freediver wrote on Aug 1^st, 2013 at 5:52pm:


In which country can a citizen aid the enemy and promise to help them invade and somehow be considered a POW?


freediver wrote on Aug 1^st, 2013 at 5:52pm:


Yet the evidence says otherwise

freediver wrote on Aug 1^st, 2013 at 5:52pm:


Your claims are not supported by evidence. The fact is that most of the people of the Arabian Peninsular converted to Islam peacefully.

All the wars that the prophet fought in his life were against people who had initiated fighting or aggressions against him and the Muslims. The prophet tried to make peace with the non-Muslims around the region of Madina but most of the rejected peace and initiated hostilities against the Muslims.

However, nearly all of the pagans of the Arabian Peninsular converted to Islam upon the Muslim conquest of the holy city of Mecca. The conquest of Mecca was seen as a miraculous sign from God, and the Arab pagans across the Peninsular subsequently converted to Islam in droves voluntarily.

In fact, Mecca was the only great population centre in Arabia that was brought under the banner of Islam through fighting. The pagans from other areas voluntarily and peacefully accepted Islam. Did news of the horrors of the prophet's revenge on Mecca convince them? No because the prophet did not take revenge on Mecca, and let its people go free.

For example, most of the Jews of Yemen freely converted to Islam when their rabbis lost a debate with the prophet's nephew Ali. Those who did not convert were free to remain Jews and some of their descendants still live in Yemen today.

The people of the pagan city of Yathrib accepted Islam at a time when the Muslims themselves were few in number and had no army. They accepted the prophet as their leader and changed the cities name to Madina.

freediver wrote on Aug 1^st, 2013 at 5:52pm:


No. I am talking about the murder of Meccan Muslim, the sexual assaults and torture of Meccan Muslims. The confiscation of Meccan Muslims' property. The expulsion of Meccan Muslims from their homes.

The when the Muslims moved to Madina, the Meccan pagans still weren't done. They attempted invasion on several different occasions.


freediver wrote on Aug 1^st, 2013 at 5:52pm:


The Mecans stole all the Muslim's property in Mecca, after killing several Muslims. When the Muslims fled the Mecca and settled in Madina, the pagans threatened to kill all the Muslims. The Muslms retaliated by raiding Meccan caravans.


The Meccans attempted to invade Mecca three times - The battles of Badr, Uhud, and Khandaq. In the Battle of Khandaq, the pagans marched 10,000 soldiers onto Madina - more people in their army than the entire population of Madina at the time. In each of these battles the Muslims were outnumbered, and only through clever tactics and skilful manoeuvring did the Muslims successfully defend their city. The Meccans also conducted raids on Madina, and nearly launched a fourth invasion attempt, but lost their nerve at the last minute and withdrew heir forces before the battle started.

freediver wrote on Aug 1^st, 2013 at 5:52pm:


They were not POWs. They were traitors who had supplied the invading enemy, announced that they would help the enemy fight against the Muslims from inside the city, and had even made raids against Muslim women and children. Traitors - who were tried by their on laws, and punished according to their own laws.

freediver wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2013 at 10:11am:


List of conquests? Hilarious. Most of those on that list are either tiny skirmishes in which the casualty figures are less than 10, or attempted engagements in which no blood was spilled. Most of the few large scale battles are ones in which muslims were defending themselves.

You don't conquer the entire arab peninsula with a few caravan raids and revenge killings.

Speaking of delusional 

Yup - try as hard as you like to deflect your previous idiotic claim that Muhammad conquered the Arabian peninsula with that list of "conquests".

Yadda wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2013 at 9:23pm:



I always knew you supported terrorism.

And you want to teach muslims morality?

freediver wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2013 at 11:32am:


When given the choice, there is little doubt that Muhammad preferred non-violence. I don't think any credible historian seriously doubts that.

"self interest" and "gaining political power" happened to be in the interests of his people's very survival. So you are not making any sort of moral case against him - unless you are arguing that the "proper" and "moral" thing would have been for him to allow the annihilation of his people.

Muhammad was ruling during the 7th century. To a large extent he had to play the 7th century Arabian game - since he was attempting to lead a volatile alliance of 7th century Arabian tribes who had a long tradition of, shall we say, "un-islamic" behaviour.

That Muhammad had a very strong message against the more unsavoury practices we (ironically) attribute to islam today - slavery, women's rights etc - is beyond dispute. But he was also wise enough to realise that if he demanded instant changes, he would have lasted about 2 seconds. So he took a "softly-softly" approach: alcohol was initially allowed, and banned much later, slavery was tolerated, though freeing slaves was strongly encouraged, he may have turned a blind eye to wife beating, but he was undoubtedly unique amongst arab leaders in preaching strongly against it, and shaming those who practiced it.

And yes - Muhammad was willing to partake in age-old traditions like caravan-raiding, which incidentally, resulted in next to zero casualties.

You have no shred of evidence that Muhammad took part in, or promoted rape as a weapon of war - which you continually claim. The laws that he introduced regarding the conduct of war, were revolutionary - forbidding for the very first time the deliberate killing of non-combatants, and the wanton destruction of property and civilian infrastructure. Muhammad's companions followed his example after his death - when great cities like Damascus and Jerusalem were captured with not only no slaughter of non-combatants, but the specifically stated protection of non-muslims and their religious sites. Something completely unprecedented in that time.

Got to the part where you started blathering about sex slaves and some scorched earth policy, and didn't bother to go any further.