Massacres? Probably not. Persecution? Oh heck, yeah.
Herod (Antipas or Agrippa) having James the Apostle beheaded.
Saul of Tarsus persecuting the Jerusalem Church & environs.
Various mob actions instigated by vested interests, whether Jewish or Pagan, threatened by Paul & the Apostles.
The murder of James the Lord’s Brother on the Temple grounds at the instigation of the High Priest Ananus.
You mean "no longer resist ordaining Blacks to the Priesthood.
The rest of that post and your other posts in this thread, along with Der Trihs’ posts in this thread, are spot on.
I fully agree that “morality” does not require religious affiliation. In fact, these days it almost means there is none, which is sad.
Then explain how political conservatives have taken ownership of Jesus, when Jesus, by today’s political standards was clearly liberal.
I know there are good Christians out there, but the ones “praying the loudest” seem to have taken over.
“seem to have taken over”. You answered your own question. Are they following Jesus’s teachings? If not, then that isn’t the fault of Jesus (well, actually it is, him supposedly being god and all).
If Muslim’s murder in order to promote or defend their religion, are they ‘taking over’ their religion? Certainly not, as Muhammad was a great fan of such things.
Well, then, that simplifies things for you marvelously! All you need do is point out the many, many occasions when Muhamed demanded that Muslims attack harmless and non-hostile neighbors for no purpose other than to impose the hegemony of Islamic power. Since, as you say, Muhamed was a “great fan of such things”, that should be very easy.
And, as well, you might take a moment to explain why themes of mercy and forgiveness are so fundamental to this thinking, if a determined and relentless pursuit of power was central to his agenda. Seems a rather odd set of values to promote if one is bent on world conquest.
And, keep in mind, we Americans are firmly convinced of the practical and pragmatic value of the pre-emptive attack. We are hardly in a position to condemn Mohamed for practices we ourselves exemplify. Nor is it peculiarly American, the principles of realpolitik have any number of ardent proponents, throughout the world and throughout history. All you need to is prove that Muslims were extraordinary and exceptional in their zeal for war.
If things are as you say they are, you won’t have the least problem. And if you do have such a problem, perhaps things aren’t as you say.
Aside to Monty: quite right, good catch.
I already have. The Hindus in Pakistan. The Armenians butchered because they didn’t want to live as second class citizens in Turkey anymore.
The argument we are having here is what affect does religion have on people.
You are essentially saying there is none because all the things you can point to Muslims doing has been done by others. You are correct. Who is arguing that they don’t?
I am saying that religion does have an impact because why have it if you have no intention to follow it? I have worked in the ME and can tell you it does have an impact. Example: I have seen the local media talking about what is the proper way to beat your wife as determined by Muhammad. Qur’an (4:34) Qur’an (38:44). People are following the dictates of their religion. Would they do the same actions if there wasn’t any religion? Maybe. But if the religion gives you license and the Imam’s are repeating this message, then it is likely that you will at least listen to what they are saying.
Trouble is, he wasn’t there, being, more or less, dead. He was no more, he had ceased to be, expired, and gone to meet his Maker. Run down the curtain and joined the Choir Invisible, he was an ex-Prophet.
This is all you got? I was expecting more, frankly, given your encyclopedic knowledge of the origins and early history of Islam, that you would have the incidents right at your very fingertips. But instead you bring up things from thirteen hundred years later.
Rather thin gruel. Kinda like the chicken soup you get from a machine, a cup of clear broth with a cubic millimeter of petrified chicken floating in it. I was hoping for something a bit more substantial, or at least in the appropriate time frame. After about 570 AD to 632 AD. If that helps any.
Uzi never made that statement. He is certainly referring to the Qurayzn Jews were were accused of conspiring with the Meccans. They were attacked and all the men who did not convert were executed. The women and children were enslaved. While this was probably the fun thing for a warrior to do it sets a bad example for prophets.
So, was the treatement of the Qurayzi exceptional for its cruelty? My reading to the history inclines to the view that such was standard practice amonst the Arabs of the time, with the distinction that there was no offer of clemency for conversion.
You have more authoritative sources that say otherwise? Bring.
And how can you complain about setting a bad example for prophets when you deny that he was a prophet in the first place? Kind of playing both ends against the middle, aren’t you?
It was written down so that all could benefit from his wisdom. Muhammad himself had many killed to promote his religion. Read the Quran and Hadiths. Or here.
The point of that story is not its cruelty, but how it goes against Muhammad’s saying to only fighting in self defense. The Qurayzi were not a threat to the Muslims at the time they were attacked. Directly counter to the Quran which says if the enemy stops fighting then you should, too. Unless you use a far more rational interpretation based upon what Muhammad actually did, that by killing, converting or enslaving them, then you no longer have to defend yourself.
Or an even more logical, and most likely, interpretation that he made the whole thing up as he went along to justify his actions.
So, the link you offer is your source of straight, unbiased candor? And you’re not kidding?
Ah, so you have a different interpretation based upon what? They weren’t being attacked, the Quran says you should only defend yourself until they other party stops fighting, the Jews surrendered. Muhammad then slaughtered the men.
So, the prophet of god, this paragon of virtue, shows us the infinite mercy of Allah and what to do when the enemy stops fighting. You take their property, kill the men, rape the women, and enslave anyone left over. This is the person that Muslim’s try to emulate.
No, that much is clear, the adherents of a religious tradition can be fairly judged by the actions of its founding figures. Anyone who reveres a prophet that urges his followers to commit such horrors upon innocent children confesses an acceptance and approval of unqualified evil.
Any such leader who orders massacre and genocide leaves a stain that cannot be erased by time, and those who follow such prophets are not to be trusted. No, that is quite clear, it is a rule that allows for no exceptions. And certainly a nation founded by such religious congregants cannot be trusted, should be shunned by all civilized people as unworthy of respect, or tolerance. They must be regarded with suspicion, as they are tainted by a brutal and belligerent heritage. Unless, of course, they repent of such religious affiliation, as a first step towards a probationary admittance to the company of civilized men.
I remain grateful for your link, the clear-eyed, balanced, and unbiased view of your sources is apparent even to a casual reader. I urge any reader who is uncertain about the possible biases in your opinions to go straight to your sources, so that any uncertainty can be laid to rest.
Well, I’m glad you finally agree.
Whooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh!
MAn, You got that right.
wow
Didn’t the Judeo-Christian God wipe out everyone on the planet (except Noah’s family of course)?
And then there was Sodamm and Gomorrah. Not to mention all the victims of Katrina and 9-11 (because of America’s wickedness)