Morality

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Who are you talking to? I don't know who this post is directed at.

Im talking to you

Ok.

If you were talking about your real-life views your post had nothing to do with the topic. "Who needs a religion when you can be a dictator" is not the topic. The topic is about where morality comes from.

[Jolthig]

Because that wasn't part of the point I made. You added it to misrepresent what I said.

It's not supposed to be part of the point you made. It's another idea that I developed, based on what you said regarding "religion can help one find morality". I didn't misrepresent anything and I don't understand how you come to that conclusion. To put this back in context, all I said was: "Depends. Religion is ultimately what the individual makes of it. You can ask a hundred Christians about a Bible verse and a hundred Muslims about a Qur'an verse and in both cases you're gonna have at least 20 different interpretations. Even many renowned Christian or Muslim scholars do not interpret their holy texts in the same ways. In the end, it's incredibly subjective.". How is that unrelated, let alone an attempt at dishonestly misrepresenting your statement? It's a simple counter-argument, nothing more or nothing less.

Okay. Fair enough.

Yes you are misinterpreting it if you are saying something like "moderate muslims dont do this because they're in the west". How can you say it is not misinterpreted? This is a ridiculous and poorly researched argument. Getting your information from anti-Islamic books and websites does not make you an expert on the faith of Islam.

That's not what I'm saying. My point was that moderate Muslims (most of whom are located in the West - I think you can agree that Middle-Eastern Muslims are way more fundamentalist) didn't grow up, for the most part, in excessively religious environments. Hence why they're moderate in the first place, and why they attempt to find nuance to Islam's most violent teachings, since they've arguably heard the light ones more than those much more controversial ones.

Perhaps, but some are pretty convinced that most of the verses in the Quran related to war. As is the case of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community as its founder commanded Ahmadis to put down the sword, and instead pick up the pen to defend Islam. There are several ahmadis living in the middle east who dont believe in violence, and I'm sure there are several Muslims there that believe the same. Most of the violent muslim fanatics are Wahabbists and other Sunni fundamentalists alongside some shite fundamentalists as well. Saudi Arabia has a monopoly on the ummah as do many mullahs across the middle East. Heck, even Pakistan is no exception, and yet, in theory, they're secular. Yet, ahmadis dont react with violence to Pakistan's rulings against Ahmadis not be Muslims. Rather, we take it with patience, and we migrate when needed. Just like how Muhammad and his companions did to Medina, or earlier, when his companions migrated to Abyssinia. These examples Ahmadis and other non violent peaceful muslims seek to imitate, and get away from the extremists. Much of the extremism has to do with ignorance, and lack of education of the Muslim general public. Sadly, this is what the Islamic world has come to since its Golden Age of the Abbasid era.

The way extremists prey on the poor and uneducated in the Muslim world is similar to how gangs recruit people in the inner cities here in the US, like Los Angeles, for example. ISIS is exactly the Mafia of the Middle East.

Not to mention, the concept of an authority figure has played a role in how many Muslims have become radicalized similar to how many Germans became radicalized when Hitler came to power. This is how "Caliph", Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and several other extremist leaders have used their rhetoric to persuade the youth to join them. Yeah, definitely, the Islamic world is not what it once was.

At no point did I call myself an expert on Islam.

And to be fair, neither am I. I only say what I know.

I don't have the pretention to call myself that, however I deem myself informed enough on that religion to form judgements. I've gotten information from pro-Islam sources, anti-Islam sources and ideologically neutral sources and found the basis for my viewpoint from that; which is what everyone should do if they want an unbiased point of view on anything.

This is what I do as well, and I can agree with this philosophy. Everyone should look at all points of views, and come to their own conclusions; though, in my beliefs, we also pray to be guided to the truth as Surah 1:6-7 says, "Guide us in the right path. The path of those whom thou hast bestowed thy blessings."

It is important to study history and philosophy, and for one to research one's point of view and other points of views to have a good debate.

Please then, make a comparison between the Bible and Quran then on their views of war.

Islam, much more so than Christianity, was founded on war and conquest (Battle of Badr; Battle of Uhud; Battle of the Trench following which the Qurayza Jewish tribe was massacred

Not necessarily so. Especially during Muhammad's life in Mecca before the Hijra. (Surah 74; Surah 75; Sahih Bukhari, Book of revelation: hadith #3). Regarding the later part of Islam during Muhammad's life, there was no conquest involved in these three battles you've mentioned. If you would've mentioned the Conquest of Mecca, then I yes, I can agree, Islam established more of a foundation in Arabia, now that it had the Kaaba in its hands.

Only the men of the Banu Qurayza were slaughtered, and even then, technically, the Banu Qurayza were already a part of the confederacy of Medina when that slaughter happened, so no, they weren't conquered because they've agreed to join Muhammad's government to keep the peace in Mecca. The only reason why their men were killed, was because of they've committed treason against the Medinan government. On top of this, this was their own Torah (Deuteronomy 20:13-14) being used on them:

Deuteronomy 20:13-15 New International Version (NIV)

13 When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies.

This was the ruling, given by the chief of the Aws tribe, Sa'd ibn Mu'adh, and not necessarily Muhammad, who would've simply exiled them as he had done with the Jews in Khaibar.

the ; Battle of Mutah & Tabuk in an effort to expand Muslim influence in Arabia).

As with any empire, as soon as a new state arises, usually the dominant power feels threatened or challenged by the advent of a new power in the region. The Byzantines wanting to stop this, sent troops to prepare for an invasion of the new Arabian state. It was only inevitable that clashes between the Muslims and Byzantines would occur. There is again, no conquest involved in these battles. And besides, Tabuk wasn't even fought because the Byzantines didn't show up.

Muhammad personally led Muslims in all of these battles. Jesus, in comparison, has never killed, ordered the killing or called for the conquest of any person, any people or any territory (although the Old Testament does describe the killing of certain people, such as the Amalekites, by the Israelites on order of God - which I believe is less alarming than the very prophet of a religion personally leading military raids on tribes and cities and killing the survivors as Muhammad did).

Jesus was never commanded to raise any army in the first place. His mission was to only bring the Israelites back to the Torah on a spiritual level, and with the Romans being in charge due to the hard heartedness of the Jews, Jesus was not commanded to lead armies. Only to bring the Jews back to believing in Allah.

And the Old Testament has several passages that are even more alarming then what the Quran presents:

19 When the Lord your God gives you rest from all the enemies around you in the land he is giving you to possess as an inheritance, you shall blot out the name of Amalek from under heaven. Do not forget!

3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”

9 Happy is the one who seizes your infants
and dashes them against the rocks.

Now let's compare to what the Quran and hadith say:

The reward of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive to create disorder in the land is only this that they be slain or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on alternate sides, or they be expelled from the land. That shall be a disgrace for them in this world, and in the Hereafter they shall have a great punishment.

And when the forbidden months have passed, kill the idolaters wherever you find them and take them prisoners, and beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent and observe Prayer and pay the Zakat, then leave their way free. Surely, Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful.

And fight in the cause of Allah against those who fight against you, but do not transgress. Surely, Allah loves not the transgressors.

And kill them wherever you meet them and drive them out from where they have driven you out; for persecution is worse than killing. And fight them not in, and near, the Sacred Mosque until they fight you therein. But if they fight you, then fight them: such is the requital for the disbelievers.

And when you meet in regular battle those who disbelieve, smite their necks; and, when you have overcome them, bind fast the fetters — then afterwards either release them as a favour or by taking ransom — until the war lays down its burdens. That is the ordinance. And if Allah had so pleased, He could have punished them Himself, but He has willed that He may try some of you by others. And those who are killed in the way of Allah — He will never render their works vain.

Narrated `Abdullah:
During some of the Ghazawat of the Prophet (ﷺ) a woman was found killed. Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) disapproved the killing of women and children.
حَدَّثَنَا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ يُونُسَ، أَخْبَرَنَا اللَّيْثُ، عَنْ نَافِعٍ، أَنَّ عَبْدَ اللَّهِ ـ رضى الله عنه ـ أَخْبَرَهُ أَنَّ امْرَأَةً وُجِدَتْ فِي بَعْضِ مَغَازِي النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم مَقْتُولَةً، فَأَنْكَرَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَتْلَ النِّسَاءِ وَالصِّبْيَانِ‏.‏
Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 3014
In-book reference : Book 56, Hadith 223
USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 4, Book 52, Hadith 257
(deprecated numbering scheme)

Ibn Umar agrees with Abdullah on this ruling:

Narrated Ibn `Umar:
During some of the Ghazawat of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) a woman was found killed, so Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) forbade the killing of women and children.
حَدَّثَنَا إِسْحَاقُ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ، قَالَ قُلْتُ لأَبِي أُسَامَةَ حَدَّثَكُمْ عُبَيْدُ اللَّهِ، عَنْ نَافِعٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ عُمَرَ ـ رضى الله عنهما ـ قَالَ وُجِدَتِ امْرَأَةٌ مَقْتُولَةً فِي بَعْضِ مَغَازِي رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم، فَنَهَى رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم عَنْ قَتْلِ النِّسَاءِ وَالصِّبْيَانِ‏.‏
Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 3015
In-book reference : Book 56, Hadith 224
USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 4, Book 52, Hadith 258
(deprecated numbering scheme)

So now that we have two reliable hadith from two prominent companions of Muhammad, we can build a strong case that Islam looks down upon killing women and children. Now, there have been some exceptions. As is the case of the Banu Qurazya where I believe a couple women were executed, but still generally the execution applied to all the men of that tribe. There's another narration which I have forgotten where a Jewish woman was executed for throwing a stone on the head of a Muslim, killing them as they were out and about.

Muhammad's military career and role as the primary leader of Muslim raids on non-Muslim cities and peoples is perfectly consistent with Islam's teachings on war, torture, killings and the like:

Sahih Bukhari (52:261) - "[Muhammad] had their hands and feet cut off. Then he ordered for nails which were heated and passed over their eyes, and whey were left in the Harra (i.e. rocky land in Medina). They asked for water, and nobody provided them with water till they died."

Although perhaps you have looked at my post on here while replying, I did give you the reason why Muhammad did this in my previous post (yeah, it can be difficult to look at all of the post especially with our article long debate. so I understand completely both of our situation where miscommunication may arise):

The majority of Arabia, especially the Quraish, Jewish and christian tribes, looking for any opportunity to wipe out Islam and the Muslims would have some people occasionally pretend to convert to Islam, and then apostasize by committing a horrible act. As is the case of the tribe if Ukl: Now before you go on, and tell me that this refutes my defense of Islam, I will be underlining the reasonings for why this punishment was so brutal:

Sahih Bukhari 6802:Narrated Anas:

Some people from the tribe of `Ukl came to the Prophet (ﷺ) and embraced Islam. The climate of Medina did not suit them, so the Prophet (ﷺ) ordered them to go to the (herd of milch) camels of charity and to drink, their milk and urine (as a medicine). They did so, and after they had recovered from their ailment (became healthy) they turned renegades (reverted from Islam) and killed the shepherd of the camels and took the camels away. The Prophet (ﷺ) sent (some people) in their pursuit and so they were (caught and) brought, and the Prophets ordered that their hands and legs should be cut off and that their eyes should be branded with heated pieces of iron, and that their cut hands and legs should not be cauterized, till they die.

حَدَّثَنَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ، حَدَّثَنَا الْوَلِيدُ بْنُ مُسْلِمٍ، حَدَّثَنَا الأَوْزَاعِيُّ، حَدَّثَنِي يَحْيَى بْنُ أَبِي كَثِيرٍ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنِي أَبُو قِلاَبَةَ الْجَرْمِيُّ، عَنْ أَنَسٍ ـ رضى الله عنه ـ قَالَ قَدِمَ عَلَى النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم نَفَرٌ مِنْ عُكْلٍ، فَأَسْلَمُوا فَاجْتَوَوُا الْمَدِينَةَ، فَأَمَرَهُمْ أَنْ يَأْتُوا إِبِلَ الصَّدَقَةِ، فَيَشْرَبُوا مِنْ أَبْوَالِهَا وَألبانها، ففعلوا فصحوا، فارتدوا وقتلوا رعاتها واستاقوا، فبعث في آثارهم فأتي بهم، فقطع أيديهم وأرجلهم وسمل أعينهم، ثم لم يحسمهم حتى ماتوا‏.‏

Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 6802In-book reference : Book 86, Hadith 32USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 8, Book 82, Hadith 794  (deprecated numbering scheme)

Which adds up to the verses in Surah 5:33-34:

The reward of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive to create disorder in the land is only this that they be slain or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on alternate sides, or they be expelled from the land. That shall be a disgrace for them in this world, and in the Hereafter they shall have a great punishment;

So as the hadith shows, there was no conquest involved. It was a situation where a group of six men came and converted to Islam, but then betrayed the Muslims by killing the sheppard, and taking his camels.

Because it doesn't. Forget about the muslims of today man. We're talking about Muhammad and his followers.

Alright, sure. The Islamic terrorists of today aren't very different to Muhammad and his followers at the time.

Actually, yes they are. They're quite aggressive people. Muhammad wasn't like that at all as I've demonstrated in my earlier posts.

No. My faith as a whole does not say that. What are you even on about "different interpretations"? We're not even talking about that dude. Forget about the "different interpretations". We're discussing Muhammad's teachings by itself.

We're discussing Muhammad's teachings by themselves. Yes, correct.
To discuss those teachings, we both have to understand them.
To understand them, we have to interpret what they mean.
I hope you're following me so far.

I hear ya.

But the problem is that Muhammad's teachings in themselves are interpreted differently by a lot of people.

As with political ideologies, it happens with every single faith. It's inevitable due to human nature.

To narrow it down to two big categories, you have those that are gonna interpret violent verses explicitly and you have those that are gonna search for extremely farfetched ways to nuance the violent verses in an attempt to soften the image of Islam.
I can't really make it clearer than that, dude. It's not the most important point of my argumentation, though, so if you're still somehow confused about what I mean, we can move on regarding that.

Oh no, I agree with you for sure. I suppose, I was kinda in a stressed out mood when I made the first couple replies to you. The best way to interpret Islam is to look at the traditions of the companions (or of course, in Ahmadiyya, you look towards Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's (founder of the community) commentaries on Islamic traditions as we believe him to be the Messiah.

To refute your "different interpretations" and "moderate Muslims" nonsense, the Quran in of itself, prescribed warfare because of oppression and endless persecution by the pagan tribes:



Whether you willfully ignore this or not, does not refute the fact that Islamic warfare conducted by Muhammad was mostly defensive, and if it was offensive, it was to end a threats to the Muslims. A perfectly reasonable position. Nothing like ISIS.

Allow me to debunk the ridiculous myth that Muhammad and his followers were "threatened".
First of all, before Islam, Mecca was multireligious and contained Pagans, Jews, Christians, and polytheists.

As far as I know, there weren't any Jews or Christians in Mecca. Only pagans of various tribes and sunnahs. Though, I believe Jewish and Christian traders did come to gatherings in Mecca to trade with the pagans.

Even according to Muslim historians, Muhammad's preaching was relatively tolerated by Meccans until he began insulting other religions and thus disrespecting the Meccan practice of religious tolerance.

When the apostle openly displayed Islam as Allah ordered him, his people did not withdraw or turn against him, so far as I have heard, until he spoke disparagingly of their gods. When he did that, they took great offence and resolved unanimously to treat him as an enemy. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 167), "[Muhammad] declared Islam publicly to his fellow tribesmen. When he did so, they did not withdraw from him or reject him in any way, as far as I have heard, until he spoke of their gods and denounced them." (al-Tabari Vol.VI, p.93)

[The Meccans] said they had never known anything like the trouble they had endured from this fellow. He had declared their mode of life foolish, insulted their forefathers, reviled their religion, divided the community and cursed their gods (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 183)."We [the Meccans] have never seen the like of what we have endured from this man [Muhammad]. He has derided our traditional values, abused our forefathers, reviled our religion, caused division among us, and insulted our gods. We have endured a great deal from him." (al-Tabari, Vol.VI p.101)

When a prophet comes, their duty is to bring people back to God, according to the Quran. Usually when a prophet brings a new teaching or rather restores an old teaching, usually the majority at the time take offense. Since you cite Jesus as a reference and comparison to Muhammad, using your logic, Jesus disrespected the traditions of the Jews because he called them out for their hypocrisy and false traditions. Muhammad was no different. Same with Moses.

Here is an example of what Jesus did:

Jesus Rejected at Nazareth
14 Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and news about him spread through the whole countryside.
15 He was teaching in their synagogues, and everyone praised him.
16 He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read,
17 and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:
18 “The Spirit of the Lord is on me,because he has anointed meto proclaim good news to the poor.He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisonersand recovery of sight for the blind,to set the oppressed free,
19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”
20 Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him.
21 He began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”
22 All spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his lips. “Isn’t this Joseph’s son?” they asked.
23 Jesus said to them, “Surely you will quote this proverb to me: ‘Physician, heal yourself!’ And you will tell me, ‘Do here in your hometown what we have heard that you did in Capernaum.’ ”
24 “Truly I tell you,” he continued, “no prophet is accepted in his hometown.
25 I assure you that there were many widows in Israel in Elijah’s time, when the sky was shut for three and a half years and there was a severe famine throughout the land.
26 Yet Elijah was not sent to any of them, but to a widow in Zarephath in the region of Sidon.
27 And there were many in Israel with leprosyin the time of Elisha the prophet, yet not one of them was cleansed—only Naaman the Syrian.”
28 All the people in the synagogue were furious when they heard this.
29 They got up, drove him out of the town, and took him to the brow of the hill on which the town was built, in order to throw him off the cliff.
30 But he walked right through the crowd and went on his way.

He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.

I mean, the above words pretty much indicate that Jesus too had some pretty harsh words for the people who he was talking to.

Though, I wouldn't necessarily say that Muhammad insulted Mecca's forefathers? More like, denounced them as false and mislead? Insulting them just seems a bit off. I'll have to look up the Arabic behind this translation if I'm able to? The sirat, The Life and Character of the Seal of Prophets by Ahmadi scholar, Mirza Bashir Ahmad (which I will use for my defense of Muhammad), does cite Tabari as a source for where he got his information from to put into his sirat, however, alongside various others, and hadith.

But back to the Meccans, they still chose to react with hostility to Muhammad.

As matter of fact, non-Muslim and Christian scholar, Sir William Muir, as cited by Mirza Bashir Ahmad in page 190 in the first volume of his sirat, says regarding the Quraish chieftains' reactions to Muhammad's preaching of Tawhid (Oneness of Allah):

The new doctrine must be crushed, and its followers forced to abandon it. By
degrees the persecution grew hot.

If this in itself isn't threatening enough, then there's more: Biographer Abu Muhammad 'Abdul-Malik bin Hashim narrates that the Quraish, failing to stop Muhammad, went to his uncle, Abu Talib to request him to stop Muhammad:

You are revered amongst our people. For this reason we request you to prohibit your nephew from the propogation of this new religion, or relinquish your protection of him and leave us and leave him that we may judge between ourselves.

Then after some further revelation of Quranic verses:

“Now the matter has reached its limit and we are referred to as impure, foul,
the worst of creation, foolish, and the children of Satan. Our gods are referred
to as the fuel of hell and our ancestors are described as those who think not.
Therefore, we can bear no more, and if you cannot renounce your protection of
him, then we are also compelled, for we shall fight you, until one party of the two is destroyed.”

“O my nephew! Your words have now truly enflamed the people and it is nigh
that they destroy you and me as well. You have declared their wise men foolish;
their ancestors have been described as Sharrul-Bariyyah. Their venerable
gods have been named the firewood of hell and Waqūdun-Nār1
, and they
themselves have been ascribed impure and foul. I tell you in good faith that
you should restrain your tongue from such offensive language and forsake this
undertaking, for I have not the power to fight all the people.”

Which is in agreement to the sources you cited from Tabari (which like I said, the sirat does cite Tabari as a source), though again, as I will show below, Muhammad did not insult the Meccans religion or their forefathers. Muhammad wasn't a malicious man. He was generally admired by the Quraish before he claimed prophethood; being a businessman for his uncle, Abu Talib.

This narration put forward by Mirza Bashir Ahmad seems to confirm my skepticism of the translation (or perhaps the way the narration is) of Tabari:

Muhammad said in reply:

“This is not abusive language, rather it is the truth asserted upon its correct
place, and it is for this purpose that I have been commissioned, that I may
show them their evils and invite them towards the right path. If I must die in
this cause, I delightedly accept my fate. My life is devoted in this cause, and I
shall not abstain from the expression of the truth by fear of death. O Uncle! If
you are worried on account of your weakness and distress, then by all means
relinquish your protection of me. I shall never refrain from the conveyance of
divine injunctions. By God! If these people put the sun on my one hand and the
moon upon the other, even then I shall not refrain from the fulfillment of my
responsibility. I shall continue my work until God completes it or I die in this
endeavour.”

These above narrations cited by Mirza Bashir Ahmad is taken from Izālah-e-Auhām, By Ḥaḍrat Mirzā Ghulām Aḥmad, Rūhānī
Khazā’in, Volume 3, pp. 110-111, As-Sīratun-Nabawiyyah, By Abū Muḥammad ‘Abdul-Malik bin Hishām, pp. 200-201, Bābu Mubādāti
Rasūlillāhisa Qaumahū wa mā kāna minhu, pp. 200-201, Dārul-Kutubil-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut, Lebanon,
First Edition (2001), and Sharḥul-‘Allāmatiz-Zarqānī ‘alal-Mawāhibil-Ladunniyyah, By Muḥammad bin ‘Abdul-Bāqī AzZarqānī,
Dārul-Kutubil-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut, Lebanon, First Edition (1996).

So these above narrations prove that Muhammad never started hostilities nor did he have malicious intentions.

The sole source of the hostility of the Meccans against Islam and Muhammad is Muhammad's actions and hostile teachings.

Even if Islamic warfare was "mostly" defensive - a gross overstatement - it often ended up in needless bloodshed (e.g. the massacre of the Qurayza Jewish tribe, which I mentioned earlier).

Right, and I did mention that i was a punishment for their treason against the Medinan government for cooperation with the Quraish.

By the end of Muhammad's life, almost all of Arabia had become Muslim following the Islamic conquests. Talk about defensive warfare. Defense is securing what you have, not conquering for the sake of revenge.

Slightly exaggerated. Because many tribes also willingly converted to Islam without compulsion due to being impressed by the signs of Muhammad. Though yes, as proven by the first fitnah during the reign of Abu Bakr, some converted for political reasons.

And what defines "a threat to Muslims"?

Most of Arabia being against Muhammad, and wanting to put an end to Islam by forcing the Muslims to revert back to paganism or be slain by the sword?

Once again, that's very vague.

Not really.

Were the Qurayza Jews a threat to the Muslims?

I mean, if you commit treason by supporting the Quraish's large army to crush the Medinan government when the Banu Qurayza joined it, alongside the majority of Medina having agreed to make Muhammad ruler to resolve disputes between their tribes, yes.

Were the Christians at Muta & Tabuk that Muhammad tried to conquer a threat to the Muslims?

Again. No conquest involved. It was a defense against large Byzantine Armies sent by Heraclitus himself. When a dominant power feels threatening by a new power, it is inevitable that they're going to try their best to protect their interests. Besides the point, the Ghassanids executed the ambassador that Muhammad sent, so Muhammad sent his armies to punish these tribes, when the clash with the Byzantines occurred.

But Tabuk was for sure, an attempt to repel a potential Byzantine invasion, though, like I said, no battle was fought, and everyone returned home.

To prove this isn't "moderate Westernized Muslims" saying that Islamic warfare was defensive, I have proof from ancient and historically significant Islamic scholar, Ibn Kathir, a commentator of the Quran that is often, ironically used by those who oppose Islam to prove that Jihad is prescribed against all non-Muslims, when in reality, only against those who have wronged them. This tafsir by Ibn Kathir refutes their claims:

Ibn Kathir: Allah prescribed Jihad at an appropriate time, because when they were in Makkah, the idolators outnumbered them by more than ten to one. Were they to engage in fighting at that time, the results would have been disastrous. When the idolators went to extremes to persecute Muslims, to expel the Prophet and resolving to kill him; when they sent his Companions into exile here and there, so that some went to Ethiopia and others went to Al-Madinah; when they settled in Al-Madinah and the Messenger of Allah joined them there, and they gathered around him and lent him their support, and they had a place where Islam prevailed, and a stronghold to which they could retreat; then Allah prescribed Jihad against the enemy, and this was the first Ayah to be revealed for it.

See what I said above. Muhammad and his followers were not persecuted by the Meccans until they began the hostilities themselves.

So you're saying that Meccan brutal persecution of the Muslims was justified?

I'm no expert on the subject, but I'm quite sure prison-like facilities for troublemakers have existed since the dawn of civilisation. And either way, killing someone because you have nowhere to lock them up is a ridiculous excuse.
Things were done differently at the time, that's fair. Too bad a lot of Muslims don't think like you do and don't hesitate to kill people for the same reasons. And I think that despite the time, people still had a sense of justice and scale and didn't just kill any "criminal" (under whatever standards they followed) indiscriminately...

It wasn't how it worked in ancient Arabia.


Sadly, yes. Islam, unfortunately has its fanatics in the modern day. Ironically, they've, especially their mullahs, become the new Meccan chiefs.


Actually, many Arabian tribes were pretty brutal themselves. Even before Muhammad arrived. We both know that human nature tends to be tribalistic right?

Well, check this out: Arabia basically was tribalism on steroids. They were like madmen. People would go to war over the stupidest of things:

Due to ignorance and the unnecessary fury of the Arabs, fighting
would erupt upon the pettiest of matters. It is apparent through history that
upon certain instances, two tribes would fall into a vehement war over a small
incident and then gradually various other tribes would also become involved,
due to which murder and bloodshed would continue for years upon years. The
instance mentioned below is a minor page in the history of Arabia.
To the end of the fifth century A.D., Kulaib bin Rabī‘ah was a very
powerful and influential ruler who was the chieftain of the Banū Taghlib which
inhabited the north east of Arabia. Ḥalīlah bint Murrah, the wife of Kulaib,
belonged to the Banū Bakr bin Wā’il. Ḥalīlah had a brother named Jassās who
lived with his maternal aunt named Basūs. It so happened that a person named
Sa‘d visited Basūs and stayed with her as a guest. He owned a camel named
Sarāb, which on account of Sa‘d and Kulaib’s relationship, would graze in the
grazing ground of Kulaib along with Jassās’ camels.
One day, coincidentally, Kulaib passed under a tree and heard the
sound of a bird from upon a tree. He noticed that a bird had built a nest in
the tree and laid some eggs. Kulaib looked towards the bird in his ‘supremely
Bedouin’ manner and said, “Fear not, I shall protect you”. The next day, when
Kulaib passed by the same place, he noticed that the eggs had fallen down from
the tree and had been trampled on by the feet of some animal, and the bird was
making a sound full of extreme grief. Kulaib recalled his statement from the
previous day, and it was as if his eyes gorged of blood in extreme rage. When he
glanced here and there, he noticed that Sa‘d’s camel was grazing nearby. Kulaib
thought to himself that most definitely it is this camel that has destroyed these
eggs, and overtaken by anger he came to his brother-in-law Jassās and said,
“Look here Jassās! At this time my mind entertains a particular thought, if I am assured
of this thought I shall do something. Anyhow, the camel of Sa‘d had better not pasture
in this area again with this herd.” Upon hearing this, Jassās, whose veins also
flowed of Arab-Bedouin blood, responded, “This camel belongs to our guest, where
my camels graze, his shall also graze.” “Fine”, answered Kulaib, “If I see this camel
grazing here again, I shall strike its breast with an arrow and kill it.” “If you do such a
thing,” retorted Jassās, “I also swear by the idols of Wā’il that I shall myself penetrate
thy breast with a spear.” Upon this, Jassās departed and Kulaib returned home in
a state of immense fury and began to say to his wife Ḥalīlah, “Are you aware of
any man who dare defend his neighbour against me?” She responded, “There are none
who dare it, except my brother Jassās. If he says something he shall most definitely fulfill
it.”
After this, Ḥalīlah fervently attempted to settle this dispute but was
unsuccessful in doing so. Hence, one day Kulaib’s camels were drinking water,
and coincidentally Jassās brought his camels as well and even more so, Sa‘d’s
camel was separated from its herd and began to drink water with Kulaib’s
herd. Kulaib laid eyes on this camel and thought that Jassās had intentionally
released this camel. He took hold of his bow and drove an arrow into its breast
which hit its target perfectly. Sa‘d’s camel fled tossing and turning in agony –
lamenting in pain. It reached the doorstep of Jassās’ maternal aunt Basūs and
fell to the ground. When Basūs witnessed this sight she began to beat her head
and shrieked, “Shame! Shame! We have been disgraced and our guest’s camel has
been killed!” When Jassās heard these words, his jealousy and honour pierced

and he murdered Kilaib in his rage. The murder of Kulaib instigated a wild
fire amongst the Banū Taghlib, and in the retribution of their chieftain, they
stood up unanimously. Due to this, the tribes of the Taghlib and Banū Bakr
were engaged in such intense violence and bloodshed that I seek the refuge
of God. At last, after forty years of fighting, when both tribes were gradually
weakened, the king of the state of Ḥīrah named Mundhir Thālith reconciled
these two tribes. Historically this war is known as the ‘Battle of Basūs’.

It's a long read, but you get the point, right? Hence, there wasn't a prison system in Arabia. But tribes would rather, go to war if someone commits a crime or any other petty thing. So, when the Muslims punished their enemies, it was only to the extent of the harm that the enemies hurt the Muslims. But it also offers patience and forgiveness.

Quran 16:127:

And if you desire to punish the oppressors, then punish them to the extent to which you have been wronged; but if you show patience, then, surely, that is best for those who are patient.

Regarding captives (8:71): O Prophet, say to the captives who are in your hands, ‘If Allah knows any good in your hearts, He will give you better than that which has been taken from you, and will forgive you. And Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful.’

There's even a hadith regarding Muhammad disapproving of killing captives unreasonably:

Narrated Salim's father:
The Prophet (ﷺ) sent Khalid bin Al-Walid to the tribe of Jadhima and Khalid invited them to Islam but they could not express themselves by saying, "Aslamna (i.e. we have embraced Islam)," but they started saying "Saba'na! Saba'na (i.e. we have come out of one religion to another)." Khalid kept on killing (some of) them and taking (some of) them as captives and gave every one of us his Captive. When there came the day then Khalid ordered that each man (i.e. Muslim soldier) should kill his captive, I said, "By Allah, I will not kill my captive, and none of my companions will kill his captive." When we reached the Prophet, we mentioned to him the whole story. On that, the Prophet (ﷺ) raised both his hands and said twice, "O Allah! I am free from what Khalid has done."
حَدَّثَنِي مَحْمُودٌ، حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الرَّزَّاقِ، أَخْبَرَنَا مَعْمَرٌ، وَحَدَّثَنِي نُعَيْمٌ، أَخْبَرَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ، أَخْبَرَنَا مَعْمَرٌ، عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ، عَنْ سَالِمٍ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، قَالَ بَعَثَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم خَالِدَ بْنَ الْوَلِيدِ إِلَى بَنِي جَذِيمَةَ، فَدَعَاهُمْ إِلَى الإِسْلاَمِ فَلَمْ يُحْسِنُوا أَنْ يَقُولُوا أَسْلَمْنَا‏.‏ فَجَعَلُوا يَقُولُونَ صَبَأْنَا، صَبَأْنَا‏.‏ فَجَعَلَ خَالِدٌ يَقْتُلُ مِنْهُمْ وَيَأْسِرُ، وَدَفَعَ إِلَى كُلِّ رَجُلٍ مِنَّا أَسِيرَهُ، حَتَّى إِذَا كَانَ يَوْمٌ أَمَرَ خَالِدٌ أَنْ يَقْتُلَ كُلُّ رَجُلٍ مِنَّا أَسِيرَهُ فَقُلْتُ وَاللَّهِ لاَ أَقْتُلُ أَسِيرِي، وَلاَ يَقْتُلُ رَجُلٌ مِنْ أَصْحَابِي أَسِيرَهُ، حَتَّى قَدِمْنَا عَلَى النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَذَكَرْنَاهُ، فَرَفَعَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَدَهُ فَقَالَ ‏ "‏ اللَّهُمَّ إِنِّي أَبْرَأُ إِلَيْكَ مِمَّا صَنَعَ خَالِدٌ ‏"‏‏.‏ مَرَّتَيْنِ‏.‏
Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 4339
In-book reference : Book 64, Hadith 368
USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 5, Book 59, Hadith 628
(deprecated numbering scheme)

Tell me precisely which tribes (1) were hostile towards Muslims; (2) were hostile towards them simply because they were Muslims rather than because Muslims began the hostilities.

Answer 1 as I have proven with the various reliable sources that I have quoted.

Once again, what I said above disproves that those measures were defensive.

And you were proven wrong in the more detailed sources I've provided that explained the sources you provided.

"Anyone who causes disorder in the land"...that the Muslims forcibly conquered.

Or that the tribes agreed to join upon their willful conversion to Islam.

"Openly hostile to the Muslim community"...that was the first to challenge Mecca's tradition of religious tolerance.

But not being tolerant of new teachings.

I'm not rejecting them, but I do find them grossly biased. I'm not refuting history - history, even Muslim historians thereof, acknowledges that nobody was hostile to Islam before Islam began being hostile to everybody.

Not really considering that we have both stated and even quoted that they are the most reliable sources of Islamic history. Plus, in this post, I cited William Muir, a non-Muslim, and who was a critic of Islam as proof of how unjust the Meccans were. Even if they were biased, it does not refute the fact that they are reliable, which, I'm sure you can agree with me on.

So what you're essentially saying, correct me if I'm wrong, is that "reverting back to Judaism", and thus exercising your freedom of conscience and of religion, is "encouraging disorder in the land"?

I didn't say that was the cause alone. Rather, he had to have done something quite terrible in order for him to get the execution that he had. After a while, sometimes, even verbally attacking Muhammad was grounds for execution because it riled up the hostile enemies against Muhammad.

"That's how things worked back in the day", you say. No, not for everybody. Many nations, cities and territories managed to coexist despite the religious differences of the people constituting them (the prime example of that ironically being Mecca), but this wasn't the case of Muslim-conquered Arabia.

Right, and I've stated that the majority of Arabia (whether sincere or not), have agreed to join Muhammad and to observe the laws of Shariah, and anyone who decided to rebel (as is the case of Abu Bakr's reign), were crushed.

Practicing your freedom of conscience doesn't equal causing disorder. That's a totalitarian way of seeing things. Causing disorder would be what Muhammad did in Mecca; begin to curse other religions with no regards for the tradition of religious tolerance.

Not that in itself, but the fact that they abuse Muhammad and trying to rile up people.

Sure, some elements of authoritarianism were used. It's no different than hapaes corpus in war time.

No, he wasn't trying to stir up disorder. He didn't kill people or torture people in that for simply disagreeing with him like the Quraish did with his followers when he was in Mecca.

Comparing the killing of a random Jew, who just wanted to follow the religion he believed was true (which doesn't disrupt anything nor cause any disorder by any reasonable standards), to the execution of Timothy McVeigh who committed a terror attack which killed hundreds of people is grotesque.

Due to time running out for me in real life, I'll have to look up this hadith at some other time, and then provide the context for why it was done. But when I mentioned Timothy McVeigh, I used him in comparison as a general reference regarding treason against the Islamic State.

"Making peace" can be interpreted in a lot of different ways. "Making peace" could be anything from just stopping to oppose Islam while retaining your personal beliefs and way of life; to submitting to Islam and giving up your personal beliefs because you know you'll be killed if you don't.
Judging from the context, it seems to me that "making peace" is closer to the latter option.

Why not both as history shows?

As I said, practicing your freedom =/= causing disorder.

I'm also curious to hear you explain how anyone can convert "sincerely" if they know they're gonna die if they don't.

It's all up to the individual. No one is going to sincerely convert through compulsion.

That alone is absurd enough to discredit the religion as a whole, sincerely.

No it doesn't as I've shown above.

Exactly. Killing non-Muslims, though, is fine because they "spread disorder in the land". Lol. Seriously, are you still trying to defend that there's nothing wrong with Islamic teachings on apostasy and war or are you admitting that it's based on needless violence?

No. I'm not admitting anything. I've shown you many times, why it was so. So no need to explain it here.

What Islam considers "moral". Since you're a Muslim, I'm gonna assume you agree with every moral rule that Islam presents. Would you still follow those if you didn't believe in God?

No because none of that comes without belief and trust in God. I never believed in them before I converted to Islam 2 and a half years ago.

I'd certainly describe myself as right-wing, but opposition to Islam isn't restricted to the right-wing or the far-right. I've met quite a lot of left-wing people that also vehemently disagree with Islamic teachings. Truth be told, if everyone was sufficiently informed, an overwhelming majority of people in Europe would be opposed to Islam.

I never said the left doesn't oppose Islam either. I just think the right is more extreme about it. Though as you've demonstrated, you're not like the rest of the right, so we're all good on this part of the subject.

Well, duh. You're a Muslim, so I don't expect you to agree with me. But no, I don't hate Muslims as long as they don't act upon what their faith tells them to do, which is - thankfully - most Muslims in Europe.

And we Ahmadis believe theocracy to be a thing of the past.

I could read the Qur'an as a whole, but that wouldn't change my mind at all. If anything, it'd reinforce my views. And I know about the historical context.

Well, I'd hope you'd know more after the sources I provided you.

Senseless comparisons, except for the LRA. Burma doesn't kill Muslims in the name of Buddhism; Pol Pot didn't kill 1/3 of his people in the name of Atheism; Hitler didn't kill 6 million Jews in the name of Christianity (yes, Hitler was a Christian, contrary to popular belief); etc.

Islamic terrorists, however, do kill in the name of Islam.

Not really. They may have not done it in the name of atheism or Christianity, but they have in the name of communism and Aryan supremacy.

No, I'm not prejudiced against Islam either. As I've said, I only formed a conclusion on this religion based on what I read - which is a lot on both sides of the spectrum, pro-Islam and anti-Islam. I'm not hanging around a group of people that have mislead you, but thanks for worrying, and even if it was the case, I'm better off hanging around people that aren't cool with unlawful murder and other barbaric teachings rather than with Islamists.

Well, I'm not an Islamist so you don't have to worry about me. Just someone who does preaching and defends their faith. Especially the history of Muhammad and his Khalifas (the Rashiduns).

[Jolthig]

Given the recent attacks in Sri Lanka, I want to discuss what are the circumstances that led to the moral downfall of any radical in Sri Lanka and surrounding nations. Whether they're Muslim, hindu or Buddhist.

Lack of education for sure plays a role.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Correct, which is why we tend to have less of an issue killing the "other".
How do you determine your god is good? Is your god's morality one of the reasons you believe in a god?

My ideas about morality are a little much to get into, but here goes the basics.

I generally hold to virtue ethics, I think morality can be arrived at by thinking about our idea of what constitutes a "good person", and what a good person would do. That's incredibly vague, yes, but I think our ideas on what is good are similar enough that we would have broad agreement on most of it just by thinking about it for a bit. I also think though, that God, in His incarnation as Christ, being the perfect man, gives us a perfect example of a "good person", and that thus, we can think about morality in terms of whether we are emulating Christ's example. That example, being one of compassion for others. As such, moral imperatives can be given as "A loving person would do X" or "A loving person would not do X." I don't think you have to get too much into it because I think that, while we can argue about a lot of things with that, we would probably come to broad agreement as to what constitutes being a loving person.

From the Higher Power thread

[Jolthig]

My ideas about morality are a little much to get into, but here goes the basics.

I generally hold to virtue ethics, I think morality can be arrived at by thinking about our idea of what constitutes a "good person", and what a good person would do. That's incredibly vague, yes, but I think our ideas on what is good are similar enough that we would have broad agreement on most of it just by thinking about it for a bit. I also think though, that God, in His incarnation as Christ, being the perfect man, gives us a perfect example of a "good person", and that thus, we can think about morality in terms of whether we are emulating Christ's example. That example, being one of compassion for others. As such, moral imperatives can be given as "A loving person would do X" or "A loving person would not do X." I don't think you have to get too much into it because I think that, while we can argue about a lot of things with that, we would probably come to broad agreement as to what constitutes being a loving person.

From the Higher Power thread

Interestingly enough, we Muslims have a similar view regarding Muhammad. Being the perfect man.

North German Realm and myself may debate on this soon.

[Bala Mantre]

Morality is the acception of dealing with the task and putting it forward with mercy

[Agend]

Freidrich Neitzche!

[Albrenia]

Morality is not digging up dead topics.