Australian Politics Forum - The Islamic Way

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: The Islamic Way
Reply #45 - Jan 24^th, 2018 at 6:24pm

moses wrote on Jan 24^th, 2018 at 5:56pm:

the first appearances of the resurrected Christ were in the year 30 from April 9 to May 19.

I doubt it very much. There's no historical or other biblical evidence to support this claim.

moses wrote on Jan 24^th, 2018 at 5:56pm:

People were converting to Christianity in droves, all based on a verifiable risen saviour.

No, they weren't actually. The early Christians were a small group confined to the original apostles.

moses wrote on Jan 24^th, 2018 at 5:56pm:

There is no way known that incident of Saul / Paul seeing the bright light on his way to Damascus happened before the church had spread massively.

We know that's the case because Paul is the first to write about it. No one else wrote about it. There's no indication in the Epistles that other people had propagated this doctrine.

moses wrote on Jan 24^th, 2018 at 5:56pm:

Most likely the first dramatic growth of the church happened in the first 12 months after the Resurrection.

The resurrection was told AFTER THE FACT.

moses wrote on Jan 24^th, 2018 at 5:56pm:

The Church was already well and truly up and running the Resurrection Appearances were the rock the new faith was based on, Saul / Paul was a late edition, converting on one of his trips of maltreatment against a rapidly spreading church.

It's simple logic people rapidly spreading the faith based on confirmable Resurrection Appearances, Saul/Paul heading out on a kill the Christians mission, confronted by a bright light which says it's the spirit of Christ. Saul/Paul converts.

There's no way he started the risen saviour doctrine.

Incorrect, the early Christians were more Jewish in their doctrine. They had no concept of the Cosmic Christ or a Spiritual Body; this is truly Pauline theology. Scholars will support this.

No one knew about christianity until Paul started writing. The Gospels came later and tell a mix of Jewish and Pauline theology, mixed together.

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

moses

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6353

Re: The Islamic Way
Reply #46 - Jan 24^th, 2018 at 6:44pm

So your saying that the biblical accounts are all lies.

Quote:

The Bible says that Jesus made a number of appearances after His death. They were to a number of different people over a forty-day period. The Bible specifically says that on Easter Sunday Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene, the women that came to Jesus tomb, (Mary the Mother of James, Salome, and Joanna), Peter, and two disciples on the Emmaus road. He also appeared to the remainder of the Twelve Disciples with Thomas absent. Later he appeared to them with Thomas present. There was also an appearance to seven disciples on the Sea of Galilee. On another occasion he appeared to over five hundred people at the same time. There is also an appearance to James. Finally Jesus appeared to Saul of Tarsus - the man who became the Apostle Paul. These appearances convinced His disciples, beyond any doubt, that He had risen from the dead.

According to you these accounts are false as they simply had no idea about the resurrection of Christ?

Is this your argument, the N.T. was deliberately falsified, there were no resurrection appearances in the first 40 days after the death of Christ?

I don't think there are many Christians who will agree with this hypothesis.

Back to top

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: The Islamic Way
Reply #47 - Jan 24^th, 2018 at 6:55pm

moses wrote on Jan 24^th, 2018 at 6:44pm:

So your saying that the biblical accounts are all lies.

Quote:

The Bible says that Jesus made a number of appearances after His death. They were to a number of different people over a forty-day period. The Bible specifically says that on Easter Sunday Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene, the women that came to Jesus tomb, (Mary the Mother of James, Salome, and Joanna), Peter, and two disciples on the Emmaus road. He also appeared to the remainder of the Twelve Disciples with Thomas absent. Later he appeared to them with Thomas present. There was also an appearance to seven disciples on the Sea of Galilee. On another occasion he appeared to over five hundred people at the same time. There is also an appearance to James. Finally Jesus appeared to Saul of Tarsus - the man who became the Apostle Paul. These appearances convinced His disciples, beyond any doubt, that He had risen from the dead.

According to you these accounts are false as they simply had no idea about the resurrection of Christ?

Is this your argument, the N.T. was deliberately falsified, there were no resurrection appearances in the first 40 days after the death of Christ?

I don't think there are many Christians who will agree with this hypothesis.

You're quoting the Gospels, which I explained were written AFTER Paul's theology had been developed. The Gospels were written by communities of the respective disciples. In order to give themselves as much legitimacy as Paul, they incorporated the resurrection and appearance story in their Gospels. They didn't want Paul to usurp their privileged position.

I never said the NT was falsified, I am saying that it reflects the theology of Paul. Sure, many Christians will disagree, doesn't mean they're right.

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

moses Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 6353	Re: The Islamic Way Reply #48 - Jan 24^th, 2018 at 7:10pm But why do the gospels distinctly say the resurrection appearances were in the first 40 days just before the ascension? You're just going to use a lame excusethey didn't want to give Paul his due?
Back to top	IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49400
At my desk.

Re: The Islamic Way
Reply #49 - Jan 24^th, 2018 at 9:10pm

Quote:

The massacre happened. The question is motive. Did Muhammad slaughter those people because they 'disbelieved' as you claim, or because they were a potential threat to the Muslim community? Can you be so sure that if Muhammad had live and let live, that those who surrendered wouldn't have sought revenge on the Muslim community? If you were the leader of a community and there was a continual threat looming down on you, don't you think that if you were savvy, you'd eliminate that threat as soon as possible, or would you wait until they built up strength??

It does not really matter whether Muhammad was motivated by a cynical quest for money and power of if he really believed and angel told him to commit genocide. The outcome for the Jews is the same. The content of the Quran is the same. What Muslims believe is the same. Gandalf is still trotting out the mindless collective of treacherous Jews defense. I am not sure why you appear to think that feeling threatened is a justification for Genocide. It's like you would excuse Hitler so long as he really believed what he wrote in Mein Kampf.

Is there some hidden point here you are going to surprise us with?

Quote:

As stated above, it's weak leadership when you know that there are threats surrounding you, and you don't take action to eliminate those threats.

There are all sorts of actions he could have taken. Like refraining from murdering innocent people in order to steal from them. Again, I am not sure why you think feeling threatened justifies genocide.

Quote:

As I've stated before, Muhammad engaged in pre-emptive warfare, which means you act your enemies based on a 'perceived' threat. His goal was to unite the Arabian peninsula.

Again, so what?

Quote:

The details of the treaty don't matter.

Sure they do. What if it never existed in a form that would actually pass for a treaty by any rational standard? What if it was Muhammad who violated it first?

Quote:

Muhammad wanted to build an empire, which involves killing and blood.

Again, what is your point?

Quote:

I never said anything about moral.

So again, what is your point?

Quote:

Of course it was immoral what he did, but the Prophets of the Tanakh also committed many immoral acts.

What is your point?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

issuevoter Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 9200 The Great State of Mind Gender:	Re: The Islamic Way Reply #50 - Jan 25^th, 2018 at 6:20am More of the Islamic Way in the news today: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-42808342
Back to top	No political allegiance. No philosophy. No religion. IP Logged

Yadda Gold Member Offline Posts: 21887 A cat with a view	Re: The Islamic Way Reply #51 - Jan 25^th, 2018 at 7:43am important additional below [edit], in Reply #36 [only for bible lovers] http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1516565029/36#36
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

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: The Islamic Way
Reply #52 - Jan 25^th, 2018 at 10:04am

freediver wrote on Jan 24^th, 2018 at 9:10pm:

It does not really matter whether Muhammad was motivated by a cynical quest for money and power of if he really believed and angel told him to commit genocide. The outcome for the Jews is the same. The content of the Quran is the same. What Muslims believe is the same. Gandalf is still trotting out the mindless collective of treacherous Jews defense. I am not sure why you appear to think that feeling threatened is a justification for Genocide. It's like you would excuse Hitler so long as he really believed what he wrote in Mein Kampf.

Genocide is never justified. My point is that Muhammad behaved as the leader of a community. Did he exceed proportion? Yes, in many cases he did. It's also true that he protected his community.

I think the point you're trying to make here is that Muhammad is a so-called Prophet and should have standards higher than the average person. If we were talking about him as a historical character in much the same way as we talk about Napoleon or Julius Caesar, then nobody would care. It's because he's the leader of a religion that brings him under so much scrutiny.

freediver wrote on Jan 24^th, 2018 at 9:10pm:

There are all sorts of actions he could have taken. Like refraining from murdering innocent people in order to steal from them. Again, I am not sure why you think feeling threatened justifies genocide.

Can you provide a comparable example within a tribal society where genocide wasn't the end game?

freediver wrote on Jan 24^th, 2018 at 9:10pm:

Again, so what?

So, when you look at it from this context, he did what any other conquerer of his time did. What makes him more of a target of scrutiny than any other person???

freediver wrote on Jan 24^th, 2018 at 9:10pm:

Sure they do. What if it never existed in a form that would actually pass for a treaty by any rational standard? What if it was Muhammad who violated it first?

The treaty was that both sides would not engage in hostilities or support the enemy. Muhammad, according to the relevant literature didn't break those treaties; the enemy did. Can you provide evidence that Muhammad unilaterally broke treaties??

freediver wrote on Jan 24^th, 2018 at 9:10pm:

Again, what is your point?

Which means again, why are you giving him so much scrutiny compared to any other person of his time??

freediver wrote on Jan 24^th, 2018 at 9:10pm:

What is your point?

My point is that you're quite willing to gloss over the actions of Moses and his massacres, but pay special attention and scrutiny to Muhammad's actions when on the grand scale of things, they amount to pretty much the same. Moses was a warmongering tribal leader who order the slaughter of thousands, women and children alike.

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49400
At my desk.

Re: The Islamic Way
Reply #53 - Jan 25^th, 2018 at 12:10pm

Quote:

I think the point you're trying to make here is that Muhammad is a so-called Prophet and should have standards higher than the average person.

Sure. We should not have to explain to religious leaders that genocide is a bad thing. The 'average person' is a low bar to set, yet even there Muhamamd comes up short.

Quote:

If we were talking about him as a historical character in much the same way as we talk about Napoleon or Julius Caesar, then nobody would care. It's because he's the leader of a religion that brings him under so much scrutiny.

Sure. Hitler gets scrutiny because we still have Nazis sprouting his nonsense. We have 1.5 billion Muslims sprouting Muhamnamd's nonsense. Western civilisation was nearly completely destroyed because of Muhammad. Genghis gets little attention, despite the scale of what he did, because no-one is defending him. Civilisation recovered from Ghenghis in a way it did not from Muhammad, because Ghenghis did not impose his barbarity via a religion.

Quote:

Can you provide a comparable example within a tribal society where genocide wasn't the end game?

Sure. Pre-Muhamamd Arabia. Is someone telling you that these tribes intended to wipe each other out, and just needed Muhammad's help to get it done? Or, stick your finger on a map, and pick a random year in history.

Quote:

The treaty was

What treaty? You have been talking about it for several posts now, and I am still waiting on an answer.

Quote:

Can you provide evidence that Muhammad unilaterally broke treaties??

I can give you common sense. The Jews would not have signed up to such a one sided treaty that allowed Muhammad to threaten them with massacre if they do not convert to Islam. By any reasonable standard that is a declaration of war by Muhammad- the end of a treaty. Remember, they were the third of three large tribes to fall victim to this non-existent treaty. Obviously it is hard for me to prove anything regarding a treaty that does not actually exist. It is another lie Muslims like to tell, like Gandalf's invention of a mindless collective.

Quote:

My point is that you're quite willing to gloss over the actions of Moses and his massacres, but pay special attention and scrutiny to Muhammad's actions when on the grand scale of things, they amount to pretty much the same. Moses was a warmongering tribal leader who order the slaughter of thousands, women and children alike.

There is nothing in the Jewish literature, or any other religious text I am aware of, that comes close to chapter 9 of the Koran in terms of promoting violence.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: The Islamic Way
Reply #54 - Jan 25^th, 2018 at 1:25pm

freediver wrote on Jan 25^th, 2018 at 12:10pm:

Quote:

I think the point you're trying to make here is that Muhammad is a so-called Prophet and should have standards higher than the average person.

Sure. We should not have to explain to religious leaders that genocide is a bad thing. The 'average person' is a low bar to set, yet even there Muhamamd comes up short.

Of course. That goes without saying.

Quote:

If we were talking about him as a historical character in much the same way as we talk about Napoleon or Julius Caesar, then nobody would care. It's because he's the leader of a religion that brings him under so much scrutiny.

Sure. Hitler gets scrutiny because we still have Nazis sprouting his nonsense. We have 1.5 billion Muslims sprouting Muhamnamd's nonsense. Western civilisation was nearly completely destroyed because of Muhammad. Genghis gets little attention, despite the scale of what he did, because no-one is defending him. Civilisation recovered from Ghenghis in a way it did not from Muhammad, because Ghenghis did not impose his barbarity via a religion.

I never said that no person or idea is above scrutiny. What I’m saying is that Islam was founded in a tribal society as was Judaism. In fact, I’d say that Arabia was more tribal than Judea.

Quote:

Can you provide a comparable example within a tribal society where genocide wasn't the end game?

Sure. Pre-Muhamamd Arabia. Is someone telling you that these tribes intended to wipe each other out, and just needed Muhammad's help to get it done? Or, stick your finger on a map, and pick a random year in history.

Quote:

The treaty was

What treaty? You have been talking about it for several posts now, and I am still waiting on an answer.

Quote:

Can you provide evidence that Muhammad unilaterally broke treaties??

I can give you common sense. The Jews would not have signed up to such a one sided treaty that allowed Muhammad to threaten them with massacre if they do not convert to Islam. By any reasonable standard that is a declaration of war by Muhammad- the end of a treaty. Remember, they were the third of three large tribes to fall victim to this non-existent treaty. Obviously it is hard for me to prove anything regarding a treaty that does not actually exist. It is another lie Muslims like to tell, like Gandalf's invention of a mindless collective.

Quote:

My point is that you're quite willing to gloss over the actions of Moses and his massacres, but pay special attention and scrutiny to Muhammad's actions when on the grand scale of things, they amount to pretty much the same. Moses was a warmongering tribal leader who order the slaughter of thousands, women and children alike.

There is nothing in the Jewish literature, or any other religious text I am aware of, that comes close to chapter 9 of the Koran in terms of promoting violence.

Look, I take your point. Muhammad is not what I would expect from a Prophet of God. Maybe he was evil. The point is that he has 1 billion adherents. We’re stuck with Islam, whether we like it or not. People are very sensitive about religion; if we have to engage in historical revisionism about a man who lived 1400 years in order to live harmoniously with them, then I don’t think it’s a huge price to pay.

I totally get what you’re doing and you’re right for the most part about Islam and Muhammad. It’s also true that you’re efforts won’t reap anything.

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 21887
A cat with a view

Re: The Islamic Way
Reply #55 - Jan 25^th, 2018 at 6:35pm

Auggie wrote on Jan 25^th, 2018 at 1:25pm:

Look, I take your point. Muhammad is not what I would expect from a Prophet of God. Maybe he was evil. The point is that he has 1 billion adherents. We’re stuck with Islam, whether we like it or not. People are very sensitive about religion; if we have to engage in historical revisionism about a man who lived 1400 years in order to live harmoniously with them, then I don’t think it’s a huge price to pay.

I totally get what you’re doing and you’re right for the most part about Islam and Muhammad. It’s also true that you’re efforts won’t reap anything.

Still a blatant bare faced deceiver, imo.

Promoting both 1/ defeatism and 2/ 'compromise' with a group pf people, a community, who will continue to deceive us, and lie to us, until the very moment that they hold a sword to our collective throats.

"We’re stuck with Islam, whether we like it or not."

"in order to live harmoniously with them"

YOU ARE NO BETTER THAN A MOSLEM, augcaesarustus.

.

Highly recommended by Yadda.....

ISLAM explained, plain and simple....

Three things you (probably) don't know about islam

9 min 29 mb
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgsrnmzxEUY

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

Offline

Posts: 21887
A cat with a view

Re: The Islamic Way
Reply #56 - Jan 25^th, 2018 at 7:15pm

Yadda wrote on Jan 25^th, 2018 at 6:35pm:

Auggie wrote on Jan 25^th, 2018 at 1:25pm:

Look, I take your point. Muhammad is not what I would expect from a Prophet of God. Maybe he was evil. The point is that he has 1 billion adherents. We’re stuck with Islam, whether we like it or not. People are very sensitive about religion; if we have to engage in historical revisionism about a man who lived 1400 years in order to live harmoniously with them, then I don’t think it’s a huge price to pay.

I totally get what you’re doing and you’re right for the most part about Islam and Muhammad. It’s also true that you’re efforts won’t reap anything.

Still a blatant bare faced deceiver, imo.

Promoting both 1/ defeatism and 2/ 'compromise' with a group pf people, a community, who will continue to deceive us, and lie to us, until the very moment that they hold a sword to our collective throats.

"We’re stuck with Islam, whether we like it or not."

"in order to live harmoniously with them"

augcaesarustus,

IMO, in a sane world, people like yourself would be shipped off to somewhere like Somalia, or Egypt, or Pakistan,

where you could compromise with the local moslems, to your hearts content,

"in order to live harmoniously with them".

Where you could put your own opinions and your own advice to the test.

.

As far as i know, this 'Aussie' moslem, now resides in Lebanon.

------ >

IMAGE.....

< -------- This person, Sheik Feiz Mohammed, is a deceitful sack of $#@!.

He is a moslem.

Quote:

Use children as troops, says cleric

January 18, 2007

SYDNEY'S most influential radical Muslim cleric has been caught on film calling Jews pigs and urging children to die for Allah.
Firebrand Sheik Feiz Mohammed, head of the Global Islamic Youth Centre in Liverpool [Australia], delivered the hateful rants on a collection of DVDs called the Death Series being sold in Australia and overseas.
.........Sheik Feiz says in the video.
"We want to have children and offer them as soldiers defending Islam. Teach them this: There is nothing more beloved to me than wanting to die as a mujahid (holy warrior). Put in their soft, tender hearts the zeal of jihad and a love of martyrdom."
An Australian citizen born in Sydney who has spent the past year living in Lebanon, Sheik Feiz was exposed this week in a British documentary Undercover Mosque.
......"The peak, the pinnacle, the crest, the highest point, the pivot, the summit of Islam is jihad," he declares in the film, before denouncing "kaffirs" (non-Muslims).

"Kaffir is the worst word ever written, a sign of infidelity, disbelief, filth, a sign of dirt."

......Sheik Feiz - who just two weeks ago said he felt like an "alien" in his own country - leads about 4000 followers through his Global Islamic Youth Centre in Sydney's southwest.
He also accused Australian authorities of being over-zealous in their approach to clerics like him.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21074839-2,00.html
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/014863.php

NOW LISTEN TO THE EXACT SAME MOSLEM AS HE SPEAKS TO NON-MOSLEM AUDIENCE - WHO HAVE BECOME AWARE OF HIS PREVIOUS STATEMENTS

Fiery Australian cleric claims jihad remarks were misunderstood;

Quote:

"The jihad I speak of is not one of violence,"...

"I don't believe in suicide bombing. I don't believe in violence against others," he said. "We denounce that.

This is not Islamic law and it is not moral."

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/01/fiery-australian-cleric-claims-jihad-remarks-w...

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

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49400
At my desk.

Re: The Islamic Way
Reply #57 - Jan 25^th, 2018 at 8:32pm

Auggie wrote on Jan 25^th, 2018 at 1:25pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 25^th, 2018 at 12:10pm:

Quote:

I think the point you're trying to make here is that Muhammad is a so-called Prophet and should have standards higher than the average person.

Sure. We should not have to explain to religious leaders that genocide is a bad thing. The 'average person' is a low bar to set, yet even there Muhamamd comes up short.

Of course. That goes without saying.

Quote:

If we were talking about him as a historical character in much the same way as we talk about Napoleon or Julius Caesar, then nobody would care. It's because he's the leader of a religion that brings him under so much scrutiny.

Sure. Hitler gets scrutiny because we still have Nazis sprouting his nonsense. We have 1.5 billion Muslims sprouting Muhamnamd's nonsense. Western civilisation was nearly completely destroyed because of Muhammad. Genghis gets little attention, despite the scale of what he did, because no-one is defending him. Civilisation recovered from Ghenghis in a way it did not from Muhammad, because Ghenghis did not impose his barbarity via a religion.

I never said that no person or idea is above scrutiny. What I’m saying is that Islam was founded in a tribal society as was Judaism. In fact, I’d say that Arabia was more tribal than Judea.

Quote:

Can you provide a comparable example within a tribal society where genocide wasn't the end game?

Sure. Pre-Muhamamd Arabia. Is someone telling you that these tribes intended to wipe each other out, and just needed Muhammad's help to get it done? Or, stick your finger on a map, and pick a random year in history.

Quote:

The treaty was

What treaty? You have been talking about it for several posts now, and I am still waiting on an answer.

Quote:

Can you provide evidence that Muhammad unilaterally broke treaties??

I can give you common sense. The Jews would not have signed up to such a one sided treaty that allowed Muhammad to threaten them with massacre if they do not convert to Islam. By any reasonable standard that is a declaration of war by Muhammad- the end of a treaty. Remember, they were the third of three large tribes to fall victim to this non-existent treaty. Obviously it is hard for me to prove anything regarding a treaty that does not actually exist. It is another lie Muslims like to tell, like Gandalf's invention of a mindless collective.

Quote:

My point is that you're quite willing to gloss over the actions of Moses and his massacres, but pay special attention and scrutiny to Muhammad's actions when on the grand scale of things, they amount to pretty much the same. Moses was a warmongering tribal leader who order the slaughter of thousands, women and children alike.

There is nothing in the Jewish literature, or any other religious text I am aware of, that comes close to chapter 9 of the Koran in terms of promoting violence.

Look, I take your point. Muhammad is not what I would expect from a Prophet of God. Maybe he was evil. The point is that he has 1 billion adherents. We’re stuck with Islam, whether we like it or not. People are very sensitive about religion; if we have to engage in historical revisionism about a man who lived 1400 years in order to live harmoniously with them, then I don’t think it’s a huge price to pay.

I totally get what you’re doing and you’re right for the most part about Islam and Muhammad. It’s also true that you’re efforts won’t reap anything.

Why not?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: The Islamic Way
Reply #58 - Jan 25^th, 2018 at 9:05pm

freediver wrote on Jan 25^th, 2018 at 8:32pm:

Auggie wrote on Jan 25^th, 2018 at 1:25pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 25^th, 2018 at 12:10pm:

Quote:

I think the point you're trying to make here is that Muhammad is a so-called Prophet and should have standards higher than the average person.

Sure. We should not have to explain to religious leaders that genocide is a bad thing. The 'average person' is a low bar to set, yet even there Muhamamd comes up short.

Of course. That goes without saying.

Quote:

If we were talking about him as a historical character in much the same way as we talk about Napoleon or Julius Caesar, then nobody would care. It's because he's the leader of a religion that brings him under so much scrutiny.

Sure. Hitler gets scrutiny because we still have Nazis sprouting his nonsense. We have 1.5 billion Muslims sprouting Muhamnamd's nonsense. Western civilisation was nearly completely destroyed because of Muhammad. Genghis gets little attention, despite the scale of what he did, because no-one is defending him. Civilisation recovered from Ghenghis in a way it did not from Muhammad, because Ghenghis did not impose his barbarity via a religion.

I never said that no person or idea is above scrutiny. What I’m saying is that Islam was founded in a tribal society as was Judaism. In fact, I’d say that Arabia was more tribal than Judea.

Quote:

Can you provide a comparable example within a tribal society where genocide wasn't the end game?

Sure. Pre-Muhamamd Arabia. Is someone telling you that these tribes intended to wipe each other out, and just needed Muhammad's help to get it done? Or, stick your finger on a map, and pick a random year in history.

Quote:

The treaty was

What treaty? You have been talking about it for several posts now, and I am still waiting on an answer.

Quote:

Can you provide evidence that Muhammad unilaterally broke treaties??

I can give you common sense. The Jews would not have signed up to such a one sided treaty that allowed Muhammad to threaten them with massacre if they do not convert to Islam. By any reasonable standard that is a declaration of war by Muhammad- the end of a treaty. Remember, they were the third of three large tribes to fall victim to this non-existent treaty. Obviously it is hard for me to prove anything regarding a treaty that does not actually exist. It is another lie Muslims like to tell, like Gandalf's invention of a mindless collective.

Quote:

My point is that you're quite willing to gloss over the actions of Moses and his massacres, but pay special attention and scrutiny to Muhammad's actions when on the grand scale of things, they amount to pretty much the same. Moses was a warmongering tribal leader who order the slaughter of thousands, women and children alike.

There is nothing in the Jewish literature, or any other religious text I am aware of, that comes close to chapter 9 of the Koran in terms of promoting violence.

Look, I take your point. Muhammad is not what I would expect from a Prophet of God. Maybe he was evil. The point is that he has 1 billion adherents. We’re stuck with Islam, whether we like it or not. People are very sensitive about religion; if we have to engage in historical revisionism about a man who lived 1400 years in order to live harmoniously with them, then I don’t think it’s a huge price to pay.

I totally get what you’re doing and you’re right for the most part about Islam and Muhammad. It’s also true that you’re efforts won’t reap anything.

Why not?

Can you imagine trying to convince 1.8 billion Muslims that they’ve been lied all their life and that their religion is based on a warmongering, sadistic, sexual predator?

Good luck with that.

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: The Islamic Way
Reply #59 - Jan 25^th, 2018 at 9:07pm

Yadda wrote on Jan 25^th, 2018 at 6:35pm:

Auggie wrote on Jan 25^th, 2018 at 1:25pm:

Look, I take your point. Muhammad is not what I would expect from a Prophet of God. Maybe he was evil. The point is that he has 1 billion adherents. We’re stuck with Islam, whether we like it or not. People are very sensitive about religion; if we have to engage in historical revisionism about a man who lived 1400 years in order to live harmoniously with them, then I don’t think it’s a huge price to pay.

I totally get what you’re doing and you’re right for the most part about Islam and Muhammad. It’s also true that you’re efforts won’t reap anything.

Still a blatant bare faced deceiver, imo.

Promoting both 1/ defeatism and 2/ 'compromise' with a group pf people, a community, who will continue to deceive us, and lie to us, until the very moment that they hold a sword to our collective throats.

"We’re stuck with Islam, whether we like it or not."

"in order to live harmoniously with them"

YOU ARE NO BETTER THAN A MOSLEM, augcaesarustus.

.

Highly recommended by Yadda.....

ISLAM explained, plain and simple....

Three things you (probably) don't know about islam

9 min 29 mb
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgsrnmzxEUY

Ok, so there’s one viable solution.

We build a wall around the Islamic world. They leave us alone and we leave them alone. We don’t take them in and they don’t take us in.

All existing Muslims in the west stay.

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged