Is peace most required for spread of Islam? Yes, of course it is, undoubtedly.

[paarsurrey]

Why do religions concern themselves with "spreading"??? Makes is sound like some sort of contagion.

Truth should spread and untruth should not spread. it is good for the humanity.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

You are ignoring that not long after Muhammad arrival in medina, Muhammad embarked in raiding and robbing merchant caravans. That's not an act of peaceful person.
This is what provoked Mecca into war.
And he started discord when he kick out one Jewish tribe after another from Medina, again not a act of a peaceful man.
When the Banu Qurayza surrendered, Muhammad did not stop the beheading of men who did not convert to Islam, or the selling of women and children into slavery. Beheading those who didn't accept Islam, is an act of compulsion and intimidation, making the Qur'an a lie when it stated there is no compulsion in Islam. Again, not act of peace.
Even after winning the war against Mecca, Muhammad still send his army throughout Arabia, threatening any who don't accept him as "Messenger of God". The siege of Ta'if (630) is another act of compulsion in Islam, when he reject the people's condition that they have their own religion. Again, demonstrating that Muhammad is not a peaceful man.
When he returned to northern Arabia (630), to avenge his defeat at Mu'tah (in 629), punitive expedition is not an act of peaceful religion.
Since coming to Medina in 623, it has been nothing but history of revenge and violence, showed that Islam being "religion of peace", is a complete lie.

And that happened 13 long years after he was chosen by G-d to the office of Prophet/Messenger, the last in status.
Please have a peaceful patience we are getting to it chronologically from the accounts of life of Muhammad:

“One of the Prophet's holy consorts was the young A'isha. She was thirteen to fourteen years of age when she was married to the Prophet. For about eight years she lived in wedlock with him. When the Prophet died she was about twenty-two years of age. She was young and-illiterate. Yet she knew that a teaching cannot be divorced from its teacher.
Asked to describe the Prophet's character, she answered at once that his character was the Quran (Abu-Dawud). What he did was what the Quran taught; what the Quran taught was nothing else than what he did. It redounds to the glory of the Prophet that an illiterate young woman was able to grasp a truth which escaped Hindu, Jewish and Christian scholars.”

Page-134

http://www.alislam.org/library/books/Introduction-Study-Holy-Quran.pdf

The character of Muhammad was peaceful, never violent, ever.

Regards

 

[gnostic]

The character of Muhammad was peaceful, never violent, ever.

You keep writing this, even after I have provided examples, where he did resort to violence, in the form of revenge, armed robbery, battles and assassinations.

One of the reasons why Muhammad left Mecca in 622 CE and migrated to Medina, was that he feared being assassinated, after losing protection from his uncle, who became the new clan leader.

I do find that any man who fear assassination attempts, and then ordered or condoned assassinations to be an hypocrite. And Muhammad is exactly that, a hypocrite who would sent out assassins to murder for him.

In 624, Muhammad had sent Abdullah Ibn Unais to assassinate Khaled bin Sufyan Al-Hathali, and sent 'Abdullah ibn 'Atik to assassinate Abu Rafi' ibn Abi Al-Huqaiq.

It doesn't matter Khaled bin Sufyan and Abu Rafi' did, that's not the issue. The issue is that you have claimed that Muhammad would never resort violence (yours "never violent, ever"), but here we have two events, where Muhammad did sent people to murder for him, which clearly contradicted what you have keep writing.

How is people wrong when they wanted to assassinate him, but it is right for Muhammad to order or condone his two followers to assassinate for him?

That's double standard, and demonstrated that Muhammad is a hypocrite.

You say that Muhammad "was peaceful, never violent, ever", and yet he led about dozen raids on merchant caravans, between 623 and 624 CE. These armed robberies are acts of violence, paarsurrey. It doesn't matter if had reason to raid and rob merchants, it is still an act of violence.

And it is this act, that put Medina and Mecca at war with each other. And a war of Muhammad's own making, again another act of violence.

With you keep saying that Muhammad "was never violent, ever", showed that you are lying when you overlook the actions Muhammad took in 623 and 624, in Medina, and every actions he took after the battle of Badr.

You wrote:

Asked to describe the Prophet's character, she answered at once that his character was the Quran (Abu-Dawud). What he did was what the Quran taught; what the Quran taught was nothing else than what he did.

This is another lie.

Revenge is never a peaceful act.

In 622, when Muhammad sought protection from persecution at the town of Ta'if, they refused to give it. Eight years later, with powerful army at his bidding, he lay siege to Ta'if (630).

So the siege or attack upon Ta'if is an act of revenge.

But that's only part of the problem.

When Ta'if did finally surrender, he rejected townspeople from keeping their old religion, forcing them to convert to Islam, an act of compulsion, which make the Qur'an's "no compulsion" only a guide that can be ignored whenever it is convenient for Muhammad.

This overlooking "no compulsion" is just meaningless words, because it is clear that Muhammad can ignore this verse, whenever it suit him. Another act that showed that Muhammad was a hypocrite.

So Muhammad didn't always follow what the Qur'an say. The "no compulsion" rule didn't apply in the case of Ta'if.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Muhammad's character defines fully in deeds as to what peaceful is:

“If the recipient is intractable the question arises, why did God choose him? Must He have done so? Neither supposition seems reasonable. To think that revelation fails to reclaim some recipients is as unreasonable as to think that God has no alternative except to choose incompetent recipients for some of His revelations. Yet ideas of this kind have found their way into different religions, possibly because of the distance which now divides them from their Founders or because human intellect, until the advent of Islam, was incapable of perceiving the error of these ideas. How important and valuable it is to keep together a book and its Teacher was realized very early in Islam.”
Page-134
http://www.alislam.org/library/books/Introduction-Study-Holy-Quran.pdf
The character of Muhammad was peaceful, never violent, ever.

Regards

That doesn't answer my question.

 

[Milton Platt]

Please don't jump to wrong conclusions:

"Now purity of heart is best promoted by concrete example. A good law appeals to our understanding and reason ; but a good example appeals to our motives and sentiments. A good law rouses us to think, but a good example rouses us to action. When thinking becomes refined, it may or may not result in a refinement of our physical and spiritual character. It may result only in spasms of good conduct-not in a steady and stable character. The point is illustrated by the difference between ordinary altruistic conduct and altruistic conduct which springs from natural instincts such as the maternal instinct. One springs largely from reason, the other largely from emotions.Conduct which springs from reason cannot compete with conduct which springs from emotions or dispositions which grow out of emotions.

A mother's love and care for her child spring from emotions or from dispositions, shaped out of emotions. The philosopher's regard for his neighbour springs from reasoned altruism. Reasoned conduct is not constant or consistent, because reflection often tends to fail and all the relevant facts cannot always be attended to before action is ordered. Hesitation and deliberation, the essentials of all reasoned conduct, also tend to be prolonged. But conduct which springs from emotions or from tendencies shaped out of emotions is spontaneous, constant and consistent.

A mother may seem over-sacrificing, but rational appeals will not dissuade her from the path laid down for her by nature. When the child is in trouble, she will not sit and deliberate, but will at once set about doing what she thinks is good for the child. All her thoughts will bend to this end. It seems, therefore, that themes of moral reclamation will not succeed unless human individuals can be taught to act from dispositions and sentiments rooted in their natural emotions and impulses. When the call comes for action, response should not be held back by undue deliberation. It should spring spontaneously from within each individual and should not have to be forced from without by appeals to reason. "
Page-131
http://www.alislam.org/library/books/Introduction-Study-Holy-Quran.pdf
So character of Muhammad was peaceful, never violent, ever.

Regards

What wrong conclusions? You declared him peaceful, his actions declared him violent. It is rather clear.

 

[paarsurrey]

After be declared himself a prophet, he started a war with Mecca and, after his victory, set about conquering the rest of Arabia. If he was a peaceful man before, it would appear that his religion made him violent!

Please don't jump to wrong conclusions.
Muhammad did spend 13 years in Mecca, one should not ignore this period. I intend to go chronologically. Right? Please:

“The Prophet was born in Mecca in August 570 A.D. He was given the name Muhammad which means, the Praised One. To understand his life and character we must have some idea of the conditions which obtained in Arabia at the time of his birth. When he was born the whole of Arabia, with exceptions here and there, believed in a polytheistic form of religion.
The Arabs traced their descent to Abraham.
They knew that Abraham was a monotheistic Teacher. In spite of this, they entertained polytheistic beliefs and were given to polytheistic practices. In defense, they said that some human beings are outstanding in their contact with God.
Their intercession on behalf of others is accepted by God. God is High and Exalted.
To reach Him is difficult for ordinary human beings. Only perfect human beings can reach Him. Ordinary human beings, therefore, must have others to intercede on their behalf before they can reach God and attain to His pleasure and His help. With this attitude they were able to combine their reverence for Abraham, the monotheist, with their own polytheistic beliefs.”

Page-134

http://www.alislam.org/library/books/Introduction-Study-Holy-Quran.pdf

The character of Muhammad was peaceful, never violent, ever.

Regards

 

[YmirGF]

Please don't jump to wrong conclusions.
Muhammad did spend 13 years in Mecca, one should not ignore this period. I intend to go chronologically. Right? Please:

“The Prophet was born in Mecca in August 570 A.D. He was given the name Muhammad which means, the Praised One. To understand his life and character we must have some idea of the conditions which obtained in Arabia at the time of his birth. When he was born the whole of Arabia, with exceptions here and there, believed in a polytheistic form of religion.
The Arabs traced their descent to Abraham.
They knew that Abraham was a monotheistic Teacher. In spite of this, they entertained polytheistic beliefs and were given to polytheistic practices. In defense, they said that some human beings are outstanding in their contact with God.
Their intercession on behalf of others is accepted by God. God is High and Exalted.
To reach Him is difficult for ordinary human beings. Only perfect human beings can reach Him. Ordinary human beings, therefore, must have others to intercede on their behalf before they can reach God and attain to His pleasure and His help. With this attitude they were able to combine their reverence for Abraham, the monotheist, with their own polytheistic beliefs.”

Page-134

http://www.alislam.org/library/books/Introduction-Study-Holy-Quran.pdf

The character of Muhammad was peaceful, never violent, ever.

Regards

The bottom line though, as mentioned by @Augustus is that we know very little - with certainty - about Muhammad. Your sources were written many, many years after the facts... if indeed there are facts that are in need of representation.

 

[paarsurrey]

You keep writing this, even after I have provided examples, where he did resort to violence, in the form of revenge, armed robbery, battles and assassinations.
One of the reasons why Muhammad left Mecca in 622 CE and migrated to Medina, was that he feared being assassinated, after losing protection from his uncle, who became the new clan leader.
I do find that any man who fear assassination attempts, and then ordered or condoned assassinations to be an hypocrite. And Muhammad is exactly that, a hypocrite who would sent out assassins to murder for him.
In 624, Muhammad had sent Abdullah Ibn Unais to assassinate Khaled bin Sufyan Al-Hathali, and sent 'Abdullah ibn 'Atik to assassinate Abu Rafi' ibn Abi Al-Huqaiq.
It doesn't matter Khaled bin Sufyan and Abu Rafi' did, that's not the issue. The issue is that you have claimed that Muhammad would never resort violence (yours "never violent, ever"), but here we have two events, where Muhammad did sent people to murder for him, which clearly contradicted what you have keep writing.
How is people wrong when they wanted to assassinate him, but it is right for Muhammad to order or condone his two followers to assassinate for him?
That's double standard, and demonstrated that Muhammad is a hypocrite.
You say that Muhammad "was peaceful, never violent, ever", and yet he led about dozen raids on merchant caravans, between 623 and 624 CE. These armed robberies are acts of violence, paarsurrey. It doesn't matter if had reason to raid and rob merchants, it is still an act of violence.
And it is this act, that put Medina and Mecca at war with each other. And a war of Muhammad's own making, again another act of violence.
With you keep saying that Muhammad "was never violent, ever", showed that you are lying when you overlook the actions Muhammad took in 623 and 624, in Medina, and every actions he took after the battle of Badr.
You wrote:
This is another lie.
Revenge is never a peaceful act.
In 622, when Muhammad sought protection from persecution at the town of Ta'if, they refused to give it. Eight years later, with powerful army at his bidding, he lay siege to Ta'if (630).
So the siege or attack upon Ta'if is an act of revenge.
But that's only part of the problem.
When Ta'if did finally surrender, he rejected townspeople from keeping their old religion, forcing them to convert to Islam, an act of compulsion, which make the Qur'an's "no compulsion" only a guide that can be ignored whenever it is convenient for Muhammad.
This overlooking "no compulsion" is just meaningless words, because it is clear that Muhammad can ignore this verse, whenever it suit him. Another act that showed that Muhammad was a hypocrite.
So Muhammad didn't always follow what the Qur'an say. The "no compulsion" rule didn't apply in the case of Ta'if.

After be declared himself a prophet, he started a war with Mecca and, after his victory, set about conquering the rest of Arabia. If he was a peaceful manbefore, it would appear that his religion made him violent!

I will go chronologically, have patience, please.
Regards

 

[YmirGF]

I will go chronologically, have patience, please.
Regards

But you will be relying on biased hearsay accounts, at best. Just because many Muslims agree with those accounts doesn't mean the accounts are particularly accurate.

 

[gnostic]

[QUOTYou paarsurrey, post: 4872726, member: 37462"]I will go chronologically, have patience, please.
Regards[/QUOTE]
Then you shouldn't be using the words "never" and "ever".

You can't use he "was never violent, ever", if he have at any point in his life he did commit violence, because your statement is false.

It doesn't matter when he didn't commit violence before leaving Mecca in 622 CE, because he did do so, after he settled in Medina in 622 or 623 CE. He led band of armed robbers, including his followers, from 623-624 CE, which started a war in 624, beginning with battle of Badr.

What followed was series of more raids and battles, which only ended after his arrival in Mecca, in 630 CE. And then he proceeded to campaign with his ever-growing army. He may have started as a prophet in 610 CE, he was still a prophet and messenger from 623 - 632 CE.

Stop persisting in lying to me. Can you not be honest about it, and admit it you were wrong in using the word "never"?

 

[paarsurrey]

But you will be relying on biased hearsay accounts, at best. Just because many Muslims agree with those accounts doesn't mean the accounts are particularly accurate.

These are most unbiased and reliable than any-other contemporary sources on Muhammad's life. Please

Kindly don't jump to wrong conclusions.

Muhammad did spend 13 years in Mecca, one should not ignore this period. I intend to go chronologically. Right? Please:

“Abraham, they said, was a holy man. He was able to reach God without intercession. But ordinary Meccans were not able to reach God without the intercession of other holy and righteous persons. To seek this intercession, the people of Mecca had made idols of many holy and righteous persons, and these they worshipped and to these they made offerings in order to please God through them.
This attitude was primitive and illogical. It was full of defects and gaps. But the people of
Mecca were not worried by these.
They had not had a monotheistic Teacher for a long time, and polytheism, once it takes root in any society, spreads and knows no bounds. The number of gods begins to increase. At the time of the Prophet's birth, it is said that in the Ka’ba alone, the Sacred Mosque of all Islam and the house of worship built by Abraham and his son Ishmael, there were three hundred and sixty idols. It seems that for every day of the lunar year the Meccans had an idol. In other places and in other big centres there were other idols, so that we can say that every part of Arabia was steeped in polytheistic belief.”

Page-135

http://www.alislam.org/library/books/Introduction-Study-Holy-Quran.pdf

The character of Muhammad was peaceful, never violent, ever.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

But you will be relying on biased hearsay accounts, at best. Just because many Muslims agree with those accounts doesn't mean the accounts are particularly accurate.

These are most unbiased and reliable than any-other contemporary sources on Muhammad's life. Please

Kindly don't jump to wrong conclusions.

Muhammad did spend 13 years in Mecca, one should not ignore this period. I intend to go chronologically. Right? Please:

“The Arabs were devoted to the culture of speech. They were much interested in their spoken language and were very keen on its advance. Their intellectual ambitions, however, were scant. Of History, Geography, Mathematics, etc., they knew nothing.
But as they were a desert people and had to find their way about in the desert without the assistance of landmarks, they had developed a keen interest in Astronomy. There was in the whole of Arabia not a single school. It is said that in Mecca only a few individuals could read and write. From the moral point of view the Arabs were a contradictory people.
They suffered from some extreme moral defects but at the same time they possessed some admirable qualities. They were given to excessive drinking.
To become drunk and to run wild under the effect of drink was for them a virtue, not a vice. Their conception of a gentleman was one who should entertain his friends and neighbors to drinking bouts. Every rich man would hold a drinking party at least five times in the day. Gambling was their national sport. But they had made of it a fine art. They did not gamble in order to become rich. Winners were expected to entertain their friends.
In times of war, funds were collected through gambling. Even today we have the institution of prize-bonds to raise money for war. The institution has been resuscitated in our time by the people of Europe and America. But they should remember that in this they only imitate the Arabs. When war came, Arabian tribes would assemble and hold a gambling party. Whoever won had to bear the greater part of the expenses of the war.”

Page-136

http://www.alislam.org/library/books/Introduction-Study-Holy-Quran.pdf

The character of Muhammad was peaceful, never violent, ever.

Regards

 

[leibowde84]

Thread open to all human beings whatever religion or no-religion they may belong to , please.
Regards

Seeing how there has not been any periods of peace during the spread of Islam apart from in small populations, the answer is undoubtedly no.

 

[YmirGF]

Seeing how there has not been any periods of peace during the spread of Islam apart from in small populations, the answer is undoubtedly no.

I don't understand why @paarsurrey cannot just be honest.

 

[paarsurrey]

You keep writing this, even after I have provided examples, where he did resort to violence, in the form of revenge, armed robbery, battles and assassinations.
One of the reasons why Muhammad left Mecca in 622 CE and migrated to Medina, was that he feared being assassinated, after losing protection from his uncle, who became the new clan leader.
I do find that any man who fear assassination attempts, and then ordered or condoned assassinations to be an hypocrite. And Muhammad is exactly that, a hypocrite who would sent out assassins to murder for him.
In 624, Muhammad had sent Abdullah Ibn Unais to assassinate Khaled bin Sufyan Al-Hathali, and sent 'Abdullah ibn 'Atik to assassinate Abu Rafi' ibn Abi Al-Huqaiq.
It doesn't matter Khaled bin Sufyan and Abu Rafi' did, that's not the issue. The issue is that you have claimed that Muhammad would never resort violence (yours "never violent, ever"), but here we have two events, where Muhammad did sent people to murder for him, which clearly contradicted what you have keep writing.
How is people wrong when they wanted to assassinate him, but it is right for Muhammad to order or condone his two followers to assassinate for him?
That's double standard, and demonstrated that Muhammad is a hypocrite.
You say that Muhammad "was peaceful, never violent, ever", and yet he led about dozen raids on merchant caravans, between 623 and 624 CE. These armed robberies are acts of violence, paarsurrey. It doesn't matter if had reason to raid and rob merchants, it is still an act of violence.
And it is this act, that put Medina and Mecca at war with each other. And a war of Muhammad's own making, again another act of violence.
With you keep saying that Muhammad "was never violent, ever", showed that you are lying when you overlook the actions Muhammad took in 623 and 624, in Medina, and every actions he took after the battle of Badr.
You wrote:
This is another lie.
Revenge is never a peaceful act.
In 622, when Muhammad sought protection from persecution at the town of Ta'if, they refused to give it. Eight years later, with powerful army at his bidding, he lay siege to Ta'if (630).
So the siege or attack upon Ta'if is an act of revenge.
But that's only part of the problem.
When Ta'if did finally surrender, he rejected townspeople from keeping their old religion, forcing them to convert to Islam, an act of compulsion, which make the Qur'an's "no compulsion" only a guide that can be ignored whenever it is convenient for Muhammad.
This overlooking "no compulsion" is just meaningless words, because it is clear that Muhammad can ignore this verse, whenever it suit him. Another act that showed that Muhammad was a hypocrite.
So Muhammad didn't always follow what the Qur'an say. The "no compulsion" rule didn't apply in the case of Ta'if.

I will take up the events that happened in Medina later.
Muhammad did spend 13 years in Mecca, one should not ignore this period. I intend to go chronologically. Right? Please have patience till such time:

“Of the amenities of civilized life, the Arabs knew nothing. They found compensation in drinking and gambling. Their chief occupation was trade, and to this end they sent their caravans too far- off places.
In this way they traded with Abyssinia, Syria and Palestine. They had trade relations even with India.
The rich among them were great admirers of Indian swords. Their clothing needs were supplied largely by Yemen and Syria. The trading centers were the towns. The rest of Arabia, excepting Yemen and some northern parts, was Bedouin. There were no permanent settlements, no permanent places of habitation. The different tribes had divided the country between them so that members of a tribe wandered about freely in their part of the country. When the water supply in any place was exhausted, they would move on to some other place and settle down. Their capital consisted of sheep, goats and camels. From the wool they made cloth, and from the skins they made tents. What was left over they sold in the market. Gold and silver were not unknown, but they were certainly very rare possessions.”

Page:136-137

http://www.alislam.org/library/books/Introduction-Study-Holy-Quran.pdf

The character of Muhammad was peaceful, never violent, ever.

Regards

 

[gnostic]

I will take up the events that happened in Medina later.
Muhammad did spend 13 years in Mecca, one should not ignore this period. I intend to go chronologically. Right?

Meaning you will not talk about Medina and afterward at all.

So the answer to your question - ""Right?", is "No", you are not right.

You wrote that Muhammad "was never violent, ever". Your words, not mine.

That means from the day he was born to the day he died.

Or if you want to be more specific, like when he was a "prophet", then it would comprise of time he first claimed to be prophet (610 CE), to the day he died as a prophet (632 CE). That's all 23 years as a prophet.

Unless you saying that he wasn't a prophet during post-622 CE, then you are ignoring your own statement about never-ever.

You are cherry picking when his life wasn't violent, ignoring when he did lead his people to violence and revenge.

So unless you repeal what you said "was never violent, ever", to that of he "wasn't violent from 610-622", then I would agree, but your originally claim (Muhammad was peaceful, never violent, ever) is still wrong.

You are just cherry picking and being apologetic and dishonest. You are refusing to address the issues that you brought up yourself, and expect me to follow your rule about being "chronological".

Will you admit that your original statement is wrong and take it back?

Did Muhammad and his followers lead violent life?

1. Was he not leader of armed robbery of some caravans? (Meccan merchants, in 623-624)
2. Did he not lead his followers into war with Mecca? (624 to 630)
3. Did he take revenge on those who did not accept him as a prophet? (eg Ta'if and northern Arab tribes)
4. Did he not force people to accept Islam, or face exile (eg Banu Qaynuqa), slavery or death (Banu Qurayza and Ta'if)?

If any one of these above was true, then your statement - "Muhammad was peaceful, never violent, ever", is clearly false.

 

[paarsurrey]

Meaning you will not talk about Medina and afterward at all.
So the answer to your question - ""Right?", is "No", you are not right.
You wrote that Muhammad "was never violent, ever". Your words, not mine.
That means from the day he was born to the day he died.
Or if you want to be more specific, like when he was a "prophet", then it would comprise of time he first claimed to be prophet (610 CE), to the day he died as a prophet (632 CE). That's all 23 years as a prophet.
Unless you saying that he wasn't a prophet during post-622 CE, then you are ignoring your own statement about never-ever.
You are cherry picking when his life wasn't violent, ignoring when he did lead his people to violence and revenge.
So unless you repeal what you said "was never violent, ever", to that of he "wasn't violent from 610-622", then I would agree, but your originally claim (Muhammad was peaceful, never violent, ever) is still wrong.
You are just cherry picking and being apologetic and dishonest. You are refusing to address the issues that you brought up yourself, and expect me to follow your rule about being "chronological".
Will you admit that your original statement is wrong and take it back?
Did Muhammad and his followers lead violent life?

1. Was he not leader of armed robbery of some caravans? (Meccan merchants, in 623-624)
2. Did he not lead his followers into war with Mecca? (624 to 630)
3. Did he take revenge on those who did not accept him as a prophet? (eg Ta'if and northern Arab tribes)
4. Did he not force people to accept Islam, or face exile (eg Banu Qaynuqa), slavery or death (Banu Qurayza and Ta'if)?

If any one of these above was true, then your statement - "Muhammad was peaceful, never violent, ever", is clearly false.

"Meaning you will not talk about Medina and afterward at all."

You are simply wrong. I will discuss events as they took place. Have a patience!
Regards

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

This is true, Islam makes thousands of people peaceful every week, and millions and millions over the course of its existence.

The peace of the grave.

 

[paarsurrey]

This is true, Islam makes thousands of people peaceful every week, and millions and millions over the course of its existence.
The peace of the grave.

I understand your feelings.
But that is the doings of the extremists . Islam/Quran/Muhammad has nothing to do with it. Please
Regards

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Extremists that couldn't exist without the shield of 'moderate' apologists like yourself.