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]

[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]

[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]

[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]

[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.