*SIGH*, it is obvious that you've decided to concede that your original claim that, "Not one of the PEOPLE who started this KILLING was CHRISTIAN," in reference to WWI, was wrong?   

Adamant wrote on Nov 17^th, 2013 at 10:28pm:



Brian I am serious, Do You Wish to Withdraw Your Slander?

Adamant wrote on Nov 17^th, 2013 at 9:45pm:

Withdraw.

freediver wrote on Nov 30^th, 2013 at 12:49pm:


Reccommed the widely acclaimed works by both Montgommery Watt and Karen Armstrong (both non-muslims). They argue that at the time of Muhammad, the tribes of Arabia had recently transformed from a nomadic society to a mercantile one. This brought in much wealth to the people, but with it a new culture of selfish individualism - replacing the communal culture of the bedouin. This was beginning to tear apart society (what the quran describes as the age of "jahiliyya") - where previously the poor, the orphans and the destitute were taken care of by their tribe - now they were left to fend for themselves, while the merchant class got rich. 

By the time of Muhammad, all this was starting to unravel - the class divide was destroying the community. They were looking for a new way, and Muhammad had the answer. Thats why the quran and the teachings of Muhammad have so much emphasis on community and the duty of the community to look after the less fortunate. This was a message that most people were already yearning for even before Muhammad starting teaching. Watt particularly gives an excellent analysis on the way the quran was revealed - where the initial verses emphasise the social message of islam - to change society to become more egalitarian - rather than emphasising the personal aspects and duties.

In short, there is a very good case to be made that Muhammad's message was already conducive for that society in that particular time and place, and thats why it spread so rapidly and so successfully.

The "battles" you list are entirely inadequate for making the "spread by the sword" case. Virtually all of them were tiny, insignificant skirmishes that say a lot more about the lack of "heart" and discipline of Muhammad's enemies than the violence and ruthlessness of Muhammad's forces.

They were dispirited and not particularly in a mood to fight Muhammad

and nothing about the battles that took place adequately explains this poor morale

they always had numeric superiority over Muhammad

Muhammad never launched surprise attacks that would take them off guard - he always marched his army to the enemy, implored them to submit, and only fought when the enemy attacked first.

What absurd reasoning. If Muhammad had sent such "shock waves" from his treatment of the Banu Qurayza, why would the rest of the non-muslims simply offer themselves up so willingly for the same treatment? A rampaging warmonger who slaughters anyone who surrenders doesn't cause people to throw down their arms and beg for mercy - because they obviously know they won't get any. On the contrary - their resolve stiffens and they fight to the death - because they know they have nothing to lose.

You skip all the historical context about the mercantile society falling apart by its own greed, and people desperately looking for a 'call to community' that Muhammad offered.

Your simplistic reduction of all these complex dynamics to a fairy tale plot of the evil scary half-demon warmonger slaughtering poor innocent pagans is contemptible.

Such as?

Are you really so blinded by your prejudice that you won't even consider the relevant socio-economic climate at the time, and the contribution played by Muhammad's social reforms - which all serious historians agree was revolutionary?

How does your "Muhammad the wicked witch of the west" narrative explain how he was able to amass such a strong and motivated force in the first place

How was this devil-incarnate able to walk in to Medina with a tiny rag-tag mob of untrained, demoralised destitutes and have all the tribes - who were far superior to him militarily - welcome him as the supreme arbiter, and within a very short time unite as a nation under his leadership?

Quote:


You honestly have no clue do you? The Banu Qurayza tried to defend themselves against Muhammed. There was a lengthy siege. Muhammed executed all the men - roughly 800, and the Muslims took the women as sex slaves. Muhammed even took one of the wives as his sex slave after seeing to it that her husband's head was chopped off. nice.

If you willingly submit without a fight, you get to keep your head. That's the whole point of marching up to them and imploring them to surrender. It's not the same thing as surrendering after you have lost the battle. It is very basic military strategy - about as simple as it gets. If you project enough fear, people will simply roll over and surrender without a fight, in the hope of staying alive. They will "desert to you in droves". If you are sufficiently self deluded, you can even tell yourself they are deserting to you because you are a really nice guy. But that takes a special sort of self delusion that few people in history have ever achieved.

Quote:


I heard he was also very kind to kittens and puppies. Just like Hitler.

Quote:
 

Except that he actually did slaughter innocent pagans, didn't he?