What is wrong with calling Islam religion of peace?

[Kirran]

I thought she was 9?

Much better.

 

[J2hapydna]

Shad

This is the verse in the Quran to which I was referring:

The punishments of those who wage war against Allah and His Prophet and strive to spread disorder in the land are to execute them in an exemplary way or to crucify them or to amputate their hands and feet from opposite sides or to banish them from the land. Such is their disgrace in this world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom save those who repent before you overpower them; you should know that Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Ever Merciful

 

[Shad]

This sounds like the case of a man and his sons who hated the teachings of Islam and who hated MP and his followers but converted to plead leniency near the end of MPs ministry after their city was conquered.

It is possible that he converted to save his life and that of his family. However consider how people thought in this era. Religion was everywhere from complex ideas to something so simple we dismiss it these days. For example take rain. Many cultures have various mythology tied up in such a simple event in modern times. Some cultures had very complex rituals to produce it, give thanks for it, ward it off, etc. Think of various religious people claiming they had an experience of God or whatever. Same idea here. This experience are limited by the knowledge of time. I do not think as many people see rain as a miracle now that we understand how it happens. Keeping in mind how much religion dictated how people thought, in a war over religion victory settles a lot of issues. So perhaps in this case Muhammad's victory is Allah's victory, which is the theological narrative of Islam in this case. For the defeated this can be seen as a destruction and falsification of their religion and conversion to the religion which seems to have be validated as true. It could have been a genuine conversion. As per the modern example people still convert to religions based on experiences of whatever.

These were, for example, no Abo Bakrs - a childhood friend of MP, a trusted companion who understood the principles of MPs teachings and loved MP from the beginning

This can be true for any disciple and teacher relationship.

They also we're not people who harmlessly resisted conversion or merely followed orders in war. These were the masterminds behind all the murder torture plotting and killing of Muslims.

So were Muslims of the era according to their own "history";assassination orders, punishments, pillaging, slavery, executions, etc. The political elite of the era were not nice people. Muslims become the political elite. Muhammad by gaining followers from the upper class gain political power. Nothing out of the ordinary of the era.

So, what was their punishment for masterminding and unrelentingly attempting to murder MP for most of his life as a prophet? Did the Muslims chop off their hands and feet from opposite sides and crucify them under Islamic law? Isn't that what the laws proscribes? If not, what kind of revenge did MP exact on them? For example, if their lives were spared, after chopping their hands and feet off, were they relegated to lives in dungeons, slavery or cleaning toilets? What did the so called, sick, insane, intolerant, merciless, vengeful hatefilled prophet do to them?

Thanks

Some were killed for their acts (10), some were exiled, some enslaved, some were allowed to swear oaths of allegiance and most converted. There are few numbers for the general population. This is not including deaths from the battles or other events. Nothing out of the ordinary of the era. As I said regarding victory, it settles a lot of issues. More so depopulating an area that is not heavily populated to begin with makes little sense. Muhammad was seeking converts not ethnic cleansing.

So the question is do you think such punishments as execution and enslavement are justified.

For other deaths you will have to look these up yourself. I remember reading one source about Muslims tying a man down with ropes, chopping his hands off and leaving him there. What do you think about such acts? Do you think destruction of another religion's temple and replacing it with your own is justified?

 

[J2hapydna]

It is possible that he converted to save his life and that of his family. However consider how people thought in this era. Religion was everywhere from complex ideas to something so simple we dismiss it these days. For example take rain. Many cultures have various mythology tied up in such a simple event in modern times. Some cultures had very complex rituals to produce it, give thanks for it, ward it off, etc. Think of various religious people claiming they had an experience of God or whatever. Same idea here. This experience are limited by the knowledge of time. I do not think as many people see rain as a miracle now that we understand how it happens. Keeping in mind how much religion dictated how people thought, in a war over religion victory settles a lot of issues. So perhaps in this case Muhammad's victory is Allah's victory, which is the theological narrative of Islam in this case. For the defeated this can be seen as a destruction and falsification of their religion and conversion to the religion which seems to have be validated as true. It could have been a genuine conversion. As per the modern example people still convert to religions based on experiences of whatever. ...

Okay so the fact that he was defeated may have convinced him that his gods didn't exist and MPs did. That still doesn't change the fact that according to Islamic mythology they were ceaselessly persecuting MP and trying to assassinate him for decades. In other words they had all the time in the world to look at all the rain and all the other miracles that MP performed (that in reality he may not performed as he may not have even existed). However, none of these convinced him.

Then, you turn around and say that MP may have been doing the same things. However, if that were the case then MP wouldn't have spared their lives.

Then you say, perhaps MP needed more followers. However, I would say, perhaps means there is a 50/50 chance this is not what happened; how do we know for sure?

Then you will say this is what the Arab fairytale books tell us.

To which I will say, the fairytale books were written in courts ruled by the descendants of that ruler of Mecca who was not put to death as required by the Quran.

To which you may ask, "do you think such punishments are justified"

To which I would say, they should be expelled, possibly incarcerated so they can't use their hands and feet to hurt others anymore (metaphorically amputated) and possibly put to death. (I'm referring to people such as Hitler). Otherwise, If they are shown leniency they will do what this man and his family did- create mayhem.

Once again I concede that what you are saying is also a possibility.

 

[Shad]

Okay so the fact that he was defeated may have convinced him that his gods didn't exist and MPs did. That still doesn't change the fact that according to Islamic mythology they were ceaselessly persecuting MP and trying to assassinate him for decades. In other words they had all the time in the world to look at all the rain and all the other miracles that MP performed (that in reality he may not performed as he may not have even existed). However, none of these convinced him.

Except Muhammad preached for 10 years in Mecca before he was exiled. He had rich family members which protected him, he had rich followers, etc. No free Muslim was killed. He story of ceaseless persecution does not pan out even in Islamic records. He rejected a peaceful accord. When someone rejects a peace offering it reflects poorly upon said person. The peace offering also deconstructs the persecution narratives.

Then, you turn around and say that MP may have been doing the same things. However, if that were the case then MP wouldn't have spared their lives.

No you are speculating that Muhammad was a psychopath then knocking down your own strawman. The Meccans didn't slaughter Muslims by the dozens. Muhammad was there for 10 years. He mocked their gods, Meccans mock his. It was a mutually hostile conflict. This is how the era was back then.

Then you say, perhaps MP needed more followers.

He was a religious leader. Religious leaders seek to gain converts. Why do you think Muhammad preached in Mecca for a decade? You have no real objection.

However, I would say, perhaps means there is a 50/50 chance this is not what happened; how do we know for sure?

Speculative numbers. Show your math.

Then you will say this is what the Arab fairytale books tell us.

No I will point out the source is centuries removed from the events. Is not within the 2 primary ahadith. I will point out you are taking the sources at face-value as you accept the theological narrative more than you let on here.

To which I will say, the fairytale books were written in courts ruled by the descendants of that ruler of Mecca who was not put to death as required by the Quran.

Irrelevant. The authors of the source does nothing to establish reliability. If this were true Paul's work about Jesus and Christians is accurate as he was a contemporary

To which you may ask, "do you think such punishments are justified" To which I would say, they should be expelled, possibly incarcerated so they can't use their hands and feet to hurt others anymore (metaphorically amputated) and possibly put to death. (I'm referring to people such as Hitler).

They were expelled. Some migrated years before. The prison system didn't exist back then. Different time, different place.

Otherwise, If they are shown leniency they will do what this man and his family did- create mayhem.

Mayhem such as?

Once again I concede that what you are saying is also a possibility.

I doubt it. You seem to object without providing any argument. You just state you object then move on.

 

[J2hapydna]

Shad, so to resolve the question about what was MP really like, I would suggest going to some non Arab fairytale sources. For example what was the Ethiopian (Axumite Empire's) experience with MP?Fortunately, MP had forbidden the Arabs from invading the Axumite Empire and imposing the Sharia on them. So the Ethiopian experience wasn't mixed with the Arab version of Islam. In addition, in Ethiopia we have a moral and just Christian ruler who grew up with MP in Mecca and adopted a very different version of Islam than the Arab empire. This was a ruler who had known MP and given sanctuary to MPs followers since the earliest days of MPs ministry. So he knew MP better than the Meccan leaders too.

Some of the major differences were, we see no sign of Najashi imposing Jizya on the non Muslim population. Also, he doesn't establish Islam as an official state religion or send his armies to join the Arabs to loot and conquer foreign lands and exact Jizya.

Except Muhammad preached for 10 years in Mecca before he was exiled. He had rich family members which protected him, he had rich followers, etc. No free Muslim was killed. He story of ceaseless persecution does not pan out even in Islamic records. He rejected a peaceful accord. When someone rejects a peace offering it reflects poorly upon said person. The peace offering also deconstructs the persecution narratives.



No you are speculating that Muhammad was a psychopath then knocking down your own strawman. The Meccans didn't slaughter Muslims by the dozens. Muhammad was there for 10 years. He mocked their gods, Meccans mock his. It was a mutually hostile conflict. This is how the era was back then.



He was a religious leader. Religious leaders seek to gain converts. Why do you think Muhammad preached in Mecca for a decade? You have no real objection.



Speculative numbers. Show your math.



No I will point out the source is centuries removed from the events. Is not within the 2 primary ahadith. I will point out you are taking the sources at face-value as you accept the theological narrative more than you let on here.



Irrelevant. The authors of the source does nothing to establish reliability. If this were true Paul's work about Jesus and Christians is accurate as he was a contemporary



They were expelled. Some migrated years before. The prison system didn't exist back then. Different time, different place.



Mayhem such as?



I doubt it. You seem to object without providing any argument. You just state you object then move on.

Who exiled MP? I don't recall MP being exiled. Other than that it's been an interesting and enjoyable conversation. I think I'm beginning to understand your point of view. In essence, you seem to be saying MP probably didn't exist, but if he did, he was just as messed up as the rest of them in Mecca, no better no worse. According to you, one merely has to look at the age and realize that is what people did back then.

In a way, you seem to be suggesting that nothing really happened for one to believe in the existence of a prophet. So why demonize some people to make MP look more virtuous than everyone else? Also, On the other hand you also seem to be saying there is also no need to demonize MP. Is that right?

 

[Shad]

Shad, so to resolve the question about what was MP really like, I would suggest going to some non Arab fairytale sources.

Impossible task. We have zero contemporary sources. We can only go by what Muslims author's wrote centuries later. Such sources create a very conflicting character. One that feeds the poor and hungry but will order the assassination of poets and mockers. A man that will spare those that surrender in one event yet kill hundreds and enslave the rest after a siege without surrendering. If you accept the view that this was common of the era he is not out of the ordinary. As a moral character for all time he fails.

For example what was the Ethiopian (Axumite Empire's) experience with MP?

No idea.

Fortunately, MP had forbidden the Arabs from invading the Axumite Empire and imposing the Sharia on them.

Source? Also history shows otherwise. You are oblvious to that there were wars between the emerging Islamic Empire, post Muhammad, and Axumite

So the Ethiopian experience wasn't mixed with the Arab version of Islam.

Of course not. Muhammad never lived there. His power base was in Arabia and it was centered on land forces. The emergence of naval power did not occur until Uthama and it was centered in the Mediterranean. It wasn't until the 9th century that the Islamic Empire rivaled the naval power of Axumite in the Red Sea.

In addition, in Ethiopia we have a moral and just Christian ruler who grew up with MP in Mecca and adopted a very different version of Islam than the Arab empire.

He never grow up with Muhammad, you are putting forward ahistorical dogma.

This was a ruler who had known MP and given sanctuary to MPs followers since the earliest days of MPs ministry. So he knew MP better than the Meccan leaders too.

More ahistorical dogma. Muhammad lived in Mecca for decades. Many Meccans know him personally as they were related to him by family and tribe. You are oblvious to how monarchies work

Some of the major differences were, we see no sign of Najashi imposing Jizya on the non Muslim population.

Duh.... He was a Christian. Why would a Christian impose a tax on from a religion. Such an inane claim.... The Jiyza verse was revered during the conquest of Mecca not the first migration before Muhammad's exile to Medina....

Also, he doesn't establish Islam as an official state religion or send his armies to join the Arabs to loot and conquer foreign lands and exact Jizya.

He wasn't a Muslim nor was there an evidence of any military alliance between a Muslim political entity and his kingdom. You are oblvious to how monarchies work. More ahistorical dogma.

Who exiled MP? I don't recall MP being exiled

Leaving one's home city due to social and religious issues is a form of exile. More so according to Islamic history Muhammad shows that right after a "conference" with Meccan leaders he tells his followers to pack up to leave. He saw the "writing on the wall"

Other than that it's been an interesting and enjoyable conversation. I think I'm beginning to understand your point of view. In essence, you seem to be saying MP probably didn't exist, but if he did, he was just as messed up as the rest of them in Mecca, no better no worse.

Nope. I reject the theological narrative of Muhammad constructed by Islam. I do not take sources at face-value, this is a standard view in historical methods. I am constructing a Muhammad that is a historical person that created a new branch of a long religious tradition not a religious icon from a religious perspective presented as history.

History (me) vs theology (you)

According to you, one merely has to look at the age and realize that what they did was what everyone was doing.

No one needs to study various events, records, acts, conflicts, moral codes, laws, culture, religions in order to create a greater idea of how the world worked back then. You take whatever you read at face-value and do no further research.

In a way, you seem to be suggesting that nothing really happened for one to believe in the existence of a prophet.

Nope. There are many influence which dictate why we believe what we do. Family, society, culture, experiences, etc. Again this is the difference between my method and yourself. Mine involves actual study and work. I do not dispute the conquest of Mecca. I think it happened. I just do not think it happened in the way present by a religious narrative pretending to be history.

So why demonize some people to make MP look more virtuous than his contemporaries?

I demonize no one because they think Muhammad was a good person. I have been attacking arguments in which people can not figure out why destroying other people's property is wrong. Why theft is wrong. Why revenge is wrong. I am pointing out they are morally blind as they are by the very questions they put forward. I am pointing out idea some think are wrong by their very religious icon did it. Yet they claim he is some moral character to follow.....

Bad ideas and bad arguments make a person look bad. I only point this out.

 

[psychoslice]

I think if you are truly a religion of peace that it would show, but with Muslim it certainly doesn't, that is not going against Muslim, its is fact.

 

[J2hapydna]

Shad, I'm sorry, but you sound like a pretend ex-Sunni Muslim atheist rather than a historian. Why would you want to believe in the conquest of Mecca spoken about in the religious Arab sources if you were a real historian? These days real historians seem to feel that the evidence suggests MP wasn't even in Arabia, but you place him in Mecca, in exile and then back in Mecca in a conquest just as the Islamists.

As far as Ethiopia is concerned, please provide evidence that the Axumite Empire was conquered and settled by the Arabs in the 9th century if that is what you are claiming

 

[J2hapydna]

Shad said,

I have been attacking arguments in which people can not figure out why destroying other people's property is wrong. Why theft is wrong. Why revenge is wrong. I am pointing out they are morally blind as they are by the very questions they put forward

Shad, So which slaves did MP and his followers kill during the first 10 years of MPs ministry? Whose property did they steal? Whom did they plot but fail to assassinate?

Secondly, you say there was no persecution by pagans in Mecca during the first 10 years. So in your opinion, why did the Muslims migrate to Ethiopia two years after MP declared his ministry? Why did the Meccans pursue them? Also, if Najashi had surrendered those refugees or if the Arabs had caught them escaping Arabia what would the death toll have been?

 

[Shad]

Shad, I'm sorry, but you sound like a pretend ex-Sunni Muslim atheist rather than a historian.

Never been a Muslim. Also my point are valid, no historian take texts centuries old at face value

Why would you want to believe in the conquest of Mecca spoken about in the religious Arab sources if you were a real historian?

I am talking about what these source say about Muslims and Muhammad not if the stories are true.

These days real historians seem to feel that the evidence suggests MP wasn't even in Arabia, but you place him in Mecca, in exile and then back in Mecca in a conquest just as the Islamists.

See above.

As far as Ethiopia is concerned, please provide evidence that the Axumite Empire was conquered and settled by the Arabs in the 9th century if that is what you are claiming

I didn't say conquered. I told you history contradicts your ahistorical story.

 

[J2hapydna]

Mayhem such as?

Seriously? You don't see the pain and suffering his son who was captured in Mecca too and his descendants caused for Jews and Christians by treating them as Dhimmi and by imposing Jizya, raping, looting and conquering the world? You do know that it was they who became rulers of the "Islamic Empire" and not Abo Bakr's or Najashi's right?

 

[Shad]

Shad said,


Shad, So which slaves did MP and his followers kill during the first 10 years of MPs ministry?

During? I have no idea. After the conquest at least 3 that are named.

Whose property did they steal?

The carvans raided during the conflict with Mecca.

Whom did they plot but fail to assassinate?

Irrelevant to those they plotted to kill and did.

Secondly, you say there was no persecution by pagans in Mecca during the first 10 years.

No I didn't. Strawman

So in your opinion, why did the Muslims migrate to Ethiopia two years after MP declared his ministry?

Persecution in an age that it was normal.

Why did the Meccans pursue them?

They considered those Muslim fugitives at least according to Islamic history

Also, if Najashi had surrendered those refugees or if the Arabs had caught them escaping Arabia what would the death toll have been?

No idea since it never happened.

 

[Shad]

Seriously? You don't see the pain and suffering his son and his descendants caused for Jews and Christians by treating them as Dhimmi and by imposing Jizya, raping, looting and conquering the world?

You mean a man can cause mayham by treating Jews and Christians like Muslims treat Jews and Christians?

This post is hilarious.

 

[J2hapydna]

You mean a man can cause mayham by treating Jews and Christians like Muslims treat Jews and Christians?

This post is hilarious.

The so called Muslims you are talking about were followers of your psycho pals- the leader of Mecca and his son who should have been executed under Islamic law after the city fell to MP. If not executed, their hands and feet should have been amputated (if no prisons were available). However, they managed to take advantage of the forgiving and peaceful nature of MP and manipulate a pardon for themselves. Then in time, as psychopath would, they killed their opposition, took control of the Islamic empire, subverted the laws and teachings of MP. Then, created MP in their own image in their books that were written in their courts.

The people who really knew MP such as Najashi, Abo Bakr etc and their children had no chance with these psychos in power.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

So which slaves did MP and his followers

why did the Muslims migrate to Ethiopia two years after MP declared his ministry?

Why do you keep referring to Muhammad as MP?

 

[J2hapydna]

Except Muhammad preached for 10 years in Mecca before he was exiled. He had rich family members which protected him, he had rich followers, etc. No free Muslim was killed. He story of ceaseless persecution does not pan out even in Islamic records. He rejected a peaceful accord. When someone rejects a peace offering it reflects poorly upon said person. The peace offering also deconstructs the persecution narratives.

He was never exiled.
In your world killing slaves may not represent persecution in mine it does.
Attempts on one's life may not be persecution in your circle of friends
People leaving for Ethiopia to escape and being pursued, may not be persecution in your world
Peace offering lol

 

[J2hapydna]

Why do you keep referring to Muhammad as MP?

It is easier to write than Muhammad the prophet so MP

 

[J2hapydna]

No idea since it never happened

LOL. It never happened because? Not for lack of trying. What happened to fugitives in Mecca?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

The so called Muslims you are talking about were followers of your psycho pals- the leader of Mecca and his son who should have been executed under Islamic law after the city fell to MP. If not executed, their hands and feet should have been amputated.

Why do you believe non-Muslims should have been subject to Islamic law when a) it wasn't established when they committed their 'crimes' and' b) they weren't living under Islamic law?