Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Poll Poll
Question: Is war ever justified?

No. Let them come rape and kill us    
  0 (0.0%)
No. I am too scared to ever fight    
  0 (0.0%)
Yes. But only if there are WMDs involved    
  0 (0.0%)
Yes. Sometimes you have to fight.    
  7 (70.0%)
No. Only warmongers ever fight.    
  3 (30.0%)




Total votes: 10
« Created by: True Colours on: Aug 2nd, 2013 at 4:14pm »

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 9
Send Topic Print
Muhammed the warmonger (Read 25439 times)
Baronvonrort
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 18257
Gender: male
Re: Muhammed the warmonger
Reply #45 - Aug 5th, 2013 at 3:46pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 5th, 2013 at 2:31pm:
Muhammad was ruling during the 7th century.

That Muhammad had a very strong message against the more unsavoury practices we (ironically) attribute to islam today - slavery, women's rights etc -

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 -


The Persian Cyrus the great abolished slavery around 530BC, Persia had female rulers when Mo was telling muslims not to bury their daughters alive.
Mohammad owned slaves and was a slave trader, Mohammad took women's rights away.

Muslims claim they were only stealing their property back with the caravan raids,The ansars took part in the raids, they were from Medina and converted to Islam and had never been to Mecca so how could they be stealing back what belonged to them?

Are you OK with the fact Mohammad was a highway robber, does the Quran tell you to follow Mohammad's example (33:21) and does that make highway robbery halal for muslims?

The laws that Mohammad introduced regarding war are considered a violation of human rights today,Mohammad's laws on Jihad are a violation of the Geneva conventions.
Obviously Mo is not a man for all times.

The christians have apologised for the crusades, will muslims ever apologise for their conquests or do Porcine animals have a greater chance of becoming aerodynamic?
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests
Back to top
 

Leftists and the Ayatollahs have a lot in common when it comes to criticism of Islam, they don't tolerate it.
 
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Muhammed the warmonger
Reply #46 - Aug 5th, 2013 at 3:57pm
 
Newsflash Baron - 6th century BC Persia != 7th century Arabia.

The Persians reintroduced slavery under the Sassinids - who ruled right up until the muslims conquered Persia.

Baronvonrort wrote on Aug 5th, 2013 at 3:46pm:
Are you OK with the fact Mohammad was a highway robber


Perfectly - kinda like Robin Hood.

Baronvonrort wrote on Aug 5th, 2013 at 3:46pm:
The laws that Mohammad introduced regarding war are considered a violation of human rights today,Mohammad's laws on Jihad are a violation of the Geneva conventions.


Really? Please do elaborate Baron.
Back to top
 

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48833
At my desk.
Re: Muhammed the warmonger
Reply #47 - Aug 5th, 2013 at 4:02pm
 
Quote:
Perfectly - kinda like Robin Hood.


Except that Robin hood did not execute 700 POWs. He did not collect a dozen wives and concubines while pillaging his way across the UK. He did not slaughter people for refusing to follow him. All this, despite the fact that he was also persecuted. Fancy that - a persecuted man not going on a raping and pillaging rampage.

And Brits are not foolish enough to mistake him for God's messenger either.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Muhammed the warmonger
Reply #48 - Aug 5th, 2013 at 4:21pm
 
hate to break it to you FD, but Robin Hood probably didn't exist. So he may as well have done all those things and more - depending on who's telling the story.

The point though is that not too many people would have many moral qualms about a leader resorting to robbing the caravans of the much larger and powerful oppressor state who is hell bent on his people's complete destruction. Even a leader who is hailed as a prophet and example for all mankind. Only spoil-sport islamophobes would find something morally objectionable to this sort of practice - those who desperately clutch at straws to find something - anything - to put The Prophet and the early muslims in a bad light.
Back to top
 

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48833
At my desk.
Re: Muhammed the warmonger
Reply #49 - Aug 5th, 2013 at 5:10pm
 
Quote:
hate to break it to you FD, but Robin Hood probably didn't exist. So he may as well have done all those things and more - depending on who's telling the story.


You brought it up Gandalf. Even in our fiction we don't stoop to Muhammed's level.

Quote:
who is hell bent on his people's complete destruction


What, slaughtering all of them? If they were so "hell bent" on it, why did it take them so many years to actually get round to trying, when attempting it earlier would have only made it easier for them? Did they not know where Medina is or something? Did they want to give Muhammed a fair go by letting him rob caravans for a while first?

Quote:
Only spoil-sport islamophobes would find something morally objectionable to this sort of practice - those who desperately clutch at straws to find something - anything - to put The Prophet and the early muslims in a bad light.


There is plenty. Executing POWs. Raping the women. Slave trading. Slaughtering. And yes, there was pillaging too. Not sure why you think it is hard. Even you acknowledged there were "serious issues".
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Muhammed the warmonger
Reply #50 - Aug 5th, 2013 at 6:02pm
 
freediver wrote on Aug 5th, 2013 at 5:10pm:
What, slaughtering all of them? If they were so "hell bent" on it, why did it take them so many years to actually get round to trying


It took less than a year.freediver wrote on Aug 5th, 2013 at 5:10pm:
There is plenty. Executing POWs. Raping the women. Slave trading. Slaughtering. And yes, there was pillaging too. Not sure why you think it is hard. Even you acknowledged there were "serious issues".


I was actually referring specifically to the raids. You lot regularly point only to the raids as enough proof of his evilness without feeling the need to bring in any of those other smears. You started a whole thread on them.
Back to top
 

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48833
At my desk.
Re: Muhammed the warmonger
Reply #51 - Aug 5th, 2013 at 6:41pm
 
I started the thread on Muhammed being a thief to point out that he is a thief (and Muslims will bend over backwards to excuse it).

I started this thread to point out that contrary to your platitudes, Muhammed was a warmonger.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Yadda
Gold Member
*****
Online



Posts: 21581
A cat with a view
Re: Muhammed the warmonger
Reply #52 - Aug 5th, 2013 at 10:37pm
 
It is simply futile FD, to try to reason with a moslem [any moslem] as though he was a rational person, open to reason.




Moslems will never acknowledge their own error.

Denial.

Dishonesty.

Denial.

Dishonesty.

Denial.

Dishonesty.

We [the non-moslem] will just have to wait until the moslem community rise up against us, and we will then defend ourselves.

Conflict.

Where reason fails, action must emerge.

That is not in any sense, 'incitement'.

It is a prediction of how many, many non-moslems will finally respond, to
moslem dishonestly,
moslem cultural intimidation
and moslem cultural aggression.


The cultural aggression that is freely alluded to, in the many mantras of moslem community;

e.g.
Quote:

"Allah is our objective;
the Quran is our law,
the Prophet is our leader;
Jihad is our way;
and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations."



The moslem community's call to duty for the moslem



Moslems themselves declare, that [all real] moslems want to die as martyrs for Allah's cause.





Human civility is skin deep gandalf.

And ISLAM/moslems are a force in this world, that has been working very hard to destroy that skin deep human civility.

Why so ?

With their intimidation and violence, moslems understand too well, how to create confusion and chaos in the world of man.

But do you moslems really comprehend the consequences of pursuing your moslem/ISLAMIC 'desires', gandalf ?i
+++



2 Thessalonians 2:7
For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.


Isaiah 57:17
For the iniquity of his covetousness was I wroth, and smote him: I hid me, and was wroth, and he went on frowardly in the way of his heart.
18  I have seen his ways, and will heal him: I will lead him also, and restore comforts unto him and to his mourners.
19  I create the fruit of the lips; Peace, peace to him that is far off, and to him that is near, saith the LORD; and I will heal him.
20  But the wicked are like the troubled sea, when it cannot rest, whose waters cast up mire and dirt.
21  There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked.


One will be healed.

One will be destroyed.



Back to top
 

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31
 
IP Logged
 
Yadda
Gold Member
*****
Online



Posts: 21581
A cat with a view
Re: Muhammed the warmonger
Reply #53 - Aug 6th, 2013 at 1:14am
 
shockresist wrote on Aug 3rd, 2013 at 4:19pm:
Yadda wrote on Aug 2nd, 2013 at 9:23pm:



I always knew you supported terrorism.

And you want to teach muslims morality?



...

...i

...

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

Not just 3 pretty faces.




Potential war booty!!iYadda wrote on Sep 1st, 2009 at 9:16am:

FROM THE HADITH.....


"We went out with Allah's Messenger"
= = Mohammed was in the company of these men.

"on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women"
= = describing some form of raiding party, where Mohammed, and his men, 'took captive some excellent Arab women'.

"and we desired them"
= = hmmmm, i wonder what this means?

"for we were suffering from the absence of our wives"
= = ah, in the absence they wives, they desired these women for sex, to satisfy their sexual lust. This sounds like fornication to me. So why weren't Mohammed and his men stoned to death???

"(but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them."
= = in their minds, their moslem captors sought to sexually 'use', and shame, these captive Arab women, and then let their menfolk redeem them. How honourable of these moslem men. /sarc off

"So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them"
= = yep, Allah's finest, sought to sexually 'use' these 'excellent' captive Arab women.

FROM THE HADITH, END.

These [above] Hadith verses are cited, with references, here [in another thread],

Bikeway rapist gets 25 years in jail
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1251431040/8#8










Q.
Which women does Allah allow moslem men to 'freely' have sex with ?

A.
Wives, and females slaves [i.e. captives, war booty].


"..Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess:..."
Koran 4.22-24


"O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee;..."
Koran 33.50


Back to top
 

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31
 
IP Logged
 
True Colours
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2837
Gender: male
Re: Muhammed the warmonger
Reply #54 - Aug 6th, 2013 at 2:58am
 
freediver wrote on Aug 5th, 2013 at 6:41pm:
I started the thread on Muhammed being a thief to point out that he is a thief (and Muslims will bend over backwards to excuse it).

I started this thread to point out that contrary to your platitudes, Muhammed was a warmonger.


Yet you have proven nothing because all the wars that the prophet fought were either defensive, and the prophet never stole anything.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
True Colours
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2837
Gender: male
Re: Muhammed the warmonger
Reply #55 - Aug 6th, 2013 at 3:38am
 
Yadda wrote on Aug 6th, 2013 at 1:14am:
Potential war booty!!


You can try it Yadda. I won't get in your way - Israeli women are not my concern.  You might want to practice 'safe sex' though:

HIV infection rates on the rise in Israel

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4305515,00.html








Yadda wrote on Sep 1st, 2009 at 9:16am:
These [above] Hadith verses are cited, with references, here [in another thread],




The meaning is simple; some men had consexual sex with their concubines.





Yadda wrote on Aug 6th, 2013 at 1:14am:
Q.
Which women does Allah allow moslem men to 'freely' have sex with ?

A.
Wives, and females slaves [i.e. captives, war booty


Wrong, the correct answer is wives and concubines.


There is a difference between the traditional Western slave and the Islamic concubine. The concubine in Islam is treated like a wife; there are  inheritance rights and protection from sexual exploitation, and the likelihood of the upgrading/granting of status to free.

In traditional Western Christian or Jewish slavery, the slave woman has been free game for sexual exploitation, and no rights at all, and little hope of ever being free. The children of slaves were regarded as slaves even when fathered by free men.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Aug 6th, 2013 at 3:46am by True Colours »  
 
IP Logged
 
True Colours
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2837
Gender: male
Re: Muhammed the warmonger
Reply #56 - Aug 6th, 2013 at 4:03am
 
Baronvonrort wrote on Aug 5th, 2013 at 3:46pm:
Mohammad took women's rights away.


Garbage.

At the time ordinary women had no rights; no right to own property, run businesses, inherit, or choose a husband. Islam made all these rights law. 




Baronvonrort wrote on Aug 5th, 2013 at 3:46pm:
Muslims claim they were only stealing their property back with the caravan raids...

Not correct. While the Muslims felt that they were entitled to compensation for what the pagans had stolen them, the fact is that seizing assets of enemies is normal practice in times of war. The pagans of Mecca declared war on Madina, then foolishly marched their caravans through Madinese territory.



Baronvonrort wrote on Aug 5th, 2013 at 3:46pm:
The laws that Mohammad introduced regarding war are considered a violation of human rights today,Mohammad's laws on Jihad are a violation of the Geneva conventions.

The Geneva Conventions were made to protect the European aristocracy in case they were captured in war. It is about the rich protecting the rich.

Islam is revealed by God - not by rich nobility.



The Geneva Conventions are not even adhered to by Christians anyway. Just look at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Bagram, the My Lai massacre, napalming of Vietnam, bombing of Hanoi, firebombing of Dresden and Japan, the treatment of Jews by the Nazis, or the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


Baronvonrort wrote on Aug 5th, 2013 at 3:46pm:
The christians have apologised for the crusades


Oh really? Is that why Christians still like to invoke the Crusades to justify their genocidal adventures?


Back to top
« Last Edit: Aug 6th, 2013 at 4:16am by True Colours »  
 
IP Logged
 
Yadda
Gold Member
*****
Online



Posts: 21581
A cat with a view
Re: Muhammed the warmonger
Reply #57 - Aug 6th, 2013 at 9:37am
 
True Colours wrote on Aug 6th, 2013 at 4:03am:
Baronvonrort wrote on Aug 5th, 2013 at 3:46pm:
Muslims claim they were only stealing their property back with the caravan raids...



Not correct. While the Muslims felt that they were entitled to compensation for what the pagans had stolen them,

the fact is that seizing assets of enemies is normal practice in times of war.

The pagans of Mecca declared war on Madina,


then foolishly marched their caravans through Madinese territory.





The moslem spin [from the moslem propaganda 'play-book'],
which justifies the moslem aggression and violence against non-moslems is always the same;


"Moslems are defending themselves/ISLAM - against others who have, declared war upon the moslems/are oppressing the moslems."



i.e.
Where moslems are in conflict with 'others', moslems always portray the 'others' as the aggressors/wrongdoers - even though the aggression and violence is almost always initiated by the moslem camp.

In any protracted conflict with 'others', moslems always portray themselves as the 'innocents' and as the victims of oppression or violence.






THE TRUTH IS, that ISLAM/moslems are engaged in an undeclared, never ending war of attrition, against those who do not believe as moslems believe.


[n.b. this war of attrition [against all infidels] is declared 'in-camp' among moslems.     but moslem hostility and intolerance, towards those outside of their own camp, is almost always veiled/denied.]




But ISLAMIC 'religious' texts give the lie, to the persistent moslem claim that moslems are always the innocent victims of the aggression [against moslems] from others.

[such claims from moslems are the deceitful 'projections' of their own guilt and their own wrongdoing, onto others]....



"....Lo! Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith."
Koran 2.98


"....those who reject Allah have no protector."
Koran 47.008
v. 8-11


"O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him)."
Koran 9.123







Quote:

Here, for example, are two very illuminating passages from the canonical Life of Mohammed by Ibn Ishaq, as translated by A. Guillaume, and a third passage, from the earliest known Muslim historian.

Ishaq: 204 - "'Men, do you know what you are pledging yourselves to in swearing allegiance to this man [Muhammad]?' 'Yes. In swearing allegiance to him we are pledging to wage war against all mankind.'"

Ishaq:231 - "Muslims are one ummah (community) to the exclusion of all men. Believers are friends of one another to the exclusion of all outsiders."

And here is Al-Tabari, a very early Muslim historian, in book 9, chapter or section 69, reporting words that Muslims believe to have been said by Mohammed himself - "Killing infidels is a small matter to us".

These texts are not fossils from a distant past. They are not dead letters. They are still 'live' and carry tremendous weight in the imagination and practice of many Muslims around the world.
...DDA




Google it.



n.b.
"Killing infidels is a small matter to us"

Mohammed - the prophet of peace.
Back to top
 

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31
 
IP Logged
 
True Colours
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2837
Gender: male
Re: Muhammed the warmonger
Reply #58 - Aug 6th, 2013 at 12:35pm
 
freediver wrote on Aug 5th, 2013 at 4:02pm:
[quote]Perfectly - kinda like Robin Hood.



He did not slaughter people for refusing to follow him.

Neither did Prophet Muhammed.




freediver wrote on Aug 5th, 2013 at 4:02pm:
And Brits are not foolish enough to mistake him for God's messenger either.



But many Brits do accept the truth that Muhammed is the last and final prophet of God:




Quote:
UK converts to Islam up by 40,000 in a decade, report says


Ten years ago, it was estimated that more than 60,000 Britons were converts. The report published yesterday puts the current figure at about 100,000, with an estimated 5,200 converts turning to Islam each year.
According to the report compiled by researchers at Swansea University for Faith Matters - a Muslim group dedicated to interfaith dialogue -more than half the converts were white, indigenous Britons. Two-thirds of them were women. The average age was just under 28.
The findings were, perhaps, surprising at a time when Islamophobia in the UK is high and when media portrayal of Muslims - converts in particular - is often in connection with extremism or terrorist activity.
Nevertheless, the figures are comparable with studies in Germany and France that have found that about 4,000 people a year in each of those nations convert to Islam.


http://www.thenational.ae/news/world/europe/uk-converts-to-islam-up-by-40-000-in-a-decade-report-says



Islam Growing at Astronomical Rate in UK



Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
True Colours
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2837
Gender: male
Re: Muhammed the warmonger
Reply #59 - Aug 6th, 2013 at 1:20pm
 
Yadda wrote on Aug 6th, 2013 at 9:37am:
"O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him)."
Koran 9.123



Yes it is easy to cherry pick verses and present them without any context.

If you knew the context, you would know that God was telling the Muslims not to fight the the Byzantine Empire at that time.

Context:

The Byzantines had previously attacked the Muslims, and after being repelled, killed a Muslim ambassador and were reportedly amassing another army to attack the Muslims. Prophet Muhammed marched an army towards the border. The presence of the Muslim army on the border forced the Byzantine emperor to change his mind about invading as he had hoped to make a surprise attack. The Muslims then spent time in the area convincing the small Arab Christian states between the Islamic state and the Byzantine Empire to switch allegiance, and support the Muslims rather than the Byzantines.

At this point, the Muslim wondered whether to march on against the Byzantines. God told them to concentrate on their declared enemies closer to home; there were still pagans states in central Arabia who were at open war with the Muslims, and they needed to be dealt with to ensure security of the Islamic state.



The verse is understood to be talking about enemy states. For the Muslim,   dealing with peaceful non-Muslims is covered here:

Quote:
God does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who fought not against you on account of religion and did not drive you out of your homes. Verily, God loves those who deal with equity.

It is only as regards those who fought against you on account of religion, and have driven you out of your homes, and helped to drive you out, that God forbids you to befriend them...

- the Quran, al-Mumtahana, v8-9





Yadda wrote on Aug 6th, 2013 at 9:37am:
Here, for example, are two very illuminating passages from the canonical Life of Mohammed by Ibn Ishaq, as translated by A. Guillaume, and a third passage, from the earliest known Muslim historian.




Perhaps you could provide us a link to these texts so that we could examine them in their context? I doubt you could. I think that you have just cut and pasted them from some Islam-bashing website without knowing whether the quotes actually exist at all.

Yadda wrote on Aug 6th, 2013 at 9:37am:
"Killing infidels is a small matter to us"

Can you tell the name of the book that this is in so we can verify?
Afterall, it seems to contradict the well known hadeeths on the topic that say that a Muslim who kills a non-Muslims living in an Islamic state will not go to Heaven such as these:



Quote:
   Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Amr: The Prophet said, "Whoever killed a person having a treaty with the Muslims, shall not [even] smell the smell of Paradise though its smell is perceived from a distance of forty years."
- Bukhari




Quote:
"Anyone who kills a dhimmi [protected non-Muslim citizen, ambassador, etc.] will not [even] smell the fragrance of the garden [of everlasting Paradise]."
- an-Nasaa'i
Back to top
« Last Edit: Aug 6th, 2013 at 1:38pm by True Colours »  
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 9
Send Topic Print