NationStates Jolt Archive

There are a whole lot of people that have just assumed facts about a guy that they know nothing about. I'm curious what, with a little knowledge, the general consensus is.

Was this a man of peace, as the media claims, or a warrior prophet and practitioner of terrorism, as history would seem to indicate?

"Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know."

Qur'an 8:60

There are a whole lot of people that have just assumed facts about a guy that they know nothing about. I'm curious what, with a little knowledge, the general consensus is.
Honestly, he was a man called to do some harsh things during some harsh times.

so no, not a terrorist.

I always viewed Mohammaed as a former trader gone prophet and founding father of Islam.

Alot of religious people were all violent and shit back then. I don't think he was a terrorist.

Muhammed is no terrorist.

terrorist, no
but created a religion that has created terrorist, yes

Muhammed is no terrorist.

I as a none Muslim have never viewed Muhammed as a terrorist.

Mountain mover perhaps?

terrorist, no
but created a religion that has created terrorist, yes

One mans Terrorist is another mans Freedom Fighter!

I as a none Muslim have never viewed Muhammed as a terrorist.


non muslim here as well. i learned a lot about him in college, as well as other religious figures and he was no terrorist

non muslim here as well. i learned a lot about him in college, as well as other religious figures and he was no terrorist

Learned details about Islam in High School.

They were violent times. He was no worse than most at the time.

I feel he was more of a religious warlord than a "terrorist". Terrorists target civilians in an attempt to inspre fear. Armed raids against caravans to steal supplies has a military purpose other than killing innocents.

*do not read further if you are predisposed to violence or are easily incited to anger*

However, it is a historical fact that he married a very young child when he was 30ish. (I think she was 8 or 10, someone here knows and has a link) Which would make him a pedophile. I know the argument "oh, but in that day, people married much younger people all the time, and it was just a political move, etc etc." But you also have to remember that marriages we not considered valid until they were consumated.

edit: Oh, they were married when she was 6, marriage consumated when she was 9- and he was 54. And don't click on the link of you are suddenly going to torch an embassy.
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/ayesha.htm

One mans Terrorist is another mans Freedom Fighter!
Yeah, Osama's fighting for the freedom to treat non-mulsims as dhimmis and slaves.

They were violent times. He was no worse than most at the time.


exactly. more people have died in the name of religion than anything else.

non muslim here as well. i learned a lot about him in college, as well as other religious figures and he was no terrorist

Really? Perhaps you could inform the board what you learned?

Because what I learned was that he directed and fought in battles, led attacks on caravans, claimed to have the support of an invisible host of warrior angels, ordered the assassination of his enemies and spread his faith by the sword.

In what way do these actions make one a man of peace?

Really? Perhaps you could inform the board what you learned?

Because what I learned was that he directed and fought in battles, led attacks on caravans, claimed to have the support of an invisible host of warrior angels, ordered the assassination of his enemies and spread his faith by the sword.

In what way do these actions make one a man of peace?


yeah but the crusades weren't any less violent, the spanish inquisition, etc.

he was no worse than anyone else


oh and i never said he was a man of peace i just said he wasn't a terrorist

Really? Perhaps you could inform the board what you learned?

Because what I learned was that he directed and fought in battles, led attacks on caravans, claimed to have the support of an invisible host of warrior angels, ordered the assassination of his enemies and spread his faith by the sword.

In what way do these actions make one a man of peace?

Doesn't make him a terrorist either. Maybe you should check up on the definition of a terrorist.

Yeah, Osama's fighting for the freedom to treat non-mulsims as dhimmis and slaves.

Saddly many do!

Really? Perhaps you could inform the board what you learned?

Because what I learned was that he directed and fought in battles, led attacks on caravans, claimed to have the support of an invisible host of warrior angels, ordered the assassination of his enemies and spread his faith by the sword.

In what way do these actions make one a man of peace?
Just because one isn't a terrorist doesn't make one a man of peace.

There are a whole lot of people that have just assumed facts about a guy that they know nothing about. I'm curious what, with a little knowledge, the general consensus is.

Yesterdays terrorists are tomorrows freedom fighters... its all about timing, and perspective.

However, it is a historical fact that he married a very young child when he was 30ish. (I think she was 8 or 10, someone here knows and has a link) Which would make him a pedophile. I know the argument "oh, but in that day, people married much younger people all the time, and it was just a political move, etc etc." But you also have to remember that marriages we not considered valid until they were consumated.

IIRC the girl he married was an orphan or in some kind of difficulty, he married her to protect her from this. The marriage wasn't consecrated until she was 14.

This is what I remember anyway.

I as a none Muslim have never viewed Muhammed as a terrorist.

But do you, as a non-Muslim, actually know enough about him to make an informed decision?

One mans Terrorist is another mans Freedom Fighter!

True, but Mohammed wasn't fighting for freedom. He was a member of the Quraysh tribe, whom he turned on, not the representative of an enslaved people like Moses. All he was fighting for was the establishment of an iconoclastic religion with himself and his bloodline as supreme authority.

You claim you learned about him at high school--am I not correct?

IIRC the girl he married was an orphan or in some kind of difficulty, he married her to protect her from this. The marriage wasn't consecrated until she was 14.

This is what I remember anyway.
Aisha wasn't an orphan, she was the child of his good friend Abu Bakr. Different schollars disagree as to the age of marriage and the age of consumation, some putting it as low as 6 for the marriage, 9 for the sex. In fact, it's why Iran lowered the age of consent for marriage to 9 shortly after the Islamic revolution.

There are a whole lot of people that have just assumed facts about a guy that they know nothing about. I'm curious what, with a little knowledge, the general consensus is.


In the modern sense of the word, given it's increasingly broad interpretation, where everything is either with us or aligned against us, yes he was a terrorist.

(in much the same way they have started calling drug smugglers "terrorists")


Just as the term "nazi" became a nominal synonym for "bad guy" in the latter half of the 20th century, I expect that "terrorist" will be come a synonymous term for anyone of another mind in this century.

In the modern sense of the word, given it's increasingly broad interpretation, where everything is either with us or aligned against us, yes he was a terrorist.

(in much the same way they have started calling drug smugglers "terrorists")


Just as the term "nazi" became a nominal synonym for "bad guy" in the latter half of the 20th century, I expect that "terrorist" will be come a synonymous term for anyone of another mind in this century.


also like not too long ago when everyone was called a communist if they thought differently as well

Yesterdays terrorists are tomorrows freedom fighters... its all about timing, and perspective.

Again, Mohammed was trying to overthrow the establishment, not liberate an oppressed people. He did not seek freedom for himself or his followers but the domination of his religion over all others.

But do you, as a non-Muslim, actually know enough about him to make an informed decision?



True, but Mohammed wasn't fighting for freedom. He was a member of the Quraysh tribe, whom he turned on, not the representative of an enslaved people like Moses. All he was fighting for was the establishment of an iconoclastic religion with himself and his bloodline as supreme authority.

You claim you learned about him at high school--am I not correct?
So? Thats still not the definition of a terrorist.

Maybe, you should go away, check what a terrorist is, and then come back?

I don't think he was a terrorist by modern standards. But he was a barbarian warlord and paedophile.

I don't think he was a terrorist by modern standards. But he was a barbarian warlord and paedophile.

Definition in your opinion please?

Definition in your opinion please?
People that don't speak Latin?

Yes, he was a terrorist and more. He also raped a 9 year old girl and endorsed domestic violence.

People that don't speak Latin?
Fair enough.
Am damn proud to be a barbarian in that case :p

Definition in your opinion please?
In this sense I see a barbarian as somebody who has no understanding of culture and civilisation, somebody who was only capable of spreading his inferior cultural ways with force.

IIRC the girl he married was an orphan or in some kind of difficulty, he married her to protect her from this. The marriage wasn't consecrated until she was 14.

This is what I remember anyway.

You remember wrong.

Aisha was the daughter of Abu Bakr (who was the first caliph after Muhammed's death).

Her marriage age and the age of the consummation of marriage depends on what sources you are taking as truth. Sunnis take Bukhari's and Aisha's narrations as truth according to which her age at marriage was 6/7 and age at consummation of marriage was 9.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/008.smt.html#008.3310
Chapter 10: IT IS PERMISSIBLE FOR THE FATHER TO GIVE THE HAND OF HIS DAUGHTER IN MARRIAGE EVEN WHEN SHE IS NOT FULLY GROWN UP
Book 008, Number 3309:

'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house at the age of nine. She further said: We went to Medina and I had an attack of fever for a month, and my hair had come down to the earlobes. Umm Ruman (my mother) came to me and I was at that time on a swing along with my playmates. She called me loudly and I went to her and I did not know what she had wanted of me. She took hold of my hand and took me to the door, and I was saying: Ha, ha (as if I was gasping), until the agitation of my heart was over. She took me to a house, where had gathered the women of the Ansar. They all blessed me and wished me good luck and said: May you have share in good. She (my mother) entrusted me to them. They washed my head and embellished me and nothing frightened me. Allah's Messenger (, may peace be upon him) came there in the morning, and I was entrusted to him.

Book 008, Number 3310:

'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old.

Book 008, Number 3311:

'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married her when she was seven years old, and he was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old.


http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/062.sbt.html#007.062.065
Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65:

Narrated 'Aisha:

that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that 'Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death)." what you know of the Quran (by heart)'

Shias do not consider Bukhari's hadiths to be true. They will dispute her age through other sources.

In Response to Various Morons Insisting I Don't Know the Definition of "Terrorist"

Terrorising caravans and advocating terror as a weapon of war makes one a terrorist. Mohammed's actions, looked at as a broad tapestry, might make him a warrior, despot, dictator, murderer etc. as well, but he still fits the bill as a terrorist, too.

"Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know."

Qur'an 8:60

Terror as a weapon is terrorism. End of.

In this sense I see a barbarian as somebody who has no understanding of culture and civilisation,
That would be from an inside-the-ivory-tower-perspective then.


somebody who was only capable of spreading his inferior cultural ways with force.

Define 'inferior'? Inferior to whom?

In Response to Various Morons Insisting I Don't Know the Definition of "Terrorist"

Terrorising caravans and advocating terror as a weapon of war makes one a terrorists. Mohammed's actions, looked at as a broad tapestry, might make him a warrior, despot, dictator, murderer etc. as well, but he still fits the bill as a terrorist, too.


Terror as a weapon is terrorism. End of.

First off, watch the insults.
Secondly, you have just described nearly every single military leader in the entire history of humanity as a terrorist.

Good call.

The Mongols used this tactic in every Invasion under Genghis Khan

Define 'inferior'? Inferior to whom?
I mean inferior to any decent, civilised peoples. And before you give me a load of the usual cultural relativist rubbish it's clear that the western world, with it's history of art, music, philosophy, technology and systems of government is far culturally superior to the barbarian islamic world.

exactly. more people have died in the name of religion than anything else.

i would imagine more people have died in the name of heart disease, but... as you were.

Define 'inferior'? Inferior to whom?

Inferior to the original Quarayshi culture, that of the Persian Empire that they overthrew, the Zoroastrians...

Secondly, you have just described nearly every single military leader in the entire history of humanity as a terrorist.

There is a difference between, say, orchestrating a strategic bombing campaign, and being a murdering robber bandit that sweeps down on caravans of riches on horseback.

But yeah, a lot of military leaders through history have acted as terrorists. Impaling people and posting them throughout your realm as a warning, butchering captives outside a city's walls... I do call that as being terrorism.

Is it okay for somone claiming supreme religious authority to do it just because others have throughout history? Do you suppose the culture such an authority would spawn would be good?

One mans Terrorist is another mans Freedom Fighter!

This adage always bothers me; some of the worst atrocities this world has ever seen have been committed by people calling themselves "Freedom Fighters." Worst still are the ones who actually fight other people calling themselves the same.

I mean inferior to any decent, civilised peoples. And before you give me a load of the usual cultural relativist rubbish it's clear that the western world, with it's history of art, music, philosophy, technology and systems of government is far culturally superior to the barbarian islamic world.

Really? Becuase for several hundred years, it was the 'Islamic World' that kept the light of human evolution and progress going- while the 'West' was still burning witches and slumbering about the Dark Ages.

Silly you.

This adage always bothers me; some of the worst atrocities this world has ever seen have been committed by people calling themselves "Freedom Fighters." Worst still are the ones who actually fight other people calling themselves the same.

True it has!

The Mongols used this tactic in every Invasion under Genghis Khan

Point being? Temujin has molten iron poured into the eye sockets of those who defied him. He wasn't one of the good guys.

Terrorists should be called freedom fighters. After all, we call the guys who stop fires firefighters, why not call the people who stop freedom freedom fighters?

There is a difference between, say, orchestrating a strategic bombing campaign, and being a murdering robber bandit that sweeps down on caravans of riches on horseback.

But yeah, a lot of military leaders through history have acted as terrorists. Impaling people and posting them throughout your realm as a warning, butchering captives outside a city's walls... I do call that as being terrorism.


Great- so every hero to every country or people is automatically a terrorist, is that your overriding point?

Because if it is- then the Prophet would be just like everyone else now wouldn't he?

Ohnoes Mohammed was a terrorist!!!

Muslims r teh terrorist!

...


:rolleyes:

It's good that the media has educated people so well.

Point being? Temujin has molten iron poured into the eye sockets of those who defied him. He wasn't one of the good guys.

My point being would you call him a terrorist for the ways he conducted warfare?

Terrorists should be called freedom fighters. After all, we call the guys who stop fires firefighters, why not call the people who stop freedom freedom fighters?

That is a very interesting Question!

Really? Becuase for several hundred years, it was the 'Islamic World' that kept the light of human evolution and progress going- while the 'West' was still burning witches and slumbering about the Dark Ages.

Absolutely not the case.

Please give some further background information on your view of this ficticious period of Islamic cultural dominance and these leaps in progress and "human evolution" so I can better address you, because otherwise I'd have to write a dissertation covering most of medieval and middle age history.

Absolutely not the case.

Please give some further background information on this period and these leaps in progress and "human evolution" so I can better address you, because otherwise I'd have to write a dissertation covering most of medieval and middle age history.

The Almagest.

terrorist, yes, but is that such a bad thing? it depends on how you define terrorist. however, i use a looser definition of terrorist, and to me he is one.

The Almagest.

A favourite myth of the left.

This was all knowledge belonging to the ancient Greeks, and its candle was being kept well lit by the Byzantine Empire, I assure you.

The Muslims merely translated it. They got all their knowledge from the west and the Zoroastrian Persians which had preceeded them.

terrorist, yes, but is that such a bad thing? <snipped>
Yeah, it's a bad thing.

A favourite myth of the left.
Ok....


This was all Greeks knowledge. All Islam did was translate it.
I know that. Had they not translated it, what do you think would have happened to the knowledge?

Do I have to give you breadcrumbs to follow the train of thought as well? :rolleyes:

Really? Becuase for several hundred years, it was the 'Islamic World' that kept the light of human evolution and progress going- while the 'West' was still burning witches and slumbering about the Dark Ages.

Silly you.
I'm not too knowledgeable on this issue, so correct me if I'm wrong. But wasn't a lot of islamic culture just stolen from the places they conquered, such as the Eastern Roman Empire? And wasn't a lot of their philosophy just aping the Greeks and Romans? And after a while they fell behind anyway. Their 'golden age' didn't last long. If their culture was so great wouldn't they be ahead of us?

Ok....


I know that. Had they not translated it, what do you think would have happened to the knowledge?

The knowledge never went out of circulation, numbnuts. The Romans were still making use of it in Constantinople.

I'm not too knowledgeable on this issue, so correct me if I'm wrong. But wasn't a lot of islamic culture just stolen from the places they conquered, such as the Eastern Roman Empire? And wasn't a lot of their philosophy just aping the Greeks and Romans? And after a while they fell behind anyway. Their 'golden age' didn't last long. If their culture was so great wouldn't they be ahead of us?
Ever hear the saying "nothing fails like success"?

That's what happened to Islamic culture. In particular middle eastern culture. They arose in a time when Europe was in decline and they became the dominant force in the world in one of the most important regions in the world. The crossroads of trade between East and West was their home. Because of that they prospered and got lazy. Too confident in their own inherent superiority.

When Europe finally got it's shit together and started experimenting with new social structures, new approaches to religion, and scientific experimentation it made rapid progress, but the Islamic world ignored it. They still thought that Europe was only a land of barbarians fit for conquest and taking of slaves.

Now the consequences of their complacency and supremacist viewpoint have really bitten them on the ass, and still there are voices in the middle east and around the Islamic world that call for a return to the old ways. After all, everything was working out well back then, right? They are blinded to the fact that they have become a dead end. A stagnant and rotting cultural pool that needs draining.

There are a whole lot of people that have just assumed facts about a guy that they know nothing about. I'm curious what, with a little knowledge, the general consensus is.

Was this a man of peace, as the media claims, or a warrior prophet and practitioner of terrorism, as history would seem to indicate?

"Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know."

Qur'an 8:60

Next up, "were the - divinely inspired - tribes of Israel terrorists? Go ask the people who were living in Jericho..."

Please, it's nonsensical to place modern interpretations and morality on a period where such interpretations and morality didn't exist. Especially on a man who - with others - helped influence the morality we have today. So Socrates was sexist, so Marx was (in a comic, being Jewish himself, kinda way) anti-semitic, etc etc etc. You wouldn't have reached the point in history where you have our current ethical framework without them.

The knowledge never went out of circulation, numbnuts. The Romans were still making use of it in Constantinople.

was'nt by this time the Easter Roman Empire known as The Byzantine Empire?

ter·ror·ist n.
One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.
ter·ror·ism n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.


Seems clear Mohammed fits the bill, as most of his damage was done as a rogue warlord (a former trader who proclaimed he'd seen an angel during an epileptic siezure) who was known for betraying allies, such as the Quraysh at Mecca or the Jews at Bani Quraytha.

The knowledge never went out of circulation, numbnuts. The Romans were still making use of it in Constantinople.
Nice try- editing your post to fill in the gaps you saw you made after I posted. Credible.

Again, watch the insults.

The 'Romans' weren't making that much use of it at all. Why? Because the only copy around today came from the East (after translating it and copying it). The 'Romans' didn't bother copying it or attempting to preserve it.

Astrology, irrigation, sea faring techiques, astroable, medicine- all kept alive in the East while Europe was in the depths of chaos and collapse after Rome fell. They were improved and then filtered their way back into Europe---- kicking off the Renaissance.

was'nt by this time the Easter Roman Empire known as The Byzantine Empire?

No. The "Byzantines" called themselves Romans right up until their civilisation was extinguished by the (Muslim) Ottomans in 1453 (1461, if you're nitpicky), although other nations had started calling them Greeks.

The term "Byzantine" was concocted in the 1700s, I believe.

Nice try- editing your post to fill in the gaps you saw you made after I posted. Credible.

Nice try yourself. My post was blatantly in the process of being edited before your post even appeared. I had meant to preview.

The 'Romans' weren't making that much use of it at all. Why? Because the only copy around today came from the East (after translating it and copying it). The 'Romans' didn't bother copying it or attempting to preserve it.

The Romans were still making use of it in their new capital. Of course they preserved it. The Muslims merely did a bad job of copying them.

Astrology, irrigation, sea faring techiques, astroable, medicine- all kept alive in the East while Europe was in the depths of chaos and collapse after Rome fell. They were improved and then filtered their way back into Europe---- kicking off the Renaissance.

Such things were "rediscovered" (or never lost) in Europe with little or no help from Islam, which likely would never have developed it in the first place had they not scrounged it from the European civilisations of the Ancient world. As for kicking off the Renaissance--hardly. Sea faring techniques in Europe owe nothing to Islam, as the Byzantines, Venetians, Genoese, Knights of Malta etc. etc. demonstrated throughout this long period. Astronomy and mathmatical systems were inherited either from the Hellenic and Roman worlds or those civilisations that had existed beforehand that the caliphs overran. They benefited also from the knowledge of the Hindus, based largely on that of the Chinese, which filtered through to them.

Even at the height of Ottoman power Islam relied on cannonry and equipment developed and bought from the West.

Nothing was homegrown.

Nice try yourself. My post was blatantly in the process of being edited before your post even appeared. I had meant to preview.

Yeah, blatantly. :rolleyes:


The Romans were still making use of it in their new capital. Of course they preserved it. The Muslims merely did a bad job of copying them.
Ok proof that the 'Romans' preserved it?



Such things were "rediscovered" (or never lost) in Europe with little or no help from Islam, which likely would never have developed it in the first place had they not scrounged it from the European civilisations of the Ancient world.
Yes they were lost. The Dark Ages weren't called that because they ran out of candles you know.

Sea faring techniques in Europe owe nothing to Islam, as the Byzantines, Venetians, Genoese, Knights of Malta etc. etc. demonstrated throughout the period.
Right- and neighbouring 'civilisations', never inter-act with each other- giving each other new techniques and technologies. Ibn Battuta added nothing to the collective Western archieves of geography, topography or cultural studies I assume? It was all down to the Europeans themselves.


Astronomy and mathmatical systems were either inherited either from the Hellenistic and Roman world or those civilisations that had existed beforehand that the caliphs overran. They benefited also from the knowledge of the Hindus, based largely on that of the Chinese, which filtered through to them.
Yeah, but you seem to be missing my point. While Europe was in the middle of a serious reversal- the 'Islamic World' was the only thing keeping these things around.


Even at the height of Ottoman power Islam relied on cannonry and equipment developed and bought from the West.

Which orginally all came from the East anyway. Whats your point? Very few things are ever solely 'homegrown'.

Please, it's nonsensical to place modern interpretations and morality on a period where such interpretations and morality didn't exist. Especially on a man who - with others - helped influence the morality we have today. So Socrates was sexist, so Marx was (in a comic, being Jewish himself, kinda way) anti-semitic, etc etc etc. You wouldn't have reached the point in history where you have our current ethical framework without them.

Yes, and we're seeing that morality manifesting itself pretty clearly on the streets in the Middle East, Pakistan and Indonesia today, aren't we? Marx was hardly admirable and Mohammed was certainly no Socrates. Civilization owed nothing to the Prophet.

Great- so every hero to every country or people is automatically a terrorist, is that your overriding point?

No, my point was that bandit warlords were terrorists. Men like Julius Caeser were not, although a great many such men employed terror tactics from time to time.

Men like Julius Caeser were not, although a great many such men employed terror tactics from time to time.

How do you come to that conclusion?

Yes, and we're seeing that morality manifesting itself pretty clearly on the streets in the Middle East, Pakistan and Indonesia today, aren't we? Marx was hardly admirable and Mohammed was certainly no Socrates. Civilization owed nothing to the Prophet.



No, my point was that bandit warlords were terrorists. Men like Julius Caeser were not, although a great many such men employed terror tactics from time to time.

Personally, i think Marx was admirable. And civilization owes a great deal more to the Prophet than it owes to judgemental little shits on the internet 1400 years later.

No offence like :)

Personally, i think Marx was admirable. And civilization owes a great deal more to the Prophet than it owes to judgemental little shits on the internet 1400 years later.

No offence like :)
How does civilization owe more to Muhammad than it does to me? That's crazy talk. I invented Jesussaves. What did Muhammad do?

Yeah, blatantly.

Correct. Compare the time the edit went through and the time your post went up.

Ok proof that the 'Romans' preserved it?

The history of the Later Roman Empire? Constantinople? The Byzantine navy's dominance of the Meditteranean and Black Sea during this period?

Yes they were lost. The Dark Ages weren't called that because they ran out of candles you know.

They might have been lost here and there where the Vandals or Goths overran everything, but they certainly weren't completely lost and then donated to us by some Muslims who'd held on to them for safe-keeping. The Romans and others preserved the knowledge where they still existed as a force and it re-emerged in time all on its own. A period of some chaos and uncertaintly, yes, a permanent fall of civilisation, no.

Right- and neighbouring 'civilisations', never inter-act with each other- giving each other new techniques and technologies.

The vast majority of that flow of knowledge was West-East. When the reverse was the case it hailed from the Far East, not the Middle East.

Ibn Battuta added nothing to the collective Western archieves of geography, topography or cultural studies I assume? It was all down to the Europeans themselves.

He added to the archives a little, sure. The information wasn't especially meaningful though, given that he travelled largely in areas overrun and allowed to become dilapidated by Islam, though.

While Europe was in the middle of a serious reversal- the 'Islamic World' was the only thing keeping these things around

No, you seem to be missing my point: The Islamic World was not the only thing keeping those things around, it is a myth that no serious scholar adheres to.

Which orginally all came from the East anyway.

No, they did not. The first cannons might have cropped up in the Far East, but they were developed entirely seperately in the West, and a whole lot better.

I feel he was more of a religious warlord than a "terrorist". Terrorists target civilians in an attempt to inspre fear. Armed raids against caravans to steal supplies has a military purpose other than killing innocents.

*do not read further if you are predisposed to violence or are easily incited to anger*

However, it is a historical fact that he married a very young child when he was 30ish. (I think she was 8 or 10, someone here knows and has a link) Which would make him a pedophile. I know the argument "oh, but in that day, people married much younger people all the time, and it was just a political move, etc etc." But you also have to remember that marriages we not considered valid until they were consumated.

edit: Oh, they were married when she was 6, marriage consumated when she was 9- and he was 54. And don't click on the link of you are suddenly going to torch an embassy.
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/ayesha.htm



I am atheist primarily due to the fact that every major civilization has crumbled do to its religious beliefs. I do however try to understand why people choose to believe in the god or gods they choose. But how can you stand behind a figure that is apparently nothing more than pedophile?

They were violent times. He was no worse than most at the time.

In terms of the time, he wasnt particually bad. But in terms of what he taught, he seems very hypocritical.

How do you come to that conclusion?

By observing that Caesar was not a bandit chieftan?

Personally, i think Marx was admirable. And civilization owes a great deal more to the Prophet than it owes to judgemental little shits on the internet 1400 years later.

No offence like :)

Har har. This is, unfortunately, probably not the case. All the Prophet did for civilisation was set it back and introduce a new bloodthirsty ideology into an already volatile mix. A lot more people have died because of Mohammed than will ever die because of me.

You'd be as well to say that civilisation owed more to Pol Pot (thank you, Karl Marx) than to "judgemental shits on the internet" simply because lil' Pol was a significant historical figure.

Wow! What a well thought out, thoroughly researched, and unbiased poll!

[/sarcasm]

The knowledge never went out of circulation, numbnuts.

Numbnuts?

Wow ... I bet your critical thinking and debate teachers are so very, very proud of you.

Never heard of him, what did he do ? Was he an actor or did he do songs?

The history of the Later Roman Empire? Constantinople? The Byzantine navy's dominance of the Meditteranean and Black Sea during this period?

So the very existence of the 'Later Roman' Empire is proof in itself that they kept alive the Almagest and all other teachings along with it... is that what you are saying?


They might have been lost here and there where the Vandals or Goths overran everything, but they certainly weren't completely lost and then donated to us by some Muslims who'd held on to them for safe-keeping. The Romans and others preserved the knowledge where they still existed as a force.
You are placing waaay to much importance on the very much weakened Byzantium and its dwindling power base and influence. Stop calling them Romans. They stopped being Romans long before Rome itself fell. The Byzantines had to hire out mercenaries for a lot of their touch-and-go battles with the encroaching Muslims.... and also with competeing Italian powers to... a lot of those mercenaries were Muslims themselves.



The vast majority of that flow of knowledge was West-East. When the reverse was the case it hailed from the Far East, not the Middle East.
There was sweet fuck all flowing from West to East for a good chunk of the Dark Ages. Got anything to back that up?

The information wasn't especially meaningful though, given that he travelled largely in areas overrun and allowed to become dilapidated by Islam, though.
You should probably read a bit more into the travels of Ibn Battuta. He makes Marco Polo look like a copy cat and John Mandeville look like a home-bird.



The Islamic World was not the only thing keeping those things around, it is a myth that no serious scholar adheres to.
I never said it was the 'sole and 'only' thing keeping stuff around- I said it contributed a great load to the fact the Europe got its ass out of the Dark Ages- an important assest that is grossly overlooked today because of the current geopolitical situation. If you want to say who did the most important work, I would put my money of the Chinese and/or Mongols, but thats just me.

By observing that Caesar was not a bandit chieftan?

So, only those who were General's escape your definition of terrorist?

Or is it only 'bandit chieftans' that are terrorists?

Which is it?

There are a whole lot of people that have just assumed facts about a guy that they know nothing about. I'm curious what, with a little knowledge, the general consensus is.

Was this a man of peace, as the media claims, or a warrior prophet and practitioner of terrorism, as history would seem to indicate?

"Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know."

Qur'an 8:60

As far as I remember there are many similar quotes in the OT of the Bible, so perhaps in those times that behaviour was considered OK?

Never heard of him, what did he do ? Was he an actor or did he do songs?
He was a boxer.

[QUOTE=Newhall]ter·ror·ist n.
One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.
ter·ror·ism n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.


Not complete. What about State Terrorism? The use of force with the intention of intimidating or coercing societes or governments, often for economical or ideological reasons.

Never heard of him, what did he do ? Was he an actor or did he do songs?

He was a dancer with Flo Ziegfeld.

"Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know."

Qur'an 8:60

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

Qu'ran 8:61

:eek:

Oh noes ... there's more to Qu'ran than one verse!

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

Qu'ran 8:61

:eek:

Oh noes ... there's more to Qu'ran than one verse!
Seriously.. I wouldn't blame you if you if you went on a merderous rampage in the name of Allah.. how the hell do you put up with this crap?

What about State Terrorism? The use of force with the intention of intimidating or coercing societes or governments, often for economical or ideological reasons.

Isn't that called.....war? :rolleyes:

Isn't that called.....war? :rolleyes:
No, its not.

Franco for example. Oppression of the Basques. Could very well be considered 'State terrorism'

Seriously.. I wouldn't blame you if you if you went on a merderous rampage in the name of Allah.. how the hell do you put up with this crap?

Dunno ... Zen nature, I suppose. My temperment is like a placid lake on a mild summer day when all the fish are asleep.

Although I do burn a small effigy of NS General daily at sunset. It makes me feel better.

Yeah, Osama's fighting for the freedom to treat non-mulsims as dhimmis and slaves.

Wrong:headbang:



he actually was fighting for his religion, his religon in a way states that all who refuse it die, therefor there religion has bin at war with the world sins its begining. also we fight for freedom(US) but most people dont realize that that means that we have no freedom.

[
i need them in every one
:mp5: :sniper: :gundge: :mp5: :sniper: :gundge: :mp5: :sniper: :gundge:

In Response to Various Morons Insisting I Don't Know the Definition of "Terrorist"

Terrorising caravans and advocating terror as a weapon of war makes one a terrorist. Mohammed's actions, looked at as a broad tapestry, might make him a warrior, despot, dictator, murderer etc. as well, but he still fits the bill as a terrorist, too.

"Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know."

Qur'an 8:60

Terror as a weapon is terrorism. End of.

Biblical God to the World: "TERROR LET LOOSE"[/B]

Jeremiah says the Almighty will hand the people of Judah to the king of Babylon, who will take their wealth, deport them to Babylon, and put them to the sword. In the same book, the Lord gloats that he "brought upon them a horde of raiders, to plunder. . . . I made the terror of invasion fall upon them all in a moment."[Jeremiah 15:8-9]
Such actions led the Psalmist to complain: "Thou hast hurled us back before the enemy, and our foes plunder us as they will. Thou hast given us up to be butchered like sheep and hast scattered us among the nations."[Psalms 44:10-11]
The Israelites weren't the only ones to receive this punishment. Jeremiah reports that [B]the Lord ordered the Babylonians to "attack Kedar, despoil the Arabs of the east. Carry off their tents and their flocks, their tent-hangings and all their vessels, drive off their camels too, and a cry shall go up: 'Terror let loose!'"[Jeremiah 49:28-29]

So, if Mohammed was a terrorist, so was/is the Biblical God.

See it in http://www.humanismbyjoe.com/Violence_and_God.htm

Anyone claiming that Islamic civilization added nothing to the total of human civilization and/or that the emergence of Europe from the Dark Ages owed nothing to Muslim scholarship is either ideologically blinded or simply not paying attention. Not only did Muslim scholars preserve and transmit the works of Ancient Greece, they developed and refined them, particularly in the realms of philosophy (Ibn Arabi/Averroes, for example), astronomy (check out all the observatories in Central Asia, for example), mathematics (Al-Khwarezmi, from whose name we derive the word algorithm, for example), geography (Ibn Battuta, of course, but also others). They also arguably invented the social sciences, with Ibn Khaldun's political sociology. Add to this the rich tradition and advances in the arts (particularly poetry), architecture, mystic thought... Even someone with an ideological axe to grind like Bernard Lewis, to whom more than anyone else we owe the picture of the 'backward' Islamic world suddenly 'discovering' Europe in the nineteenth century, would laugh out loud at some of the preposterous postings here about Byzantium carrying the torch for 'civilization' and attributing no creativity to the Muslim world.

I'm going to get lots of people yelling at me for this but by the definition before isnt George Bush a terrorist? The whole Shock and Awe thing was basically to scare people, inspire terror in them so that they surrendered to American ideology? Just a thought and it may cause me to have to go into hiding in a few mins.

I mean inferior to any decent, civilised peoples. And before you give me a load of the usual cultural relativist rubbish it's clear that the western world, with it's history of art, music, philosophy, technology and systems of government is far culturally superior to the barbarian islamic world.

Two words, oh dear.

Dunno ... Zen nature, I suppose. My temperment is like a placid lake on a mild summer day when all the fish are asleep.

Although I do burn a small effigy of NS General daily at sunset. It makes me feel better.
hmm... do fish sleep during the day? What kind of fish are they? And why do these pub historians fail to realise that the term dark ages, in the profesional historian blokey language, refers to the lack of written record rather than an age of darkness or whatever..

-snip-

*Passes Free Radicals of Mu-Mu a cookie* :)

hmm... do fish sleep during the day? What kind of fish are they? And why do these pub historians fail to realise that the term dark ages, in the profesional historian blokey language, refers to the lack of written record rather than an age of darkness or whatever..

Pub historians? *raises eyebrow*
You don't know anyone here.

So, if Mohammed was a terrorist, so was/is the Biblical God.

-They all were terrorists. All the Israelite warlords in OT were terrorists, so were the violently intolerant church fathers in the 4th century, and so was Prophet Mohammed and the caliphs and imams.
-George W Bush and Tony Blair are both terrorists.
-Omar Khayyam and Gandhi were not terrorists.

-They all were terrorists. All the Israelite warlords in OT were terrorists, so were the violently intolerant church fathers in the 4th century, and so was Prophet Mohammed and the caliphs and imams.
-George W Bush and Tony Blair are both terrorists.
-Omar Khayyam and Gandhi were not terrorists.

Agree. But the great Nelson Mandela was also labeled terrorist in the past. So there are "terrorists" like Mandela and Real Ones like Bush. Terrorism as a weapon for the poor and defenceless people is not realy unacceptable.

Biblical God to the World: "TERROR LET LOOSE"[/B]

Jeremiah says the Almighty will hand the people of Judah to the king of Babylon, who will take their wealth, deport them to Babylon, and put them to the sword. In the same book, the Lord gloats that he "brought upon them a horde of raiders, to plunder. . . . I made the terror of invasion fall upon them all in a moment."[Jeremiah 15:8-9]
Such actions led the Psalmist to complain: "Thou hast hurled us back before the enemy, and our foes plunder us as they will. Thou hast given us up to be butchered like sheep and hast scattered us among the nations."[Psalms 44:10-11]
The Israelites weren't the only ones to receive this punishment. Jeremiah reports that [B]the Lord ordered the Babylonians to "attack Kedar, despoil the Arabs of the east. Carry off their tents and their flocks, their tent-hangings and all their vessels, drive off their camels too, and a cry shall go up: 'Terror let loose!'"[Jeremiah 49:28-29]

So, if Mohammed was a terrorist, so was/is the Biblical God.

See it in http://www.humanismbyjoe.com/Violence_and_God.htm

The Biblical God and the Qur'anic God are the same dude. All that stuff is in the Qur'an, too, PLUS Mohammed's violent preachings. You're not helping your case any.

Besides, what does the Bible have to do with it? The evil deeds on one do not cancel out the deeds of another.

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

Qu'ran 8:61

:eek:

Oh noes ... there's more to Qu'ran than one verse!

"Oh noes" indeed. That verse is abrogated by the later surahs. Read up on the Islamic doctine of naskh.

"None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute for something better or similar: knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?"

Surah 9:5 "abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty, every term... No idolator had any more treaty of promise or safety since the Surah Bara'ah was revealed."

The later the verse the greater its authority. The Verse of the Sword abrogates, according to theologians, no fewer than 124 "peaceful" surahs.

There are a whole lot of people that have just assumed facts about a guy that they know nothing about. I'm curious what, with a little knowledge, the general consensus is.

Was this a man of peace, as the media claims, or a warrior prophet and practitioner of terrorism, as history would seem to indicate?

"Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know."

Qur'an 8:60

Nothing like a good unbiased poll with answers that amount to - When did you stop beating your wife? Recently, I haven't stopped yet, or I never intend to stop.

Can you change the last choice to - I know this poll sucks but I don't care because I'm trolling.

"Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know."

Qur'an 8:60

The following quote proves so otherwise. In Islam, that quote only applies to a non-Muslim harming a Muslim BECAUSE he is a Muslim.

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

[Holy Qu'ran - 2:224]

Also, no Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was not a terrorist.

"Oh noes" indeed. That verse is abrogated by the later surahs. Read up on the Islamic doctine of naskh.

"None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute for something better or similar: knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?"

Surah 9:5 "abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty, every term... No idolator had any more treaty of promise or safety since the Surah Bara'ah was revealed."

The later the verse the greater its authority. The Verse of the Sword abrogates, according to theologians, no fewer than 124 "peaceful" surahs.

So you're saying the earlier Surahs are abolished by the later ones?

Fine then:
Qur'an 109:2-6 "I worship not that which ye worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship. And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship. To you be your Way, and to me mine."

Tolerance of other faiths near the very end of Qur'an. So I guess my 109 abrogates your 9. Oh yeah ... and there are only 114 Surahs, so it would be impossible to negate 124 of them. Also, your version of Surah 9, verse 5 doesn't exist in any of the translations of Qu'ran and is not what you claim it says when looking at the Arabic. Besides, *all* of Qu'ran is perfect in its entirety. Later verses do not negate previous ones because if they did, all of Qu'ran would come down to the very last verse: "Among Jinns and among men." (Qur'an 114:6)

Doesn't make much sense, now does it?

You really don't get how this works do you? I understand, though. It's far easier to remain ignorant and hate than it is to actually crack open a book and study. It is easier to take Googled internet bile as truth than it is to learn to think for yourself.

I pity you, but I don't fear you. I simply laugh at you and go about my merry way.

Was he raiding these caravans with the intent of instilling fear? I don't really know the story, so I couldn't say, but it seems from the description that his main intent was plunder, which would make him more of a pirate than a terrorist. And pirates are automatically awesome.:mp5:

Was he raiding these caravans with the intent of instilling fear? I don't really know the story, so I couldn't say, but it seems from the description that his main intent was plunder, which would make him more of a pirate than a terrorist. And pirates are automatically awesome.:mp5:

Especially, if they're legless.

It was over a thousand years ago. Of couse he behaved like a barbarian. Duh.Everybody did.

Raiding caravans doenst make you a terrorist. It just means you are a camel hater.

It was over a thousand years ago. Of couse he behaved like a barbarian. Duh.Everybody did.

Socrates was very civilized. :p

It was over a thousand years ago. Of couse he behaved like a barbarian. Duh.Everybody did.

Yeah, but not everyone claimed supreme religious authority and has people rioting over people drawing them today.

Yeah, but not everyone claimed supreme religious authority and has people rioting over people drawing them today.

Muhammed never claimed supreme religious authority.

Yes, and we're seeing that morality manifesting itself pretty clearly on the streets in the Middle East, Pakistan and Indonesia today, aren't we? Marx was hardly admirable and Mohammed was certainly no Socrates. Civilization owed nothing to the Prophet.



No, my point was that bandit warlords were terrorists. Men like Julius Caeser were not, although a great many such men employed terror tactics from time to time.


Arabic numerals.

Besides, China dominated the West for the majority of her history. And will again soon. So, no, Western Culture is not superior. In fact, I don't believe that there is such a thing as a superior race.

The Biblical God and the Qur'anic God are the same dude. All that stuff is in the Qur'an, too, PLUS Mohammed's violent preachings. You're not helping your case any.

Besides, what does the Bible have to do with it? The evil deeds on one do not cancel out the deeds of another.

My point is: why bother with Mohammed if even the Almight himself is a terrorist? As far as your logic goes, Christians, Jews and Muslims are following a terrorist God. Picking on Mohammed´s "violents preachings" and refusing to compare them to the "Terror at Loose Biblical God" who is so loved by Jews and Christians is just not correct or fair. Sounds like an atempet to prove that there is something unique and evil in the roots of Islam (and Islam alone).
?

Give me a break. Let's be real here. To call Mohammed a terrorist would be like calling the Israelites of Biblical times "savage raiders" because they defeated non-Judaic nations in battle. It would like calling Christ an "anti-capitalist" because he threw merchants out of the temple. That scripture is being taken out of context and overblown, I'm not a muslim and I see it for what it is.

So you're saying the earlier Surahs are abolished by the later ones?

The later a revelation comes down to Mohammed, the greater the weight it carries. This is naskh. The later revelations that came to the prophet while he was in Medina, after his expulsion from Mecca, take on an increasingly violent flavour.

Qur'an 109:2-6 "I worship not that which ye worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship. And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship. To you be your Way, and to me mine."

Tolerance of other faiths near the very end of Qur'an.

This is hardly how things worked out in practice, is it? Didn't leave many followeres of the Quaraysh gods or Zoroaster behind when he was conquering the Middle East, did he?

Besides, that little speech is an address to an unbeliever. Lying to an unbeliever is permissible if it furthers Islam. Remember Mohammed's march on Mecca in 628, when, confronted with a superior force, he concluded a ten year truce with the Quraysh, and was even comelled not to identify himself as a prophet of God? "If I had witnessed that you were God's apostle I would not have fought you." said the negotioator. "Write your own name and the name of your father."

He did write his own name and his father's, and he broke the truce at the first opportunity.

But let's move on to tolerance of other faiths:

Any one who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters unbelief-except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in the faith-but such as open their breast to unbelief, on them is wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful penalty."

Qur'an 16:106

So lying to protect yourself and dreadful penalties for unbelief there.

Another example of Mohammed's lack of tolerance would be the pronouncement he made on his uncle when he rejected his teachings:

"May the hands of Abu Lahab perish! May he himself perish! Nothing shall his wealth and gains avail him. He shall be burnt in a flaming fire, and his wife, laden with faggots, shall have a rope of fibre around her neck!"

Qur'an 111:1-5

Charming.

So I guess my 109 abrogates your 9. Oh yeah ... and there are only 114 Surahs, so it would be impossible to negate 124 of them.

Verses. My mistake. And it's a matter of when the revelation came to Allah rather than the number, I'm fairly certain.

but I don't fear you.

And the reason you have that luxury is because I don't routinely murder people that disagree with me.

wow this thread is still going. NS never ceases to amaze me.

Arabic numerals.

Besides, China dominated the West for the majority of her history. And will again soon. So, no, Western Culture is not superior. In fact, I don't believe that there is such a thing as a superior race.

What we know as "Arabic numerals" today originated in a pre-Islamic India, and are not used in the Arabic language today.

China was indeed more advanced (it didn't "dominate" the West, though; that implies conquest), I wouldn't disagree with that. As for superior races: no-one raised the question of race. "Muslim" is not a race. It's an ideology (and a poor one at that).

My point is: why bother with Mohammed if even the Almight himself is a terrorist? As far as your logic goes, Christians, Jews and Muslims are following a terrorist God. Picking on Mohammed´s "violents preachings" and refusing to compare them to the "Terror at Loose Biblical God" who is so loved by Jews and Christians is just not correct or fair. Sounds like an atempet to prove that there is something unique and evil in the roots of Islam (and Islam alone).
?

The Old Testament's God singles out Hittites, Girgrashite, Amorite, Canaanite Perizzite, Hivite and Jebusites specifically as being fair prey for the Israelites. When modern-day Jews and Christians read their holy books they simply do not feel that they are being exhorted to violence against the unbeliever as Muslims are.

I'm not a Jew or Christian myself, and I can see all sorts of things wrong with their religion, but the fact is that their prohets' teachings and actions in life are not having an affect on us today as are Mohammed's.

[QUOTE=Lord Sauron Reborn]The Old Testament's God singles out Hittites, Girgrashite, Amorite, Canaanite Perizzite, Hivite and Jebusites specifically as being fair prey for the Israelites. When modern-day Jews and Christians read their holy books they simply do not feel that they are being exhorted to violence against the unbeliever as Muslims are.

The Old Testament and New Testament gods are very different. The Old Testament God killed whomever incurred his wrath. He even went so far as to lengthen the day so Joshua could annhilate the people within the city. Both Jewish and Muslim faiths draw on this manifestation of God and they embrace a more violent nature of God. While Christians (at least they are suppose to) describe a loving God who according to Jesus is all-forgiving. In the end it is just a bunch of bull-honky in order to control the masses.

[QUOTE=Lord Sauron Reborn]The Old Testament's God singles out Hittites, Girgrashite, Amorite, Canaanite Perizzite, Hivite and Jebusites specifically as being fair prey for the Israelites. When modern-day Jews and Christians read their holy books they simply do not feel that they are being exhorted to violence against the unbeliever as Muslims are.

I don´t think you are making any sense here, but let´s go foward. What about killing Egyptian babies at the time of the Passover? Sounds very modern.
Let´s them talk about a modern Christian: Bush. He constantly makes references to God when he refers to America's "victory" in Iraq, as if God endorses the killing in Iraq (well...in fact he belives precisely that: God inspired him to invade Iraq and Afeghanistan). And the jews? Many modern jews belive that God himself gave Palestine to them. So it is all right with God if you kill any trespasing people.