Islamic Jihad

[gnostic]

There are positives and negatives, good and bad on both sides, Christianity and Islam.

But one thing needs to be considered is that neither Jesus, nor his apostles (eg Peter and Paul) commanded armies in their times. They had no political or military powers during the 1st century CE.

Muhammad being the founder of Islam, was involved in violence, wars, and even assassinations.

When Muhammad started in Mecca, he like Jesus had no political or military powers, but all that not long after arriving in Medina. He was angry man, who not only started wars, but also led his followers into robbing merchant caravans. These actions are not that of peaceful man.

Yes, Christians did start wars, committed atrocities in its long history, but that didn’t happen in the 1st century CE. Christianity only gained political and military powers in the early 4th century CE, because they gained a powerful ally, the Roman Emperor Constantine.

If we were to compare Jesus and Muhammad, then Muhammad was more like a warlord than Jesus.

Even after Muhammad’s death, Muslims, particularly his closest followers were involved in not only expansionist policies against Persian and Byzantine empires, but there was power struggle between factions.

So really, Islam have started out seeking power from the very start. Christianity sought power, which started a couple of centuries later.

I am not denying that’s Christian history is bad, a lot of negatives, but so is Islam.

 

[loverofhumanity]

There are positives and negatives, good and bad on both sides, Christianity and Islam.

But one thing needs to be considered is that neither Jesus, nor his apostles (eg Peter and Paul) commanded armies in their times. They had no political or military powers during the 1st century CE.

Muhammad being the founder of Islam, was involved in violence, wars, and even assassinations.

When Muhammad started in Mecca, he like Jesus had no political or military powers, but all that not long after arriving in Medina. He was angry man, who not only started wars, but also led his followers into robbing merchant caravans. These actions are not that of peaceful man.

Yes, Christians did start wars, committed atrocities in its long history, but that didn’t happen in the 1st century CE. Christianity only gained political and military powers in the early 4th century CE, because they gained a powerful ally, the Roman Emperor Constantine.

If we were to compare Jesus and Muhammad, then Muhammad was more like a warlord than Jesus.

Even after Muhammad’s death, Muslims, particularly his closest followers were involved in not only expansionist policies against Persian and Byzantine empires, but there was power struggle between factions.

So really, Islam have started out seeking power from the very start. Christianity sought power, which started a couple of centuries later.

I am not denying that’s Christian history is bad, a lot of negatives, but so is Islam.

Some points I’d like to address in your post.

Muhammad was not involved in violent wars. The Meccans based their economy on tributes to some 360 gods. When Muhammad proclaimed one God like Jesus and Abraham before Him the Meccans first tried to bribe Him by offering Him wealth and position to withdraw His stance. He refused. Then oppression and cruel persecution began against both Muhammad and His followers including murders. This went on for 13 years without retaliation. Eventually Muhammad and His followers fled to Abyssinia where a Christian king gave them Asylum. This infuriated the Meccans even more and their one aim and goal became genocide of the complete Muslim community.

Then they fled to Medina where the tribes had disputes they could not resolve and asked Muhammad to intervene. When He was able to unite them then they accepted Islam after hearing its message.

At that point Muhammad received this verse 2:190 from God.

2:190 And fight for the cause of God against those who fight against you: but commit not the injustice of attacking them first: God loveth not such injustice:

J M Rodwell

So from that point onwards Muslims were permitted to defend themselves but forbidden to attack unless attacked first. They were given the right to defend freedom of religion. And it was a case of being forced to fight or be destroyed. Muslims did not want to fight and this is recorded in the Quran too.

Innocent men women and children and those who did not attack or harm the Muslims were befriended and left alone.

2:62

Verily, they who believe (Muslims), and they who follow the Jewish religion, and the Christians, and the Sabeites whoever of these believeth in God and the last day, and doeth that which is right, shall have their reward with their Lord: fear shall not come upon them, neither shall they be grieved.

So the only people that Muslims were permitted to fight if attacked first were those who harmed them or broke their treaties and secretly worked with the Meccans.

Muhammad Himself never killed anyone in His entire lifetime.

After Muhammad passed away and left no will the Caliphs seized power and after a while desired to conquer for wealth and land but as the Quran forbade offensive warfare they fabricated Hadiths stating that Muhammad often went on killing sprees. This was a way for them to circumvent the laws of the Quran and get the people to follow them.

So from the death of Muhammad the Umayyads and Abbasids conquered and took lands but many people who were tired if Christianity infighting joined Islam willingly.

During the period when Christianity was in the dark ages, Islam established the centre of learning in Baghdad which drew scholars from all over the world.

Muhammad’s situation was different in that they had to resist genocide. They had no choice but to defend themselves or be wiped out.

But the conquests afterwards as with the Crusades witnessed both Muslims and Christians disobeying their own Holy Books and instead following blind egotistical leaders who were only interested in wealth and power not God or love anymore.

But today, most Muslims and Christians are peaceful people and so should not be judged on the wrongs of former generations.

 

[gnostic]

The question isn’t whether Muhammad kill anyone himself, but whether he led armed raids against men, acting like bandits or pirates, or whether he led army, or whether he sanctioned assassinations and mass execution.

He acted like a king, general or commander, giving commands or decrees, then he is as much responsible for his men’s actions as if he did these things himself.

Just because he didn’t hold knife, sword or spear that kill someone himself, doesn’t make him guiltless if his men did as he ordered to.

All you are doing is just whitewashing Muhammad.

When Muhammad and his followers were wandering in the wilderness, trying to seek shelters and refuge, in 622. Before Medina, they southeast to Ta’if. But the town leaders turn them away.

Eight years later, after Mecca surrendered, Muhammad turned his attention towards , and put this town under siege, with a large army. The people of Ta’if saw resisting to be futile, so they sought to surrender, but on the condition that they could keep their religion. Muhammad rejected this term, and wanted all to convert. Ta’if had no choice, but to agree.

Do you seriously think the people of Ta’if would have willingly convert if Muhammad didn’t have an army?

What would have happened if the people resisted? Don’t you think the Muslims would butch Ta’if, and sold off women or children into slavery?

The Banu Qurayza did resist in 627, and when they surrendered, the women and children were sold, and the men who didn’t convert were executed. Muhammad may not have given his men direct order, but he never stop them, which mean he was willing to condone such actions.

These are examples of compulsion were used to convert people. Face execution or convert.

Muhammad was a very vindicated man, and Ta’if is perfect example of Muhammad seeking revenge on a town that refused to give him refuge. If he was peace-loving man he wouldn’t need an army of armed warriors at his beck and call.

That’s the difference between Jesus and Muhammad. Muhammad had an army of armed warriors, Jesus didn’t.

And neither did Peter and Paul had army. The same can’t be said about Muhammad’s followers after his death. It wasn’t peaceful transition, because they turn against each seeking power, of who would succeed as leader. Then there are expansions into Byzantine Syria and Egypt and into Persia, they were not actions of peace or as self-defence; these were invasions.

Centuries later, Muslims invaded India. Did you really think that wasn’t a conquest?

 

[loverofhumanity]

The question isn’t whether Muhammad kill anyone himself, but whether he led armed raids against men, acting like bandits or pirates, or whether he led army, or whether he sanctioned assassinations and mass execution.

He acted like a king, general or commander, giving commands or decrees, then he is as much responsible for his men’s actions as if he did these things himself.

Just because he didn’t hold knife, sword or spear that kill someone himself, doesn’t make him guiltless if his men did as he ordered to.

All you are doing is just whitewashing Muhammad.

When Muhammad and his followers were wandering in the wilderness, trying to seek shelters and refuge, in 622. Before Medina, they southeast to Ta’if. But the town leaders turn them away.

Eight years later, after Mecca surrendered, Muhammad turned his attention towards , and put this town under siege, with a large army. The people of Ta’if saw resisting to be futile, so they sought to surrender, but on the condition that they could keep their religion. Muhammad rejected this term, and wanted all to convert. Ta’if had no choice, but to agree.

Do you seriously think the people of Ta’if would have willingly convert if Muhammad didn’t have an army?

What would have happened if the people resisted? Don’t you think the Muslims would butch Ta’if, and sold off women or children into slavery?

The Banu Qurayza did resist in 627, and when they surrendered, the women and children were sold, and the men who didn’t convert were executed. Muhammad may not have given his men direct order, but he never stop them, which mean he was willing to condone such actions.

These are examples of compulsion were used to convert people. Face execution or convert.

Muhammad was a very vindicated man, and Ta’if is perfect example of Muhammad seeking revenge on a town that refused to give him refuge. If he was peace-loving man he wouldn’t need an army of armed warriors at his beck and call.

That’s the difference between Jesus and Muhammad. Muhammad had an army of armed warriors, Jesus didn’t.

And neither did Peter and Paul had army. The same can’t be said about Muhammad’s followers after his death. It wasn’t peaceful transition, because they turn against each seeking power, of who would succeed as leader. Then there are expansions into Byzantine Syria and Egypt and into Persia, they were not actions of peace or as self-defence; these were invasions.

Centuries later, Muslims invaded India. Did you really think that wasn’t a conquest?

I clearly stated that any offensive conquest after Muhammad’s passing was done against the law of the Quran using fabricated Hadiths and thus wrong, illegal and illegitimate but more importantly anti Islamic. Just like Christians slaughtering babies in the seige of Jerusalem and afterwards giving praise to Jesus we’re going against their Bible.

The Quran is the only authority agreed upon by both Sunni and Shiah and it praises His character as an example to humanity discrediting axiomatically any and all Hadiths seeking to slander His pure and noble character.

His military expeditions were purely defensive.

Muhammad was prophesied in the Bible so Christians should have turned to Him instead they oppose and ridicule Him Whom Jesus Himself exalted.

 

[gnostic]

I clearly stated that any offensive conquest after Muhammad’s passing was done against the law of the Quran using fabricated Hadiths and thus wrong, illegal and illegitimate but more importantly anti Islamic. Just like Christians slaughtering babies in the seige of Jerusalem and afterwards giving praise to Jesus we’re going against their Bible.

The Quran is the only authority agreed upon by both Sunni and Shiah and it praises His character as an example to humanity discrediting axiomatically any and all Hadiths seeking to slander His pure and noble character.

His military expeditions were purely defensive.

Muhammad was prophesied in the Bible so Christians should have turned to Him instead they oppose and ridicule Him Whom Jesus Himself exalted.

And you have not been paying attention, loh.

You are forgetting that I mentioned Ta'if.

Ta'if was never at war with Muhammad or his Muslim followers. They refused to accept Muhammad and his people refugees, and 8 years later, Ta'if was UNDER SIEGE IN RETALIATION.

Muhammad then REFUSED TO ACCEPT THEIR SURRENDER UNLESS THEY ALL CONVERT!!!

The siege in 630 was an offensive and retaliatory action, loh.

Are you going to ignore this example of Muhammad's behavior and action in Ta'if? Are you going to ignore that Muhammad force people of Ta'if who were mass-conversion via COMPULSION?

Threatening people with an army is compulsion. Or are you going to blindly ignore that?

 

[loverofhumanity]

It’s clear you and I both are relying on different sources for our information.

My sources tell me that your sources are wrong. Muhammad is a Prophet Of God to me and so He was incapable of the things you attribute to His Blessed Person.

I don’t know what your sources are but mine acclaim Muhammad as equal to Jesus and free from sin and error.

 

[ManSinha]

Muhammad was prophesied in the Bible so Christians should have turned to Him instead

Exact Biblical quotations please so we can check for ourselves including the opinions of Biblical scholars - going by your faith's record on predictions - I am not taking you at your word

 

[gnostic]

It’s clear you and I both are relying on different sources for our information.

My sources tell me that your sources are wrong. Muhammad is a Prophet Of God to me and so He was incapable of the things you attribute to His Blessed Person.

I don’t know what your sources are but mine acclaim Muhammad as equal to Jesus and free from sin and error.

oh, I forgot.

You are an Baha’i.

An Baha’i, has the tendency to make their “Messengers” or “Prophets” or “Messiah”, perfect in every ways, and thereby blindly and biasedly ignored their shortcomings.

 

[sooda]

There are positives and negatives, good and bad on both sides, Christianity and Islam.

But one thing needs to be considered is that neither Jesus, nor his apostles (eg Peter and Paul) commanded armies in their times. They had no political or military powers during the 1st century CE.

Muhammad being the founder of Islam, was involved in violence, wars, and even assassinations.

When Muhammad started in Mecca, he like Jesus had no political or military powers, but all that not long after arriving in Medina. He was angry man, who not only started wars, but also led his followers into robbing merchant caravans. These actions are not that of peaceful man.

Yes, Christians did start wars, committed atrocities in its long history, but that didn’t happen in the 1st century CE. Christianity only gained political and military powers in the early 4th century CE, because they gained a powerful ally, the Roman Emperor Constantine.

If we were to compare Jesus and Muhammad, then Muhammad was more like a warlord than Jesus.

Even after Muhammad’s death, Muslims, particularly his closest followers were involved in not only expansionist policies against Persian and Byzantine empires, but there was power struggle between factions.

So really, Islam have started out seeking power from the very start. Christianity sought power, which started a couple of centuries later.

I am not denying that’s Christian history is bad, a lot of negatives, but so is Islam.

Hijacking caravans was a way of life in the middle east.. That's why Jerusalem closed the city gates at night.

 

[gnostic]

Hijacking caravans was a way of life in the middle east.. That's why Jerusalem closed the city gates at night.

I find that Muslims have the tendencies to make excuses for Muhammad’s actions.

Supposedly, Muhammad believed that all prophets before him, were all equal, and should followed to the letter. So that would including Moses’ laws, particularly the 10 Commandments.

Stealing is one of the laws, and yet Muhammad clearly broke this law, when he led raiding party to attack the merchant caravans and steal their goods.

And I cannot remember how many times such raids took place, but one person died one of those raids.

Did Muhammad have the killer arrested and tried?

Apparently not. I’d suppose that a long as the killer is a Muslim, killing a non-Muslim, it isn’t a murder, hence no law is broken.

I find that Muhammad condoning stealing and killing non-Muslims to be hypocritical. And Muslims making excuses also hypocritical.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Exact Biblical quotations please so we can check for ourselves including the opinions of Biblical scholars - going by your faith's record on predictions - I am not taking you at your word

It’s a very simple point which the ignorant have multiplied and confused.

Jesus said He would go away and unless He went away He couldn’t send another One to guide them. He was referring to another Person with another Cause from God and there was only one Cause that arose after Christ ascended and that was Islam.

There are also references in the Old Testament and the Book of Revelation regarding Muhammad that are symbolic but nonetheless impressive, but it is better if each person searches for himself.

Biblical scholars, like the Jews made up their minds about Jesus have already laughed at the possibility of Muhammad being from God let alone mentioned in their Bible.

But I personally was overjoyed when I discovered just how many hidden meanings there are in the Bible which refer very accurately to Muhammad and even Ali.

But to really discover and appreciate the hidden meanings in these Holy Books it’s up to people to read and research for themselves as no amount of argument or debate can pry open a mind that’s already made up. Only by oneself can one seek out and prove these things to oneself.

 

[loverofhumanity]

oh, I forgot.

You are an Baha’i.

An Baha’i, has the tendency to make their “Messengers” or “Prophets” or “Messiah”, perfect in every ways, and thereby blindly and biasedly ignored their shortcomings.

Fine. But how many of These Perfect Beings have there really been?

Let’s add them up. Moses, Christ, Buddha, Krishna, Zoroaster, the Bab and Baha’u’llah - seven in recorded history. Only a handful. These Great Beings are unique in human history. Actually human history is all about Them and how They single handedly amidst severe opposition changed the course of human history resulting in billions adopting their teachings to model their countries and lives upon.

If They were just ordinary people how are They able to have such tremendous influence over minds and hearts thousands of years after Their death?

They are most definitely endowed with a power not of this world to do what They do. So I don’t think that attributing perfection to Them is as far fetched as you make out. But that’s just my ‘Baha’i’ view as you rightly put it.

 

[ManSinha]

It’s a very simple point which the ignorant have multiplied and confused.

Jesus said He would go away and unless He went away He couldn’t send another One to guide them. He was referring to another Person with another Cause from God and there was only one Cause that arose after Christ ascended and that was Islam.

There are also references in the Old Testament and the Book of Revelation regarding Muhammad that are symbolic but nonetheless impressive, but it is better if each person searches for himself.

Biblical scholars, like the Jews made up their minds about Jesus have already laughed at the possibility of Muhammad being from God let alone mentioned in their Bible.

But I personally was overjoyed when I discovered just how many hidden meanings there are in the Bible which refer very accurately to Muhammad and even Ali.

But to really discover and appreciate the hidden meanings in these Holy Books it’s up to people to read and research for themselves as no amount of argument or debate can pry open a mind that’s already made up. Only by oneself can one seek out and prove these things to oneself.

This is where the hypocrisy is exposed - a simple ask for exact references and I get a whole bunch of gobbledegook - nary a link

a person on the internet says "they discovered hidden meanings" - well as a trained medical professional I say that there a good chance that person is

1. delusional

OR

2. deliberately misrepresenting the facts (aka lying in one's teeth)

 

[ManSinha]

Moses, Christ, Buddha, Krishna, Zoroaster, the Bab and Baha’u’llah

Seven?

Where do you come up with that?

Baha'i teachings?

Let me disprove that from just one perspective

Moses is thought to be fictional for one

You never mentioned Guru Nanak he started a faith that is over three times the size of yours in the same timeframe

- you never mentioned Lord Ram or Hanuman for that matter

Being raised to be polite - I shall not say the rest of what comes to mind .......

 

[sooda]

I find that Muslims have the tendencies to make excuses for Muhammad’s actions.

Supposedly, Muhammad believed that all prophets before him, were all equal, and should followed to the letter. So that would including Moses’ laws, particularly the 10 Commandments.

Stealing is one of the laws, and yet Muhammad clearly broke this law, when he led raiding party to attack the merchant caravans and steal their goods.

And I cannot remember how many times such raids took place, but one person died one of those raids.

Did Muhammad have the killer arrested and tried?

Apparently not. I’d suppose that a long as the killer is a Muslim, killing a non-Muslim, it isn’t a murder, hence no law is broken.

I find that Muhammad condoning stealing and killing non-Muslims to be hypocritical. And Muslims making excuses also hypocritical.

I have never heard Muslims make excuses. Muhammed was a caravan boss.. He took caravans as far as Baghdad and Damascus.

Killing anyone except in self defense is murder. Where did you get your information?

 

[The_Fisher_King]

I had a close friend who was a Muslim judge and spoke Arabic, Amharic and Hebrew.. He was helpful and answered questions when I was studying.

That's very good, but I don't see the relevance to my post.

 

[loverofhumanity]

This is where the hypocrisy is exposed - a simple ask for exact references and I get a whole bunch of gobbledegook - nary a link

a person on the internet says "they discovered hidden meanings" - well as a trained medical professional I say that there a good chance that person is

1. delusional

OR

2. deliberately misrepresenting the facts (aka lying in one's teeth)

That quote is very common and can be found easily on the internet. It’s in John somewhere I don’t know the number by heart.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Seven?

Where do you come up with that?

Baha'i teachings?

Let me disprove that from just one perspective

Moses is thought to be fictional for one

You never mentioned Guru Nanak he started a faith that is over three times the size of yours in the same timeframe

- you never mentioned Lord Ram or Hanuman for that matter

Being raised to be polite - I shall not say the rest of what comes to mind .......

We see people like Joseph Smith of the Mormons and Guru Nanak as reformers but not independent Manifestations of God. About Lord Ram and Hanuman they are not included either but this is just our belief, others are free to believe as they wish.

Moses we believe was a true Manifestation but again you are entitled to your opinion.

 

[loverofhumanity]

This is where the hypocrisy is exposed - a simple ask for exact references and I get a whole bunch of gobbledegook - nary a link

a person on the internet says "they discovered hidden meanings" - well as a trained medical professional I say that there a good chance that person is

1. delusional

OR

2. deliberately misrepresenting the facts (aka lying in one's teeth)

I sincerely thank you for praising me. In my religion to be called such things as a liar and delusional is considered the greatest honor. So I thank you.

 

[Augustus]

a person on the internet says "they discovered hidden meanings" - well as a trained medical professional I say that there a good chance that person is

1. delusional

OR

2. deliberately misrepresenting the facts (aka lying in one's teeth)

As a trained medical professional, you should be aware that it is more likely that the person is simply interpreting subjective information in line with their deeply held beliefs and emotional preferences, which is a standard feature of our cognitive hardware.

Seeing as our brain evolved to work in exactly this manner, it is not best described as a delusion, and lying assumes they don't believe it themselves.

People easily believe that which is advantageous to them, it's just the way we work.