Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Neither am I.
Here's the thing, I'm not sure Moses actually existed. Obviously the Exodus story is full of supernatural horseshit. Muhammad is different, he is a historical figure and his acts are known. Arguing about what Moses did is like arguing about Superman, he did what those collecting myths for David assigned to him.
Moses is a central figure within three major world religions. So if you want to discuss military traditions within religious tradition one must reference Moses and his successors if we are to be honest about it.
That aside, is there something specifically about Muhammad's campaigns that you disliked, or something specific about Quranic verse that you dislike? I can name crimes against humanity that I disapproved of, such as the arbitration of the dispute with the Banu Qurayza and their subsequent execution of the males. But even that, which is probably the more gruesome act that the Muslims oversaw (depending on your historical readings) didn't even top 1000 deaths. So this imagery of Muhammad riding around and killing people by the thousands or anywhere close to the level of the mongols simply didn't happen / exist, and is not how political expansion under Muhammad occurred.
your point? the mongols used the principles set forth by MUHUMMAD as the paragon of "virtue" Muhummad did not have the means to murder millions----
he did the best he could and set the STANDARDS----the ethos that led to the genocides of hundreds of millions
Unbeliever, disbeliever.
Wrong. Are there anyone tell më the meaning of kafir in english
an infidel
Jeremiah KAFIR is from the semitic root ---K F R generally meaning
"to cover or conceal" Those little hats that muslims wear are called
"KUFI" ----- The root gets used to connote DENIAL OF TRUTH------for
muslims any person who rejects the TRUTH of the KORAN -----is concealing "truth"---thus a KAFFIR The word has a very negative connotation
Neither am I.
Here's the thing, I'm not sure Moses actually existed. Obviously the Exodus story is full of supernatural horseshit. Muhammad is different, he is a historical figure and his acts are known. Arguing about what Moses did is like arguing about Superman, he did what those collecting myths for David assigned to him.
Moses is a central figure within three major world religions. So if you want to discuss military traditions within religious tradition one must reference Moses and his successors if we are to be honest about it.
That aside, is there something specifically about Muhammad's campaigns that you disliked, or something specific about Quranic verse that you dislike? I can name crimes against humanity that I disapproved of, such as the arbitration of the dispute with the Banu Qurayza and their subsequent execution of the males. But even that, which is probably the more gruesome act that the Muslims oversaw (depending on your historical readings) didn't even top 1000 deaths. So this imagery of Muhammad riding around and killing people by the thousands or anywhere close to the level of the mongols simply didn't happen / exist, and is not how political expansion under Muhammad occurred.
your point? the mongols used the principles set forth by MUHUMMAD as the paragon of "virtue" Muhummad did not have the means to murder millions----
he did the best he could and set the STANDARDS----the ethos that led to the genocides of hundreds of millions
Osimir is off in his history, Rosie. Muhammad had 900 Jews beheaded in a single day for refusing to receive him as a true prophet. Many more were killed, raped, looted, enslaved during his lifetime in the name of Islam.
your point? the mongols used the principles set forth by MUHUMMAD as the paragon of "virtue" Muhummad did not have the means to murder millions----
he did the best he could and set the STANDARDS----the ethos that led to the genocides of hundreds of millions
1.) the Mongols slaughtered Muslims by the thousands.
2.) Muhammad broke every pre-Islamic tradition in Arabia by specifically not allowing his men to put the Quraysh and Mecca to the sword. So your assertion that the only thing preventing him from greater violence was simply that he wasn't in a position to carry it out isn't historically accurate.
Unbeliever, disbeliever.
Wrong. Are there anyone tell më the meaning of kafir in english
an infidel
Jeremiah KAFIR is from the semitic root ---K F R generally meaning
"to cover or conceal" Those little hats that muslims wear are called
"KUFI" ----- The root gets used to connote DENIAL OF TRUTH------for
muslims any person who rejects the TRUTH of the KORAN -----is concealing "truth"---thus a KAFFIR The word has a very negative connotation
Well at least I didn't call it yogurt this time. Baby steps, Rosie....baby steps....
your point? the mongols used the principles set forth by MUHUMMAD as the paragon of "virtue" Muhummad did not have the means to murder millions----
he did the best he could and set the STANDARDS----the ethos that led to the genocides of hundreds of millions
1.) the Mongols slaughtered Muslims by the thousands.
2.) Muhammad broke every pre-Islamic tradition in Arabia by specifically not allowing his men to put the Quraysh and Mecca to the sword. So your assertion that the only thing preventing him from greater violence was simply that he wasn't in a position to carry it out isn't historically accurate.
he acted according to his AGENDA which was empire----his EMPIRE being all of
Arabia------not piles of dead people. He specifically states (according to the Koran) that ALL OF THE PEOPLE OF ARABIA must be subjected to HIS religion. Pre Islamic Arabia was more into "attack and raid" than Empire----
Pre Islamic Arabia was more like a Viking society than an empire---to some extent similar to some native American societies
Neither am I.
Here's the thing, I'm not sure Moses actually existed. Obviously the Exodus story is full of supernatural horseshit. Muhammad is different, he is a historical figure and his acts are known. Arguing about what Moses did is like arguing about Superman, he did what those collecting myths for David assigned to him.
Moses is a central figure within three major world religions. So if you want to discuss military traditions within religious tradition one must reference Moses and his successors if we are to be honest about it.
That aside, is there something specifically about Muhammad's campaigns that you disliked, or something specific about Quranic verse that you dislike? I can name crimes against humanity that I disapproved of, such as the arbitration of the dispute with the Banu Qurayza and their subsequent execution of the males. But even that, which is probably the more gruesome act that the Muslims oversaw (depending on your historical readings) didn't even top 1000 deaths. So this imagery of Muhammad riding around and killing people by the thousands or anywhere close to the level of the mongols simply didn't happen / exist, and is not how political expansion under Muhammad occurred.
your point? the mongols used the principles set forth by MUHUMMAD as the paragon of "virtue" Muhummad did not have the means to murder millions----
he did the best he could and set the STANDARDS----the ethos that led to the genocides of hundreds of millions
Osimir is off in his history, Rosie. Muhammad had 900 Jews beheaded in a single day for refusing to receive him as a true prophet. Many more were killed, raped, looted, enslaved during his lifetime in the name of Islam.
Off in my history? I already specifically mentioned the slaughter of the Banu Qurayza prior to rosie even posting and called it a crime against humanity. Try again.
your point? the mongols used the principles set forth by MUHUMMAD as the paragon of "virtue" Muhummad did not have the means to murder millions----
he did the best he could and set the STANDARDS----the ethos that led to the genocides of hundreds of millions
1.) the Mongols slaughtered Muslims by the thousands.
2.) Muhammad broke every pre-Islamic tradition in Arabia by specifically not allowing his men to put the Quraysh and Mecca to the sword. So your assertion that the only thing preventing him from greater violence was simply that he wasn't in a position to carry it out isn't historically accurate.
your point? the mongols used the principles set forth by MUHUMMAD as the paragon of "virtue" Muhummad did not have the means to murder millions----
he did the best he could and set the STANDARDS----the ethos that led to the genocides of hundreds of millions
1.) the Mongols slaughtered Muslims by the thousands.
2.) Muhammad broke every pre-Islamic tradition in Arabia by specifically not allowing his men to put the Quraysh and Mecca to the sword. So your assertion that the only thing preventing him from greater violence was simply that he wasn't in a position to carry it out isn't historically accurate.
he acted according to his AGENDA which was empire----his EMPIRE being all of
Arabia------not piles of dead people. He specifically states (according to the Koran) that ALL OF THE PEOPLE OF ARABIA must be subjected to HIS religion. Pre Islamic Arabia was more into "attack and raid" than Empire----
Pre Islamic Arabia was more like a Viking society than an empire---to some extent similar to some native American societies
1.) Show where in the Quran it says that everyone in the Arabian peninsula must be Islamic
2.) Muhammad held close alliances with non-Muslim groups on the peninsula right up to his death.
Neither am I.
Here's the thing, I'm not sure Moses actually existed. Obviously the Exodus story is full of supernatural horseshit. Muhammad is different, he is a historical figure and his acts are known. Arguing about what Moses did is like arguing about Superman, he did what those collecting myths for David assigned to him.
Moses is a central figure within three major world religions. So if you want to discuss military traditions within religious tradition one must reference Moses and his successors if we are to be honest about it.
That aside, is there something specifically about Muhammad's campaigns that you disliked, or something specific about Quranic verse that you dislike? I can name crimes against humanity that I disapproved of, such as the arbitration of the dispute with the Banu Qurayza and their subsequent execution of the males. But even that, which is probably the more gruesome act that the Muslims oversaw (depending on your historical readings) didn't even top 1000 deaths. So this imagery of Muhammad riding around and killing people by the thousands or anywhere close to the level of the mongols simply didn't happen / exist, and is not how political expansion under Muhammad occurred.
your point? the mongols used the principles set forth by MUHUMMAD as the paragon of "virtue" Muhummad did not have the means to murder millions----
he did the best he could and set the STANDARDS----the ethos that led to the genocides of hundreds of millions
Osimir is off in his history, Rosie. Muhammad had 900 Jews beheaded in a single day for refusing to receive him as a true prophet. Many more were killed, raped, looted, enslaved during his lifetime in the name of Islam.
Off in my history? I already specifically mentioned the slaughter of the Banu Qurayza prior to rosie even posting and called it a crime against humanity. Try again.
considering that which muhummad had to work with----himself and his band of merry men-----it was a MASSIVE GENOCIDE-------he did not have a NUKE
your point? the mongols used the principles set forth by MUHUMMAD as the paragon of "virtue" Muhummad did not have the means to murder millions----
he did the best he could and set the STANDARDS----the ethos that led to the genocides of hundreds of millions
1.) the Mongols slaughtered Muslims by the thousands.
2.) Muhammad broke every pre-Islamic tradition in Arabia by specifically not allowing his men to put the Quraysh and Mecca to the sword. So your assertion that the only thing preventing him from greater violence was simply that he wasn't in a position to carry it out isn't historically accurate.
he acted according to his AGENDA which was empire----his EMPIRE being all of
Arabia------not piles of dead people. He specifically states (according to the Koran) that ALL OF THE PEOPLE OF ARABIA must be subjected to HIS religion. Pre Islamic Arabia was more into "attack and raid" than Empire----
Pre Islamic Arabia was more like a Viking society than an empire---to some extent similar to some native American societies
1.) Show where in the Quran it says that everyone in the Arabian peninsula must be Islamic
2.) Muhammad held close alliances with non-Muslim groups on the peninsula right up to his death.
your point? the mongols used the principles set forth by MUHUMMAD as the paragon of "virtue" Muhummad did not have the means to murder millions----
he did the best he could and set the STANDARDS----the ethos that led to the genocides of hundreds of millions
1.) the Mongols slaughtered Muslims by the thousands.
2.) Muhammad broke every pre-Islamic tradition in Arabia by specifically not allowing his men to put the Quraysh and Mecca to the sword. So your assertion that the only thing preventing him from greater violence was simply that he wasn't in a position to carry it out isn't historically accurate.
Didn't you leave something out? Like how Muhammad did not keep his end of the agreement? The peace treaties? Does that ring a bell for you?
The second most authoritative hadith collection, The Sahih of Muslim, has a chapter entitled, The permissibility of killing women and children in the night raids, provided its' not deliberate.
In another collection the Sunan Abu Dawud has a chapter entitled, Excellence of killing an infidel, with Mohammad stating that the infidel and one who kills him will never be brought together in hell.
In yet another chapter of the same collection there is one entitled "Punishment of a man who abuses the Prophet - the author recounts the story of a Muslim who killed his slave and concubine who had two children by him, because she "disparaged" the Prophet.
Muhammad upon hearing it said Oh, be witness, no retaliation payable for her blood. A Jewess was accused of abusing Mohammad and she was strangled to death - once again Mohammad declared that no recompense was payable for her blood.
So spare me your excuses,Osimir, because Mohammad had his followers slaughtering men, women and children night and day with exemptions for the night raids as I just quoted to you.
your point? the mongols used the principles set forth by MUHUMMAD as the paragon of "virtue" Muhummad did not have the means to murder millions----
he did the best he could and set the STANDARDS----the ethos that led to the genocides of hundreds of millions
1.) the Mongols slaughtered Muslims by the thousands.
2.) Muhammad broke every pre-Islamic tradition in Arabia by specifically not allowing his men to put the Quraysh and Mecca to the sword. So your assertion that the only thing preventing him from greater violence was simply that he wasn't in a position to carry it out isn't historically accurate.
he acted according to his AGENDA which was empire----his EMPIRE being all of
Arabia------not piles of dead people. He specifically states (according to the Koran) that ALL OF THE PEOPLE OF ARABIA must be subjected to HIS religion. Pre Islamic Arabia was more into "attack and raid" than Empire----
Pre Islamic Arabia was more like a Viking society than an empire---to some extent similar to some native American societies
1.) Show where in the Quran it says that everyone in the Arabian peninsula must be Islamic
2.) Muhammad held close alliances with non-Muslim groups on the peninsula right up to his death.
There are 109 murder verses in the Qur'an. Take your pick. Have you read the Qu'ran or haven't you? Surah 9:5 ....fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every strategem of war...
Moses is a central figure within three major world religions. So if you want to discuss military traditions within religious tradition one must reference Moses and his successors if we are to be honest about it.
That aside, is there something specifically about Muhammad's campaigns that you disliked, or something specific about Quranic verse that you dislike? I can name crimes against humanity that I disapproved of, such as the arbitration of the dispute with the Banu Qurayza and their subsequent execution of the males. But even that, which is probably the more gruesome act that the Muslims oversaw (depending on your historical readings) didn't even top 1000 deaths. So this imagery of Muhammad riding around and killing people by the thousands or anywhere close to the level of the mongols simply didn't happen / exist, and is not how political expansion under Muhammad occurred.
your point? the mongols used the principles set forth by MUHUMMAD as the paragon of "virtue" Muhummad did not have the means to murder millions----
he did the best he could and set the STANDARDS----the ethos that led to the genocides of hundreds of millions
Osimir is off in his history, Rosie. Muhammad had 900 Jews beheaded in a single day for refusing to receive him as a true prophet. Many more were killed, raped, looted, enslaved during his lifetime in the name of Islam.
Off in my history? I already specifically mentioned the slaughter of the Banu Qurayza prior to rosie even posting and called it a crime against humanity. Try again.
considering that which muhummad had to work with----himself and his band of merry men-----it was a MASSIVE GENOCIDE-------he did not have a NUKE
lol a massive genocide? You mean one which was arbitrated by a third party and carried out in accordance to the ruling which was conducted under Judaic law and not Islamic law? If that's the best that you can do then that's pretty weak supporting evidence on your part.
your point? the mongols used the principles set forth by MUHUMMAD as the paragon of "virtue" Muhummad did not have the means to murder millions----
he did the best he could and set the STANDARDS----the ethos that led to the genocides of hundreds of millions
1.) the Mongols slaughtered Muslims by the thousands.
2.) Muhammad broke every pre-Islamic tradition in Arabia by specifically not allowing his men to put the Quraysh and Mecca to the sword. So your assertion that the only thing preventing him from greater violence was simply that he wasn't in a position to carry it out isn't historically accurate.
he acted according to his AGENDA which was empire----his EMPIRE being all of
Arabia------not piles of dead people. He specifically states (according to the Koran) that ALL OF THE PEOPLE OF ARABIA must be subjected to HIS religion. Pre Islamic Arabia was more into "attack and raid" than Empire----
Pre Islamic Arabia was more like a Viking society than an empire---to some extent similar to some native American societies
1.) Show where in the Quran it says that everyone in the Arabian peninsula must be Islamic
2.) Muhammad held close alliances with non-Muslim groups on the peninsula right up to his death.
There are 109 murder verses in the Qur'an. Take your pick. Have you read the Qu'ran or haven't you? Surah 9:5 ....fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every strategem of war...
So in other words you can't point to one that states that all of Arabia has to be Muslim.
your point? the mongols used the principles set forth by MUHUMMAD as the paragon of "virtue" Muhummad did not have the means to murder millions----
he did the best he could and set the STANDARDS----the ethos that led to the genocides of hundreds of millions
Osimir is off in his history, Rosie. Muhammad had 900 Jews beheaded in a single day for refusing to receive him as a true prophet. Many more were killed, raped, looted, enslaved during his lifetime in the name of Islam.
Off in my history? I already specifically mentioned the slaughter of the Banu Qurayza prior to rosie even posting and called it a crime against humanity. Try again.
considering that which muhummad had to work with----himself and his band of merry men-----it was a MASSIVE GENOCIDE-------he did not have a NUKE
lol a massive genocide? You mean one which was arbitrated by a third party and carried out in accordance to the ruling which was conducted under Judaic law and not Islamic law? If that's the best that you can do then that's pretty weak supporting evidence on your part.
yeah right-----it was the PHARISEE approach------study a bit more
your point? the mongols used the principles set forth by MUHUMMAD as the paragon of "virtue" Muhummad did not have the means to murder millions----
he did the best he could and set the STANDARDS----the ethos that led to the genocides of hundreds of millions
1.) the Mongols slaughtered Muslims by the thousands.
2.) Muhammad broke every pre-Islamic tradition in Arabia by specifically not allowing his men to put the Quraysh and Mecca to the sword. So your assertion that the only thing preventing him from greater violence was simply that he wasn't in a position to carry it out isn't historically accurate.
Didn't you leave something out? Like how Muhammad did not keep his end of the agreement? The peace treaties? Does that ring a bell for you?
The second most authoritative hadith collection, The Sahih of Muslim, has a chapter entitled, The permissibility of killing women and children in the night raids, provided its' not deliberate.
In another collection the Sunan Abu Dawud has a chapter entitled, Excellence of killing an infidel, with Mohammad stating that the infidel and one who kills him will never be brought together in hell.
In yet another chapter of the same collection there is one entitled "Punishment of a man who abuses the Prophet - the author recounts the story of a Muslim who killed his slave and concubine who had two children by him, because she "disparaged" the Prophet.
Muhammad upon hearing it said Oh, be witness, no retaliation payable for her blood. A Jewess was accused of abusing Mohammad and she was strangled to death - once again Mohammad declared that no recompense was payable for her blood.
So spare me your excuses,Osimir, because Mohammad had his followers slaughtering men, women and children night and day with exemptions for the night raids as I just quoted to you.
Then support your assertions with historical evidence. The simple fct is, knowing the history of Muhammad, you can't support the original statement that Muhammad carried out violence on par with the Mongols during his expansion in the Arabian empire, and can't support the claim that he routinely slaughtered thousands. That's simply not how combat on the Arabian peninsula occurred at that time.
1.) the Mongols slaughtered Muslims by the thousands.
2.) Muhammad broke every pre-Islamic tradition in Arabia by specifically not allowing his men to put the Quraysh and Mecca to the sword. So your assertion that the only thing preventing him from greater violence was simply that he wasn't in a position to carry it out isn't historically accurate.
he acted according to his AGENDA which was empire----his EMPIRE being all of
Arabia------not piles of dead people. He specifically states (according to the Koran) that ALL OF THE PEOPLE OF ARABIA must be subjected to HIS religion. Pre Islamic Arabia was more into "attack and raid" than Empire----
Pre Islamic Arabia was more like a Viking society than an empire---to some extent similar to some native American societies
1.) Show where in the Quran it says that everyone in the Arabian peninsula must be Islamic
2.) Muhammad held close alliances with non-Muslim groups on the peninsula right up to his death.
There are 109 murder verses in the Qur'an. Take your pick. Have you read the Qu'ran or haven't you? Surah 9:5 ....fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every strategem of war...
So in other words you can't point to one that states that all of Arabia has to be Muslim.
You are joking right?
your point? the mongols used the principles set forth by MUHUMMAD as the paragon of "virtue" Muhummad did not have the means to murder millions----
he did the best he could and set the STANDARDS----the ethos that led to the genocides of hundreds of millions
1.) the Mongols slaughtered Muslims by the thousands.
2.) Muhammad broke every pre-Islamic tradition in Arabia by specifically not allowing his men to put the Quraysh and Mecca to the sword. So your assertion that the only thing preventing him from greater violence was simply that he wasn't in a position to carry it out isn't historically accurate.
Didn't you leave something out? Like how Muhammad did not keep his end of the agreement? The peace treaties? Does that ring a bell for you?
The second most authoritative hadith collection, The Sahih of Muslim, has a chapter entitled, The permissibility of killing women and children in the night raids, provided its' not deliberate.
In another collection the Sunan Abu Dawud has a chapter entitled, Excellence of killing an infidel, with Mohammad stating that the infidel and one who kills him will never be brought together in hell.
In yet another chapter of the same collection there is one entitled "Punishment of a man who abuses the Prophet - the author recounts the story of a Muslim who killed his slave and concubine who had two children by him, because she "disparaged" the Prophet.
Muhammad upon hearing it said Oh, be witness, no retaliation payable for her blood. A Jewess was accused of abusing Mohammad and she was strangled to death - once again Mohammad declared that no recompense was payable for her blood.
So spare me your excuses,Osimir, because Mohammad had his followers slaughtering men, women and children night and day with exemptions for the night raids as I just quoted to you.
Then support your assertions with historical evidence. The simple fct is, knowing the history of Muhammad, you can't support the original statement that Muhammad carried out violence on par with the Mongols during his expansion in the Arabian empire, and can't support the claim that he routinely slaughtered thousands. That's simply not how combat on the Arabian peninsula occurred at that time.
he did not have the means or CIRCUMSTANCES to slaughter thousands at a time-----nor did the SIOUX Indians of the central planes. Muhummad was small potatoes compared to GENGHIS KHAN
Osimir is off in his history, Rosie. Muhammad had 900 Jews beheaded in a single day for refusing to receive him as a true prophet. Many more were killed, raped, looted, enslaved during his lifetime in the name of Islam.
Off in my history? I already specifically mentioned the slaughter of the Banu Qurayza prior to rosie even posting and called it a crime against humanity. Try again.
considering that which muhummad had to work with----himself and his band of merry men-----it was a MASSIVE GENOCIDE-------he did not have a NUKE
lol a massive genocide? You mean one which was arbitrated by a third party and carried out in accordance to the ruling which was conducted under Judaic law and not Islamic law? If that's the best that you can do then that's pretty weak supporting evidence on your part.
yeah right-----it was the PHARISEE approach------study a bit more
It was arbitrated based on the Torah. I have studied far more than you.
