# If radical Islam is violent due to culture and not religion **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 11, 2015, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741 "2015-09-11T23:24:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 53
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1042 "2015-10-08T01:02:25Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > What about permitting slavery, but praising manumission? Or waging war, but praising mercy and forgiveness? Manumission was for - male - slaves, not female. And “peace” was convert or die, then we will be friends. I accept that after conversion you really could be on good terms with Mohammed, but, that is only if you converted. (He did accept jews and christians, but not pagans or polytheists) > [@](#): > > In other words, your strict dichotomy is difficult to map onto actual religion. As they are human constructs, they contain the multitudes of human thought. Right So why then is Mohammed not thrown onto the trash heap of history if he is not an actual real prophet? What other philosophies of slave traders and warmongers are we still clinging too, over 1000 years after the fact? > [@](#): > > You’ll have to quote me commandments from Allah requiring these things. Establishing rules for how slaves should be treated isn’t a commandment to enslave people. Establishing that it’s permissible to fight back against your attackers isn’t a commandment to kill non-Muslims. Except that Mohammed himself - took - slaves, so I’d say his commandments for how to - treat - slaves _is_ a direct endorsement of slavery. And, it has been attested to many times on this very thread that Mohammed fought both offensive and defensive battles. Please stop pretending that his battlefield actions were only in self defense. > [@](#): > > What _I_ can’t do is tell over a billion Muslims that they’re doing it wrong, and the “real” Islam is a bloody caricature interpreted by someone that hates Islam. I don’t have any problem doing exactly and precisely that. Because the Koran actually is filled with violent passages and commandments and Mohammed actually was a violent (excessively so) person. > [@](#): > > I don’t have any thoughts on god’s nature, since I don’t believe that a god exists. How god “should” be is meaningless. As a result, I don’t tell others what god is. I’m not either. I’m pointing out that to call Mohammed/Allah peaceful is not only a contradiction in terms but also a flat out lie. It is just simply not the truth. (Moderators, I am talking in general terms here, I am not calling anyone on this thread a liar). ---
**Author:** ![A\_isha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@A\_isha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/A_isha)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1043 "2015-10-08T01:12:13Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > When you call yourself a god of peace but condone slavery Like Jesus did? > [@](#): > > Mohammed was God (Allah’s) final prophet. The last word. The definitive version. You can’t alter, edit or revise the final instructions of the final prophet of god. That can not be done. To do so is a HUGE flaw in logic and basic reasoning. Uh, no. Just the opposite, really. There’s an entire discipline of _fiqh_ called _naskh_, or “abrogation”, which is nothing _but_ altering, editing, and revising the final instructions of the final Prophet of God, by identifying which verses of the Qur’an have been “canceled”. Islamophobes even love to cite it as “proof” that all the peaceful verses of the Qur’an have been negated and leaving just the violent ones in effect. > [@](#): > > So, it’s fine to say that Allah wanted his followers to steal land, take slaves and kill those who do not convert. What you can’t do is say a “modern” Muslim is following the will of Allah when they refrain from doing such things. This does not paint a very pretty picture. But, the picture - is - accurate. Muhammad accepting the status quo of his time regarding slavery does not mean that modern Muslims have to accept slavery any more than Jesus accepting the status quo of _his_ time regarding slavery means that modern Christians have to accept slavery. And ISIS engaging in the practice of slavery doesn’t mean that they’re the only real followers of the One True Islam any more than the Confederate States of America engaging in the practice of slavery meant that they were the only real followers of the One True Christianity. ---
**Author:** ![A\_isha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@A\_isha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/A_isha)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1044 "2015-10-08T01:13:35Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > The point is he did, in both word and deed, and was an excessively violent man, even for his own time. E As I already told you, he was an excessively _peaceful_ man for his own time. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1045 "2015-10-08T01:27:21Z")
> [@A\_isha](#): > > Like Jesus did? > > Uh, no. Just the opposite, really. There’s an entire discipline of _fiqh_ called _naskh_, or “abrogation”, which is nothing _but_ altering, editing, and revising the final instructions of the final Prophet of God, by identifying which verses of the Qur’an have been “canceled”. > > Islamophobes even love to cite it as “proof” that all the peaceful verses of the Qur’an have been negated and leaving just the violent ones in effect. > > Muhammad accepting the status quo of his time regarding slavery does not mean that modern Muslims have to accept slavery any more than Jesus accepting the status quo of _his_ time regarding slavery means that modern Christians have to accept slavery. And ISIS engaging in the practice of slavery doesn’t mean that they’re the only real followers of the One True Islam any more than the Confederate States of America engaging in the practice of slavery meant that they were the only real followers of the One True Christianity. > [@A\_isha](#): > > As I already told you, he was an excessively _peaceful_ man for his own time. Oh really? _There’s an entire discipline of fiqh called naskh, or “abrogation”, which is nothing but altering, editing, and revising the final instructions of the final Prophet of God_ Quite honestly, I can think of no more glaring a contradiction than altering, editing, and revising the final instructions of the final Prophet of God. Your analysis of the situation is simply not objective. And confederates taking slaves means they were following the example of Moses, not Jesus. And Mohammed - was - an excessively violent man even for his day. History is full of - normal - people who get up and go to work or plant crops or hunt or build something or do whatever they do. Normal people doing normal things. Most people had neither the time, inclination, nor ability to become slave traders and warmongers. They may of been - dragged - into such conflicts but the average person has pretty much allways just gotten up and went to work everyday. That, is history. Mohammed’s actions were on the tip of the bell curve even for 1400 years ago. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1046 "2015-10-08T01:30:12Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > Oh really? > > _There’s an entire discipline of fiqh called naskh, or “abrogation”, which is nothing but altering, editing, and revising the final instructions of the final Prophet of God_ > > Quite honestly, I can think of no more glaring a contradiction than altering, editing, and revising the final instructions of the final Prophet of God. Your analysis of the situation is simply not objective. > > And confederates taking slaves means they were following the example of Moses, not Jesus. > > And Mohammed - was - an excessively violent man even for his day. History is full of - normal - people who get up and go to work or plant crops or hunt or build something or do whatever they do. Normal people doing normal things. Most people had neither the time, inclination, nor ability to become slave traders and warmongers. They may of been - dragged - into such conflicts but the average person has pretty much allways just gotten up and went to work everyday. That, is history. Mohammed’s actions were on the tip of the bell curve even for 1400 years ago. Your analysis seems very far from objective to me. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1047 "2015-10-08T01:33:18Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > Manumission was for - male - slaves, not female. Cite? I’m not seeing that in the relevant passages. > [@](#): > > And “peace” was convert or die, then we will be friends. I accept that after conversion you really could be on good terms with Mohammed, but, that is only if you converted. (He did accept jews and christians, but not pagans or polytheists) Cite? Mohammad said there was no compulsion in religion. > [@](#): > > Right > > So why then is Mohammed not thrown onto the trash heap of history if he is not an actual real prophet? Because some people believe that he was an actual, real prophet. > [@](#): > > What other philosophies of slave traders and warmongers are we still clinging too, over 1000 years after the fact? The Founding Fathers? And that’s less than 250 years. > [@](#): > > Except that Mohammed himself - took - slaves, so I’d say his commandments for how to - treat - slaves _is_ a direct endorsement of slavery. That doesn’t follow, especially given the aforementioned urging toward manumission. Endorsement of slavery isn’t accompanied by the idea that freeing slaves forgives your sins, or raising a tax to free slaves. > [@](#): > > And, it has been attested to many times on this very thread that Mohammed fought both offensive and defensive battles. Please stop pretending that his battlefield actions were only in self defense. That’s every war. Whether it was a defensive struggle depends on how the war started. Consider the Pacific Theater. The U.S. obviously launched offensives and staged attacks, but in the context of responding to the attack on Pearl Harbor. > [@](#): > > I don’t have any problem doing exactly and precisely that. Because the Koran actually is filled with violent passages and commandments and Mohammed actually was a violent (excessively so) person. Based on our earlier exchange re: the passages about self-defense and mercy, I have no confidence in your interpretation being the correct one. Further, I, like many others, don’t consider violence itself to be wrong or sinful. Self-defense is morally fine; defense of others is morally fine. The mere act of fighting doesn’t make one a bad person or discredit one’s ideas. > [@](#): > > I’m not either. I’m pointing out that to call Mohammed/Allah peaceful is not only a contradiction in terms but also a flat out lie. It is just simply not the truth. (Moderators, I am talking in general terms here, I am not calling anyone on this thread a liar). You said he didn’t act like a man of god. You can drop that point if you wish, but it’s separate from the “peaceful” argument. ---
**Author:** ![A\_isha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@A\_isha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/A_isha)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1048 "2015-10-08T01:33:34Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > Manumission was for - male - slaves, not female. No, it wasn’t. “Narrated Ibn `Umar: That he used to give his verdict regarding the male or female slaves owned by more than one master, one of whom may manumit his share of the slave. Ibn `Umar used to say in such a case, ‘The manumitter should manumit the slave completely if he has sufficient money to pay the rest of the price of that slave (which is to be justly estimated) and the other shareholders are to take the price of their shares and the slave is freed (released from slavery).’ Ibn `Umar narrated this verdict from the Prophet.” (Sahih Bukhari 2525) “Narrated ‘Ā’isha: I bought Buraira but her masters put the condition that her Wala’ would be for them. I told the Prophet about it. He said (to me), ‘Manumit her as her Wala’ will be for the one who pays the price.’ So, I manumitted her. The Prophet called Buraira and gave her the option of either staying with her husband or leaving him. She said, ‘Even if he gave me so much money, I would not stay with him,’ and so she preferred her freedom to her husband.” (Sahih Bukhari 2536) “Narrated Abu Huraira: I have loved the people of the tribe of Bani Tamim ever since I heard, three things, Allah’s Messenger said about them. I heard him saying, ‘These people (of the tribe of Bani Tamim) would stand firm against Ad-Dajjal.’ When the Sadaqat (gifts of charity) from that tribe came, Allah’s Messenger said, ‘These are the Sadaqat (i.e. charitable gifts) of our folk.’ ‘Ā’isha had a slave-girl from that tribe, and the Prophet said to ‘Ā’isha, ‘Manumit her as she is a descendant of Ishmael (the Prophet).’” (Sahih Bukhari 2543) “Narrated Abu Musa: Allah’s Messenger said, ‘He who has a slave-girl and educates and treats her nicely and then manumits and marries her, will get a double reward.’” (Sahih Bukhari 2544) Please, stop talking about things of which you have zero knowledge. Especially talking so authoritatively. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1049 "2015-10-08T01:36:15Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Your analysis seems very far from objective to me. Well, I’m sure it would, if your goal is to defend Islam. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1050 "2015-10-08T01:36:39Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > And confederates taking slaves means they were following the example of Moses, not Jesus. Again, Jesus said the Mosaic laws couldn’t change until the end of the world. That includes slavery. ---
**Author:** ![A\_isha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@A\_isha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/A_isha)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1051 "2015-10-08T01:39:39Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > Oh really? > > _There’s an entire discipline of fiqh called naskh, or “abrogation”, which is nothing but altering, editing, and revising the final instructions of the final Prophet of God_ > > Quite honestly, I can think of no more glaring a contradiction than altering, editing, and revising the final instructions of the final Prophet of God. Your analysis of the situation is simply not objective. Do you think I’m just _making up_ the entire abrogation thing or something? > [@](#): > > And confederates taking slaves means they were following the example of Moses, not Jesus. A) Moses and his commandments are an inextricable part of Christianity, and B) Jesus certainly didn’t do anything to protest or command against the institution of slavery. He even commended the behavior of slave owners towards their slaves in the New Testament! > [@](#): > > And Mohammed - was - an excessively violent man even for his day. History is full of - normal - people who get up and go to work or plant crops or hunt or build something or do whatever they do. Normal people doing normal things. Most people had neither the time, inclination, nor ability to become slave traders and warmongers. They may of been - dragged - into such conflicts but the average person has pretty much allways just gotten up and went to work everyday. That, is history. Mohammed’s actions were on the tip of the bell curve even for 1400 years ago. :smack: He was the leader of a city-state that was at war. You can’t compare him to J. Random Farmer, you have to compare him to other equivalent leaders at the time. And he was far more peaceful than they were. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1052 "2015-10-08T01:40:02Z")
> [@A\_isha](#): > > Please, stop talking about things of which you have zero knowledge. Especially talking so authoritatively. Typical. You are going to lecture me on my “ignorance” instead of admitting Mohammed took slaves and kept slaves. Of course I’m not an expert but the facts at hand are not in dispute. Or are you denying that Mohammed took slaves and kept slaves? We can quibble about his attitude - towards - slaves if we are in agreement on the basic facts. ---
**Author:** ![A\_isha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@A\_isha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/A_isha)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1053 "2015-10-08T01:44:16Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > Typical. You are going to lecture me on my “ignorance” Yes, because you keep making blanket, confident assertions about Islam that _simply aren’t true_, and then try to build an argument around them. You will only fail miserably doing that, so for your own sake please stop! > [@](#): > > We can quibble about his attitude - towards - slaves if we are in agreement on the basic facts. Muhammad took and kept slaves because that was what everyone else did at the time. It’s the same reason Jesus commended slave owners’ treatment of their slaves, because that was the way things were done back then. Muhammad was actually better than Jesus in this regard, because at least Muhammad encouraged the manumission of slaves. Jesus never once did that. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1054 "2015-10-08T01:45:21Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Again, Jesus said the Mosaic laws couldn’t change until the end of the world. That includes slavery. No, it was Paul who said “slaves obey your masters”. And he did say that about Mosaic Law, but, he also prevented the stoning of the adulteress. There is a - difference - between a passing reference to set of laws and actually mentioning one of said laws specifically. When you refute these laws, as he did on many occasions (well, a handful) that is one step further in the other direction. I am no fan of christianity. I simply am not. I’m quite hostile to the philosophy as a matter of a fact. But to say that the attitude towards violence and slavery of Mohammed and Jesus is essentially the same is simply not accurate. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1055 "2015-10-08T01:53:43Z")
> [@A\_isha](#): > > Yes, because you keep making blanket, confident assertions about Islam that _simply aren’t true_, and then try to build an argument around them. You will only fail miserably doing that, so for your own sake please stop! Stop what? Stating facts? > [@](#): > > Muhammad took and kept slaves because that was what everyone else did at the time. So? So what? You are wrong, by the way. Not everyone kept slaves. > [@](#): > > It’s the same reason Jesus commended slave owners’ treatment of their slaves, because that was the way things were done back then. Again, so what? The way things were done was the way - some - people did things. Plenty of people never had - any - slaves and never made war on - any - of their neighbors. Why do you keep going on and on and on with this incredibly specious detail. specious spēSHəs/Submit adjective superficially plausible, but actually wrong. > [@](#): > > Muhammad was actually better than Jesus in this regard, because at least Muhammad encouraged the manumission of slaves. Jesus never once did that. Of some slaves. He had a lot of very very detailed comments about what you could do with sex slaves. I do not know all the details about Mohammed’s attitude towards manumission, true, but I know his attitude towards sex slaves is absolutely horrific. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1056 "2015-10-08T02:05:51Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > Typical. You are going to lecture me on my “ignorance” instead of admitting Mohammed took slaves and kept slaves. You said only males slaves were to be freed; she pointed out that you were wrong; you change the subject while acting like _she’s_ the evasive one. Typical. > [@Robert163](#): > > No, it was Paul who said “slaves obey your masters”. I know. I’m not referring to Paul, I’m referring to slavery under Mosaic law: non-Hebrews and their children may be enslaved indefinitely, daughters may be sold as slave-wives, and so on. Fun stuff! > [@](#): > > And he did say that about Mosaic Law, but, he also prevented the stoning of the adulteress. There is a - difference - between a passing reference to set of laws and actually mentioning one of said laws specifically. When you refute these laws, as he did on many occasions (well, a handful) that is one step further in the other direction. Oh, Jesus refuted the law on slavery? Please, enlighten me, where did he do so and what did he say? > [@](#): > > I am no fan of christianity. I simply am not. I’m quite hostile to the philosophy as a matter of a fact. And yet your argument here is indistinguishable from an evangelical Christian urging Muslims to convert… > [@](#): > > But to say that the attitude towards violence and slavery of Mohammed and Jesus is essentially the same is simply not accurate. Mohammed engaged in violence, but in a comparatively limited and justified form. Jesus didn’t, save for the money changers. Mohammed engaged in slavery, but was critical of it. Jesus, being broke, didn’t engage in slavery, but wasn’t critical of it. That’s “essentially the same” to me. ---
**Author:** ![A\_isha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@A\_isha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/A_isha)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1057 "2015-10-08T02:07:31Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > Stop what? Stating facts? “Manumission was for male slaves, not female” was not a fact. “Jesus never commanded anything violent” was not a fact. Quit while you’re behind. > [@](#): > > So? So what? You are wrong, by the way. Not everyone kept slaves. Which has precisely zip to do with the fact that slavery was common and accepted by everyone who lived at the time. For both Muhammad and Jesus. _Including both_ Muhammad and Jesus. > [@](#): > > Again, so what? The way things were done was the way - some - people did things. Plenty of people never had - any - slaves and never made war on - any - of their neighbors. Why do you keep going on and on and on with this incredibly specious detail. It’s not specious. You’re comparing apples to 747s. To repeat, since it was the last post on the previous page and you may not have seen it: Muhammad was the leader of a city-state that was at war. You can’t compare him to J. Random Farmer, you have to compare him to other equivalent leaders at the time. And he was far more peaceful than they were. > [@](#): > > Of some slaves. He had a lot of very very detailed comments about what you could do with sex slaves. I do not know all the details about Mohammed’s attitude towards manumission, true, but I know his attitude towards sex slaves is absolutely horrific. I’ve already posted a number of quotes regarding Muhammad’s attitude towards the manumission of slaves. If you’d be so kind, please post quotes regarding Jesus’ attitude towards the manumission of slaves. I’ll wait. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1058 "2015-10-08T02:19:53Z")
> [@A\_isha](#): > > “Manumission was for male slaves, not female” was not a fact. Wow!!! What a victory you have won! My point was Mohammed’s attitude was significantly different to sex slaves (females) than males. > [@](#): > > “Jesus never commanded anything violent” was not a fact. What command is that? > [@](#): > > Which has precisely zip to do with the fact that slavery was common and accepted by everyone who lived at the time. For both Muhammad and Jesus. _Including both_ Muhammad and Jesus. Actually, it wasn’t accepted by everyone. In fact, in Rome, (I don’t know if it was the city or the country) there were so many slaves set free that they made a law/proclamation that asked people to - stop - setting their slaves free. And the majority of people did not own slaves. And of those who did own slaves, very few went out and actually made war and captured slaves. So, yes, indeed, lets stop comparing apples to bananas and calling them the same. > [@](#): > > It’s not specious. You’re comparing apples to 747s. To repeat, since it was the last post on the previous page and you may not have seen it: Muhammad was the leader of a city-state that was at war. You can’t compare him to J. Random Farmer, you have to compare him to other equivalent leaders at the time. And he was far more peaceful than they were. Yes. Right. 100%. He was a - leader. The common person went about their daily life without taking slaves or making war. > [@](#): > > I’ve already posted a number of quotes regarding Muhammad’s attitude towards the manumission of slaves. If you’d be so kind, please post quotes regarding Jesus’ attitude towards the manumission of slaves. > > I’ll wait. Jesus’s attitude towards slaves was, well I don’t know what his attitude was. He mentions slaves a couple of times in parables. He didn’t OWN any slaves. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1059 "2015-10-08T02:26:07Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Mohammed engaged in violence, but in a comparatively limited and justified form. Yes, I want that land! They do not honor the prophet! He has 100 more camels than I do! > [@](#): > > Mohammed engaged in slavery, but was critical of it. I think the word you are looking for is: hypocrisy. > [@](#): > > Jesus, being broke, didn’t engage in slavery, but wasn’t critical of it. Are you really going to claim that if Jesus had more money he would of had slaves? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1060 "2015-10-08T02:27:53Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > How amusing. How quaint. What a nice little story. > > Did she have any comment on: > > 1- The use of or philosophy towards sex slaves that Mohammed, the great man of peace, adhered to. > > 2- The murders that Mohammed, the great man of peace, committed during the offensive potions of his battles. > > 3- That Mohammed, the great man of peace, wanted unbelievers put to death (if they did not repent). Your use of the phrase “sex slaves” is erroneous and deliberately distorts the actual statement to which you refer. Your use of the word “murder” to refer to actions taken in a time of war is notjhing more that an attempt to poison the well of the discussion. Your claim that Mohammed wanted “unbleievers” to be put to death is also taken from mistranslations and deliberately corrupted interpretations of phrases from the Qur’an. If your best attack is based on corrupted reading and deliberate falsehoods, you really have no business attacking anyone else’s arguments in this thread. I am sure that you believe all the nonsense you have posted, but that is based on the fact that you began your “analysis” by starting from an emotionally twisted perspective and have deliberately chosen to use only Islamophobic sources for you information. Your claims to an “objective analysis” made me laugh. Attempting an “objective analysis” from twisted facts and outright lies is doomed to failure, yet you persist. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1061 "2015-10-08T02:34:51Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Your claim that Mohammed wanted “unbleievers” to be put to death is also taken from mistranslations and deliberately corrupted interpretations of phrases from the Qur’an. [http://quran.com/9/5](http://quran.com/9/5) And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. That is not from a biased source. Check the cite if you don’t believe me. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741.md?page=52) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741.md?page=54)