He didn’t tell them to get out. I have no idea what you mean.
Let’s get our group of polytheists together and go pray at the Kaaba. Let’s see how far we will get, m’kay? Why are there no more polytheists there?
So, no cite that Muhammad forced the polytheists to leave, then?
Why don’t you tell us what happened to them then?
I can make an educated guess: http://hadithcollection.com/sahihmuslim/147-Sahih%20Muslim%20Book%2019.%20Jihad%20and%20Expedition/12807-sahih-muslim-book-019-hadith-number-4294.html
Yeah, I’d say that covers it. Some probably moved away, come converted, and some remained and paid the jizya. Mohammed died two years after the conquest of Mecca, so I doubt he had much to do with the long-term popularity of polytheism in Arabia.
Your conjecture that Mohammed “told them to get out” remains bullshit, one more load for the pile you’ve accumulated in this thread.
Maybe you should examine why all your guesses and instincts about Islam is that Muslims are fucking monsters? Whatever group you’re a part of, I guarantee that there are people who have the same reaction to it that you have to Muslims. Try to imagine how you’d reason them out of it, and go from there.
Because it’s irrelevant. This discussion isn’t *really *about “is there anything good about Islam”, this is about the belief that Islam is the Religion of Evil and all billion-plus of its followers are demonic beings that should be killed or converted by force.
Nah, no jizya for them. Islam is very tolerant of other religions (for practical reasons), but not them idolater cats. They’re the only ones on the “convert or die” list. One assumes most became Muslims - Muhammad was actually pretty chill with his former enemies (again, for practical reasons, as he needed the local aristocrats in his pocket to rule Mecca) and kept them in positions of power - in fact his first batch of successors were mostly all Meccans. Which naturally pissed off his longtime followers good and proper.
That (polytheists paying jizya) is disputed; the hadith Uzi quoted above clearly refers to polytheists paying jizya; Muslim schools of law were split on the question.
Read two pages, then got bored. So I’ll give it a try.
Muslims don’t accept boozing and drugs. I suppose that’s a good thing?
But Kim, what would you say to those WTC terrorists, those in Brussels and in Paris, who all drank alcohol and used drugs, and the members of Daesh who also use drugs and of course Taliban that has all those poppy fields and heroin labs?
BTW how is Kim Jong Un not a terrorist? Am I missing something here?
This is the problem. You can’t criticize the religion without someone saying you hate its followers. Don’t confuse me thinking they are idiots with thinking that they are monsters, but then I think all religious types are idiots, for the most part.
Sent from my SM-N910U using Tapatalk
You aren’t criticizing Islam, though. You are criticizing a fantasy version of it, based on your misinterpretation of the Quran, and scenarios about Muhammad that you invent whole cloth.
It’s no different from criticizing Judaism for requiring the use of Christian baby blood to make matzah.
nm
And yet whole groups of people, e.g., ISIS, Taliban, etc. seem to want to implement my fantasy misinterpretation. How are they reading my mind?:eek:
Let’s pretend for a moment that you are correct that Islam is a religion of peace and only fights to defend itself. So, I offend your prophet and religion, in your opinion, and now I’m up for at a minimum jail time. Indonesia protest: 200,000 march against Christian governor of Jakarta - CNN
What right does anyone have to jail someone for pointing out the obvious truth that Mohammed never spoke to an Angel or Allah because neither exists! If you want to say that fight is limited to using words, then great. That isn’t how it is interpreted, though.
Again, regardless if I am right or wrong, I am not criticizing the poor slobs inflicted by it other than when they act in heinous ways in its name or should know better after living in a secular society (no more than any other religious type, that is). In most cases, they don’t know any better. The people in the Middle East I worked with were little different than anyone else and many were good people. I tried to make it clear at the beginning of this that it is hard to differentiate between cultural practices and those related to religion. Yet, what I saw of the religion didn’t endear me to it.
Are you really not getting that there are peaceful Muslims (most of them, in fact) who interpret the Quran in a peaceful way, and violent Muslims (a pretty small minority) who interpret the Quran in a violent way? That Islam is as diverse within as Christianity and other major religions? That a religious document really can be interpreted in a million different ways?
No, they have their own ideology; any resemblance to your remarks here is superficial at best. ISIS, for example, relies heavily on snippets of hadith, ignores centuries of Islamic scholarship about those hadith in favor of “prophetic methodology”, and believes in an imminent apocalyptic End of Days.
No right at all. This isn’t characteristic of or unique to Islam, of course, blasphemy laws go back centuries in many cultures. In the absence of a strong human rights movement, the majority tends to crush nonconforming behavior.
I don’t really care if you like Islam or not (I am a non-Muslim, after all), I just ask that you be informed and honest before insulting it, and be able to distinguish between bad-things-done-by-Muslims and Islam.
You can oppose blasphemy laws without opposing a given religion, and you can practice a religion without supporting blasphemy laws.
So, not Muslims then?
Nothing to do with statements in the Quran about blasphemy against the prophet, Allah, or the religion? Absent those statements would Muslims be more or less likely to have these reactions? In this case, quoting the Quran to prove that it is okay to vote for a Christian. 200,000 protesters. On the plus side, it looks like there were many supporters for the politician.
Look I get it. You think that any activity done by a follower of a specific religion is their interpretation and if it results in someone else getting hurt that interpretation is the ‘wrong’ one. I’m just saying on the potential for Evil scale where Christianity might sit at say a 5, Islam sits at a 6 or 7, meaning that it is easier for any one person to ‘misinterpret’ the thing from the apologist’s politically correct version. Nor am I saying that the followers of said religion would also rank at the same level because they obviously, for the most part, don’t (well other than the 200,000 getting worked up about a Christian quoting the Quran, cartoons, etc.).
What is most frustrating in these discussions is that we end up having them at all. People are dying, killing, oppressed, for a way of life based upon a lie, a scam, a cheat. Either these ‘prophets’ were consciously scamming people or were delusional nutjobs.
And while some of what religion may teach is positive, does it take con artist/ whackjob to confirm that doing activities they’d probably be doing anyways (not killing people, being a dick, etc.) is a good thing?
You’re doing this act on purpose, aren’t you? Not each and every Christian is representative of Christianity; not each and every Jew is representative of Judaism; and not each and every Muslim is representative of Islam overall. You persist in touting a minority interpretation of Islam’s scriptures as “the one true version”. That is no different than touting Westboro as “the one true version” of Christianity. It’s your bias, not the facts on the ground, on display when you do that.
Oh, so you are aware that your nonsense about Islam is, in fact, nonsense? How are the rest of your posts in this thread not trolling, then?
No, you moron. The other poster never said any interpretation is not the “one true version”. You, on the other hand, seem to have anointed yourself with that particular mantle: getting to decide which version of a religion is the correct version. What the other poster said is that the majority, the vast majority, the incredibly vast majority of Muslims do not, do not, repeat, do not interpret Islam in the way you say they do or should to be “true Muslims”. That super-majority of Muslims, being the super-majority they are, happen to therefore be representative of the faith as practiced by, get this, the vast majority of Muslims.
That is unadulterated horseshit from you. I notice, also, that you again admit that you are aware that the violent interpretation is a minority view.
That’s because bigots, jackasses, and other assorted morons such as you don’t get it.
Now you’re off into la-la land. Dude, you’re insane and/or a troll.
If I’m saying anything it is that the Quran and Hadiths open themselves to these interpretations easier than many other religions and because of that more people will find it easier to follow them. I personally believe that these magic guide books actually do guide many people in their beliefs and actions and are not just harmless noise that people ignore as they see fit. I think some of these books are worse than others and point to real world examples of where people follow the ‘non-majority’ view.
Westboro = ~40 members. Protest against someone quoting the Quran = ~200,000. Would the later group be classified as fundamentalists like the former?
And you ignored everything after the first sentence in that paragraph:
“I’m just saying on the potential for Evil scale where Christianity might sit at say a 5, Islam sits at a 6 or 7, meaning that it is easier for any one person to ‘misinterpret’ the thing from the apologist’s politically correct version. Nor am I saying that the followers of said religion would also rank at the same level because they obviously, for the most part, don’t”
Get what? That criticizing religion and those too feeble minded not to question their beliefs makes us bigots and morons?
No argument so a personal attack? But, I won’t participate in this thread anymore unless asked a question to avoid being classified as a troll. That was not my intent.
Best news I’ve heard all day.
Then why were there periods in history in which the Muslim world was, in general, more peaceful, tolerant, and progressive than the Christian world? I know where my Jewish ancestors in the 15th century would have been safer, and it wasn’t in Christian Europe.