ISIS is to Islam as the KKK is to Christianity

[WinterHold]

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.

Accept my apology for misunderstanding that your comparison was between:
1-The era before the Hijra (immigration) in Mohammed's time
2-The era after the Hijra (immigration) in Mohammed's time
To answer you after I understood your meaning, Muslims took the green light to fight the Meccans only after they were evicted from their homes. This verse states that :

http://quran.ksu.edu.sa/index.php?l=en#a...rans=en_sh

Sura 22, The Quran:
( 39 )   Permission [to fight] has been given to those who are being fought, because they were wronged. And indeed, Allah is competent to give them victory.
( 40 )   [They are] those who have been evicted from their homes without right - only because they say, "Our Lord is Allah." And were it not that Allah checks the people, some by means of others, there would have been demolished monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques in which the name of Allah is much mentioned. And Allah will surely support those who support Him. Indeed, Allah is Powerful and Exalted in Might.

So you don't believe that kicking you out of your home is enough of a reason, to wage war? 

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).  

I WAS MEANING PERSECUTION; thank you for correcting my mistake. English isn't my native language and the two words look alike.

This verse is long long after Mohammed's departure from Mecca and him becoming so strong; yet his commands -through God- was the spread of mercy and compassion, as this verse states:

http://quran.ksu.edu.sa/index.php?l=en#a...rans=en_sh

Sura 60, The Quran:
( 7 )   Perhaps Allah will put, between you and those to whom you have been enemies among them, affection. And Allah is competent, and Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
( 8 )   Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes - from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.
( 9 )   Allah only forbids you from those who fight you because of religion and expel you from your homes and aid in your expulsion - [forbids] that you make allies of them. And whoever makes allies of them, then it is those who are the wrongdoers.

Literally, the Quran is something, and your accusations are something else. This Sura is Medinan ! Literally Mohammed and his followers were told this as a command long after the persecution in Mecca.

So they were in their empire behind their armies, armors and swords this time. They had nobody to fear but Allah. Still their orders was to be "nice" with people who are nice to them.

Let's hear what David has to say:

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?

Napoleon said: good offense is a good defense.

Attacking for a tactician is defending. Why does Sun-Tzu and Napoleon get the right to attack and you call it "preemptive strike" but early Muslims don't?

I mean God even told the Muslims here in the Quran:

http://quran.ksu.edu.sa/index.php?l=en#a...rans=en_sh

Sura 9, The Quran:

( 12 )   And if they break their oaths after their treaty and defame your religion, then fight the leaders of disbelief, for indeed, there are no oaths [sacred] to them; [fight them that] they might cease.

( 13 )   Would you not fight a people who broke their oaths and determined to expel the Messenger, and they had begun [the attack upon] you the first time? Do you fear them? But Allah has more right that you should fear Him, if you are [truly] believers.

They started the fighting. They broke treaties.
In other words: "they asked for it ".

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

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

In the modern world, they call it: "attacking supply lines".
The allies in WW2 loved to do it, and even worse: they used to bomb cities with incendiary bombs.

...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.  

He attacked supply lines. It was a smart move in his warfare against Mecca.

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

I'll take that under advisement.

You should.
Just wear a bulletproof vest. You'll be fine; I promise.

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?

Damn it ! I said the exact same thing to the Kuffar who burned Dresden and nuked Japan ! the fucking assholes think it's "patriotic" and "unnecessary evil" ! assholes ! I mean seriously, do you believe their nerves forming a council of human rights after their crime?

And some of their citizens blame a 1400 yeas old nation for the shit they started today after their global world 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"?

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

This is not "tu quoque" because the accusations you accuse Mohammed peace be upon him with are all false.

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.  

The Caravans "WERE" the Meccan's caravans. Moreover, the man fought close quarter wars. He was brave beyond limits.

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.

Please revise your sources because you are mistaken; the caravans were attacked AFTER Mohammed's immigration to Medina:

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

In fear for their religion and economic viability, which heavily relied on annual pilgrimages, the Meccans began to mock and disrupt Muhammad's followers. In 622, Muhammad bade many of his followers to migrate from Mecca to the neighboring city of Medina, 320 km (200 mi) north of Mecca. Shortly thereafter, Muhammad himself left for Medina.[8][9] This migration is referred to as the Hijra.[10] The Quranic Verse 22:39[11] uttered by Muhammad sometime shortly after the migration permitted Muslims, for the first time, to take up arms in defence. During this period Muhammad employed three broad military strategies against the Meccans. Firstly, to establish peace treaties with the tribes surrounding Medina, especially with those from whom the Meccans could derive most advantage against the Muslims. Secondly, to dispatch small groups to obtain intelligence on the Quraish and their allies and also provide, thereby, an opportunity for those Muslims still living in Mecca to leave with them. Thirdly, to intercept the trade caravans of the Meccans that passed close to Medina and to obstruct their trade route.

So no, it's a terrible fault from your behalf.

1-The caravans WERE 100% MECCAN
2-The war took place AFTER MECCAN'S PERSECUTED MUSLIMS

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?

Cherry picking?

You just ignored this whole section from the wikipedia article and cherry picked what you want ! just wow !!

The Quraiysh, who traditionally accepted religious practices other than their own, became increasingly more intolerant of the Muslims during the thirteen years of personal attacks against their (the Meccans) religions and gods.[7] In fear for their religion and economic viability, which heavily relied on annual pilgrimages, the Meccans began to mock and disrupt Muhammad's followers. In 622, Muhammad bade many of his followers to migrate from Mecca to the neighboring city of Medina, 320 km (200 mi) north of Mecca. Shortly thereafter, Muhammad himself left for Medina.[8][9] This migration is referred to as the Hijra.[10]

wow..just wow..

Speaking of which,

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

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.

the answer is above.

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.

You are the one ignoring whole sections from your sources and you were caught above literally.

---

---

---

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

---

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.

No my English is fine.