Mohammed - Prophet of Peace

[Oerdin]

I'm personally nonreligious but I have a very hard time taking anyone serious who claims a child rapist who committed genocide of an entire people is the type of person we should be emulating and using as the moral compass of our lives.

 

[Masada]

Yeah, it ain't that simple. If it was we'd all look at Caesar as a child rapist... Cornelia was 11 or so when he married her. She even bore him a child not long after. Distasteful? Yes to modern tastes. To Roman elite tastes? Not in the least. Much the same could be said of Muhammad and Aisha.

 

[Arakhor]

Even as late as the time period of Romeo & Juliet, Lady Capulet is planning to marry off her daughter Juliet and reassuring her that she too was only 14 when she had her.

 

[Oerdin]

Yeah, it ain't that simple. If it was we'd all look at Caesar as a child rapist... Cornelia was 11 or so when he married her. She even bore him a child not long after. Distasteful? Yes to modern tastes. To Roman elite tastes? Not in the least. Much the same could be said of Muhammad and Aisha.

For me, it is just that simple. You have sex with a 9 year old then you are a child rapist. Yes, Ceasar was a child rapist too and neither one of those child rapists should be considered to have ANYTHING to do with moral authority. You can admire their accomplishments for other reasons but moral authority, the basis of all religious authority? Not a chance.

Even as late as the time period of Romeo & Juliet, Lady Capulet is planning to marry off her daughter Juliet and reassuring her that she too was only 14 when she had her.

14 I have less of a problem with because they've at least hit puberty and started having periods. At 9 they're just children.

 

[Arakhor]

Besides, Muhammad* isn't the font of all religious authority, from what I understand. He is simply Allah's chief prophet and specifically not Allah, unlike many Christians believe Jesus to be.

 

[Tee Kay]

He's the final messenger. Muhammad's message is supposed to override the earlier prophets' messages where applicable.

 

[gangleri2001]

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.

Ok, it's just that I feel insulted by Islam and its extremely anti-polytheistic agenda. Ok, sorry, you're also safe in my hands.

PS: If you're a muslim using taqiyya in order to destroy a mushrik like me you better tell me before it's too late.

 

[Arakhor]

Exodus 20:3 - Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

All the Abrahamic religions have an anti-polytheistic agenda. If you'd lived 500 years ago, Queen Isabella would likely have included you in the Reconquista.

 

[Tee Kay]

gangleri would feel right at home in the Iroquois Confederacy.

 

[gangleri2001]

Exodus 20:3 - Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

All the Abrahamic religions have an anti-polytheistic agenda. If you'd lived 500 years ago, Queen Isabella would likely have included you in the Reconquista.

I'm not in in her kingdom but in Ferdinand's, so she would have no say in my destiny. And if you think that the Reconquista was something planned by someone you've no idea of Iberian history.


As for Abrahamic religions, yes, you're right, all abrahmic religions are anti-polytheisitc. It's only that Jews and Christians are no longer a problem for us. Jews only care about money, Israel and stuff that doesn't concern us and the religious Jews are seen as freaks by many Jews today. As for Christians, they're either a bunch of hippies who pose no threat to anybody or a bunch of a-holes everyone laughs at (rednecks, creationists and the like). The only ones who keep their good ol' anti-polytheistic agenda are the muslims, that's why they're the only one I care about. As for other minor abrahamic religions, I've no problem with them. Druzes and Baha'i are seen as mushrik by the muslims that surround them, so we may eventualty convert them to polytheism thanks to that hostility and build the first polytheistic communities in Islamic countries thanks to them.

 

[Arakhor]

Its just a shame that Ferdinand and Isabella were married, weren't they?

Don't you think your post is just a little offensive to the monotheists you've so casually name-checked there?

 

[Winner]

Relatively limited?

Territorially. The Crusaders controlled just a small part of the Middle East.

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 am talking about the fact that Islam has spread through conquest since the day 1. Christianity didn't.

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.

So? My point has nothing to do with how the two sides acted in terms of violence, it is about quantitative gains. Christianity spread more or less peacefully during the first +-500 years of its existence. Islam spread more or less by conquest during its first +-500 years.

I assume both religions were more "pure" back then than they are today, after their further differentiation. Therefore, it seems that Islam is inherently a more aggressive religion.

 

[Tee Kay]

I assume both religions were more "pure" back then than they are today, after their further differentiation. Therefore, it seems that Islam is inherently a more aggressive religion.

Uh, flawed assumption. Religion is really the sum of its adherents. Talking of a "pure" religion is the language of fundamentalist nutjobs.

 

[Masada]

Even as late as the time period of Romeo & Juliet, Lady Capulet is planning to marry off her daughter Juliet and reassuring her that she too was only 14 when she had her.

SHAKESPEARE: ENABLER OF CHILD RAPE! DEATH TO WESTERN LITERARY CANON! DEATH TO THE ENGLISH LITERATURE APOLOGISTS! DEATH TO ALL WHO WOULD OPPOSE US!

Its just a shame that Ferdinand and Isabella were married, weren't they?

That's not all that meaningful. The relationship between 'Spain' (in this case Castille and Aragon) would have been closer to that of Britain and Ireland than Britain and, for instance, Scotland. You could almost conceive of 'Spain' as being something like the European Union, with the 'Kingdoms' being even more fractious and jealous of their rights than Europe is now: in effect, the European Union, with the same President and no legislative or political powers outside of what he/she could convince the constituent states to agree too. In Aragon's case: nothing because it's corporate rights were just too good to want to change; so much so that not a few of those rights empowered it to ignore the Crown when it suited the Cortes. It did this lots.

 

[Arakhor]

Therefore, it seems that Islam is inherently a more aggressive religion.

That's the problem with using specific words. "Inherent" means existing as an essential constituent or characteristic, intrinsic to its existence, and that's impossible to say for any religion, except perhaps the priesthood of Mars or Kali.

 

[Traitorfish]

Actually, it's not true of Mars, either. He started off as an agricultural deity, and because the harvest marked the commencement of the campaigning season- and a good harvest meant good prospects- he gradually became associated with warfare. There are no constants when it comes to religion.

 

[Tee Kay]

That's the problem with using specific words. "Inherent" means existing as an essential constituent or characteristic, intrinsic to its existence, and that's impossible to say for any religion, except perhaps the priesthood of Mars or Kali.

This Kali? The benevolent mother goddess Kali?

Even in the most inherently violent religions, it turns out that they're not inherently violent...

 

[Aroddo]

Ok, it's just that I feel insulted by Islam and its extremely anti-polytheistic agenda. Ok, sorry, you're also safe in my hands.

PS: If you're a muslim using taqiyya in order to destroy a mushrik like me you better tell me before it's too late.

You obviously had some bad experiences with the zealous kind of muslim, which I didn't. So it's not right for me to chide you for your attitude from the safety of my sheltered life.
I'm still only of the opinion, that the prohpet himself has a much more peaceful message than those who we (the sheltered ones) are being taught to fear.
And by the way: I have no idea what you are talking about in your postscriptum. I'll have to consult the holy book of Wikipedia before I can comment on that.

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 .

Well, that is ironic. I really wonder what the reasoning for that was and if that chain of logic does divide by zero halfway between cause and solution.

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.

It is good to remind people of those contradictions. But that particular approach chosen by that opinionated website wasn't fair or helpful.

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 completely agree ... the new testament is way more humane than the old one.
Just keep in mind that the gospel of Muhammed is molded after the gospel of Jesus and not the gospel of Moses.
And the texts after Jesus's death promptly turn darker again and you get the Apocalypse, God's holy terror and a church that invents stuff like purgatory to scare the masses into spending their money on the church. Likewise Islam turned away from education, tolerance, equal rights and peace ... all because of the power games of a few conservative powerful men.

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?

For safety reasons I didn't state it quite like that
And the answer is a simple one: Because the majority of people want their holy book to mean exactly what they want it to mean. They don't want to be taught - they want to be confirmed in their thinking. And that is true for about any holy book.

 

[Arakhor]

Maybe I should have said Ares instead, but that did rather prove my point.

And the answer is a simple one: Because the majority of people want their holy book to mean exactly what they want it to mean. They don't want to be taught - they want to be confirmed in their thinking. And that is true for about any holy book.

Definitely. You don't need to go far from this thread to find confirmation of that.

 

[Winner]

Uh, flawed assumption. Religion is really the sum of its adherents. Talking of a "pure" religion is the language of fundamentalist nutjobs.

Call it as you wish - the two religions behaved very differently in their beginnings. Both evolved and adapted in ways that helped them spread, being the good mental viruses they are. For Christianity it meant peaceful spread through the Roman Empire, in other words infiltration, for Islam it meant armed aggression against the outside world followed by assimilation of the conquered.

This is why Islam is more dangerous, the need for aggression and conquest is encoded in its "memetic DNA".

That's the problem with using specific words. "Inherent" means existing as an essential constituent or characteristic, intrinsic to its existence, and that's impossible to say for any religion, except perhaps the priesthood of Mars or Kali.

See above.