What is wrong with calling Islam religion of peace?

[gnostic]

Why did Prophet Muhammad raid caravans in Medina?

I have already given reasons a number of time.

Muhammad and his followers arrived in Medina, in poverty. The most obvious reason for raiding caravans is to steal, to profit from it. It was just one raid, but a dozen if not more raids.

Why hold merchants as hostages for ransoms or selling them as slaves?

To make money out of them.

You are forgetting that Muhammad was a human being. He has base emotions, just like everyone else. He can feel anger and fear, like every one else. Attacking the caravans belonging to Meccan merchants is act of revenge, and revenge is the result of anger and resentment.

When Muhammad attacked Ta'if, he was motivated by anger and resentment, it was revenge for refusing them refuge in their city, 8 years ago.

 

[Shad]

Why did Prophet Muhammad raid caravans in Medina?

Check the sources in your link. Some are hilarious if you actually read the whole part rather than what is provided. Such as in the first citation Muhammad used his army to expels people he signed a treaty with. Or that instead of being tested by Rabbis he attacked them with an army

 

[Shad]

I thought they ripped those letters apart or something...

Or fiction.

 

[Shad]

gnostic,

Apparently you have no such evidence.

So you are essentially accusing Jews of Arabia of practicing polytheism i.e. worshipping both ALLAH and G-D.

Anojther possibility is that you are accusing Arab Jews of being ignorant and stupid for not knowing that ALLAH was a pagan deity and confusing him with G-D. In other words you think Arab Jews were some kind of mentally deficient idiots. Let me ask you, have we ever seen any Jews in the west or in India or Persia over the last 2,000 years of being so ignorant and stupid as to think Jesus or Hanuman or Mithra was their G-D after learning to speak those languages? No, it has never happened. So why would we think it happened in Arabia? After all if these were Arab Jews who knew Arabic, they would be fully aware that Arabic has the word ILAH in it that means god. This is a word with a male, female as well singular and plural forms. In other words, in usage it is similar to the word god in so many other human languages. On the other hand ALLAH was a distinct and separate word which has none of these forms except the singular male. So to any human who speaks Arabic as a mother tongue, with even modest intelligence it would be humanly impossible to confuse ILAH with ALLAH. So if an Arab Jew wanted to be named the Slave of G-D in the same tradition as EBED MALECH he could be named EBED-ILAH or even EBEDEL-ILAH. However, here you are arguing he was named SLAVE OF ALLAH - the specific Meccan pagan deity because some unreliable Umayyad text says that was his name.

Gnostic said no such thing. You are providing all the accusations here while ignoring what I have provided and what Augustus has told you.

 

[sovietchild]

How convenient.

So there are no evidences of these letters existing, beyond what Muslim historians say. I have read about letters being sent, but not them actually receiving them. It seem doubtful that Heraclius heard of "Muhammad" until after the battle of Mu'tah in 629.

Muslim historians have been known to exaggerate in their accounts and even invent stories. And traditions like the Hadith are no more historically accurate or reliable.

I meant that those people who received the letters.

 

[sovietchild]

I have already given reasons a number of time.

Muhammad and his followers arrived in Medina, in poverty. The most obvious reason for raiding caravans is to steal, to profit from it. It was just one raid, but a dozen if not more raids.

Why hold merchants as hostages for ransoms or selling them as slaves?

To make money out of them.

You are forgetting that Muhammad was a human being. He has base emotions, just like everyone else. He can feel anger and fear, like every one else. Attacking the caravans belonging to Meccan merchants is act of revenge, and revenge is the result of anger and resentment.

When Muhammad attacked Ta'if, he was motivated by anger and resentment, it was revenge for refusing them refuge in their city, 8 years ago.

Why are you saying that I'm forgetting that he was a human being? Are you confusing me with some buddy else? I do not pray to Muhammad, nor do I ask anything from him. Prophet Muhammad and Aminah walked this earth and ate food like regular people.

 

[gnostic]

I meant that those people who received the letters.

I know what you meant, but there are no evidences that they receive any letter from Muhammad to rip up.

And secondly, why would Muhammad sent letters if to Heraclius and Khousra when Muhammad cannot even read and write in his own language (or so Muslims have claimed), let alone Latin or Greek or Persian.

I record that when Muhammad was still a child, when his uncle took Muhammad with him to Syria, to trade. Syria was a Roman-Byzantine province, where the main language were Koine Greek and Aramaic.

The question would be, can Muhammad understand either Greek or Aramaic?

 

[gnostic]

Why are you saying I'm forgetting that he was a human being? Are you confusing me with some buddy else? I do not pray to Muhammad, nor do I ask anything from him. Prophet Muhammad and Aminah walked this earth and ate food like regular people.

But you don't think he would rob caravans or sell people for money? Don't you think that his motivation for those caravan raids, was wealth and not because of religion?

 

[sovietchild]

I know what you meant, but there are no evidences that they receive any letter from Muhammad to rip up.

And secondly, why would Muhammad sent letters if to Heraclius and Khousra when Muhammad cannot even read and write in his own language (or so Muslims have claimed), let alone Latin or Greek or Persian.

I record that when Muhammad was still a child, when his uncle took Muhammad with him to Syria, to trade. Syria was a Roman-Byzantine province, where the main language were Koine Greek and Aramaic.

The question would be, can Muhammad understand either Greek or Aramaic?

Why? Come on man...You know exactly how the letters was written. There were plenty of illiterate kings.

 

[sovietchild]

But you don't think he would rob caravans or sell people for money? Don't you think that his motivation for those caravan raids, was wealth and not because of religion?

Didn't he marry Aisha for political reasons?

 

[sovietchild]

But you don't think he would rob caravans or sell people for money? Don't you think that his motivation for those caravan raids, was wealth and not because of religion?

I believe he sold soldier captives, some he let them go free. He even let leaders of the enemy go free.

 

[gnostic]

Didn't he marry Aisha for political reasons?

Isn't Aisha's father one of his main companions, one of the earliest to follow him, and the first caliph after Muhammad's death?

What does that have anything to do with Muhammad's motivation for raiding and robbing traders or selling them to slavery?

 

[sovietchild]

Isn't Aisha's father one of his main companions, one of the earliest to follow him, and the first caliph after Muhammad's death?

What does that have anything to do with Muhammad's motivation for raiding and robbing traders or selling them to slavery?

I don't know about selling them to slavery. Is that true? I thought their family members had to buy them out of prison or something like that...

 

[gnostic]

I believe he sold soldier captives, some he let them go free. He even let leaders of the enemy go free.

I would hardly call caravan guards "soldiers". And caravans are not armies.

Man, you are exaggerating the roles of caravan guards. Do you always make things up or exaggerate?

This is why I can't take Muslims seriously, their tendencies to exaggerate, especially in regarding to Muhammad. They have been exaggerating back then, and they are still distorting everything about him.

 

[sovietchild]

I would hardly call caravan guards "soldiers". And caravans are not armies.

Man, you are exaggerating the roles of caravan guards. Do you always make things up or exaggerate?

This is why I can't take Muslims seriously, their tendencies to exaggerate, especially in regarding to Muhammad. They have been exaggerating back then, and they are still distorting everything about him.

I think some people distort Jesus so they can make money out of him.

Of course they were soldiers. Come on man. Back in the day, wasn't everyone a soldier or something like that? If you have a gun in your hand, how are you not a soldier? Those guards were trained to fight.

 

[sovietchild]

@gnostic Do you think its right to capture drivers who deliver goods to ISIS?

People of Mecca were evicted from their homes without right and only because they say: Our Lord is Allah.

 

[gnostic]

I don't know about selling them to slavery. Is that true? I thought their family members had to buy them out of prison or something like that...

Did you miss the part where I have said "hostages" in earlier posts?

Paying ransom is paying for someone to be release, like war captives, hostages and kidnapped victims.

I have already given reasons a number of time.

Muhammad and his followers arrived in Medina, in poverty. The most obvious reason for raiding caravans is to steal, to profit from it. It was just one raid, but a dozen if not more raids.

Why hold merchants as hostages for ransoms or selling them as slaves?

If the merchants were rich enough, it is possible to pay ransoms. But not all of them especially any caravan guard could possibly pay ransoms, so they were sold as slaves.

You really don't know how the way the world work do you?

Hostages are like kidnapped victims, where the person hold others in captivity, sometimes demanding money as ransoms.

Either way, Muhammad is not a good man. Demanding ransom is no better than a criminal who would rob traders or selling people into slavery. But it would seem Muhammad is pretty good at doing bad things and making excusing God told him to do it.

 

[gnostic]

I think some people distort Jesus so they can make money out of him.

Yes, some do. You think I don't know that?

One of the reasons why Martin Luther (one of the people) started the Protestant movement was because the Roman Catholic Church became corrupted from wealth and power.

But a lot of the corruption in the church occurred centuries after Jesus and his 1st century disciples. Christians of the 1st century didn't have a political or military powers. Muhammad did have those powers when he was living in Medina, and later when he returned to Mecca.

If you are comparing Jesus and Muhammad (and their closest disciples) they are not alike, because Jesus didn't have the powers that Muhammad managed to gain, because Muhammad was a better politician and warlord than Jesus.

Even if we were to compare Muhammad against Moses, again, they are nothing alike. Moses didn't have Muhammad's ambition.

And while Muhammad and his followers were in self-exile, he was only have no home for only a matter of months, whereas Moses and the Israelites had no home when they left Egypt, wandering the wilderness for 40 years, living more like nomads than Muhammad's short wilderness excursion, from Mecca to Medina.

Moses had a much harder time with a whole population of people without a nation of their own.

Did Moses' people go to wars? Yes, they did. But Moses didn't active seek wars, unlike Muhammad who started the wars with Mecca (624-630), with the Jews living in Medina (624-630), with the city of Ta'if (630) and with the Byzantines (629). I think each of the wars were avoidable, he chose to fight, and he chose to start the fight.

My problems are not that he was at war, sovietchild. My problems are with you believing in the propaganda that he didn't start in the wars...that's BS. He started all the troubles.

 

[sovietchild]

Yes, some do. You think I don't know that?

One of the reasons why Martin Luther (one of the people) started the Protestant movement was because the Roman Catholic Church became corrupted from wealth and power.

But a lot of the corruption in the church occurred centuries after Jesus and his 1st century disciples. Christians of the 1st century didn't have a political or military powers. Muhammad did have those powers when he was living in Medina, and later when he returned to Mecca.

If you are comparing Jesus and Muhammad (and their closest disciples) they are not alike, because Jesus didn't have the powers that Muhammad managed to gain, because Muhammad was a better politician and warlord than Jesus.

Even if we were to compare Muhammad against Moses, again, they are nothing alike. Moses didn't have Muhammad's ambition.

And while Muhammad and his followers were in self-exile, he was only have no home for only a matter of months, whereas Moses and the Israelites had no home when they left Egypt, wandering the wilderness for 40 years, living more like nomads than Muhammad's short wilderness excursion, from Mecca to Medina.

Moses had a much harder time with a whole population of people without a nation of their own.

Did Moses' people go to wars? Yes, they did. But Moses didn't active seek wars, unlike Muhammad who started the wars with Mecca (624-630), with the Jews living in Medina (624-630), with the city of Ta'if (630) and with the Byzantines (629). I think each of the wars were avoidable, he chose to fight, and he chose to start the fight.

My problems are not that he was at war, sovietchild. My problems are with you believing in the propaganda that he didn't start in the wars...that's BS. He started all the troubles.

Okay first of all you started to talk about wealth and corruption and ended with Muhammad starting all the troubles. Didn't Mecca pagans deceived others in order to obtain money? Making people give gift to idols...Who started all the troubles?

 

[gnostic]

@gnostic Do you think its right to capture drivers who deliver goods to ISIS?

The problem with ISIS is completely different, and far more complex.

And I don't think it is a good idea to compare terrorists with Muhammad. You really don't want to go down that roads.

Muhammad was a man of his time. To me, Muhammad was a politician and warlord, like other warlords in Arabia at that time.

I wouldn't call Muhammad and his followers "terrorists", but I wouldn't call any of Muhammad's enemies "terrorists". Muslims, Meccans, Jews and Byzantines are not terrorists; none of them are.

If you start calling other people terrorists back in the 7th century, you would lose, because then people would be free to compare Muhammad's action as that of a terrorist.

So please, I would advise you not to bring terrorism up in our argument.