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 don't think my opinion is hateful at all. I think I'm just recognizing what is in the siras and hadiths. If I should buy a copy of that Life of Mohammed from the online Islamic site, do you really think I'd find information different from that you consider hateful?
"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.
The justifications for Mohammed's beheadings, raiding caravans, etc etc I don't think is proven factual. I think its how Muslims explain the moral problem represented by the siras and hadiths to themselves. I don't have any reason to accept that not being a Muslim myself.
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
I don't pay attention to any commentary. The "hateful" stuff is there in the very text of the siras and hadiths.
"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.
I think you're mixing up two different stories. Mohammed DID take part in the battle of the trench in Yathrib/Medina and the massacre following which the captives were taken prisoner, tied up and eventually beheaded. Mohammed didn't personally take part in the battle following which the old woman Umm Kerfa was torn in two.
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 tribal raiding 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. Far better moral choice than any other available options in that circumstance.
I understand thats the rationale. I suppose after having killed her family, the young woman he married, didn't have much of a future in Arabia regardless of who "married" her.
You know all that, but you'd prefer to pile on another unjust and uncalled for attack because it gives you comfort as a way to rationalize your family religion.
What in the world could it possibly have to do with my religion?
And what in the world do you think I'm rationalizing about my religion?
"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.
Good. I thought I'd misunderstood you when you credited Mohammed with bringing peace via conquest.
As posted above: " In fact he has credit for bringing peace by ending the culture of tribal raiding and on going violent conflict for the entire region for the first time in recorded history"
"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.
Out of curiousity, what am I lying about in regard to the torture of the man over hidden treasure. I haven't heard the rationalization for that one yet.
"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.
Okay, I've got that one. She was a tribal chief and Zayd had been wounded in a previous battle and Mohammed wasn't there, so there, no problem. I still don't understand what modern Muslims looking to the sira for guidance on how to act in the modern world are to take from this story.
How inventive CAN Muslims get in explaining things away?
No inventions simply the facts of the circumstances
How are we to know the rationales you provide are the extenuating facts? Is there a written ancient source that supplies them?
some misplaced mission to raise the status of Christianity.
I don't think talking about Mohammed's history says anything about Christianity.
Injustice always backfires, so I will again encourage you to reconsider this path you've taken.
What is going to backfire on me?
I'd love to hear what you think would do in Zayd's place.
That's easy. I would not have an old woman torn in two under any circumstances, no matter how evil she was, no matter if I'd been wounded.
Lopping of heads is not acceptable under modern culture but in that time executions of the enemy combatants was acceptable
No, its not. I think it would be best if modern people weren't offered stories of someone who did a lot of head lopping in his time as an example of how to live. Maybe people wouldn't be lopping off heads in Thailand, Indonesia, Pakistan ,,,
How many times do you suppose this pagan tribe ambushed and killed Zayd's friends after that episode?
None I imagine. But that sounds alarmingly like a justification.
"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.
Thing is the facts you claim I left out ..... are they in the text of the siras?
I agree that extremist can take a corrupted view of this and use it as comarching orders to apply to modern circumstances.
A finally we're close to agreement on something.
It helps to educate them where possible but it does not help to lie about it to scare Christians.
No, what might scare Christians is seeing the beheaded bodies in Thailand and Indonesia, reading about the murdered aid workers in Afghanistan and Pakistan, etc etc. If not for that type of thing, I'd never have investigated this issue.
"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.
Those radical sheiks and their followers .... I'm pretty sure they see the siras exactly as I do. They just embrace the material instead of being repelled by it.
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.
Of course, and I think General Petraeus is in charge and will do everything possible to prevent atrocities and punish any guilty parties.
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.
How is this? In what way will me having a negative opinion of Mohammed increase the risk of Muslim violence?
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.
We disagree about this. I've come to the conclusion the material in the siras and hadiths, as well as the whole concept of jihad, sets up a condition where some percentage of Muslims will adopt a medieval attitude to dealings with non-Muslims.
"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.
Okay, what is your source for the information that makes a simple quotation from a sira of Mohammed a slander? The negative information you don't like me to quote, we both know where that comes from. But where is the source (book, page, whatever) of the reference for the circunstantial justifications you've offered?
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.
There's that language that sounds like a warning. What do you think will happen to me if I don't modify my opinion of Mohammed so that I think he was a righteous man of God instead of a moral monster and false prophet?
leaving out pertenant details
Quote from the source of the pertinent details I 've supposedly left out.
" 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.
No, its what Muslims in Indonesia, Pakistan etc etc think that matters. You're right MY opinion of Mohammed doesn't matter.
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
I have no idea who most of those people are. Since you seem to know can you tell me which of them took a tribe captive and cut off all their heads - no, thats too much which cut off one captive's head? Which of them had a man tortured to give up hidden treasure?
I'll be sure not to hold that person up as a moral example of how to live as a Christian. That will be easy since I'm not holding up any of them as such an example now.
These comparisons you make reveal your motive to win something for your club. It's beat Islam game day yippee.
That charge is so ridiculous. Why if that were my motive am I not saying anything similar about any other religion?
.
"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.
You may think so, but I don't know if anyone else would read these exchanges and come to that conclusion.
"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.
I think deep down you realize what I'm saying. This is a tragic problem and I don't know the solution. You may not believe this but I feel for your dilemna. |
