When I challenged you on your bias you admitted that it is your motive to prove Mohammad to be a criminal, which is what a biased prosecutor does not a person seeking understanding.
I consider the case proven and closed based on the Islamic siras and hadiths. I'm merely remarking on the fact.
-----------------------------------------------------
"I have supplied what I think is the reason for that. Loyalty to a family faith that seeks for comforting rationalizations."
I can't relate to your concept of comforting rationalizations.
That is only my opinion and guess. No more. It makes sense to me given human nature.
-----------------------------------------------------
>>>"I think what I've posted is factual and I KNOW it comes from Islamic sira and hadiths."
Well that is not completely true. You have posted parced excerpts from Islamic literature which have been taken out of context so an alternative interpretation can be applied,
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, 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. 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.
-----------------------------------------------------
any credible slander contains some basis in fact,
Yes, as I've said the negative things I've quoted are based in fact.
then you attach flawed inuendo, interpretive falsehood, refuse to address circumstance and attribute unsubstantiated motive...
I don't have to interpret ... I just let the plain meaning of the text of the Islamic siras and hadiths speak for itself.
---------------------------------------------
for example:
"the attack on B.Fazara resulted in the capture of Umm Qirfa Fatima d. Rabi'a b. Badr. "She was a very old woman, wife of Malik." And she was murdered "by putting a rope to her two legs and to two camels and driving until they rent her in two
So it would appear by your presentation that Mohammad found granny at her knitting or something and heinously murdered her for the fun of it. Gruesome heinous and senseless slaughter.
"And she was murdered"
"Muhammad's piecemeal, leisurely, butchery"
But what else can we find about this story?
Well I don't know honestly
Well, I'd like to know what the rationale for tearing an old woman in two was. How inventive CAN Muslims get in explaining things away? 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?
You know, I realize that if normal Muslims jump through mental hoops to explain this away, probably not much harm is done. 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 ..... after all the prophet did things like this. 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.)
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. The personal example of Mohammed and his earliest followers.
-------------------------------------------------
I repeated the 'circumstances' and context qualifying requirement until I am now blue in the face.
And in so doing, you've confirmed the basic material. 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. 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.
---------------------------------------------
One explained it as Mohammad's warning to any woman who would dare to take a leadership role.
Personally, I discount any interpretative material like that. I don't try to explain either negatively or positively what Mohammed meant by his actions, I simply relate them as described in Muslim documents.
--------------------------------------------------------
Do these people know that Mohammad worked for a Caravan owned by a business woman and married her years before the revelations began
Yes, he did.
-----------------------------------------------------
So here is what I found from Islamic sources:
"Umm Qirfa was an old Arab woman contemporaneous to Muhammad, the prophet of Islam. She belonged to a pagan tribe named Banu Fazara at Wadi Al-Qurra. This old woman who was also a chief of her clan.
"So not an idle old woman but the Chief of the enemy clan."
"Zayd B. Haritha’s raid on Banu Fazara and the Death of Umm Qirfa
huh???? Zayd B. Haritha's raid???? not the leisure fun of Muhammad??? How can that be? Well let's look at some more information.
"Zayd also raided Wadi-l-Qurra where he met Banu Fazara and some of his companions were killed; he himself carried wounded from the field.
Ahh so it was not an attack on innocent villagers. This tribe had met Zayd in an agressive action on some sort of battle field, killed his companians and wounded Zayd.
Ward b. Amr b. Madash one of B. Sad b. Hudhayl was killed by one of B. Badr whose name Sa’d b. Hudhaym
So Zayd is pissed that he was attacked by the Banu Fazara was wounded and lost his companions.
"When Zayd came he swore that he would use no ablution until he raided B. Fazara;
Something like I will not rest until I have avenged the death of my friends.
"...and when he recovered from his wounds the apostle sent him against them with a force.
Mohammad didn't even participate.
Thats true, he only sent out the Muslim raiders in this attack.
He fought them in Wadi-al-Qura and killed some of them. Qays b. al-Musahhar al-Yamuri killed Mas’ada b. Hakama b. Malik b. Hudhayfa b. Badr and Umm Qirfa Fatima was taken prisoner. She was a very old woman, wife of Malik.
"Her daughter and Abdulla b. Mas’ada were also taken. Zaid ordered Qays b al-Musahhar to kill Umm Qirfa and he killed her cruelly."
So this outcome the retaliatory defeat of the combative enemy tribe and the killing of their chief was something Zayd was responsible for.
There is the circumstance. No Muslim source claims the killing of the Chief was not done in a cruel manner. The circumstance are worthy of consideration and a far cry of what could be obtained from your presentations.
.....
It is an exceptionally brutal circumstance and an anomoly even in the furious war taking place at the time. Mohammad was not even involved except to tell Zayd to go ahead and retaliate when he recovered from his wounds.
Yes, the old woman who was torn in two was prominent in an enemy clan. Yes, Mohammed wasn't present during this attack, he only sent out the raiders. And yes, the leader of the raiders mohammed sent out was seeking personal revenge.
I wouldn't deny any of that. Still, though, we are left with one of Mohammed's chief followers, the leader of a band he sent out to attack an enemy clan, tearing an old woman in two.
People can form their own opinion of what sort of movement Mohammed founded.
---------------------------------------------------------
It certainly is not more brutal than the treatment of Christian leaders regarding innocent natives in colonial times.
I don't doubt the truth of that. 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.
---------------------------------------------------
"Thats how you see it. I think I've just posted unpleasant facts. So unpleasant you have to attack me as a hateful bigot."
The story is unpeasant indeed but that is no excuse to attack you, we have plenty of unpleasantness even today, which we can talk about. You've done far more than present some of the facts.
I provided reasons why Muslim extremests do awful things in modern times, in a post I presented to tejec today. Not excuses just the facts. I don't have a problem dealing with unpleasantness honestly. Not with this event you brought up, or any other. I simply require objectiveness and sincere attempts at open and honest discussion.
You were not attacked, you provided a biased alternative interpretation of the circumstance
Sorry, I don't think so. I've provided just the facts as presented in Muslim texts, with no excuses.
My comment on the excuses is simply that I am skeptical .....
------------------------------------------------------
When you refused, declaring your text to be the only proof needed, I labeled that behavior and the accompanying attitude as bigoted. No attack just a true and accurate description of the conduct. I've also continued to encourage you because I know you as a better person, but you've obstinately refused to give any thoughtful consideration to that possibility. And that is where we are at this point.
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.
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. |
