Mohammed - Prophet of Peace

[General Pilates]

Wait, so...

... the early Islamic expansion in the 7th-9th centuries which was done almost *entirely* through conquest of non-Islamic cultures - the Eastern Christians under the Roman Empire, the Zoroastrians in Persia, the Western Christians in Iberia and France - wasn't "crazy insane" and violent, but the relatively limited Christian counter-invasions a couple hundred years later (the Crusades and later the Reconquista) were?

Relatively limited? Does Reynald de Chatillion or the first Fall of Jerusalem mean nothing to you? The Arabs hardly destroyed a single city in their conquests; 90% of it was cities agreeing to tribute and then the Arabs moving on. The notable exceptions are Paykand and Istrakhr, but these are exceptions, not the rule. The invasions were rather restrained, in fact, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

I can't find a single example where the Catholics took back land from the Muslims and it didn't result in some horrible massacre or expulsion. Except maybe Malta.

 

[wolfigor]

Your site is merely hateful propaganda. I suggest you view the video in the original post.
It was made way before the US-government saw a need to vilify everything muslim, so it's a bit detached from present day warmongering.

It's a pity you did not see the irony of the joke between your OP title "Mohammed - Prophet of Peace" and the title of the web-site "the religion of peace".
People takes religion far too seriously: it's like people getting hot and angry for Santa Claus or Donald Duck.

Anyway you call the link hateful propaganda... is it completely false what they write in the posted page?

Here you can find a very long list of (selected) quotes from the Quran: are they false?
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm

One can say anything... but "Mohammed - Prophet of Peace" badly matches what is written in the Quran itself.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

No he isn't. He's saying that you can't assume, in an anti-empirical manner, that certain cultural influences exist, or that they will produce certain results. He's saying that Muslims should be judged on the basis of how they actually act, not on the desperate basis of "Muslims are violent because Islam is violent because Muslims are violent because Islam is violent..."

No, he isn't. He goes farther when he assumes that it doesn't matter what kind of prophet Muhammed was. You just tried to tone it down and turn the assuming part around.. There's a good possibility that cultural influences do exist and that they produce certain results. Why wouldn't they? I thought it was pretty established that your upbringing colours your views later in life. Why wouldn't there be a societal impact if certain views are upheld in a society?

..and please tone down your smearing attempts. No one has made the case that "Muslims are violent because Islam is violent because Muslims are violent because Islam is violent..."

 

[Traitorfish]

No, he isn't. He goes farther when he assumes that it doesn't matter what kind of prophet Muhammed was.

Yes. Should it?

You just tried to tone it down and turn the assuming part around.. There's a good possibility that cultural influences do exist and that they produce certain results. Why wouldn't they? I thought it was pretty established that your upbringing colours your views later in life. Why wouldn't there be a societal impact if certain views are upheld in a society?

I didn't deny that cultural influences exist and they will have some role in determining individual outcomes- that would be incredibly stupid, and it's really rather ungenerous of you to assume that of me- I said that you can't assume that any given influence exists, or that it will have a predetermined outcome. That's an entirely different claim altogether.

..and please tone down your smearing attempts. No one has made the case that "Muslims are violent because Islam is violent because Muslims are violent because Islam is violent..."

I didn't say that they did. I said that it was the typical logic employed in these circumstances by those of an anti-Islamic bent.

 

[warpus]

I view Christianity and Islam as splinter religions that have been inspired by Judaism. Judaism in turn was inspired by other religions (Zoroastrianism).

You could draw a quiet interesting flowchart/timeline of religious division and inspiration throughout the ages, if you include things like Mormonism and pre zoroaster religions. It really helps put things into perspective.

 

[innonimatu]

On behalf of atheists, I want to denounce the "religion of peace" talk as bullcrap. The arabs were anything but peaceful when they were succeeding in their conquering spree. And even where they "tolerated" other "religions of the book" as second-class subjects they persecuted anyone else who didn't worship their one god. Not that Christianity was much better for much of its history. At least the jews, with their ideas of being "chosen", are not proselytizers and never managed to conquer much.

I really hope that those three religions never ally.

I can't find a single example where the Catholics took back land from the Muslims and it didn't result in some horrible massacre or expulsion. Except maybe Malta.

The Iberian Peninsula and portions of Morocco (those last temporarily): most muslims converted over a couple of centuries. A few who didn't eventually got expelled.

There were massacres aplenty from any of those religions, in the name of religion. There were other means employed for pressure to obtain converts. There are still today. They have, time and again, been a threat to anyone else who isn't or won't be a member of their club but is under their power. Monotheism has brought a lot of misery into the world.

 

[Aroddo]

It's a pity you did not see the irony of the joke between your OP title "Mohammed - Prophet of Peace" and the title of the web-site "the religion of peace".
People takes religion far too seriously: it's like people getting hot and angry for Santa Claus or Donald Duck.

Anyway you call the link hateful propaganda... is it completely false what they write in the posted page?

Here you can find a very long list of (selected) quotes from the Quran: are they false?
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm

One can say anything... but "Mohammed - Prophet of Peace" badly matches what is written in the Quran itself.

Oh, I spotted the irony, alright.
And I also spotted how the author very carefully placed the peaceful Bible quotes right next to the martial stuff from the Koran instead of placing them to their respective peaceful quotes.

Let's just quote the headline and the introduction, shall we?

Christianity and Islam:
A Side by Side Comparison*

* It is not the purpose of this site to promote any particular religion, including Christianity.
However, we do enjoy refuting nonsense, such as the claim that Muhammad
and Jesus preached a morally equivalent message, or that all religion is the same.

"Allah:"
"I will cast terror into the hearts of those who
disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads
and strike off every fingertip of them."
(Qur'an 8:12)

Muhammad:
"Fight everyone in the way of Allah and
kill those who disbelieve in Allah."
(Ibn Ishaq 992)

Jesus:
"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."
(Matthew 5:14)

The rest of your oh-so-objective site continues in the exact same way and you somehow get the notion that this counts as some kind of proof.

Violent bible verses are abundand with the especially despicable ones found in the book of Leviticus. There you can find pearls like "A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB) "

And somehow your ironic site failed to mention those parts of the bible.

Now, I'm not saying that the Koran is any better in that regard - after all it tells the story of the bible and then some. I'm saying that these passages aren't the messages of the prophets! They are the inventions of politicians who twisted their teachings into pretzels until they could use their 'message' to justify whatever they wanted.

 

[Lillefix]

And somehow your ironic site failed to mention those parts of the bible.

But the Christians have an ace up their sleeve. Those verses are null and void because of Jesus.

Of course, that doesn't matter. It's only the last few centuries(or decades?) that Christian countries(countries with big christian populations that is) has become more peaceful and tolerant than Muslim ones.

 

[gangleri2001]

The Message is a 1997 french movie which was shot both in english and arabic.

WTH? The Message (Ar-Risalah in its arabic name) is a 1976 Moroccan and Libyan coproduction. If you can't get these simple facts straight you better STFU.

I watched this film many years ago and all I can say is that it is the biggest piece of islamic crapaganda put in film up to date. It's as far from objectivity as it can be, its purpose is to show us the "nice" face of Islam and even so it cannot deny the fact that Muhammad was a warmonger, so don't come here telling us that he's a prophet of peace.

 

[Arakhor]

Jesus was fairly nice, comparatively speaking, but his followers were not much better (if at all) than the early Muslims.

 

[Aroddo]

WTH? The Message (Ar-Risalah in its arabic name) is a 1976 Moroccan and Libyan coproduction movie. If you can't get these simple facts straight you better STFU.

I watched this film many years ago and all I can say is that it is the biggest piece of islamic crapaganda put in film up to date. It's as far from objectivity as it can be, its purpose is to show us the "nice" face of Islam and even so it cannot deny the fact that Muhammad was a warmonger, so don't come here telling us that he's a prophet of peace.

corrected. TY and a friendly STFU to you, too!
Now GFY or stop being so angry if you wish to have a mature discussion.

 

[gangleri2001]

corrected. TY and a friendly STFU to you, too!
Now GFY or stop being so angry if you wish to have a mature discussion.

It's impossible to have a mature discussion with someone who believes in a religion that wants to put all polytheists like me to death.

 

[Leoreth]

But the Christians have an ace up their sleeve. Those verses are null and void because of Jesus.

Why is the Old Testament included in the Bible then? The early Christians obviously considered it important.

 

[Aroddo]

It's impossible to have a mature discussion with someone who believes in a religion that wants to put all polytheists like me to death.

I'm actually christian although since I don't really think that god answers anyone's prayers I'm probably half agnostic.
I assure you that your life is safe in my hands.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I was actually just making a counterpoint to the uninformed fear-islam rhetorics.
too many people don't even know that islam reveres jesus christ as well as mohammed.

Good luck with that.

 

[aronnax]

I watched that movie on Youtube a couple of weeks ago.
I liked the way they got around not being able to portray Mohammad, the Caliphs or other members. The light organ music was a nice touch to it.
My favourite scene is either the part where the freed slave called everyone to prayer for the first time or when the refugees were granted an audience with the 'Abyssinian' Emperor and he said the line "The difference between you are I are no thicker than this line".

It was a good movie, probably one of the best thing Gaddafi ever funded.

 

[aelf]

It's a pity you did not see the irony of the joke between your OP title "Mohammed - Prophet of Peace" and the title of the web-site "the religion of peace".
People takes religion far too seriously: it's like people getting hot and angry for Santa Claus or Donald Duck.

Anyway you call the link hateful propaganda... is it completely false what they write in the posted page?

Oh, but it is. It is doing the potentially libelous act of interpreting a sacred text on behalf of the believers themselves. Never mind that the majority of believers do not seem to interpret the text as advocating violence, if I see that it does, it must be so.

It's also a pity that you don't see the irony of someone who is not religious insisting that there is really only one way of understanding quotations from a sacred text, which believers must subscribe to. It reminds me of a certain Eastern European non-Muslim 'expert' on Islam in this forum who insists that liberal Muslims are not true Muslims. It's completely absurd.

That's why I try to steer clear of theological debates about what sacred texts say and would rather criticise believers for the views they actually espouse.

 

[r16]

a Muslim myself , the only thing ı probably would be able to add is the thing the producer of the movie was specifically targeted by a suicide attack in a wedding in Jordan .

 

[wolfigor]

That's why I try to steer clear of theological debates about what sacred texts say and would rather criticise believers for the views they actually espouse.

Well, sometime it's good to remind people that there are plenty of contradictions in the holy texts and they have to be ready to have somebody questioning it.
In this view those verses in the Quran contradict the statement of "Mohammed - Prophet of Peace".
Somebody espousing such theory has to explain the contradiction.

Oh, I spotted the irony, alright.
And I also spotted how the author very carefully placed the peaceful Bible quotes right next to the martial stuff from the Koran instead of placing them to their respective peaceful quotes.

Yes, true they do
However the point, for me, is not to compare Bible and Quran but to explain how violent verses in the Quran matches the thesis of "Prophet of Peace".

Violent bible verses are abundand with the especially despicable ones found in the book of Leviticus.

Sure there are plenty of them and the same I wrote about the Quran applies to the Bible.
However the new testament changes the game and bring a new view to it.
The message in the new testament is completely different from the old, based on love, forgiveness, etc.
This didn't stop people to build religion on top of it and use it to justify a lot of cruelty and oppression ... but that's probably true for every religion on the planet.

I'm saying that these passages aren't the messages of the prophets! They are the inventions of politicians who twisted their teachings into pretzels until they could use their 'message' to justify whatever they wanted.

Plenty of modern evil dictators get justified in the same way.
However the text is used as a base for the religion and it is considered the official word of the prophet.
If the book is not correct, as you state, why is it used and it is considered the true word of the prophet?

 

[Masada]

Does Reynald de Chatillion or the first Fall of Jerusalem mean nothing to you?

The notable exceptions are Paykand and Istrakhr, but these are exceptions, not the rule.

ehhh both the Christian examples are exceptions too mang. on the whole the relationship was pretty congenial between the parties.

However the new testament changes the game and bring a new view to it.
The message in the new testament is completely different from the old, based on love, forgiveness, etc.
This didn't stop people to build religion on top of it and use it to justify a lot of cruelty and oppression ... but that's probably true for every religion on the planet.

correct although a surprising number of Christian fundies seem to think the beatitudes don't exist and the whole turn the other check thing is a communist conspiracy. broadly speaking though, i agree most mainstream Christian denominations put more theological stock in the NT. that doesn't mean that Christianity is more peaceful that Muslims, the majority of whom have moral beliefs espoused through the hadith and quran that are no different to those held by mainstream Christians. we're both about as violent as each other; and just about every other conceivable human group.