ISIS is to Islam as the KKK is to Christianity

[Angrboda]

What happened in the early stages was Islam.  What Muhammad did and preached later is also Islam.  You don't get to whitewash Islam by ignoring the latter and proclaiming the former.

Actually I do, do you agree on being put in the same basket as Hitler ? I mean both of you are non-Muslims.
So you can keep saying to yourself that Islam in Mohammed's time is the same as today, but good luck on explaining the modern Islamic decline.
To make the smart, historians in the crowd chuckle in utter sarcasm, you can also say that early Muslims were as classy and as advanced as modern Muslims.

What the fuck are you talking about? I didn't say the Islam in Muhammad's day was the same as Islam today. I said that the Islam during Muhammad's day did not only include the peaceful, tolerant, defensive period that you want to identify as true Islam. Your analogy to Hitler isn't even relevant, even if it were a good analogy, which it isn't. I don't identify as a Nazi. You do identify as a Muslim. You just want to deny certain facts about Islam in Muhammad's time.

And now you're moving the goalposts even further by going back further in history to a point when taqiyya ruled out of necessity, not choice.

Taqiya on the internet is for people who have no point.

Taqiya is only valid when somebody fears prosecution. The forum's management do not practice prosecution against Muslims, also the members here are unlikely to cause me physical harm for my ideas. So, technically, I have a point: so I'll say what I believe in your face.

Remember: Taqyia is only valid to practice when you face something very dangerous to your life. Read the definition of this act probably.

Assuming that you mean persecution, and not prosecution, as you have written, then we have every reason to suspect the Muslims and Muhammad of taqiyya during the period in question. You yourself are the one claiming that they were persecuted during the period you cite as evidence for the tolerance of Islam. If somebody tells you that they will lie if they are persecuted, and someone else tells you that person is being persecuted, you have reason to believe that they are lying (or omitting relevant information).

Even that early stage of Medinan Islam is not what you paint it to be. Here are David Wood's remarks on the matter:

Let's hear what David has to say:

Notice that the first real battle between Muslims and non-Muslims [the battle of Badr] was a result of non-Muslims trying to protect themselves from Muslims terrorizing their trade routes. [two years after the Constitution of Medina, btw] ... It didn't take long for Muhammad's protectors to realize that they had been duped. Muslims weren't quite the innocent victims they claimed to be.

But how did David forget to mention, that Muslims fled Mecca to Africa because they were tortured, prosecuted and killed by the pagans of Mecca?
So; Mohammed -peace be upon him- returned from Africa -after he and his peaceful followers fled prosecution- to Medinah, organized himself an army, and took the fight -which the pagans of Mecca began- back to their caravans.

Attacking caravans and people trying to defend those caravans is not self defense. So you're arguing that Muhammad was justified in killing the protectors of the caravans because some other people had persecuted him? This is fucking ridiculous on the face of it. This is just another bullshit Islamic argument that Muhammad's caravan raids were justified. It's bullshit. They weren't justified in attacking those caravans. The caravans didn't start the fight with Muhammad, so his taking the fight to the caravans is just him engaging in terrorism and piracy. ISIS has killed a number of Americans. Am I justified in killing you because of what ISIS did?

The problem is, I quoted the sources in details in my previous reply to you, but you chose "David's" genius and biased remark because you yourself, are a biased genius. Here is my comment again:

==============

https://atheistforums.org/thread-56522-p...pid1816557

Jörmungandr Wrote: We are not speaking about whether early Islam was more like ISIS rather than less so, and instead talking about early Medinan politics? 
But early Medinan politics ARE what early Islam dictated, and in its purest form also. Mohammed -peace be upon him; the prophet- was the leader of these politics, and the constitution he used was the "Quran".

So literally, early "Medinan" politics ARE Islam.


And it's also very well established that early Muslims in Mecca were tortured brutally, killed, their women got raped, their money got taken:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_to_Abyssinia



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_mig..._Abyssinia



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meccan_boy...Hashemites

As noted, your earlier remarks don't address what came later. Nor do they justify attacking caravans.

...Early Muslims were persecuted and tortured. If that is not enough for you to justify war, then I advice you to burn your current day passport, declare yourself an enemy of your state, and go throw garbage at any soldier you see.

He didn't go to war. He terrorized and plundered caravans. There's a big fucking difference between the two. Did he only target the caravans of people who had persecuted him? I don't think so.

I very much advice also, that you do that to a nuclear plant.

I'll take that under advisement.

If you got over your biased reading of my words, you won't see them as sophistry.

What I'm saying is simple: "Mohammed -peace be upon him- didn't begin the war".

Neither did those fucking caravans. Jesus, is there no excuse you fucking Muslims won't use to justify bloodshed?

What I'm asking you is simpler: "isn't it biased to insane degrees, to compare Mohammed to tyrants who burned and skinned children alive, and invented atomic bombs"?

And as I've said before, I don't give a shit about your tu quoque argument. It's neither relevant, nor justification.

It's beyond me, how could somebody see what Mohammed's enemies did, and what he did, then say: "his enemies are better".
History wise, it is beyond me. Fairness wise it's way way way beyond me.

Since I haven't said any such thing, your point here is lost on me. Those caravans weren't Muhammad's enemies. The only reason he attacked them and not the actual Meccans who had persecuted him was because he was a coward, a thief, and a murderer. How you can look at him terrorizing caravans and argue that it was an act of war, justified by what some pagans did to him and the other Muslims is beyond me, personally.

So, I think David and you don't need to read real history..Muslims were prosecuted to the degree of fleeing to Africa with what they can carry, but you and David do not think that's enough of a reason to go to war.

Attacking caravans is not going to war. Muhammad explicitly avoided going to war at this time. Probably for the same reason he avoided telling the Meccans what he really thought. Because his faith is one that justifies lying and murdering for things like drawing a stupid cartoon. As it is now, so it was then, when Muhammad ordered the murder of people for the crime of making satirical poems about him. But of course, he was justified in killing them, because they ought not to have made such a poem. Like I've said before, Atlas, you're nothing but an apologist for Muslim and Arab atrocities.

The problem with attempting to whitewash Muhammad and Islam this way is that you're simply trying to create an ersatz Islam that's not true to original Islam. You're the heretic, not ISIS.

I'm not whitewashing anybody; I'm not a dentist.
I'm reading to you the real history -as it happened-. In this scenario Mohammed -peace be upon him- was tortured -along with all Muslims-, they had to flee prosecution and death, and came back stronger, built the essence of an empire with the help of God, then kicked the shit out of the oppressors and cannibals of Mecca.

They didn't kick the shit out of anybody in Mecca. They attacked fucking caravans. That's not the same thing.

In September 623, Muhammad himself led a force of 200 in an unsuccessful raid against a large caravan.[citation needed] Shortly thereafter, the Meccans launched their own raid against Medina led by Kurz bin Jabir and fled with livestock belonging to the Muslims. In January 624, Muhammad dispatched a group of eight men to Nakhlah, on the outskirts of Mecca, led by Abdullah bin Jahsh to obtain intelligence on the Quraysh. However, Abdullah bin Jash and his party disguised as Pilgrims with shaved heads, upon being discovered by a Meccan caravan, decided to attack and kill as many of the caravan as possible, resulting in killing one of its men, Amr bin Al-Hadrami, the seizing of its goods and taking two as prisoners. The situation was all the more serious since the killing occurred in the month of Rajab, a truce month sacred to the Meccans in which fighting was prohibited and a clear affront to Arab traditions. Upon their return to Medina, Muhammad initially disapproved of this decision on their part, rebuked them and refused to take any spoil until he claimed to have received revelation (Quran, 2:217) stating that the Meccan persecution was worse than this violation of the sacred month. After his revelation Muhammed took the goods and the prisoners. The Muslims' raids on caravans prompted the Battle of Badr, the first major battle involving a Muslim army. This was the spot where the Meccans had sent their own army to protect their caravans from Muslim raiders.

Wikipedia || Battle of Badr

So the first caravan attack was purely aggressive. And the second attack on a caravan was prompted by the fact that, while traveling in disguise in order to spy on the Meccans, they were found out and so they turned on the caravan. Some fucking act of war, Atlas. And this was during the holy month. Even Muhammad didn't approve. Until he got a revelation from God that persecution was worse than death, so the attack on the caravan was (sort of) justified. How fucking convenient.

That brings up an important question. According to Wikipedia (here), there do not appear to be any recorded instances of Muslims being killed by the Meccans during their persecution in Mecca. Do you have any record of Muslims being killed during this period by the Meccans?

Speaking of which,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamza_ibn_...alib#Death

Wahshi then slit open his stomach and brought his liver to Hind bint Utbah,[2] whose father Hamza had killed at Badr (see above). Hind chewed Hamza's liver then spat it out. "Then she went and mutilated Hamza and made anklets, necklaces and pendants from his body, and brought them and his liver to Mecca."[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamza_ibn_...te-Saad3-2

Congratulations Jor. You and David are defending cannibals, just because they are non-Muslims.
Ain't that an Islamophobe?

I read the rest of David's crap. He didn't mention that Mohammed's enemies were liver-eaters and cannibal barbarians. It looks like that to the likes of David, you only have the right to slit the throats of barbarian cannibals if you were a white Roman. If you're a sand ******, then fuck you.

First of all, I didn't defend the Meccans. Second of all, what the fuck does this have to do with anything? Even if the Meccans were cannibals, and it's not clear from the example you provide that they were, that would not justify Muhammad raiding caravans and killing them. I swear, you are seriously unhinged.

And in before you say you don't consider the hadith, the histories, and tafsir relevant, that's just you again trying to whitewash history by simply denying it.

"Islam's greatest ally in the west is ignorance." You're simply attempting to spread ignorance and disinformation.

No. Islam's greatest ally was the Quran. When the faith in the Quran was replaced, Muslims payed.

You seem to delight in intentionally missing the point. The point is that you are attempting to advance a narrative that is not faithful to history because, given the ignorance of that history, you can generally get away with it. Instead of actually discussing the history, you tell only part of the story, and use disinformation to hide the rest.

---

---

And even going back to the period you want to arbitrarily declare as true Islam, it's clear who the actual aggressor was.  Yes early Muslims were persecuted.  Largely after Muhammad,

But we are speaking about the time of Mohammed only.
I even told you, that this is the basis of my discussion with you:
https://atheistforums.org/thread-56522-p...pid1816557

---

Jörmungandr Wrote: We are not speaking about whether early Islam was more like ISIS rather than less so, and instead talking about early Medinan politics? 
But early Medinan politics ARE what early Islam dictated, and in its purest form also. Mohammed -peace be upon him; the prophet- was the leader of these politics, and the constitution he used was the "Quran".

So literally, early "Medinan" politics ARE Islam.


And it's also very well established that early Muslims in Mecca were tortured brutally, killed, their women got raped, their money got taken:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_to_Abyssinia



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_mig..._Abyssinia



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meccan_boy...Hashemites



...Early Muslims were persecuted and tortured. If that is not enough for you to justify war, then I advice you to burn your current day passport, declare yourself an enemy of your state, and go throw garbage at any soldier you see.

I very much advice also, that you do that to a nuclear plant.


My defense stops at Mohammed peace be upon him. What his friends did after him is non of my concern; and I even criticized lots of their actions -including the actions of his own family members like Ali-.



If you got over your biased reading of my words, you won't see them as sophistry.

What I'm saying is simple: "Mohammed -peace be upon him- didn't begin the war".
What I'm asking you is simpler: "isn't it biased to insane degrees, to compare Mohammed to tyrants who burned and skinned children alive, and invented atomic bombs"?

It's beyond me, how could somebody see what Mohammed's enemies did, and what he did, then say: "his enemies are better".
History wise, it is beyond me. Fairness wise it's way way way beyond me.

I enlarged the words that told you that I'm not discussing "later".

Aside from that, let's speak a little bit of history of the Middle East after Islam, since you want to hear about it despite me saying that it's not valid because nobody actually followed the Quran exactly. The following were either Sunna or Shia ! you'll discover now who both sects are

Nobody followed Mohammed, actually his wife went on a rage attack and fought the Prophet's own cousin in the battle of the camel:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Camel

This battle is the reason Muslims are Sunnies or Shiites.

Then, kingdoms started to rise and fall. Each kingdom had a dynasty, some grew to empires. One of them saved the world from the Mongols:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ain_Jalut

Big stuff.

Then one of the empires was the Ottoman empire, that saved the world from cont Dracula; Vlad III Dracula:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_the_Impaler

Then the Ottomans got crazy, Muslims got defeated in WW1 because they probably didn't know how to fuck the human body like Europeans did; TBH Europeans were evil fucks, I mean just look at the amounts of people killed in WW1 and WW2 !

A comparison between the two (the kids of Vlad and the Turks of Istanbul) can give you lots of indication on who is who..

Not that Muslims were pure. But the Quran have a magical effect on making civilization flourish without radiations like the modern world.

---

I'm going to assume you simply misunderstood the English because otherwise you are just being a dick. I said that Muhammad and his followers were persecuted after Muhammad abused them first, not after Muhammad was dead.