ISIS is to Islam as the KKK is to Christianity

[WinterHold]

Still losing your shit.  

If the extent of the islamic empire is close to the estimates we have..they did indeed butcher an entire continent to get it...they just spread it out over three continents, is all.  Likewise, muslims have committed atrocities with as much zeal and enthusiasm as anyone else in their various engagements.  You need to disabuse yourself of the fantasy that the white man has some sort of patent on brutality, and that muslims would just never do such and such.

OFC they would, and have, and will again.  The ummah was unremarkable for it's time in what brutality it extended, and it was an impressive military campaign carried out by zealots.  That, Atlass, is the original shape of islam, and ISIS.

Answer my point instead of going in circles.
Crimes by the Islamic empires in the past doesn't even compare to a fraction of the crimes of non-Muslims.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's different when a muslim does it, I guess, lol?

[WinterHold]

Is the Guardian good enough for you, then?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...-terrorism

An op ed that doesn't even support your point?  Go join Drich on the bench for perpetually clueless and deluded idiots.

I understand.

Is wikipedia good enough for you, then?

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

These early caliphates, coupled with Muslim economics and trading and the later expansion of the Ottoman Empire, resulted in Islam's spread outwards from Mecca towards both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and the creation of the Muslim world. Trading played an important role in the spread of Islam in several parts of the world, notably southeast Asia.[2

[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spread_of_Islam#cite_note-2][/url]
And moreover, are modern Muslim immigrants came to Europe and the U.S through AK-47s or through the embassy of the country ? all of them -literally all- came as refugees and immigrants, admitted formally and legally by the country they visit.

so ??

[The Grand Nudger]

The very first words in your new link...

Early Muslim conquests

I applaud modern muslims, with their relatively secularized and western values combined with a moderated faith. It's good to see that they have left the original shape of islam behind...even if guys like ISIS haven't.

There's no need for revisionism in that, though. You're a better person than the prophet and all of his men. The countries muslims flee to today are improved in every respect compared to the caliphate. You'd be an abject failure if you weren't - just as I would be an abject failure if I was running around doing what my forebearers did in the 6th and 7th centuries. Just as any nation today that attempts what they achieved then is decried as a terrorist state.

Frankly, had ISIS contented themselves at the summit of their organizational ability with the territory and resources then under their control - it's entirely likely that they could have arisen from the ashes of war as a credible governing authority. Their ambition exceeded their abilities, inspired by a revisionist view of history not at all dissimilar to your own (and that's not the only point of agreement between you, lol), and a belief that they were doing the work of allah entirely like that of the early muslim conquerors. They sought to do what was once done so well - and failed.

It's often noted about and between abrahamics...that their decency as human beings is directly proportionate and inverse to their religiosity. Believers who reject that notion as stated, for their part, often parse this as a difference between fundamentalist and reformed theology - but..ofc, this only serves to demonstrate the point further.

[Angrboda]

An op ed that doesn't even support your point?  Go join Drich on the bench for perpetually clueless and deluded idiots.

I understand.

Is wikipedia good enough for you, then?

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

These early caliphates, coupled with Muslim economics and trading and the later expansion of the Ottoman Empire, resulted in Islam's spread outwards from Mecca towards both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and the creation of the Muslim world. Trading played an important role in the spread of Islam in several parts of the world, notably southeast Asia.[2

[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spread_of_Islam#cite_note-2][/url]
And moreover, are modern Muslim immigrants came to Europe and the U.S through AK-47s or through the embassy of the country ? all of them -literally all- came as refugees and immigrants, admitted formally and legally by the country they visit.

so ??

And yet again your source doesn't actually support your point. The early Muslim movement was not what you paint it to be, even according to your own source.

As Khem has already noted, your article starts with these very words, "Early Muslim conquests in the years following Muhammad's death led to the creation of the caliphates, occupying a vast geographical area."

You're as bad as Drich in quoting sources that don't support you as if they did support you, so you can remain on the bench.

(and for what it's worth, even if it did support you, it wouldn't be a particularly good source because topics such as the spread of Islam often become battlegrounds for partisan interest on Wikipedia, with the greater zeal of zealots often prevailing over cooler heads. But we don't have to consider that in this case, anyway.)

[robvalue]

I see the modern non-violent versions of Christianity and Islam as the radicals. They have found a way of continuing to put forward the texts as some sort of divine message, while managing to ignore or argue away all the hideous violence contained within. In the best cases, they even manage to ignore all the bigotry too.

I don't know how they manage it, but these people who are really bad at their religion are the best kind of people in my estimation. I understand this is a weird kind of compliment, but it is one, nonetheless. I'll take a non-violent outcome anyday, however a person comes to that conclusion. I also understand that they don't consider themselves bad at their religion, and it is indeed just my opinion. What I really mean is that they are bad at taking what is written too seriously, which is a very good thing.

[WinterHold]

The very first words in your new link...

Early Muslim conquests

I applaud modern muslims, with their relatively secularized and western values combined with a moderated faith.  It's good to see that they have left the original shape of islam behind...even if guys like ISIS haven't.

And now, you invade modern culture and claim that it is western?
You do know and realize that "Mocha"; the coffee, is an Islamic discovery, right?
You do know and realize that Ancient Egyptians used perfumes, right?
You do know and realize that Muslims showed Europe the "mirror", right?
You do know and realize that it is Muslims who founded "modern Chemistry", right?
For the reader who want to read more about the achievements of my ancestors, here are they in this great headline from the "independent":
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien...06905.html

So who is having the values of whom?

To me, you seem like a cheap copy of Muslims guarded by atomic bombs, and doesn't use water to clean after using the toilet.
We dominated the world once, and the west took our values to escape the dark ages. So please; don't try to turn the table upside down, respect the mind of the reader.

There's no need for revisionism in that, though. You're a better person than the prophet and all of his men. The countries muslims flee to today are improved in every respect compared to the caliphate. You'd be an abject failure if you weren't - just as I would be an abject failure if I was running around doing what my forebearers did in the 6th and 7th centuries. Just as any nation today that attempts what they achieved then is decried as a terrorist state.

I don't agree with you. The Prophet -peace be upon him- was known for his skills as a merchant, I'm not. Matter in fact, I suck at business. Moreover, he established a business with his wife -a woman- 1400 years ago, traveled a lot too. I didn't do any of that.

You remind me of a person from this age, comparing himself to a Roman citizen 2000 years ago in terms of technology and feels superior. How sad is that.

Frankly, had ISIS contented themselves at the summit of their organizational ability with the territory and resources then under their control - it's entirely likely that they could have arisen from the ashes of war as a credible governing authority. Their ambition exceeded their abilities, inspired by a revisionist view of history not at all dissimilar to your own (and that's not the only point of agreement between you, lol), and a belief that they were doing the work of allah entirely like that of the early muslim conquerors. They sought to do what was once done so well - and failed.

The "Israeli Secret Intelligence Service" again..oh boy.

---

I understand.

Is wikipedia good enough for you, then?

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


[/url]
And moreover, are modern Muslim immigrants came to Europe and the U.S through AK-47s or through the embassy of the country ? all of them -literally all- came as refugees and immigrants, admitted formally and legally by the country they visit.

so ??

And yet again your source doesn't actually support your point.  The early Muslim movement was not what you paint it to be, even according to your own source.

As Khem has already noted, your article starts with these very words, "Early Muslim conquests in the years following Muhammad's death led to the creation of the caliphates, occupying a vast geographical area."  

You're as bad as Drich in quoting sources that don't support you as if they did support you, so you can remain on the bench.

(and for what it's worth, even if it did support you, it wouldn't be a particularly good source because topics such as the spread of Islam often become battlegrounds for partisan interest on Wikipedia, with the greater zeal of zealots often prevailing over cooler heads.  But we don't have to consider that in this case, anyway.)

But we are not speaking about that.

We are speaking about your legendary abilities to dodge points; like the thusands of time I mentioned this:

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

The constitution formed the basis of a [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multifaith]multi-religious Islamic state in Medina.[2][3][4][5][6]
The constitution was created to end the bitter intertribal fighting between the rival clans of Banu Aws and Banu Khazraj in Medina[6] and to maintain peace and co-operation among all Medinan groups. Establishing the role of Muhammad as the mediating authority between the two groups and the others in Medina was central to the ending of Medinan internal violence and was an essential feature of the constitution. The document ensured freedom of religious beliefs and practices for all citizens who "follow the believers". It assured that representatives of all parties, Muslim or non-Muslim, should be present when consultation occurs or in cases of negotiation with foreign states. It declared "a woman will only be given protection with the consent of her family" and imposed a tax system for supporting the community in times of conflict. It declared the role of Medina as a ḥaram (حرم, "sacred place"), where no blood of the peoples included in the pact can be spilled.
The division of the constitution into numbered articles is not in the original text and the numbering of clauses differs in different sources, but there is general agreement on the authenticity of the most widely-read version of the charter, which is found in Ibn Ishaq's Sirah Rasul Allah.[7][8]

Sad..

[Angrboda]

We are not speaking about whether early Islam was more like ISIS rather than less so, and instead talking about early Medinan politics? It's well established that the aggressiveness of Muhammed, his fellow Muslims, and his preaching, shifted over time from the early days when they were weak and not influential to when they became stronger and more populous.

Wikipedia notes, "Muhammad died in June 632 and Abu Bakr was made the Caliph by a shura council....On the first day of his caliphate, Abu Bakr ordered the army of Usama to prepare for march."

You continue to use sophistry and partial history to attempt to defend your historical revisionism. The history doesn't support you. As demonstrated in an earlier thread, once Muslims gained power, the charade of peace and tolerance was dropped. The "original state" included both. To try to pawn off the former and deny the latter is either dishonest or ignorant. I suspect in your case, since you appear well versed in the history of Islam, it's dishonesty. But then, it could equally as well be that you're simply too stupid to realize the bankrupt nature of your arguments. Which is why I added "crazy" to the list of "stupid and ignorant."

[WinterHold]

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.

It's well established that the aggressiveness of Muhammed, his fellow Muslims, and his preaching, shifted over time from the early days when they were weak and not influential to when they became stronger and more populous.

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

The Migration to Abyssinia (Arabic: الهجرة إلى الحبشة‎, al-hijra ʾilā al-habaša), also known as the First Hegira (Arabic: هِجْرَة‎ hijrah), was an episode in the early history of Islam, where Prophet Muhammad's first followers (the Sahabah) fled from the persecution of the ruling Quraysh tribe of Mecca. They sought refuge in the Christian Kingdom of Aksum, present-day Ethiopia and Eritrea (formerly referred to as Abyssinia, an ancient name whose origin is debated),[1] in 9 BH (613 CE) or 7 BH (615 CE). The Aksumite monarch who received them is known in Islamic sources as the Negus (Arabic: نجاشي‎ najāšī) Ashama ibn Abjar. Modern historians have alternatively identified him with King Armah and Ella Tsaham.[2] Some of the exiles returned to Mecca and made the hijra to Medina with Muhammad, while others remained in Abyssinia until they came to Medina in 628.[3]

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

Following the migration and return of the most Sahabas from the first migration to Abyssinia (Sa'd ibn abi Waqqas and some did not return but left Abyssinia by sea for preaching overseas to east Asia),[1] the Muslims continued to suffer Persecution by the Meccans.[2] This time, in 6 BH (615 CE) almost one hundred Muslims made a second migration back to Ethiopia where they stayed protected.[3]

After the Muslims in Arabia had migrated to Medina in AH 7 (628/629) [3] and attained security, the Muslims in Ethiopia migrated back to Arabia and reunited with them in Medina [2] after six years absence.[3]

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

The Maccan boycott of the Hashemites was a public boycott against the clan of Banu Hashim, declared in 617 by the leaders of Banu Makhzum and Banu Abd-Shams, two important clans of Quraysh. According to tradition, the boycott was carried out in order to put pressure on Banu Hashim to withdraw its protection from Muhammad.[1][2]

The terms imposed on Banu Hashim, as reported by Ibn Ishaq, were "that no one should marry their women nor give women for them to marry; and that no one should either buy from them or sell to them, and when they agreed on that they wrote it in a deed."[3] The boycott lasted for two years but eventually collapsed mainly because it was not achieving its purpose; the boycott had caused extreme privation and the sympathizers within the Quraysh finally united to annul the agreement.[2][4]

...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.

Wikipedia notes, "Muhammad died in June 632 and Abu Bakr was made the Caliph by a shura council....On the first day of his caliphate, Abu Bakr ordered the army of Usama to prepare for march."

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-.

You continue to use sophistry and partial history to attempt to defend your historical revisionism. The history doesn't support you. As demonstrated in an earlier thread, once Muslims gained power, the charade of peace and tolerance was dropped. The "original state" included both. To try to pawn off the former and deny the latter is either dishonest or ignorant. I suspect in your case, since you appear well versed in the history of Islam, it's dishonesty. But then, it could equally as well be that you're simply too stupid to realize the bankrupt nature of your arguments. Which is why I added "crazy" to the list of "stupid and ignorant."

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.

[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.

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.

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.

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

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. Muhammad and his followers were far more greedy and violent than the pagans they were now attacking. But these disillusioned defenders soon learned that once you agree to support Muhammad, you don't get to change your mind. Anything other than perfect allegiance to Muhammad becomes grounds for expulsion, seizing property, enslavement, or annihilation. Three Jewish tribes in Medina found that out the hard way. ... Non-Muslims also learned that no matter how much they disagreed with Muhammad's campaign of violence and intimidation, they had to keep their mouths shut. Muhammad began ordering the assassination of critics [during this stage], people who spoke out against Islam or wrote poems about Muhammad were brutally murdered. And the citizens of Medina, the very people who had invited Muslims into their city rapidly saw their rights disappearing in the name of Allah.

Stage two then, is characterized by defensive fighting, fighting those who attack the Muslim community in some way. What we need to get our minds around, however, is that Muslims have a much broader definition of what constitutes an attack than anything we're familiar with. Persecution and military aggression certainly count as attacks, but as we've seen, criticizing Islam counts as an attack. Backing out of alliances after you figure out Muhammad's true intentions counts as an attack. And in the defensive jihad stage, Muslims are ordered to respond to these "attacks" with physical violence and terrorism.

~ David Wood

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.