ISIS is to Islam as the KKK is to Christianity

[WinterHold]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Poor David is a hypocrite: I understand he needs the youtube views; I have a channel myself.
But why do you?

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.

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]

[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamza_ibn_Abdul-Muttalib#cite_note-Saad3-2][/url]

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.

David is fantastic.

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.

---

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

Your ancestors achieved great things, but there's nothing there that I hadn't already heard about. I was certainly not under the impression that coffee came from Europe. What does this have to do with anything, and how is it an 'invasion'? If someone doesn't know that the mirror was invented in the Middle East (well before Mohammed's time) it's because they never bothered to look up the origin of mirrors on Wikipedia, not because of an 'invasion'.

But Khemikal said:

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.

I found the sentence quite strange and a big indication that he's suggesting that our values as Muslims, are all taken from the west and from secularism, but mixed with a faith in an Islam made "moderate" to match the western values stolen and taken.

So I wanted to teach him a tiny lesson that his alcohol is made nice with a field Muslims created -Chemistry-, and that he should thank Yemeni Muslims for sharing their Mocha with his ancestors and last but not least -and something new-: that the numbers he uses are actually Arabic numbers.

And eventually, all of us are humans, the only difference between our flesh color depends on the region we are born at + genetics,  so eastern western, or even southern don't really mask the reality of the creature taking control of the body: we are all humans. Our culture is a one long, long string that began at the same point.