This is no trolling nor a Bait.
I really don't understand how muslims defend or understand Muhammads wars. I know sometimes they where only defending themselves. But it is clear that muslims invaded as well in the name of Allah. As well we clearly see a provocation from muhammad to the rest of nations. Inviting to convert to islam in a more "pressure way".
I really respected moderate muslims. But after reading Muhammed war cult, destroying pagans, it rather seems to me strange.
It even makes me believe that it wasn't difficult for the islamic state to justify themselves, thery are basically behaving similar as did muhammed in the beginning. Am I wrong?
Abraham and Moses were also warlords. What's your point? YHWH is a god of war, and in the OT pretty violent.
Jesus is the odd one out because he's a false prophet. Also Christians still destroyed pagans, even if Jesus was a hippie.
Muhammad resorted to war after fleeing persecution and all other options had failed.
After victory Muhammad forbade revenge killings, however, did smash the pagan idols-which Islam viewed as an evil corruption of Abraham's house of worship.
A for the Islamic conquests, they occurred after the death of Muhammad.
I think a lot of christian/atheists forget how brutal the revered prophets of the old testament were in ethnically cleansing the Canaanites. Off topic, sure, put it does put Islam into perspective.
>Who is Joshua
>Who is Constantine (Equal of the Apositles)
>Who is literally half of the prophets in the Old Testament.
>Who is Charlemange and The Blood Court of Verdun
You are either an idiot or an American butthurt that you lost 3 wars.
Why am I being redundant?
>I think a lot of christian/atheists forget how brutal the revered prophets of the old testament were in ethnically cleansing the Canaanites.
The prophets didn't do that, it was Joshua's leadership.
What the fuck are you talking about?
>Who is Constantine (Equal of the Apositles)
>Who is Charlemange and The Blood Court of Verdun
Not even OP but he was clearly talking about the founder being a warlord, not his followers.
If we go by that, do you think I couldn't list bloodthirsty and intolerant muslim warlords of my own?
>Idiots in a desert
Why do Americans play them up? They own miles and miles of shitty desert.
Most of the shit they do is just shocking and aweing the Shia, who outnumber them by like 4 million.
>Quran is the main rulebook
No it's not, that's like saying the Torah is the main book of laws for the Jews, when they follow the Talmud.
Islam has the Ijma while the Orthodox have something who's name I forgot.
I haven't finished the Quran yet but it's basically:
> allah is the most great most awesome blah blah blah
> retardedly arbitrary rule
> allah is so merciful
> oh yeah hypocrites and nonbelievers suck and will burn in hell
> repeat ad nauseum
Constantine and Charlemagne aren't religious prophets you fucking mongoloid.
I also find it funny how you can't criticize Islam without some butthurt lefty or Muslim criticize Christianity. They won't even try to defend it either it just turns into muh crusades, muh European colonization, muh KKK, #terrorismhasnoreligion, #notallmuslims
This thread is already gone to the bad.
>Preach your message for years in Mecca, only some listen
>Majority, but especially your influential distant cousins harass you but can't kill you due to your uncles' protections
>Your most influential uncle dies
>They come to your house at night attempting to assassinate you, but you had a premonition and escape before they arrive
>Spend days traveling in the desert before reaching Medina
>A few weeks pass, until you hear news that the Quraishi pagans have seized your properties and all the valuables you left behind
>They plan to sell them at market in Syria, but they have to pass Medina before getting there
>Plot to intercept the caravan with a poorly-equipped raiding party
>Messenger from caravan hurries back to warn the Quraishis, they ride out to meet you with their semi-professional tribal army and you route them
It was entirely self defense.
>preach your message for years in Judea, only some listen
>Majority of the priests want to kill
>get premonitions that you're going to die, beg your father for a way out but eventually accept your faith
>know who your betrayer is, still offer him food and wine and wash his feet
>when the Romans come to arrest you stop your most faithful apostle from defending you and heal the man he injured
>get mocked by Pilate and the judges, but still he sees no wrong in you
>the crowd, urged on by the pharisees, call for your brotherhood
>mocked and tortured by the Roman soldiers
>crucified after a grievous trek
>even as you die you pray for their salvation
see the difference?
You'd have to first understand how politics worked in the Arabian peninsula. There weren't borders, only tribes who claimed to dominate this or that landmark. Raiding was a favorite pastime, because even though a tribe might be recognized as dominant in a region that didn't automatically correlate to respecting that authority.
The only thing that guaranteed a peaceful border were clients, formally adopting another tribe as junior members. One was either a client, or had clients, there was no concept of peace between equals.
Thus, to bring peace to the peninsula, one had to theoretically link all tribes together as clients under a super tribe. That super tribe became Islam, as no actual tribe could unite such a jealous people for long. Muhammad's goal wasn't to convert so much as it was to put religion as the ultimate arbiter between all Arabs. This is why he's not remembered for personally administrating anything beyond Mecca and Medina, but instead appointed arbiters to represent him in court cases between Arabs throughout the peninsula.
Finally, it's very difficult to tell what's actually true about Muhammad's life and what was later exaggerated or concocted to suit some political or theological end.
It is believed that Adam and Eve built the first house of worship to God on the same spot. After time it was forgotten and fell into disrepair/was destroyed, until Abraham and his son Ishmael rebuilt it.
For a while after that it was dedicated to God, but slowly and surely was converted into a pagan temple containing hundreds of idols fashioned from anything from stone to chicken bones.
Muhammad restored it to its original state.
Muhammad was a false prophet, Allah told what he would do to false prophets, cutting off the life blood(aorta) mohammad said when he was dying from poison that he felt like his aorta had been cut, why would Allah save Jesus Christ like he did but not mohammad. The Quran says Jesus only appeared to be crucified but was not implying that he was saved, Mohammed died like a rat, from poison. If he were the true prophet why not save him like Jesus?
Nice FUCKING meme you fucking SPERGLORD FAGSHIT. Holy FUCK it pisses me off when some unoriginal,
retarded assholish dickweed decides it would just be FUCKING HILARIOUS to post the SAME. OVERUSED.
JOKE. What do you even fucking hope to gain out of this? Attention? Well you're certainly getting
that, cause it seems like a lot of other inbred shitface fucking retarded autistic fuckshits are
thinking you're just FUCKING HILARIOUS and that this joke HASN'T BEEN MADE A BILLION FUCKING TIMES.
Not even a muslim, but look at wiki man
>Ibn Kathir, the famous commentator on the Quran, mentions two interpretations among the Muslims on the origin of the Kaaba. One is that the shrine was a place of worship for Angels before the creation of man. Later, a temple was built on the location by Adam and Eve which was lost during the flood in Noah's time and was finally rebuilt by Abraham and Ishmael as mentioned later in the Quran.
He wanted to reform a mostly Jewish, Christian, Jewish-Christian, and Christianized/Judaized Pagan Arab population through a movement that preached monotheism as the ultimate fount of all good things, and did so through courts. His agents weren't there to repeat Quranic verse or teach people the higher mysteries of angels or mankind's fall from grace, but to enforce a universal justice above the pettiness of Arab internecine violence.
This is why paganism was still a powerful force upon Muhammad's death leading into the Ridda Wars of Abu Bakr.
>Contact with a demonic spirit
>Got his orders from Catholics
>Poisoned to death
Mohammed is a false prophet.
Quran is full of contradictions.
Islam is a violent religion that denies the deity of Christ.
Islam and the Papacy have oppressed and killed millions of Christians.
>Do Catholics touch the kids?
Their clergy just have better access, they're no more prone to pedophilia than others. Similarly, Muhammad was not a warlord nor even a tribal chieftain but a judge-mayor of a city-state of sorts.
Narrated Anas bin Malik: A Jewess brought a poisoned (cooked) sheep for the Prophet who ate from it. She was brought to the Prophet and he was asked, "Shall we kill her?" He said, "No." I continued to see the effect of the poison on the palate of the mouth of Allah's Apostle .
Sahih Bukhari 3:47:786
.Narrated 'Aisha: The Prophet in his ailment in which he died, used to say, "O 'Aisha! I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison."
Sahih Bukhari 5:59:713
Some tribes in and around Medina pledged allegiance to Muhammad and converted, joining his army. They became known as the "Ansarallah" or "Helpers of Allah".
Seeing as the Quraish were the Meccan rulers, they were the de facto strongest and richest tribe in the whole of Arabia, and many pagan and Jewish tribes pledged allegiance to them, joining their (literal) "confederacy" against the Muslims. After some time they plotted to march on Medina, bent on crushing Islam once and for all.
10,000 Quraishi Confederates marched on the 3000 populated Muslim capital Medina. After hearing about the impending siege from the Banu Khuza'a, Muhammad and the other Muslim leaders, inspired by his companion Salman the Persian, ordered every able-bodied person to assist Salman in his plan to dig a trench across the exposed northern entrance to the town (it was surrounded by mountains to the west and east, and by a thick date plantation to the south).
They dug for 6 days straight before the Confederate army arrived, and on their arrival taunted them to cross the immense pit they had toiled on. They were routed, picked off by the Muslim archers as soon as they entered the pit. After that show of force, there was a tipping point whereby the Muslims were eventually able to recapture Mecca. Tribes in their droves converted, and there was little need for conquest against the remaining Confederates.
ur’an 69:44-46—And if he (Muhammad) had forged a false saying concerning Us We surely should have seized him by his right hand (or with power and might), and then certainly should have CUT OFF HIS LIFE ARTERY (AORTA). (Hilali-Khan)
The question is what they apostatized back into. Some were probably Muslim, just dismissive of the claim of leadership, while others either reverted back to their original faiths or some syncretic mix of old and new.
How can he be a warlord when very little of his life was spent in military campaigns and his power wasn't initiated or maintained on warfare?
Lol what are you even talking about senpai
Honestly can't think of a single campaign undertaken by Muhammad that isn't justifiable. Unless you're a butt blasted pagan Arab or chair crusader Christian. Or Sam Harris.
And why is being a warrior/soldier and engaging in warfare suddenly bad when it's [historical person I don't like]?
because a brutal warlord who massacred entire tribes of men and enslaved the women and children is less of a "beautiful example to humanity" (the Quran's words) and not as good as a role model for how people should live their lives as Jesus.
See, we in the West have been sold this meme of Islam being a religion of peace (or atleast they try to force this meme), so naturally when people look at the religion's founder they are waiting to see a peaceful figure. What they do see though is a man that fucked a 9 year old girl and died a warlord. So they are kinda taken aback after such a revelation.
There were. A new "confederation" sprang up from the longstanding major rivals to the Quraishi pagans. Since they saw Muhammad as merely the latest leader of Mecca , they didn't fully understand the gravity of their actions. They sought to take both advantage of the the mutual losses the Muslims and the Quraishis had borne in their war, and to resist any more buildup in power by Muhammad. You could say that this was the start of a separate war from the original Muslim/Quraishi "civil war", with new ambitious leaders at its helm.
>The conquest of Mecca astounded both the Arabs and other tribes. The Hawazins had been long-standing enemies of Meccans. They were located north-east of Mecca and their territory sat beside the trade route to Hira in Iraq. The Hawazins were allied with the Thaqifs of Ta'if which was located south-east of Mecca and whose trade routes ran through Hawazin territory. The alliance had engage in several wars probably concerning trade routes between Ta'if and Mecca. Given this history they saw Muhammad as another powerful Quraish leader who had come to lead his people. They thought among themselves that a war with Muslims was imminent and that the once persecuted minority of Muslims had gained an upper hand against their non-Muslim Arab enemies. Some tribes favoured fighting him and the Muslims. Ahead of these were the tribes of Hawazin and Thaqif. According to the Muslim scholar Safiur Rahman Mubarakpuri "They thought that they were too mighty to admit or surrender to such a victory". So, they met Malik bin âAwf An-Nasri and made up their minds to proceed fighting against the Muslims. Malik persuaded other tribes to fight and gathered them before him. The confederation of tribes consistiing of Nasr, Jusham, Saâd bin Bakr, Bani Hilal, Bani 'Amr bin Amir and Bani 'Awf bin Amir gathered at Autas along with the Thaqif and Hawazin.
The Muslims were outnumbered here, too.
I don't think what he did was bad or unusual for the time, especially because I admire leaders who behaved in similar ways.
The difference is that they weren't religious prophets (who I would assume ought to know better) and nobody would hold them up to be morally exemplary. Or that Western liberals deny that bad things (by their own standards) are imbedded in the Quran and the Muslim religion, but have absolutely no problems shitting on Christians.
There is no such thing as 'moderate islam'. It is a term invented by bleeding heart liberals to classify a nonexistent portion of Muslims that supposedly makes up the majority of them. Isis claims to be living the way the prophet did, and they're pretty much spot on
>Most of those who were monotheists upon his death were likely already monotheists before Muhammad took up his mission.
Unless you're referring to the Jewish and Christian converts, then the vast majority were pagan Arabs. What source do you have for that claim?
Which Zionist/Evangelical "historian" did you gleam these truth bombs from?
Khaybar happened 2 years prior to the battle in the post you're quoting.
I could make a post about that, but it's probably the most complex battle of Muhammad's life. I don't know all the personal intricacies of it.
>Muhammad arrives in Medina, is assigned to broker peace between the Jewish and Arab tribes
>Banu Nadir refuse that Muhammad is a prophet because he's not Jewish, plot to destroy him at the first chance they get
>3 years pass, Muslims pitch successful battle against the Quraish
>During time, Muhammad drafts the Constitution of Medina, and all parties swore that it was binding
>The Muslims return from the Battle of Uhud broken and routed
>They immediately challenge Muhammad's leadership
>Get expelled, go to the Jewish town of Khaybar
>Take part in the Battle of the Trench against the Muslims
>Muhammad decides to strike them out, does so even though he is vastly outnumbered yet again
>Afterwards, a Jewess invites them to dinner only to attempt to poison the entirety of Muhammad's closest companions
>He doesn't die, but falls very ill
Everything has its precedents, one has to admit that Muhammad was either extremely lucky or blessed.
>Unless you're referring to the Jewish and Christian converts, then the vast majority were pagan Arabs. What source do you have for that claim?
While the later tradition plays up the polytheism of the Quraysh and other Arabs, the Quran and earlier sources presents a Hedjaz that's mostly monotheistic with pagan influences. The Muslim tradition itself says Mecca originally, and still technically, followed an Abrahamic God as a supreme being but with pagan idols set up as demigods.
Oh, if that's what you meant then that's true. It sounded like you were claiming that they were codified religions. It still counts as polytheism in a way.
Mecca was supposedly founded by Abraham and Ishmael, and the Quraish personally claimed descent from them.
After all, from Islam's point of view everyone originally had a monotheistic religion but that they degenerated into polytheism due to the influence of humans.
>As well we clearly see a provocation from muhammad to the rest of nations. Inviting to convert to islam in a more "pressure way".
None of Muhammad's letters that we know of imply that he was intending to force Islam on the neighboring empires. There is a note of condescension in the letters, but it doesn't appear that Muhammad was interested in forcing Islam on those empires willing to pay tribute or sign a treaty with him. The problem was that Muhammad died soon after these events so we have very little way of telling just how exactly he would have handled it. Also, the pretense that the second caliph used for attacking the other empires was that they had started the hostilities. Whether this was true, I'm not sure myself, but it shows that early Muslims were fairly aware that their invasions needed more justification than just they believed differently as if the other empires had payed tribute to either Muhammad or the caliphate, they probably would have been left alone. All the Arab invasions take place after Muhammad's death, and there's probably more evidence to suggest that the Arabs didn't really follow the manner in which he had hoped to spread Islam to these populations as most of the non-Muslim tribes that Muhammad converted he did so by making alliances, which in turn strengthened the Muslims against the pagan and Jewish tribes that wanted to fight them, whereas Umar's policy was to colonize. Even so, the Arabs really didn't force Islam very much on the populations they conquered, mostly because Umar saw Islam as an Arab thing, and since most of these regions remained non-Muslim for 200 years after the conquests. We also know that 'Ali, the fourth caliph dislike the treatment of the conquered Persians under Umar's administration and that many early rebellions were Muslim non-Arab converts who felt mistreated by the Arab Muslims despite accepting Muhammad's prophethood.
Plenty of pagans still lived under the Muslims after though, although their religious activities were more restricted.
Also, you have to consider that a lot of the things destroyed by the Taliban and ISIS like Palmyra and the giant stone Buddhas remained protected or left alone by Muslim rulers throughout the centuries. So there is a question as to whether these groups are justified in destroying something that no Muslim ruler before them saw fit to destroy under any religious pretense.
Plus, it's not like Christian saints and kings never developed reputations for being idol breakers. St. Benedict is celebrated for his destruction of the idol of Apollo.
Just the letters he sent to various kings and monasteries.
Muhammad wrote a public letter to Christians that declared their right to self-governance, protection for churches and monasteries, and freedom to practice their religion in Muslim-controlled areas. Muslims are commanded to follow this order until the end of time. If one does not, they cease being a Muslim, and become an enemy of God (Allah). The original document is claimed to exist, as well as several exact copies of it.
"Whosoever acts contrary to my grant, or gives credit to anything contrary to it, becomes truly an apostate to God, and to his divine apostle, because this protection I have granted to them according to this promise."
there really is no point in even discussing this with you, you're not going to bother taking in consideration the time period, the people and their culture, current events, and intentions
you mix and match "muhammad" and "muslims" your entire post, pretty much making them interchangeable
If you actually READ about the history of Medina, you will realize that almost all of it was in self-defense
>According to the monks' tradition, Muhammad frequented the monastery and had great relationships and discussions with the Sinai fathers. The document claims that the Prophet (570–632) had personally granted by charter in the second year of the Hegira, corresponding to AD 626, the rights and privileges to all Christians "far and near". It consists of several clauses on such topics as the protection of Christians living under Islamic rule as well as pilgrims on their way to monasteries, freedom of worship and movement, freedom to appoint their own judges and to own and maintain their property, exemption from military service and taxes, and the right to protection in war.
Several certified historical copies are displayed in the library of St Catherine, some of which are witnessed by the judges of Islam to affirm historical authenticity. The monks claims that during the Ottoman conquest of Egypt in 1517, the original document was seized from the monastery by Ottoman soldiers and taken to Sultan Selim I's palace in Istanbul for safekeeping. A copy was then made to compensate for its loss at the monastery. It also seems that the charter was renewed under the new rulers, as other documents in the archive suggest. Traditions about the tolerance shown towards the monastery were reported in governmental documents issued in Cairo and during the period of Ottoman rule (1517–1798), the Pasha of Egypt annually reaffirmed its protections.
The Monastery's website:
>According to the tradition preserved at Sinai, Mohammed both knew and visited the monastery and the Sinai fathers. The Koran makes mention of the Sinai holy sites. In the second year of the Hegira, corresponding to AD 626, a delegation from Sinai requested a letter of protection from Mohammed. This was granted, and authorized by him when he placed his hand upon the document. In AD 1517, Sultan Selim I confirmed the monastery’s prerogatives, but took the original letter of protection for safekeeping to the royal treasury in Constantinople. At the same time, he gave the monastery certified copies of this document, each depicting the hand print of Mohammed in token of his having touched the original.
>All property is valuable
>unless its a person
>then the property loses its value
Such is the argument of one with an agenda...
Your source is garbage, the whole ra-ra "muh slavery is all just the trans-atlantic".
Come on, if you owned a cow would you abuse it or treat it well so as to acquire the most use out of it?
Would you use the wrong end of the hammer?
Would you use the hammer where the pick is needed?
>Abraham was a slave owner, who owned hundreds of slaves
>a lowly herdsmen owning more than 10 bondsmen at most
Your entire spiel...
It's more like Muhammad's missionary work was specifically targeting old paganism that had been incorporated into local Abrahamic monotheism. What came after when proto-Islam became Islam as we know it is less clear.
The bigger mind fuck is that the Kaaba that we know might not be the same one or even in the same city as the sanctuary Muhammad talked about in the Quran.
>All of that is false, even reading Wikipedia would show you otherwise.
Really? Wikipedia? Shit.
Better ignore the link from a professor emeritus of SOAS then saying mostly the same shit.
>Which Zionist/Evangelical "historian" did you gleam these truth bombs from?
the quran and Sirat Rasul allah by in ishaq.
I find it funny that you ask that facile question because you know that what I'm saying
>because a brutal warlord who massacred entire tribes of men and enslaved the women and children is less of a "beautiful example to humanity" (the Quran's words) and not as good as a role model for how people should live their lives as Jesus.
>So muhammad really didnt have a clear justification of the battles. Everything seems confusing to me and it looks like it was even confusing for muhammad himself
No, you're misunderstanding (and I can kinda tell English probably isn't your first language)
Muhammad's military career is fairly consistent:
1. Do not fight those tribes who have a treaty with you
2. Do not fight those tribes who are interested in a treaty with you
3. Form alliances with as many tribes as you can against your enemies
4. Punish those tribes that break their treaties
5. If a tribe or kingdom refuses to pay a certain amount of tribute or respond to your summons for a treaty of peace, you should assume that they are intending to be your enemy.
6. Unless you have reason to assume they may consider peace with you if you just send an emissary to explain why they should side with you.
The idea that Muhammad was running around telling people to convert or die or that his letters to the Byzantine Emperor or the Shah of Persia were saying "convert or I'm gonna come over and make you convert," is just a meme. Muhammad's success is owed more to his charisma and the fact that he seemed to be able to beat all the odds, which added to his image as a prophet, and just the fact that his military strategy was fair and organized.
After Muhammad died though, the caliphs, with the exception of 'Ali, followed a policy of colonial expansion. But there's also misconceptions here. For the most part, the territories fell to the Arabs without much of a fight and also the Arabs didn't seem as interested in spreading Islam to non-Muslims, because many of them saw Islam as an Arab thing, which is why non-Arab Muslim converts gravitated towards religious movements against this Arab supremacy, usually in the various forms of Shi'ism, since 'Ali was more sympathetic to the non-Arabs and complained that the Arabs had become too worldly, which he intended as a criticism of the nature of the conquests.
>because a brutal warlord who massacred entire tribes of men and enslaved the women and children is less of a "beautiful example to humanity" (the Quran's words) and not as good as a role model for how people should live their lives as Jesus.
There's no indications of any "brutality" regarding Muhammad unless you consider engaging in warfare ipso facto brutal. It's a strange accusation to lay on the man that is single-handedly responsible for introducing the notion of military jurisprudence to the Arabs. All warfare being brutal may be defensible but it's not demonstrated that a rabble-rousing prophet with no army being crucified is a better moral example than a rabble-rousing prophet that organizes his believers into an army to conquer the people that persecuted them. If anything Muhammad is a better example because he had a much fuller life with more experiences. Maybe "God" is okay with getting crucified, but to be fair he doesn't actually die. The rest of us want to live and want our families and friends to not be persecuted.
>The bigger mind fuck is that the Kaaba that we know might not be the same one
Of course it isn't, it's been disassembled and regularly destroyed by floods and other natural phenomena since time immemorial. The structure qua structure has no importance and is purely utilitarian.
>not the same city
What evidence is there are Mecca moving?
>Of course it isn't, it's been disassembled and regularly destroyed by floods and other natural phenomena since time immemorial. The structure qua structure has no importance and is purely utilitarian.
It is more the space it marks that is important as well as the ritual around it, not to mention the black stone. The idea that the structure itself has been rebuilt a few times has never been an issue, though each rebuild uses some of the same parts from the old structure.
Same way we Christians deal with God telling His Chosen People to go genocide whole, already defeated, nations down to the last woman and child, while dictating how many women they were allowed to rape elsewhere. Or how he tortures his most faithful servant due to an off handed bet with Satan, or, several generations earlier, tells his most faithful servant to kill his son... Or...
Really, if we had to justify ourselves based on everything our ancestors and religious figures did, or claimed they did, we'd all have hung ourselves long ago.
What your book says isn't the problem. It's which parts you choose to focus and act on.
Also, evidence seems to suggest that Muhammad was probably more compassionate than was what some modern military strategists would deem practical. Case in point, Muawiyah the First, caliph of the Umayyad dynasty in Damascus was the son of Abu Sufyan, who converted to Islam very late. Abu Sufyan was the leader of Mecca and was the main enemy of Muhammad. All the Muslims who died at the hands of the pagans, their blood goes right to Abu Sufyan. Abu Sufyan's wife was said to have even eaten Muhammad's uncle Hamza's liver after he was killed in one of the battles and worn his ears and eyes and stuff as a necklace, for which reason Hamzah is revered by Muslims of all sects as a martyr.
But when Abu Sufyan, fearful he'd be punished, converted at the last minute, Muhammad let him live and forgave him, at least politically (some evidence suggests that Muhammad still didn't like him). Later, Abu Sufyan and his son would cause trouble for 'Ali, leading to all the civil wars that ended with tons of Muslims dead. 'Ali was also killed by the Kharijites because he chose to arbitrate a peace agreement with Muawiyah instead of fight him any further, which for the Kharijites made 'Ali an unbeliever as well.
One might argue that Muhammad's weakness, if it could be called that, was his tendency to forgive rather than brutally punish his enemies like a Khan, considering that many of the pagan Arabs who became Muslims at the last minute in order not to lose their privilege, despite the fact that they violently opposed Muhammad for most of his prophecy, ended up causing a whole lot of trouble later on down the line for Muhammad's friends and family.
>One might argue that Muhammad's weakness, if it could be called that, was his tendency to forgive rather than brutally punish his enemies like a Khan
You don't see Tengrism invading Europe in the modern day.
No, if anything the Qur'an is far less violent than the Old Testament. There's no story of David killing Bathsheba's husband or Joshua slaughtering every man, woman, child and animal in Jericho or things like that. While there are verses which speak on war and fighting the unbelievers, they are topped with caveats like "do not begin the hostilities, God doesn't like the aggressor" and "unless they are inclined to peace and cease making a mockery of your religion".
>long since been primarily abrogated by the Christian church in favour of the teachings of jesus
Not in the middle east, polytheists still made up the largest religious group in Saudi Arabia up until Muhammed. Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians were all very definitely minorities in the area.
The point I'm making is that Muhammad clearly followed his own principles, even when they didn't seem like they would be very practical if the aim was worldly success. However, the religion has probably survived up til the modern day more because such principles of the founder are still there, which is what attracts people to it.
Certain companions whose character is less than like Muhammad's but are venerated by certain branches of Islam because they were companions in spite of the fact that their behavior and beliefs contradict the founder of the religion's own sense of ethics may be the reason for some of the inconsistent character of the religion's followers, which sometimes follows more of Muhammad's example directly and sometimes follows the caliphs and the Arab conquerors because "they're companions, they couldn't be wrong, right?"
Maybe Mo didn't kill him cuz he didn't want to make a negative impression on those "many Muslims"? I don't see how not forgiving the most powerful man of Mecca was any more rational. He couldn't predict that Abu Sufyan's descendants would wreck his own.
>Maybe Mo didn't kill him cuz he didn't want to make a negative impression on those "many Muslims"? I don't see how not forgiving the most powerful man of Mecca was any more rational.
That's one argument
>He couldn't predict that Abu Sufyan's descendants would wreck his own.
That's another. Some hadith suggest Muhammad knew very well what they'd eventually do and warned his closest followers about them.
But the point I was making, again, is that evidence doesn't suggest Muhammad was especially brutal with his enemies as a rule, unlike other conquerors throughout history, who were arguably more successful in terms of military conquest
Are you a Muslim, my friend?
I hope people will see past all the lies and research for themselves. They have to realise how "mild" Muhammad actually was with these degenerate pagans. Their religious practices were probably a horrible sight.
Here's the thing that weirds me out as a Christian: Mohammed's actions and teachings were much more in line with modern ethics and actions. Being a strict pacifist who makes a virtue out accepting martyrdome meekly does NOT make you popular in Modern Day America.
For example, everything I'm seeing posted here, yeah, most people believe it's morally justified to respond to people who attack your city with violence.
So it's weird what we mean by 'morally exemplary' and 'know better'.
>Being a strict pacifist who makes a virtue out accepting martyrdome meekly does NOT make you popular in Modern Day America.
Of course it does. The insanity of the Americans is eternally propelled by their martyrdom complex (itself a marriage of a self-victimization and self-lionization, for lack of a better word). Christianity is their perfect religion.