ISIS is to Islam as the KKK is to Christianity

[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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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?

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.


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



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_mig..._Abyssinia



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meccan_boy...Hashemites

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

...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.

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

I'll take that under advisement.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Attacking caravans is not going to war. Muhammad explicitly avoided going to war at this time. Probably for the same reason he avoided telling the Meccans what he really thought. Because his faith is one that justifies lying and murdering for things like drawing a stupid cartoon. As it is now, so it was then, when Muhammad ordered the murder of people for the crime of making satirical poems about him. But of course, he was justified in killing them, because they ought not to have made such a poem. Like I've said before, Atlas, you're nothing but an apologist for Muslim and Arab atrocities.

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.

They didn't kick the shit out of anybody in Mecca. They attacked fucking caravans. That's not the same thing.

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?

Speaking of which,

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]

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.

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.

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.

---

---

And even going back to the period you want to arbitrarily declare as true Islam, it's clear who the actual aggressor was.  Yes early Muslims were persecuted.  Largely after Muhammad,

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

---

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.


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



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_mig..._Abyssinia



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meccan_boy...Hashemites



...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.


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-.



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.

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.

[WinterHold]

Ironically, there's a Yemeni town called "Mocha".

But anything Islamic must be "found by somebody else", "made by somebody else", etc. Because you know, Muslims are worthless, lol. You can bomb them in thousands, rob their oil, burn them down, you know, they are brown !! just like the Mocha they exported to Europe ! I mean these pathetic brown people.
What's more hilarious than Carling's video, is you throwing the fucking white Americans did to African people, enslaving them and blame it on Muslims..just lol

The US bought the slaves from the ummah. Revise that shit, lol.

I think that you're confusing me for some low info nubbin.  I see human progress as a team effort.  We can't all sprint all the time.   You're not going to find yourself in a position where you're telling me about some contribution I wasn't already aware of in grade school.  

That's been a pattern with you.  Posting common knowledge as though it were the Revealed Word™ and then springboarding from that into utter lunacy.  

IDK what to say?  I'm sorry that schools are shit were you come from?  IDK that this gives you license to loon...but whatevs.  : shrugs :

You're unlikely to find a more sympathetic character..on these boards...to islam.  Even when it's acting out...than me.

Oh my God ! you actually reached this sad level of living in denial to throw the disgusting, shameful dark history of slavery of America on Muslims !
Just oh my God ! and I thought I have seen it all !
You're American ! your country enslaved and butchered millions of black people without any need of external help ! you had Uncle Tom in your midst for God's sake ! Your country sweats racism and is ruled now by a racist, and is building walls to prevent immigration, and moreover it had Uncle Tom !
Reaching this degree, I understand that it's you who lost his shit long, long ago..you used to put black people in zoos (real human zoos) !

You're confusing pirates -who were so multicultural and came even from Africa itself- with the Muslim nation.
One of our empires was ruled by black people, in the same time black people were viewed as "creatures from down below" in Europe:

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

Martin Luther is turning in his grave after reading your post..

No, Muslims introduced alcohol into Europe in perfumes.

Entirely false.  We've been enjoying alcohol all over the world for 9k of our 50k as fully modern humans, at least.  Scots were making alcohol by 4k bc.  I live in bourbon county USA, I make my own.  It's a straight line there.  What the islamic empire introduced was sterile distillery.  Ever drink rubbing alcohol?

Fuck that noise, you can keep it.

Ditto to the rest of that stupid shit.

Tell that to the Independent:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien...06905.html

and Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_wo...val_Europe

No, Western entertainment dominated my life, that's all. And I see western people as humans; not some form of alien beings. Except some people on this forum.

What you clearly don't get, is that life is a cycle. The Romans ended with a dark age, the Arabs by then reached a golden age. And now the compass have turned again. Just as a side note, that's is a proof of God if you think about it.

Entertainment is a vehicle for culture.  That's probably how you became so recognizably western.

I'm pretty much Arabic, westerners are just brother and sisters in specie. Me would be them and them would be me culturally if we swapped place.

The Islamic empire(s) after Mohammed peace be upon him, did some pretty terrible mistakes, that's why they fell.

The islamic empire was formed by what we..and you, today, would call "terrible mistakes".  -Fact.

I agree. Nobody is perfect -except God- and we learn from our mistakes.

It wasn't a terrible empire. I call the Mongols terrible, the Crusaders terrible, the Imperialist white man terrible, but the Islamic empire had its mistakes which are -compared to all other empires- small. The best nation coming to humanity.

And modern dicks like Assad and the Sauds are supported and kept by the west.

Yeah sure, I get it, you call everyone else dicks but when Your Guys™ did the same things it was righteous and holy and aspirational.  Western tradition pulls this same shit.

Again...jihadists are people who feel the same way you do, and have decided to do something about it.

No ! There are degrees and levels of brutality, and I don't believe Muslim empires were even close to hit the top of the pyramid, after WW1 and WW2, and the western occupation of the Americas, a new standard for atrocities was formed and created and the western white man is its main and only player.

Jihadists are a conclusion of the cold war between the U.S and the Soviet Union, and now they are a conclusion of severe torture and brutalization in Arab regimes' prisons. People in the Middle East get oppressed until some go insane and turn into terrorists.

Why do you think Jihadists blow themselves up? we all know it: they want to get rid of the dumpster they live in.
The more you turn peoples' lives into a dumpster, the more they go extreme. Just like the American depressed rampage shooters.

[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.

[Minimalist]

LOL.  I wish all of yall could be my neighbors, truly!

"Gods" country is gorgeous..that's why I live out here....but it's wasted on the faithful. 

Oxygen is wasted on the faithful!

[Fake Messiah]

You're confusing pirates -who were so multicultural and came even from Africa itself- with the Muslim nation.

Really? So Muslims never had slaves? I guess all those women in harems were and are all there because they want it.

But the truth is Muslims always had slaves. Starting from Prophet Muhammad who himself bought, sold, captured, and owned slaves.

And when it comes to black slaves the Senegalese anthropologist and author Tidiane N’Diaye in his book LE GENOCIDE VOILÉ, 2008 wrote about the enslavement of Negroes by Arab-Muslims from the 7th to the 20th centuries and this is what he wrote:

“The slave trade of Negroes as practiced by the Western nations is well-known. However, it must be recognized that historically, this crime against humanity was an invention of the Arab-Muslim world.  It was the Arabs, Berbers, Turks, and Persians, who originated this infamous practice long before the Europeans began the African slave trade. For one thousand years, they were trading in African people, from the 7th to the 16th centuries. They resumed the practice from the 19th to the 20th centuries, long after the Western nations had abolished this trade.

“The demographic stagnation, the misery, the poverty, and the lack of development in the Dark Continent, are not the only consequences of this commerce, as many people imagine. Actually, the Islamic slave trade in Africa amounted to a planned genocide of Black people. It was a programmed ‘ethnic extinction by castration.’ Thus, the majority of the 17 million Africans who were brought to the Arab-Muslim world and transformed into eunuchs have disappeared, leaving no descendents at all.

“We would like to underline both the early date, and the great dimension of this trans-Saharan traffic that took place in the Eastern world, and to give an account of these forgotten facts. No amount of willful and selective amnesia will ever succeed to cover up the historical fact about the ‘Veiled Genocide.’”

Jihadists are a conclusion of the cold war between the U.S and the Soviet Union, and now they are a conclusion of severe torture and brutalization in Arab regimes' prisons. People in the Middle East get oppressed until some go insane and turn into terrorists.

Really? So throwing gays off rooftops is because of cold war? As well as raping of enslaving underage Yazidi girls, killing Turkmen Shias?

Except Muslims were like that even before cold war between the U.S and the Soviet Union, like I noted before by quoting what Thomas Jefferson wrote, but instead of repeating my post I'll just remind people that Muslims are in war with each other and others from the start and combat was part of Islam from its beginning. Even from the very own Muslim "holy family". The prophet Mohammed conquered Mecca by force. He fought in nine battles and ordered several others.

Then immediately after Mohammed's death in 632, successor caliphs launched a seemingly endless series of holy wars—first against apostate tribes who seceded when the prophet died, then against neighboring nations. Fanatical Bedou armies leaped out of Arabia onto the rest of the world. They rapidly conquered Syria, Iraq, Palestine, Egypt, and Persia. Then the holy war was pressed eastward to India and westward through North Africa and Spain, finally being halted in 732 in a decisive battle at Tours, France.

Meanwhile, Shiite followers of Mohammed's son-in-law Ali fought doomed wars against the Sunni majority. The Kharijis, a splinter of Shiites, fought savagely for centuries as puritanical terrorists until they became nearly extinct. The ultra-fanatical Azariqis decreed death to all ''sinners" and their families.

Or what about when in 1700's Mohammed al-Wahhab preached that Islam had been corrupted by worldly frills and must be cleansed by fire? He declared war on "the infidel fellow Muslims". After his death, his Wahhabi Bedou army conquered several cities in the early 1800s, massacring residents. This drew counterattacks by Turks and Egyptians, who drove the "heretics" into the desert, captured their leaders, and beheaded them.
After a century of bloodbath, Wahhabis rose again in the early 1900s as fanatical "brothers," conquering the peninsula and creating the modern kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

[Angrboda]

Atlas, I mock and disrupt your preaching here on the forum. As a good Muslim, are you then justified in killing me?

[WinterHold]

You're confusing pirates -who were so multicultural and came even from Africa itself- with the Muslim nation.

Really? So Muslims never had slaves? I guess all those women in harems were and are all there because they want it.

But the truth is Muslims always had slaves. Starting from Prophet Muhammad who himself bought, sold, captured, and owned slaves.

And when it comes to black slaves the Senegalese anthropologist and author Tidiane N’Diaye in his book LE GENOCIDE VOILÉ, 2008 wrote about the enslavement of Negroes by Arab-Muslims from the 7th to the 20th centuries and this is what he wrote:

“The slave trade of Negroes as practiced by the Western nations is well-known. However, it must be recognized that historically, this crime against humanity was an invention of the Arab-Muslim world.  It was the Arabs, Berbers, Turks, and Persians, who originated this infamous practice long before the Europeans began the African slave trade. For one thousand years, they were trading in African people, from the 7th to the 16th centuries. They resumed the practice from the 19th to the 20th centuries, long after the Western nations had abolished this trade.

“The demographic stagnation, the misery, the poverty, and the lack of development in the Dark Continent, are not the only consequences of this commerce, as many people imagine. Actually, the Islamic slave trade in Africa amounted to a planned genocide of Black people. It was a programmed ‘ethnic extinction by castration.’ Thus, the majority of the 17 million Africans who were brought to the Arab-Muslim world and transformed into eunuchs have disappeared, leaving no descendents at all.

“We would like to underline both the early date, and the great dimension of this trans-Saharan traffic that took place in the Eastern world, and to give an account of these forgotten facts. No amount of willful and selective amnesia will ever succeed to cover up the historical fact about the ‘Veiled Genocide.’”

I never said that many Muslim people didn't have slaves, also what you quoted from my words is not even related to your accusation. You formulated your response based on an imaginary reply that I didn't even post.
What you quoted me saying never said that many Muslim people didn't have slaves.
However, the bold line in the words of your source, made me feel disgusted because the Romans had slaves, and the ancient Egyptians had slaves, the ancient Chinese had slaves, and not just slaves but Eunuchs too. So I'm not sure whether you are ignorant or just posting none-sense.

AtlasS33 Wrote: Jihadists are a conclusion of the cold war between the U.S and the Soviet Union, and now they are a conclusion of severe torture and brutalization in Arab regimes' prisons. People in the Middle East get oppressed until some go insane and turn into terrorists.
Really? So throwing gays off rooftops is because of cold war? As well as raping of enslaving underage Yazidi girls, killing Turkmen Shias?

Except Muslims were like that even before cold war between the U.S and the Soviet Union, like I noted before by quoting what Thomas Jefferson wrote, but instead of repeating my post I'll just remind people that Muslims are in war with each other and others from the start and combat was part of Islam from its beginning. Even from the very own Muslim "holy family". The prophet Mohammed conquered Mecca by force. He fought in nine battles and ordered several others.

Then immediately after Mohammed's death in 632, successor caliphs launched a seemingly endless series of holy wars—first against apostate tribes who seceded when the prophet died, then against neighboring nations. Fanatical Bedou armies leaped out of Arabia onto the rest of the world. They rapidly conquered Syria, Iraq, Palestine, Egypt, and Persia. Then the holy war was pressed eastward to India and westward through North Africa and Spain, finally being halted in 732 in a decisive battle at Tours, France.

Meanwhile, Shiite followers of Mohammed's son-in-law Ali fought doomed wars against the Sunni majority. The Kharijis, a splinter of Shiites, fought savagely for centuries as puritanical terrorists until they became nearly extinct. The ultra-fanatical Azariqis decreed death to all ''sinners" and their families.

Or what about when in 1700's Mohammed al-Wahhab preached that Islam had been corrupted by worldly frills and must be cleansed by fire? He declared war on "the infidel fellow Muslims". After his death, his Wahhabi Bedou army conquered several cities in the early 1800s, massacring residents. This drew counterattacks by Turks and Egyptians, who drove the "heretics" into the desert, captured their leaders, and beheaded them.
After a century of bloodbath, Wahhabis rose again in the early 1900s as fanatical "brothers," conquering the peninsula and creating the modern kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Do you enjoy posting none-sense?
Please, read real history then post.

---

Atlas, I mock and disrupt your preaching here on the forum.  As a good Muslim, are you then justified in killing me?

No. The Quran gave clear orders when killing is legal:

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

Sura 5, The Quran:
( 32 )   Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors.

So unless you're a killer, or you corrupt in earth -like drug cartels of South America-, you don't deserve to be killed and if I kill you then this is my punishment:

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

Sura 25, The Quran:
(68 )   And those who do not invoke with Allah another deity or kill the soul which Allah has forbidden [to be killed], except by right, and do not commit unlawful sexual intercourse. And whoever should do that will meet a penalty.
( 69 )   Multiplied for him is the punishment on the Day of Resurrection, and he will abide therein humiliated -

And the eternal punishment in judgment day is hell:

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

Sura 88, The Quran:
( 23 )   And brought [within view], that Day, is Hell - that Day, man will remember, but what good to him will be the remembrance?
( 24 )   He will say, "Oh, I wish I had sent ahead [some good] for my life."
( 25 )   So on that Day, none will punish [as severely] as His punishment,
( 26 )   And none will bind [as severely] as His binding [of the evildoers].

So no.

[Angrboda]

Atlas, I mock and disrupt your preaching here on the forum.  As a good Muslim, are you then justified in killing me?

No. The Quran gave clear orders when killing is legal:

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

Sura 5, The Quran:
( 32 )   Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors.

So unless you're a killer, or you corrupt in earth -like drug cartels of South America-, you don't deserve to be killed and if I kill you then this is my punishment:

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

Sura 25, The Quran:
(68 )   And those who do not invoke with Allah another deity or kill the soul which Allah has forbidden [to be killed], except by right, and do not commit unlawful sexual intercourse. And whoever should do that will meet a penalty.
( 69 )   Multiplied for him is the punishment on the Day of Resurrection, and he will abide therein humiliated -

And the eternal punishment in judgment day is hell:

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

Sura 88, The Quran:
( 23 )   And brought [within view], that Day, is Hell - that Day, man will remember, but what good to him will be the remembrance?
( 24 )   He will say, "Oh, I wish I had sent ahead [some good] for my life."
( 25 )   So on that Day, none will punish [as severely] as His punishment,
( 26 )   And none will bind [as severely] as His binding [of the evildoers].

So no.

So then the Muslims weren't justified in killing the Meccans unless the Meccans had killed Muslims. Do you have any examples of the Meccans killing Muslims prior to the caravan raids? By the way, you've just given the Meccans justification for killing Muhammad and Muslims as they were "spreading corruption in the land" by mocking the gods and traditions of the pagans. Retaliating against a justified killing, regardless, would then not be self defense but rather simple murder.

"And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter."

per·se·cu·tion, noun

hostility and ill-treatment, especially because of race or political or religious beliefs.

[WinterHold]

So then the Muslims weren't justified in killing the Meccans unless the Meccans had killed Muslims.  Do you have any examples of the Meccans killing Muslims prior to the caravan raids?  By the way, you've just given the Meccans justification for killing Muhammad and Muslims as they were "spreading corruption in the land" by mocking the gods and traditions of the pagans.  Retaliating against a justified killing, regardless, would then not be self defense but rather simple murder.

"And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter."

per·se·cu·tion, noun

   hostility and ill-treatment, especially because of race or political or religious beliefs.

The Meccans did murder Muslims, here's a well documented name:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecutio...by_Meccans

Sumayyah bint Khabbab, and her husband Yasir were tortured to death by Abu Jahl.[1][2]

There are so many others too who aren't mentioned by wikipedia. But you can find a pretty good covering here:

https://www.al-islam.org/restatement-his...-and-their

Makkah was in a state of war!
The Quraysh opened the campaign against Islam by harassing and persecuting the Muslims. At the beginning, persecution was confined to jeers, jibes and insults. But as time went on, the infidels moved from the violence of words to the violence of deeds.
They refrained from inflicting physical injury upon Muhammad himself for fear of provoking reprisals; but they had no inhibitions in hurting the rank-and-file Muslims. For a long time, it were the latter who bore the brunt of the wrath of the Quraysh.
Ibn Ishaq
Then the Quraysh incited people against the companions of the Apostle who had become Muslims. Every tribe fell upon the Muslims among them, beating them and seducing them from their religion. God protected His Apostle from them through his uncle (Abu Talib), who, when he saw what Quraysh were doing, called upon Banu Hashim and Banu Al-Muttalib to stand with him in protecting the Apostle. This they agreed to do, with the exception of Abu Lahab.

some victims of persecution:

Some victims of persecution:
Bilal, the Ethiopian slave of Umayya bin Khalaf. Umayya and other infidels tortured him in the savage glare of the torrid sun of Makkah, and they tortured him beyond the limits of human endurance. But he was fortified by inner sources of strength and courage which never failed him. Love of God and the love of His Messenger made it possible for him to endure torture with cheer. Abu Bakr bought him from his master and set him free.

When the Apostle migrated to Medina, he appointed Bilal the first Muezzin of Islam. His rich and powerful voice rang through the air of Medina with the shout of Allah-o-Akbar (Great is the Lord). In later years, when the conquest of the peninsula was completed, the Apostle of God appointed Bilal his secretary of treasury.

Khabab ibn el-Arat was a young man of twenty when he accepted Islam. He was a client of Banu Zuhra. The Quraysh tortured him day after day. He migrated with the Prophet to Medina.
Suhaib bin Sinan had been captured and was sold as a slave by the Greeks. When he became a Muslim, the Quraysh beat him up savagely but could not shake his faith.

Abu Fukaiha was the slave of Safwan bin Umayya. He accepted Islam at the same time as Bilal. Like Bilal, he was also dragged by his master on hot sand with a rope tied to his feet. Abu Bakr bought him and emancipated him. He migrated to Medina with the Prophet but died before the battle of Badr.

Lubina was a female slave of Mumil bin Habib. Amin Dawidar writes in his book, Pictures From the Life of the Prophet (Cairo, Egypt, 1968), that Umar bin al-Khattab, the future khalifa of the Muslims, tortured her, and whenever he paused, he said: “I have not stopped beating you out of pity. I have stopped because I am exhausted.” He resumed beating her after he had rested. Abu Bakr bought her and set her free.

Zunayra was another female slave. When she declared her faith in Islam, Umar ibn al-Khattab, and Abu Jahl, took turns in torturing her until she became blind. Amin Dawidar states that many years later she recovered her sight, and the Quraysh attributed this recovery to the “sorcery” of Muhammad. Abu Bakr bought her and set her free.

Nahdiyya and Umm Unays were two other female slaves who became Muslims. Their masters tortured them for accepting Islam. Abu Bakr bought them and gave them their freedom.

There were some other Muslims who were not slaves but they were “poor and weak.” They too endured torture. Among them were Ammar ibn Yasir and his parents. Another member of this group was Abdullah ibn Masood, a young Muslim. He was distinguished among the companions of the Prophet by his knowledge and learning, and he was one of the earliest huffaz (men who knew Al-Qur’an al-Majid by heart) in Islam. As each new verse was revealed, he heard it from the Prophet and memorized it.

It is reported that whenSurah Rahman (the 55th chapter) was revealed, the Apostle of God asked his companions who among them would go into the Kaaba and read it before the infidels. Other companions hung back but Abdullah ibn Masood volunteered to go.
He went into the Kaaba and read the new chapter out aloud. Next to the Apostle himself, Abdullah ibn Masood was the first man to read Qur’an in the Kaaba before a hostile crowd of the infidels. The latter mauled him repeatedly but could not intimidate him into silence.

As for corruption, no, why does ISIS considered terrorist -in your logic- when it kills apostates, but Meccans aren't when they kill people who mock their God?

If I judge by your logic, terrorists have ever right to kill the innocent.

[The Grand Nudger]

Oh my God ! you actually reached this sad level of living in denial to throw the disgusting, shameful dark history of slavery of America on Muslims !.

What? That muslims captured and sold people that my ancestors couldn't afford to buy?  That's just how it went down. The american slave trade depended on the islamic apparatus.

Maybe you should learn to accept that fact? The umma was a slave empire, full stop. Your heroes owned people. How do you feel about that?

Hey, you think that's some fucked up shit? What the fuck is wrong with "allah"....huh?

Shit god is shit.