ISIS is to Islam as the KKK is to Christianity

[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.