Well maybe my confidence in you to take a decent and just moral stand was misplaced.
You have been given every opportunity to reconsider the position you were presented from a Muslim hate site and refused. There is no doubt now, this is the conduct of a bigoted extremist and you have proudly stood that ground. You don't like the label but it is not an attack it is simply, what it is, what your conduct represents.
"I consider the case proven and closed based on the Islamic siras and hadiths. I'm merely remarking on the fact."
Nothing was proven by your posting, the basis is on chosen ignorance of all the facts. You presented some facts, not all the facts, and provided an alternative explanation that supported the facts you presented but not the facts you deliberately ignored. When a more complete picture was provided, you simply ignored the circumstance, the relevant facts that prove the Muslim hate blog's commentary to be bigoted slander, which you've boldly and arrogantly taken ownership over. The basis for your ignorant declarations. Ignorant slander is not proof, inspite of your opinion on the matter. That is simple logic.
"Yes, I'm sure its possible to argue Mohammed had to cut off all those heads, he really had a strictly charitable motive in marrying the young beautiful daughter of a family he'd just beheaded."
Now you are showing your self to be a base liar. I've shown you the proof that Mohammad was not involved with the battles against the Pagan tribe who first ambushed Zayd killing his companions and later was attacked by Zayd with his stated mission to avenge the death of his friends, with an armed force resulting in their very brutal defeat and extinction. It was full scale war not a tea party and you know it.
The culture of warfare at the time regarding captive women in Pagan war fare was that they would be given to the victorious soldiers as booty to have sex with, put into slavery, or killed. Mohammad didn't create that culture but he did a lot to change it. In fact, he has credit for bringing peace by ending the culture of on going tribal warfare and on going violent conflict for the entire region for the first time in recorded history, and instilling a higher standard of princepled living. Marrying a captive before they could be taken by a soldier was a way to save her honor. His 11 marriages were supposedly each to set an example. 11 marriages otherwise was not allowed. In this case, it was a far better moral choice than any other available options in that circumstance. And other Muslims did follow that example. You probably know all that, but you'd prefer to pile on another unjust, uninformed, and uncalled for attack because it gives you comfort as a way to rationalize your family religion. What bull Brumar. You are perfectly capable of being a strong Christian, giving just consideration to history and the circumstances of others, you are choosing ignorant bigotry... comforting? Whatever, live with it those are the facts.
"all his wars were defensive even when Muslims attacked lands far from Mecca and Medina, all his raids on caravans were to recover property stolen from Muslims.
No they weren't and no one has claimed they were ... more ignorant ravings.
"I'm guessing it might even be possible to claim the torture of that man over hidden treasure was justified by the Muslims needing the treasure to survive or something. Now the old woman who was captured and torn in two ..... I can't even guess at the rationalization for that.
You have only your bigoted guess work and slanderous rationalizatins going for you because you are arrogant and proud liar.
"I don't have to interpret ... I just let the plain meaning of the text of the Islamic siras and hadiths speak for itself."
Except for not being the truth, I understand what you are saying.
"Well, I'd like to know what the rationale for tearing an old woman in two was.
You may not have any idea if you have refused to apply any rational thought of your own to the motive behind the deed. And you have proven that you are bound to such refusals.
However, I provided the facts of the case which you insisted on misrepresenting, or leaving out all together. It was far from an unprovoked liesure activity as you represented it. A pagan tribe who attacked Zayd and his companions, killing the companions and leaving Zayd wounded provoked the following attack by Zayd. The woman was their chief, which was not unusual, as many pagan tribes worshipped goddesses and were under the direction the oldest woman Chief of the tribe for their every move. Zayd held her responsible for the ambush that killed his companions.
How inventive CAN Muslims get in explaining things away?
No inventions simply the facts of the circumstances that you have a problem with. The facts that contradict your slanderous accounting, and your interpretation which is invented in some misplaced mission to raise the status of Christianity. Injustice always backfires, so I will again encourage you to reconsider this path you've taken.
The story of her being torn in two is there. It happened, if we credit Islamic writing. Maybe she wasn't a charming old granny, maybe she was a mean old witch .... but tearing her in two? "
Well surprise surprise and there is no maybe about it. Tearing her in two was brutal and as the Islamic accounting itself describes it, cruel. It was atypical an anomoly without doubt, not an incident to personify greater Islam or to characterize Mohammad by, to do so is blantant injustice. If you bothered to read rules of war and treatment of captives which could be directly attributed to Mohammad you would see this was not something he would have done in Zayd's place or something that he would have directed a person under his command to do. But I know you wont bother, well maybe you will go get some slanderous report from a hate blog but we can probalby exclude the possibility of anything genuine at this point.
Maybe you wouldn't do such a thing, I can't imagine myself doing anything brutal and cruel to a prisoner. Maybe no Christian leader would do something as cruel... wooops, shall I present a hundred or so historical Christian accounts which are as brutal and cruel? No, I don't see the relevance and I know you rather just focus on this incident to paint us a picture of Islam. In this case there was no lawful manner to hold those who had ambushed and killed your best friends. The culture relied on each tribe, or group in this case, to use its forces to keep threats at a distance and to correct percieved wrongs. I'd love to hear what you think you would do in Zayd's place. Never mind I already know, you would have gotten busy worhipping Jesus instead ... uh huh.
Whether you agree with the method or not, (neither of us would consider it for ourselves, so your disapproval is not a big deal to me) Zayd definitely had the right to avenge the deaths of his friends. Lopping of heads is not acceptable under modern culture but in that time executions of the enemy combatants was acceptable, even necessary, up and until the time peaceful relations were accomplished. No guns so no firing squads. No gas chambers or death by injection. In fact no prisons. Hanging on a cross or from a rope involved suffering a slow death. Cutting heads off seems too graphic and icky for me too but I'm of this century. The fact is, it is quick and relatively painless in consideration of the other methods of execution available at the time. Presenting the numbers to get an alarming OMG from ininformed dumbells of 2010 and then inventing an explanation of your own is ... well you know. How many times do you suppose this pagan tribe ambushed and killed Zayd's friends after that episode? It was all out war in ancient and barbarous conditions Brumar, a fact you seem to prefer to represent as liesure time activity to entertain Mohammad... yeah that's just letting the facts speak for themselves, sure it is, uh huh, just keep that drum be going. <sarc>
"You know, I realize that if normal Muslims jump through mental hoops to explain this away, probably not much harm is done."
Nothing has been explained away. The facts you deliberately left out have now been presented and your slanderous accounting has been exposed for what it is.
The problem is when the folks who turn extremist read this, they don't jump through the mental hoops. They take the text as it reads and conclude that any monstrosity committed against the enemies of Islam is good and holy .....
I agree that extremist can take a corrupted view of this and use it as comarching orders to apply to modern circumstances. It helps to educate them where possible but it does not help to lie about it to scare Christians.
" after all the prophet did things like this.
You haven't presented any evidence of that. You just made it up.
"Then one gets people like the Mumbai shooters who will use explosives and automatic weapons to slaughter innocent people. One gets people who will behead Christian girls in Indonesia (I will spare the thread and not post the pictures of the beheaded bodies - they are out there on the net though). One gets people who will murder Christian aid workers, behead and burn the bodies of Thais caught on the highway. (Again the pictures are out there.)"
Right. We can get that and we must do everything we can to prevent it. There are plenty of dumb asses and corrupted radical sheiks in the world. Slandering Mohammad will never move us in that direction. How do we get people like the guys in the American Military who throw granades at innocent Pakistani villagers for sport? Those are things we must do everything we can to prevent also. Get off your trip dude, it is misguided and counter productive, far more likely to exacerbate the conditions you just identified than reduce those risks.
It's this - the interest in explaining why and how so many Muslims in so many countries take up terrorism in the modern age, that has caused me to examine what could be a big facilitating factor.
This is a very good topic and I'd love to discuss it with you. That has not been what we are doing.
" that has caused me to examine what could be a big facilitating factor. The personal example of Mohammed and his earliest followers."
Is a very big factor in that study but acting like an extremist nutcase ranting and raving about bigoted reports from Muslim hate blogs is the furthest thing from that study. You have not examined anything, you have bandwaggoned for a Muslim hate blog. Get off your bad trip and you may be able to do some good in the world.
"And in so doing, you've confirmed the basic material. "
I was able to identify the Islamic texts you provided as authentic when I did my own search. I never suggested they were not authentic. I said I didn't believe you had represented the circumstance justly, that you had slandered Mohammad, and I have also provided the comfirmation for that.
The fact that normal Muslims have invented rationales to avoid having to confront the fact their prophet was a moral monster is actually a good thing ... for them anyway.
Normal Muslims probably do that sometimes but I know there is a vary strong ordinance in all Muslim communities to never invent with regards to religion. There are no 'inspired' Muslims telling everybody what God has just revealed to them like you see on every corner of Christendom.
"...to avoid having to confront the fact their prophet was a moral monster is actually a good thing ... for them anyway."
Not a fact you've provided any evidence of.
If every Muslim were able to do this, I wouldn't bother mentioning it. But it seems clear to me that some don't bother with the invented rationales and accept the clear simple meaning of the text - that atrocities against the enemies of Islam aren't sinful, but are in fact holy acts.
Wars are gruesome by definition. The Muslim rules of war forbid targeting innocents or even non human creatures like crops or pets or something. Muslim rules of war forbid inflicting harm on a subdued enemy or even humiliating them. Terrorism is a violation of that but obviously some people are corrupt and do commit atrocious acts that are not condoned by Islamic mainstream. Your conclusions are unjust and your allegations are false. Get off your wierd trip dude, you are the problem being created in your own head, and people who do what you are doing, exacerbate the cycle of hate. In this case you are either part of the problem or you are part of the solution. At this point you are part of the problem. Once again I am encouraging to reconsider the path you have chosen.
"what Mohammed meant by his actions. I simply relate them as described in Muslim documents.
False, I don't know how you can even use a straight face to make that claim. The event you partially described, leaving out pertenant details to prove a case about Mohammad... was about Mohammad's actions at all, not Mohammads idea of liesure activity, and not without a circumstance that put it into a different light than you portrayed. It's bigoted propaganda.
"People can form their own opinion of what sort of movement Mohammed founded.
Responsible people do just that, by giving the body of literature fair and studied consideration. They find the religion to be non threatening or in 1.5 billion instances in modern times they practice the religion in a peaceful and loving way. But they don't do that by finding some analogous event, misrepresenting it out of context, and then using it as a broad brush to rile up idiots. Extremists Muslim radicals do that and ... guys like you.
" The difference would be that Christians don't consider such colonial raiders prophets of God and haven't preserved their biographies as a guide on how Christians should live."
Whether you consider Mohammad and his actions to be a guide or not is irrelevent. Your accounting of Mohammad and his actions are corrupt so your considered opinion on the worthiness of those actions is meaningless.
Colonial Religious leaders definitely used scripture, and the biographical history of Christianity to guide them and Christendom in general has preserved warrior biograghies as a guide. People who commit atrocious acts in the name of Christianity in modern times have done the same and will in the future.
BTW...Who is St Joan of Arc? and Acacius of Byzantium, patron saint of soldiers , Adrian of Nicomedia, Saint Alfred the Great, Saint Crescentinus, Saint Demetrius of Thessaloniki, Saint Eustace - a Roman general, but in the West usually shown hunting. Saint Florian, The Four Holy Marshals, Saint George, Saint Géréon of Cologne, Saint Ignatius of Loyola, Saint James the Great, reimagined as "Santiago" during the Spanish Reconquista , Saint Longinus, who pierced Christ's side at the Crucifixion, Saints John and Paul Saint Marcellus the Centurion, Saint Martin of Tours, Saint Maurice and the "Theban Legion" (Saint Candidus et al.), Saint Mercurius, Saint Michael, Saint Menas, Saint Nuno Álvares Pereira, Saint Orestes (Edistus), Saint Sebastian, Saints Sergius and Bacchus, protectors of the Byzantine army, Saint Terence of Pesaro, Saint Theodore of Amasea, also known as Theodore the Recruit, or Theodore of Euchaita, Saint Theodore the General , Saint Typasius, Saint Victor, Saint William
These comparisons you make reveal your motive to win something for your club. It's beat Islam game day yippee. Gather around with your holy water or beer or what ever and enjoy the match. It is so ridiculous that I have a hard time dealing with it each time I see you trying to win some points for the team. Let me just give you this. You own God, I don't qualify as a member of that God's universe only members of your club do. He can't be my God because the club is exclusive. You win. Now can you get off that trip. All those of us outside your club have lost. Game over, what more do you need.
"Sorry, I don't think so. I've provided just the facts as presented in Muslim texts, with no excuses."
Sorry but that statement isn't true, and there are days of records here proving it.
"My comment on the excuses is simply that I am skeptical .....
What excuses?
"I know, I'm bigoted because I don't accept the rationales develped to explain away the wars, raiding, stealing, enslaving, beheading, torturing, on and on and on.
That would not be bigoted and that is not what you have done in this case.
"I think there are a lot of Muslims who don't bother with the rationales either - they simply learn from the plain unvarnished text that Muslims have the right to behave barbarously to non-Muslims and act accordingly. "
I think so too, and I think it is dangerously stupid for people to do that. |
