Does Pope Francis have a fantasy-prone personality disorder?

[GrandizerII]

I don't have enough knowledge to respond to such specifics, but that's irrelevant anyway. Muslims are generally going to look to their interpretation of what the Qur'an says, not necessarily to what Muhammad did in history past.

From the historian's perspective (and, I am not an historian, but am interested in history), the actions of Muhammad certainly reflect his interpretation of the Qur'an.

Ok, but so what? My point still stands.

[abaris]

A simple raid????   Are you crazy?!

No, I'm not. Far as I know. But, as opposed to you, I actually go with the findings of modern historians instead of wiki, since that's my own expertise which I spent four years studying at university. And it happens that I looked at that battle quite recently because it was featured in a scientific journal.

So, since you previously talked about taking science as truth, you might want to look up the details yourself. It's a very interesting battle in more aspects than one. Most of all because of the strategy involved.

[Jehanne]

From the historian's perspective (and, I am not an historian, but am interested in history), the actions of Muhammad certainly reflect his interpretation of the Qur'an.

Ok, but so what? My point still stands.

Militant Muslims are simply following in the footsteps, both actual and written, of the founder of their religion.  They can appeal to Muhammad's words and actions, both at the same time.

By the way, Francis also said that "Jesus rejected violence absolutely" (just Google it).  Can this man even read?  Is not the "cleansing of the Temple" recorded in all four Gospels???

[abaris]

From the historian's perspective (and, I am not an historian, but am interested in history), the actions of Muhammad certainly reflect his interpretation of the Qur'an.

Based on what? And I am a historian. Hint, you might want to look up the rivalry between trading cities before jumping to conclusions.

[Jehanne]

A simple raid????   Are you crazy?!

No, I'm not. Far as I know. But, as opposed to you, I actually go with the findings of modern historians instead of wiki, since that's my own expertise which I spent four years studying at university. And it happens that I looked at that battle quite recently because it was featured in a scientific journal.

So, since you previously talked about taking science as truth, you might want to look up the details yourself. It's a very interesting battle in more aspects than one. Most of all because of the strategy involved.

You've studied it, great.  Why was the battle fought?  Over what?  What was a Muslim army of between 30,000 and 60,000 troops doing in northern France?

[GrandizerII]

Ok, but so what? My point still stands.

Militant Muslims are simply following in the footsteps, both actual and written, of the founder of their religion.  They can appeal to Muhammad's words and actions, both at the same time.

So not all Muslims, just a select few.

Not that different from Christian Crusaders.

[abaris]

You've studied it, great.  Why was the battle fought?  Over what?  What was a Muslim army of between 30,000 and 60,000 troops doing in northern France?

What makes you think there actually were 30.000 to 60.000 troops involved? Answer me this and we take it from there. Do you know how many people actually lived in any of the particular regions of that day? Do you know what was considered a big army in the day? Do you take what early medieval writers claimed to be truth?

[Jehanne]

From the historian's perspective (and, I am not an historian, but am interested in history), the actions of Muhammad certainly reflect his interpretation of the Qur'an.

Based on what? And I am a historian. Hint, you might want to look up the rivalry between trading cities before jumping to conclusions.

Just economics?  As an historian, you deal with probabilities.  Was Muhammad a charlatan, a conscious liar?  Or, did he truly believe that he had a vision from "god" ("Allah")?  Was he an epileptic?  Were his visions real?  (Answer:  no, or at least, "very, very, very probably no".)  Did his visions lead him to believe that his violent acts were the will of Allah?  What caused his followers to go on a century of violent crusades, imposing Muslim rule on lands that were ruled by others with different religions?  Yes, Jews and Christians were "People of the Book"; however, they were always treated as second-class citizens in Muslim lands and were constantly harassed to convert to Islam, just as they are today.  Of course, the First Crusade was, ostensibly, fought to allow Christians access to the Holy Land without being constantly harassed (and, even killed) by the Muslim occupants.  Pope Urban II, in calling for it, even quoted from the Gospel of John, "No greater love than a man has that he lay down his life for his friends...."

Of course, it's all economics, right?  I would agree that economics was important, but I think that religious belief of the day was more important.  As an historian, I wish that you would just read people's words for a change.  Did Jefferson truly believe in Liberty?  Or, was he just a charlatan, a true monarch at heart, even while as the United States' third President?

[Jehanne]

You've studied it, great.  Why was the battle fought?  Over what?  What was a Muslim army of between 30,000 and 60,000 troops doing in northern France?

What makes you think there actually were 30.000 to 60.000 troops involved? Answer me this and we take it from there. Do you know how many people actually lived in any of the particular regions of that day? Do you know what was considered a big army in the day? Do you take what early medieval writers claimed to be truth?

Historians themselves don't know, but I would invite you to find any credible author who says that it was less than 40K, both sides included.

[abaris]

Again, look at the rivalry between Mekka and Mediana.

You don't know the first thing about being critical of your sources. Which basically means, don't believe them unless you have solid evidence of them to be true.

You know what one of the first lessons in history school is? You're presented with a text. There's no author, no date, no point of origin. Just the text. Your task is to find out when, why and by whom this text was written. And most importantly why. In my case it was one of the former GDR, which still existed at the time. It was an easy one, since it had many hints pointing to that origin. So I could take it from there, and knowing that the author had a communist agenda, it was also easy to not take it as gospel.

That's how you go about texts. You have to know who, why and when.