicious look ] ;)

I'm an apostate.

That doesn't make you an expert.

I'm an apostate.

Really? Then you should be able to tell me what Muslims call apostasy? And, there are plenty of current Muslims and Christians who have never read their respective holy books and rely on what other people tell them. You didn't answer the question.

EDIT: And wouldn't being an apostate make your bias more evident?

He was referring to two things:

1. That Christianity would set the members of some families against each other over the new faith of some.

2. That the "sword" of God's Word would be sharp, dividing the hearts of men.

It actually has nothing to do with swords used in combat.

And shouldn't the same understanding be used in reference to many of he quotes attribtuted to Mohammed?

Surely you can't mean ... we should actually do some [ gasp ] research??? OMG! :eek: [/SARCASM]

No no ... this is NS General ... conjecture and opinion are, in actuality, fact around here. ;)

Droskianishk, I am not denying that the early Muslims didn't go to war and kill thousands. They were very conquest oriented. However, when they did capture territory, they did not gather everybody in the town square and say "covert or die" and then start chopping heads off. The local population was free to practice their own religion. Christian pilgrims entered the Holy Land as they pleased. Jews in Muslim Spain enjoyed more intellectual freedom than Jews in other parts of Europe. The Muslims were violent, but not intolerant.

Before I begin this question, I should like to ask that no one would cry "racisim" simply because I am criticising Islam. Any more than it is criticism for athiests to criticise Christianity.

It seems to me that Mohammad preached a simmilar (but not the same) message as Jesus in terms of love and understanding. Yet despite this he went out and slaughtered the Qualish army at the battle of Badr. Certianly we can see that Jesus was much better for sticking to his message, even when his life was threatened.

In the Quran, it says that Muhammad and Jesus were both prophets of the same god. That is the similarty. NA dmuhammads lifa WAS threatened, and he stuck withit. There were wars. Review your history

And make not Allah's (name) an excuse in your oaths against doing good, or acting rightly, or making peace between persons; for Allah is one who heareth and knoweth all things.

225. Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts; and He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Forbearing.

(The Qur'an (Yusuf Ali tr), Surah 2)


"And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they fight you, then slay them; such is the recmopense of the unbelievers" (Sura 2:191)

"And fight the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limist, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits" Sura 2:190

"Therefore let those fight in the way of Allah, who sell this world's life for hereafter; and whoever fights in the way of Allah, then he be slain or he be victorious. We shall grant him a mighty reward. Sura 4:74

Muhammad started his religious journey as a prophet of peace. He started a religion based off of Jewish teachings and Christian teachings. However when he could not gain converts by teaching peace Muhammad turned to violence. Muhammad also turned to changing his teachings. In The Satanic Verses Muhammad preached that Allah had three goddess daughters, he did so to gain the support of his hometown (However he later dismissed these because he said he had been possesed by Satan when he taught them). The Quran is based off of the teachings of Allah's Prophet and the example he lead himself. As with Christianity, a christian that lives a good christian life is living a life like that of their Christ, a good Muslim is supposed to live a life like that of Allah's Prophet (So a good muslim should go on Jihad and kill any non-Muslim, take their land,rape their women. A good muslim also kills any apostate if he fails to repent.). Muhammad himself fought in about 27 recorded battles, and he planned about 39 more. He personally ordered the slaughter of thousands of Jewish prisoners. The Quran was not written by Muhammad it was written by either the first or second Caliph, both of them were related to Muhammad and some of his early converts. The second I belief was assasinated.

Muhammad invented Islam to unite the Saudi Arabs to take over the world and for himself as Allah's unquestionable Prophet would be the unquestioned leader because anything he said was what Allah wanted (And he changed his teachings many times to gratify himself). One could argue that the Christian Christ did the same thing, but he didn't teach violence on earth and even said his kingdom was not of this earth.

The Quran (much like parts of the OT) is filled with violence all targeted at non-muslims, or non practicing muslims.

Good books on Allah's Prophet Muhammad and Islam:

The Life and Religion of Muhammad

The Sword of the Prophet

Much, if not all, of what you state here is inaccurate. A better book is Muhammed and the Course of Islam.

Droskianishk, I am not denying that the early Muslims didn't go to war and kill thousands. They were very conquest oriented. However, when they did capture territory, they did not gather everybody in the town square and say "covert or die" and then start chopping heads off. The local population was free to practice their own religion. Christian pilgrims entered the Holy Land as they pleased. Jews in Muslim Spain enjoyed more intellectual freedom than Jews in other parts of Europe. The Muslims were violent, but not intolerant.

Plus, if we are going to hold the actions of followers against the religion itself, then Christianity is not gonna hold up, that's for sure. Crusades and divine Kings, actions of the Popes, Salem witch trials, the Godly conquest of nearly the entire world that resulted in the extinction or assymilation of entire cultures. I don't hold religious beliefs as subject to being weighed against the actions of their followers, and, particularly, all Christians should wish for such understanding.

"And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they fight you, then slay them; such is the recmopense of the unbelievers" (Sura 2:191)

"And fight the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limist, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits" Sura 2:190

"Therefore let those fight in the way of Allah, who sell this world's life for hereafter; and whoever fights in the way of Allah, then he be slain or he be victorious. We shall grant him a mighty reward. Sura 4:74
Okay, so they had a few too many to drink and went a little tipsy? Happens to everyone.

Droskianishk, I am not denying that the early Muslims didn't go to war and kill thousands. They were very conquest oriented. However, when they did capture territory, they did not gather everybody in the town square and say "covert or die" and then start chopping heads off. The local population was free to practice their own religion. Christian pilgrims entered the Holy Land as they pleased. Jews in Muslim Spain enjoyed more intellectual freedom than Jews in other parts of Europe. The Muslims were violent, but not intolerant.


They didn't need to the Sharia and the Reliance of the Traveler (Law books of Islam) provide taxes and other oppresive measures to "convince" people who are not muslim to convert. It is still not permitted by Jihad to kill all who are not muslim or do not accept muslim when a territory is taken, simply because it would empty the land of all future soldiers for future conquests.

Some sharia measures:
Muslims may take any church and convert it into a mosque.

Christians cannot build any new church's. (Same w/Jews)

Christians cannot worship in public.

Christians must pay special taxes (same w/Jews)

"And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they fight you, then slay them; such is the recmopense of the unbelievers" (Sura 2:191)

"And fight the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limist, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits" Sura 2:190

"Therefore let those fight in the way of Allah, who sell this world's life for hereafter; and whoever fights in the way of Allah, then he be slain or he be victorious. We shall grant him a mighty reward. Sura 4:74

Try not to offer any context... that would allow people to read and make up their own minds.

Plus, if we are going to hold the actions of followers against the religion itself, then Christianity is not gonna hold up, that's for sure. Crusades and divine Kings, actions of the Popes, Salem witch trials, the Godly conquest of nearly the entire world that resulted in the extinction or assymilation of entire cultures. I don't hold religious beliefs as subject to being weighed against the actions of their followers, and, particularly, all Christians should wish for such understanding.

There is a difference.

Islam defends such actions, Christianity does not. The Crusades were largely a defensive war. Muslims had taken the Holy Land northern africa part of spain and were continuesly threatening Constantinople. Christians had to launch a campaign in order to keep Christian Europe, well Christian.

2:190: Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do NOT transgress limits; for Allah loveth NOT transgressors.

"And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they fight you, then slay them; such is the recmopense of the unbelievers" (Sura 2:191)

2:192: But if they cease, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful

So you don't believe people have the right to defend themselves? Strange.

"Therefore let those fight in the way of Allah, who sell this world's life for hereafter; and whoever fights in the way of Allah, then he be slain or he be victorious. We shall grant him a mighty reward. Sura 4:74

And what does that have to do with anything? If you're fighting a righteous cause and you are slain, you become a martyr. Something wrong with that? Do you not believe that we should honor our fallen heros? You must hate the Vietnam War Memorial.

Try not to offer any context... that would allow people to read and make up their own minds.

I'm not their babysitter, let them go read it then make up their own minds. My only job is to get them intrested.

61. But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is the one that heareth and knoweth (all things).

(The Qur'an (Yusuf Ali tr), Surah 8)

I'm not their babysitter, let them go read it then make up their own minds. My only job is to get them intrested.

No, your job is apparently to spread ignorance. Fortunately, I will always be right behind you to clean up the mess you leave behind.

So you are apostate. You chose that for yourself and you must deal with that of your own accord. Don't make your apostacy everyone else's problem.

2:190: Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do NOT transgress limits; for Allah loveth NOT transgressors.



2:192: But if they cease, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful

So you don't believe people have the right to defend themselves? Strange.



And what does that have to do with anything? If you're fighting a righteous cause and you are slain, you become a martyr. Something wrong with that? Do you not believe that we should honor our fallen heros? You must hate the Vietnam War Memorial.

"And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there shouldbe no hostility except against the oppressors" Sura 2:193

Meaning they should kill only the religious which do not spread the word of Allah. All of these deal with what Allah says is right yes? Well Allah says killing is alright so all muslims should kill or force under their feet and enslave all non-muslims. That may not mean a physical death but a death of their free will. Which is what the Sharia and Reliance of the Traveler are for.

I'm not their babysitter, let them go read it then make up their own minds. My only job is to get them intrested.
Aye, by showing the picture at a particular angle. Marketing, we know. :rolleyes:

There is a difference.

Islam defends such actions, Christianity does not. The Crusades were largely a defensive war. Muslims had taken the Holy Land northern africa part of spain and were continuesly threatening Constantinople. Christians had to launch a campaign in order to keep Christian Europe, well Christian.

Islam as a whole defends such actions? Really? Can you point me to Islam? I want to talk to him. I'd like to hear him say it. Many Muslims do not defend aggressive wars. Some do, but some Christians defend the Crusades. Does that mean Christianity defends such actions or just some Christians?

Oh, wait, look you claim Christianity doesn't defend such actions and then you defend such actions. Interesting turn of events. Christians during the last millenia took over most of the world. Is Islam now justified in launching a war against us to keep the Muslim world, well, Muslim?

"And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there shouldbe no hostility except against the oppressors" Sura 2:193

Bad translation ...

2:193
"And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression."

All 2:190-193 is saying is that if a people attack you, you do not relent, in any way shape or form, but continue to slaughter them until they surrender. Once they do surrender, or cease to fight, there will be no further hostility.

Yes, it may sound like war in general, but it's also for conversations just like this one. I am fulfilling 2:190-193 by simply engaging in this debate with you, who attack my beliefs. I will do so relentlessly. Allah Akbar.

I'm not their babysitter, let them go read it then make up their own minds. My only job is to get them intrested.

Your job is to misrepresent the religion by taking things out of context, much like the poster did to Christianity by saying "I came not to bring peace, but a sword". You know most people won't go check in the Koran but will instead just take your word for it. Your misleading post is your fault despite what you might claim.

Surah 97

Al Qadr (The Night of Power or Honour)

In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

1. We have indeed revealed this (Message) in the night of Power:

2. And what will explain to thee what the Night of Power is?

3. The Night of Power is better than a thousand Months.

4. Therein come down the angels and the Spirit by Allah's permission, on every errand:

5. Peace!..This until the rise of Morn

They didn't need to the Sharia and the Reliance of the Traveler (Law books of Islam) provide taxes and other oppresive measures to "convince" people who are not muslim to convert. It is still not permitted by Jihad to kill all who are not muslim or do not accept muslim when a territory is taken, simply because it would empty the land of all future soldiers for future conquests.

Some sharia measures:
Muslims may take any church and convert it into a mosque.

Christians cannot build any new church's. (Same w/Jews)

Christians cannot worship in public.

Christians must pay special taxes (same w/Jews)

First of all, you are correct about the non-Muslim tax. Then again, I don't see that as forced conversion. It just meant that traders would adopt the Muslim faith to make more of a profit. Secondly, I'd like to know how many of those Sharia measures were actually put into place. It is also important to know that the Sharia came a long time after Muhammad and is not exactly representative of his teaching.

The Crusades were largely a defensive war...continuesly threatening Constantinople. Christians had to launch a campaign in order to keep Christian Europe, well Christian.

If you're going to offer a historical context, be sure you know about the historical period under discussion!

The crusades weren't defensive (they acted more as a pressure valve on european bellicosity), the Byzantines were no more threatened than usual (merely weaker than they had been due to Seljuk advances in Anatolia from a couple decades before onwards), and were hellishly surprised the first time 10s of thousands of armed men marched through their lands seeking 'holy' war (having asked for a small force of professional soldiers and got a whole people on the march!), and Christian Europe was under no particularly new threat from Islam at the time (the Muslim East was fragmented, politically and cultually, and in no position to launch a major assault on 'christendom').

It is also important to know that the Sharia came a long time after Muhammad and is not exactly representative of his teaching.

Truth! Muhammad even warned against it.

Your attempts to undermine the faith of Muslims are shameful.

So I am not allowed to criricise anyone elses faith, but everyone else is allowed to criticsie mine. Thats a double standard. Not acceptable. This WAS an intellectual criticism. It was perfectly legitamate

So I am not allowed to criricise anyone elses faith, but everyone else is allowed to criticsie mine. Thats a double standard. Not acceptable. This WAS an intellectual criticism. It was perfectly legitamate

If it was an intellectual criticism, you'd have been able to back it up. You gave opinion and incorrect attributes posed as fact. I will, however, give you credit for saying "It seems to me", thus accepting your ignorance and making your initial statement more of a question than a blanket statement.

Discussion ensued, your initial statement was debunked, and you should feel all the less ignorant for it and now go forth and remember it. I have a sneaking suspicion, though, that the only posts you will accept are the ones agreeing with your initial assessment.

Oh for the love of ....

Ok, Neo Danube .... search my posts for keywords "Islam" and "Qur'an" ... I've been over this so many times it's not even funny any more. At least 8000 of my posts have been spent pointing out how very, very wrong you* are about Muhammad and Islam.

I will not repeat myself every time some newbie with an ignorant rant and a petition shows up.

*Not you specifically, but the collective "you" that spreads your ignorant ideas.

Its funny how I get called ignorent or intollerant for criticising Islam, but when athiests criticise christianity they get called intellegent and sensable

If it was an intellectual criticism, you'd have been able to back it up. You gave opinion and incorrect attributes posed as fact. I will, however, give you credit for saying "It seems to me", thus accepting your ignorance and making your initial statement more of a question than a blanket statement.

Discussion ensued, your initial statement was debunked, and you should feel all the less ignorant for it and now go forth and remember it. I have a sneaking suspicion, though, that the only posts you will accept are the ones agreeing with your initial assessment.

It hasnt been debunked

Mohammad preached a message of peace, love and understanding

Mohammad (not personally, although to an extent personally IE if he personally took part in battle he would have killed some of them) killed the Qyailish army.

Therefore Mohammad was hypocritical to his ealier teachings. Does that not seem logical. The only posts that have disproved that are those which point out that Islam tollerates those kinds of attacks.

Its funny how I get called ignorent or intollerant for criticising Islam, but when athiests criticise christianity they get called intellegent and sensable

There is nothing wrong with being ignorant. We are all ignorant about something. In this thread, you've had your detracters and your fans, just like the Atheists do in their threads.

I didn't call you intolerant ... yet ... as that has not been shown ... yet. I have also never called Atheists blindly criticising Christianity intelligent or sensible.

Ignorant? Yes, you are, and yes many of the Atheists are. That, however, is why we learn.

However, there is a *wealth* of information on Muhammad and Islam in this very forum so there really was no reason to start this thread in the first place.

So I am not allowed to criricise anyone elses faith, but everyone else is allowed to criticsie mine. Thats a double standard. Not acceptable. This WAS an intellectual criticism. It was perfectly legitamate

Your faith suggests that you not criticize the faith of others. I know not what their faith says. You may do as you like, but recognize that you do so against the recommendation of your faith.

Mohammad preached a message of peace, love and understanding

Mohammad (not personally, although to an extent personally IE if he personally took part in battle he would have killed some of them) killed the Qyailish army.


Peace, love, and understanding do not preclude self defense.

Islam is a religion of peace, but that doesn't mean we're going to let people get away with attacking us.

Its funny how I get called ignorent or intollerant for criticising Islam, but when athiests criticise christianity they get called intellegent and sensable

By whom? Being critical of the faith of another is saddening regardless of the faith. The attacks on your faith are not led by Muslims so why do you feel they justify attacks on the faith of Muslims? If you faith preaches love and understanding as is found in the first post, then why take a path that shows neither? Does your faith preach love and understanding unless you don't feel like it or you feel insulted by a group that is not the group you decided to attack?

My faith preaches love and understanding and that is not consistent with attacking the faith of others.

Peace, love, and understanding do not preclude self defense.

Islam is a religion of peace, but that doesn't mean we're going to let people get away with attacking us.[/QUOTE]

So Islam tollerates armed self defence. How is attack specified?

Peace, love, and understanding do not preclude self defense.

Islam is a religion of peace, but that doesn't mean we're going to let people get away with attacking us.

Isn't it interesting that many among one religion that claims peace, love and understanding find attacking a country, Pakistan, that attacked you justified and then claim that another defense against an army that quite literally had the power to destroy the faith altogether is hypocritical?

And Jesus often used the word Hypocrite and used it to refer to those that declare themselves righteous.

So Islam tollerates armed self defence. How is attack specified?

Is it just Islam? Can you perhaps think of any other religions that conducted war under the mantle of religion and claimed it was self-defense? Any at all?

So Islam tollerates armed self defence. How is attack specified?

Armed defense in the case of armed attack. Verbal defense in the case of verbal attack.

Many Christians cry victim when their faith is attacked, bemoaning their fate to live in a world where Wal-Mart employees say "Happy Holidays" on December 1st. You won't see that out of many Muslims.

We are not a faith of cheek turning victims. However, according to Qur'an:

"To you be your Way, and to me be mine." 109:6

Isn't it interesting that many among one religion that claims peace, love and understanding find attacking a country, Pakistan, that attacked you justified and then claim that another defense against an army that quite literally had the power to destroy the faith altogether is hypocritical?

I'm sorry ... you lost me. I'm a bit ignorant when it comes to the goings on in Pakistan and such.

Folks, do remember that much of what we know about Muhammed, are from hadiths - which are narrations by his companions.

These are not necessarily true. Shias and Sunnis have big disagreement over these hadiths. For ex, Bukhari's hadiths are considered authentic by sunnis, while shi'ites discard those as false and fabricated.

Also, despite what muslims claim, the Qur'an as we have it today is also not necessarily authentic. The thing is that Mohammed used to narrate to his companions the verses and they used to memorize these. It was not written down immediately and vetted by Mohammed.

After his death, the first caliph Abu Bakr also did not attempt to write it down (some claim that Abu Bakr did have a written version, but it is disputed and we don't have it anyways). The second caliph also did not do that. It was only done by Uthman, the third caliph. Many of Mohammed's original companions had died by then. When asked what to do with gaps in the continuity of the verses, Uthman told them to "suitably make up for them". This explains the contradictions in the verses and to be blunt, the outright ridiculous verses in the Qur'an when compared with the beautiful verses with profound truth that can be also found in the Qur'an.

Uthman also burnt other copies of Qur'an. To put it in another way...it was the council of Nicea all over again.:)

This is not to say that Muhammed is beyond criticism.

Mohammad (not personally, although to an extent personally IE if he personally took part in battle he would have killed some of them) killed the Qyailish army.


Sorry for nitpicking, but I think you mean "Quraish".

Even then, since Mohammed himself is a quraish (I think) I dunno if Mohammed went to war against his own tribe. IIRC, the quraish were among the first to convert to islam.

But yes Muhammed took part in wars. Not just defensive war, even offensive wars (depends how you view it..muslim claims they were defensive...others claim otherwise). Muhammed also broke treaties when it was opportune for him to do so..the treaty of Hudaibiya.

I'm sorry ... you lost me. I'm a bit ignorant when it comes to the goings on in Pakistan and such.

The point being that it is often the same people that claim self-defence is hypocritical in a faith of peace, love and understanding who consider other armed conflicts to be faithful acts.

The point being that it is often the same people that claim self-defence is hypocritical in a faith of peace, love and understanding who consider other armed conflicts to be faithful acts.

Oh! Okie ... thanks for the clarification. :)

Oh! Okie ... thanks for the clarification. :)

Not your fault. That sentence had about 85 commas in it, among other things.