godlikemadman
God Among Men
I swear, this debate (if you can actually call it that) is making my very BRAIN ache.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Sure. Crusades - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Of course before that there was the incident with Peter in the Garden when he cut the ear off one of the Temple guards.
So you're saying it's OK to advocate viiolence as long as you don't actually particpate in it?
Beats me. I'm much more interested in Psychology than History, which is why I'm focusing more on the way your debating rather than what you're trying to "debate" about.
The actual quote was "by saying that since Mohammed actually took part in battles..."
I was talking about you're perspective, not mine, since (as you keep nagging about) I haven't offered mine yet.
Intentionally misquoting..., taking things out of context..., asking the same questions over and over regardless of the fact that they've already been answered..., hearing things that nobody said and missing most of what people actually are saying...., you're becomong more interesting by the minute.
I never said he wasn't, what does it matter? King David was a warlord, Moses wasn't the nicest person either. As to being informed, I grew up in the Middle-East where my father was working in construction. I have had Muslim friends since I was 10 and learned about their history and culture first hand. I have no problems with the label "Religion of Peace".
Your turn, where do you get the justification for your hatred and prejudice towards Islam?
that is the 6th time you have ******* reposted that excerpt from wikipedia. please ******* stop. it is not helping you.
We have answered your question many times over, markymark. Muhammad was not a freaking warlord. He was a military commander, yes, he was a political leader, yes, and he was a prophet, yes. He only functioned in the capacity of a commander when under direct unprovoked attack. Please, what more do you want?
Congratulations, markymark, you broke me with your stupidity.
oh. my. god.
WIKIPEDIA =/= HISTORICAL FACTS
8 years of fighting = 8 years of being attacked by the Makkans because of their intolerance for Islam =/= 8 years of Muhammad waging war on the Kuffar
Yep, I was right!:thud:
You know what? I don't even care anymore. I just... don't care. I don't care if you take my words out of context or refuse to listen to what I am saying.
Just so I can clarify it to anyone who thinks markymark has a point: Muhammad was a military commander ONLY when he was attacked by outside forces. He was simply defending himself and his Ummah, his followers. This does not in any way delegitmatize the fact that he was a founder of a religion, and that that religion is based on peace. Muhammad did not want to fight these wars. He fought them as last resorts because all attempts at negotiation or treaty had failed. Markymark is a markymoron. That is all.
So you base your entire arguement on the fact that Jesus lived in a time and place that allowed him to avoid going to war and Mohammed lived in a violent time of upheavel and had to fight and be a leader for his people equating to Jesus being peace and Mohammed being war? It's truly hard to take you seriously.