Were The Crusades Justified? - Page 14 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Were The Crusades Justified?

1. Yes, The Crusades Were Justified.
11
35%
2. No, The Crusades Were Not Justified.
12
39%
3. Neither, Both Sides Were Equally Justified or Not-Justified.
4
13%
4. Other.
4
13%
#14945652
@Rich

Rich, you literally have no idea what you're talking about and you're too young to be acting like some 90 year old grandpa with Alzheimer's. Please don't spread more misinformation than there already is.
#14945658
Oxymandias wrote:There are no reports of such a letter sent to the Emperor (which would make no sense when you consider that early Muslims never conquered Constantinople so such a letter should still exist somewhere in it's official records) and there are no Sassanid sources which confirm that there was a letter sent to Khosrau II.

Based on how little evidence there is to corroborate the Islamic claim that letters were sent to both the Byzantine Emperor and Khosrau II, we can only assume that these are lies and only meant to rile up and motivate Mohammad's soldiers to do some conquering. This is especially clear when you consider that the Quran was oral at the time and these Surahs would be given in speeches. This does not represent any of their motivations at all since this is just propaganda.

Furthermore, Mohammad was not lying about his intentions (you have to realize that there is a distinction here since that would be implying that Muslims are all in on this which makes doesn't add up with everything we know about this period) since he never stated them. You don't state your intentions when you're a fucking religious and political leader since that is suicide. All he literally did was lie about some letters he sent to Khosrau and the Emperor which is just propaganda and not lying about their intentions.

If you think this is lying about intentions, you certainly don't know what intentions are.

If it is true the letters no longer exist then that is hardly proof that they were never sent. According to the muslim testimony Khosrau tore up his letter and his empire and government buildings were sacked and taken over so likely most of any related records perished. Hericlius' letter had a better chance of survival because it seems it was not immediately destroyed but if the letter was kept along with any related records it would have to survive 1400 years and the sacking Constantinople by both crusaders and seljuk turks. For one slip of paper that is a tall order.

It seems you are implying that Mo was a false prophet then? You believe he was just an ordinary expansionist warlord pretending to be a prophet for propaganda purposes? That may be however his followers to this day do not follow his secret intentions known only to you but by his actual example and his actual words. Islam isn't what you pretend it is, it is what muslims read in their books and how they act on it.
#14945669
@SolarCross

If it is true the letters no longer exist then that is hardly proof that they were never sent. According to the muslim testimony Khosrau tore up his letter and his empire and government buildings were sacked and taken over so likely most of any related records perished. Hericlius' letter had a better chance of survival because it seems it was not immediately destroyed but if the letter was kept along with any related records it would have to survive 1400 years and the sacking Constantinople by both crusaders and seljuk turks. For one slip of paper that is a tall order.


Except you out of all people should know that Islamic accounts aren't to be taken to be true. If that was the case, then I assume that you'll also believe that Mohammad was a prophet then given that Islamic accounts also claim that. If you're going to take Islamic accounts as true, then you would certainly believe that as well. Furthermore, you would also believe that Mohammad owned a pet cat and that he loved all animals. If you only believe what Muslims say about very specific things you are cherry-picking. If you see that certain Islamic accounts are true, then all of them are true.

We still have Byzantine records from nearly 1600 years ago. 1400 years ago certainly aren't enough. Crusaders never destroyed the royal records, Seljuk Turks never touched Constantinople, and the Ottomans looked for such a letter but couldn't find it. It would make no sense for an Islamic power to burn the paper when it is such a clear confirmation of their fate.

It seems you are implying that Mo was a false prophet then? You believe he was just an ordinary expansionist warlord pretending to be a prophet for propaganda purposes? That may be however his followers to this day do not follow his secret intentions known only to you but by his actual example and his actual words. Islam isn't what you pretend it is, it is what muslims read in their books and how they act on it.


1. I never said he was a warlord and he couldn't have been given that he literally does not fit within the definition of a warlord. I discussed this with @annatar1914 and you'll find that even he does not have a suitable argument for this information. You disagree with me, you disagree with the fucking English language.

2. A political leader isn't a warlord [Bulaba edit: Rule 2 removed].

3. Yes, he is a false prophet just as Jesus was. He was a political and religious figure, just like Jesus was. Hell, there is more proof that Jesus was a political figure when you consider that crucifixion was a form of death Rome gave to only people who have threatened to endanger Rome and most of the victims of crucifixion were political leaders.

4. Islam is a religion. Mohammad didn't create Islam to conquer the Byzantines or Sassanids and this is clear when you consider that he literally denounced any possibility of power by opposing the Quraish, is own tribe and one of the most powerful in Arabia. If he wanted power, he could use the power he already had but he didn't. He literally started his own religion which everyone in the region opposed and abandoned the power he already had just so he could spread his own philosophy. This is not a guy who just created a religion for propaganda purposes since there would be no need for such a religion in the first place.

Islam started off as a criticism of Nestorianism and eventually evolved into it's own religion with the capability to reform Arabian society as a whole. 7th century Arabia was pretty fucked up and pretty much everyone knew it but the powers that be at the time benefited from the status quo. People were starting to abandon traditional pagan gods and had no direction or idea what to believe in next. Mohammad was one of the people that offered a solution.

5. If Islam is what Muslims read in the Quran and how they act upon it then clearly you cannot have the homogenized perspective you have on Muslims now. How can you possibly think there is only one interpretation of the Quran that every Muslim follows and still say that Islam is whatever individual Muslims think it says? Aren't you admitting that, since there is no centralized authority on Islam, anyone can believe in anything they want since it's there understanding of it? Clearly this kicks you in the ass if your entire argument revolves around the idea that Muslims are united.
#14945753
Oxymandias wrote:Except you out of all people should know that Islamic accounts aren't to be taken to be true. If that was the case, then I assume that you'll also believe that Mohammad was a prophet then given that Islamic accounts also claim that. If you're going to take Islamic accounts as true, then you would certainly believe that as well. Furthermore, you would also believe that Mohammad owned a pet cat and that he loved all animals. If you only believe what Muslims say about very specific things you are cherry-picking. If you see that certain Islamic accounts are true, then all of them are true.

No, one account being true does not make them all true, that's a fallacy. That Mo sent some letters to the neighbouring emperors demanding they accept him as a prophet is pretty believable though. Whether he was real prophet or not, he clearly thought he was, and that is exactly the kind of daft thing people do when they maxed out on their own supposed divinity. I think the remarkable thing about the hadith is that there is very little in it that seems particularly unbelievable. There is some spin though, for example when Mo tells some guys to drink camel piss to cure their stomach ache, the hadith says they got better then drove off mo's camels in a rage for which Mo had them tortured to death. It seems pretty clear the camel piss cure didn't in fact make them better or else they would not have tried to get revenge on mo by attacking his camels.

Oxymandias wrote:We still have Byzantine records from nearly 1600 years ago. 1400 years ago certainly aren't enough. Crusaders never destroyed the royal records, Seljuk Turks never touched Constantinople, and the Ottomans looked for such a letter but couldn't find it. It would make no sense for an Islamic power to burn the paper when it is such a clear confirmation of their fate.

Never mind the sacking, just keeping a single piece of paper preserved and not lost amongst hundreds of thousands of pieces of paper over more than a 1000 years would be an amazing feat in itself. Sorry but there is no possibility that the absence of the letter being evident now after 1400 years is proof that it was never sent.

Oxymandias wrote:1. I never said he was a warlord and he couldn't have been given that he literally does not fit within the definition of a warlord. I discussed this with @annatar1914 and you'll find that even he does not have a suitable argument for this information. You disagree with me, you disagree with the fucking English language.

2. A political leader isn't a warlord [Bulaba edit: Rule 2 removed].

A leader or employer of fighting men in a military campaign can be fairly called a warlord. Moreover he committed more than a few actual atrocities with those fighting men such as the massacres of the jewish tribes so even by the most negative connotations he was still a warlord.

Oxymandias wrote:3. Yes, he is a false prophet just as Jesus was. He was a political and religious figure, just like Jesus was. Hell, there is more proof that Jesus was a political figure when you consider that crucifixion was a form of death Rome gave to only people who have threatened to endanger Rome and most of the victims of crucifixion were political leaders.

Regardless of whether Mo was a false prophet, can we at least agree that his followers, past and present, believe he is the real deal and that what they do, they do following his example and his teaching?

Oxymandias wrote:4. Islam is a religion. Mohammad didn't create Islam to conquer the Byzantines or Sassanids and this is clear when you consider that he literally denounced any possibility of power by opposing the Quraish, is own tribe and one of the most powerful in Arabia. If he wanted power, he could use the power he already had but he didn't. He literally started his own religion which everyone in the region opposed and abandoned the power he already had just so he could spread his own philosophy. This is not a guy who just created a religion for propaganda purposes since there would be no need for such a religion in the first place.

He may have been possessed by a djinn of some kind. He seems to have started out trying to posture himself as something like a jewish prophet but when the jews of medina realised he was just an ignorant crazy person his latent mean streak grew to epic proportions. His followers seem to take on his possession and take into themselves his cruel aggression, creating a tidal wave of semi-human malevolence which still lashes about today.

Oxymandias wrote:Islam started off as a criticism of Nestorianism and eventually evolved into it's own religion with the capability to reform Arabian society as a whole. 7th century Arabia was pretty fucked up and pretty much everyone knew it but the powers that be at the time benefited from the status quo. People were starting to abandon traditional pagan gods and had no direction or idea what to believe in next. Mohammad was one of the people that offered a solution.

That's your personal counter factual imagining. Mo wasn't criticising Nestorianism, or judaism for that matter, he was too ignorant of either to know how to do that. He was simply imitating in his own mean crazy way Torah prophets and became psychopathic when real scholars laughed at his posturing.

Oxymandias wrote:5. If Islam is what Muslims read in the Quran and how they act upon it then clearly you cannot have the homogenized perspective you have on Muslims now. How can you possibly think there is only one interpretation of the Quran that every Muslim follows and still say that Islam is whatever individual Muslims think it says? Aren't you admitting that, since there is no centralized authority on Islam, anyone can believe in anything they want since it's there understanding of it? Clearly this kicks you in the ass if your entire argument revolves around the idea that Muslims are united.

There is some variety in Islam, I never said there wasn't, but considering how numerous its followers and how spread across the world it is, it isn't that diverse. I guess the reason for that is that Islam's texts are pretty well preserved and well read, that and the very severe punishments for getting it a bit wrong. The centralised authority is Mo himself as he lives on in the Quran and Hadith.
#14945758
@SolarCross

No, one account being true does not make them all true, that's a fallacy. That Mo sent some letters to the neighbouring emperors demanding they accept him as a prophet is pretty believable though. Whether he was real prophet or not, he clearly thought he was, and that is exactly the kind of daft thing people do when they maxed out on their own supposed divinity.


Just because it seems reasonable to you doesn't mean that it actually happened. By stating that one thing in the Quran is true you effectively legitimatize everything else within it. Furthermore, we have no evidence of such a thing despite the fact that we should according to the Quran.

I think the remarkable thing about the hadith is that there is very little in it that seems particularly unbelievable. There is some spin though, for example when Mo tells some guys to drink camel piss to cure their stomach ache, the hadith says they got better then drove off mo's camels in a rage for which Mo had them tortured to death. It seems pretty clear the camel piss cure didn't in fact make them better or else they would not have tried to get revenge on mo by attacking his camels.


Except the hadiths were written after Muhammads death and it stands to reason that many of them are false. It doesn't matter how down-to-earth they seem, it doesn't stop them from being false. I can say that, in Iran, it rained yesterday. The statement itself is rather reasonable and unremarkable but that doesn't mean it can't be false. This goes for not only the hadiths but also the Quran itself. You can't just saying anything that is said in the Quran which seems reasonable is true since that would be intellectually dishonest of you.

Never mind the sacking, just keeping a single piece of paper preserved and not lost amongst hundreds of thousands of pieces of paper over more than a 1000 years would be an amazing feat in itself. Sorry but there is no possibility that the absence of the letter being evident now after 1400 years is proof that it was never sent.


1. It was a letter sent to the Emperor himself and thus would be mentioned in more than simply just that letter. This specific letter would be referenced in thousands or Byzantine texts decades after Mohammad's death. The strange thing is that no Byzantine texts mention such a letter despite how significant it should be.

2. Equally, you have no proof that a letter was sent at all. Thus, if we are to assume that there is no proof a letter was sent, we cannot confirm it as such. Therefore you have no argument.

A leader or employer of fighting men in a military campaign can be fairly called a warlord. Moreover he committed more than a few actual atrocities with those fighting men such as the massacres of the jewish tribes so even by the most negative connotations he was still a warlord.


1. A military leader isn't a warlord. Based on that, George Washington would qualify as a warlord.

2. Here is the definition of a warlord:

A warlord is a leader able to exercise military, economic, and political control over a subnational territory within a sovereign state due to their ability to mobilize loyal armed forces.


There was no state in 7th century Arabia at the time. Mohammad was the first to establish one. He cannot possibly be a warlord if he isn't acting autonomously within a sovereign nation.

3. I find it hypocritical of you to focus on the Banu Qurayza and not every single other tribe Muhammad also killed since his goal was to mitigate the influence of tribalism in the Caliphate. It called establishing a monopoly on violence which is what every single person who has ever established a state has done. The US did it, Britain did it several times, France did as well, and so did Germany.

Regardless of whether Mo was a false prophet, can we at least agree that his followers, past and present, believe he is the real deal and that what they do, they do following his example and his teaching?


There is so many conflicting evidence on Muhammad's life and on the true meaning of Islam that any meaningful analysis of Muslims based on these things has failed from the start. You have to understand that it doesn't matter how you think the objective reality of Muhammad's life and Islam is, just what Muslims think it is. Thus, your narrative falls a part in this regard since it fails to anticipate the possibility of Muslims have their own agency. Your narrative assumes, whether you like it or not, that Muslims are a collective and not individuals. How ironic it is for this system of thinking to come from an Austrian.

He may have been possessed by a djinn of some kind. He seems to have started out trying to posture himself as something like a jewish prophet but when the jews of medina realised he was just an ignorant crazy person his latent mean streak grew to epic proportions. His followers seem to take on his possession and take into themselves his cruel aggression, creating a tidal wave of semi-human malevolence which still lashes about today.


SolarCross, and I'll be frank with you here, you do not possess the knowledge on 7th century Arabia and early Islamic history to speak about any events that occurred to it let alone understand every single motivation behind such events as if you were actually there. Your entire narrative is simply baseless speculation conceived from biased assumptions of Muslims, their religion, and culture.

Also a Christian believes in djinn? Are you serious? Know superstition is something present in all religions but taking a spirit that has a fundamentally different role in Islam and believing in it while also simultaneously being a Christian which sees all innovations made in Islam as heretical is kind of ridiculous when you critically think about it. Although critical thinking is a bit too much to ask from you I admit.

That's your personal counter factual imagining. Mo wasn't criticising Nestorianism, or judaism for that matter, he was too ignorant of either to know how to do that. He was simply imitating in his own mean crazy way Torah prophets and became psychopathic when real scholars laughed at his posturing.


Dude he was a merchant. He's literally the bourgeois of Late Antiquity and was a part of the most powerful Arabian tribe in the region. He was also Nestorian (with pagan elements) since that was his religion prior to founding Islam. The idea that he was illiterate or could not afford to read Byzantine philosophical works or was to ignorant for that is simply anachronistic. You are applying your own biases to history and want to see a narrative, not the truth. If he was ignorant or illiterate, how would he even come to know of Christian or Jewish prophets? Even if someone told him about them, words can only go so far. Furthermore, are you implying that you believing the Islamic myth that Muhammad suddenly learned how to read after being given the Quran?

Combined with your djinn statement, it seems to me that you're being increasingly more Muslim SolarCross. A very strange thing indeed...

There is some variety in Islam, I never said there wasn't, but considering how numerous its followers and how spread across the world it is, it isn't that diverse.


>There is variety in Islam
>It isn't diverse

These statements contradict one another. If you admit that there is variety in Islamic sects and interpretations then stating immediately afterward that they aren't diverse is a clear paradox. This is a logical conflict and it can only be solved by choosing one or the other. Furthermore, the fact that Islam is so spread out contributes to it's diversity. Islam in India for example is completely different from Islam in East Africa or Islam in Pakistan for that matter since there are great differences in both culture and society in that region and Islam assimilates into that. Thus, stating that Islam isn't diverse because it's so spread out is factually incorrect.

I guess the reason for that is that Islam's texts are pretty well preserved and well read, that and the very severe punishments for getting it a bit wrong.


1. Islamic texts are very vague and there are huge amounts of arguments about what they mean which is why there are so many sects in Islam. There are more sects in Islam than there are in Christianity for fuck's sake.

2. There is no central authority in Islam so there are no punishments for "getting it wrong" since no one has the right to tell you that you're wrong. They have no authority. Some states sponsor specific sects of Islam but that doesn't mean that they are central authorities of Islam because of that, it just means that they favor a specific sect. Anyone who claims that they are the central authority of Islam (i.e. Saudi Arabia) deserves to suck dick.

3. Given how Islam has lead to the creation of three separate religions and over 40+ sects I question your claim that the punishments were "severe". Caliphates, for the most part, let believe in whatever fucking interpretation of Islam they wanted especially under the Rashidun Caliphate.

The centralised authority is Mo himself as he lives on in the Quran and Hadith.


Muhammad is just a messenger. The only central authority in Islam is God or Allah. Muhammad just spreads God's word. Not only that, but he's not the only messenger. There can be thousands of messengers sent by God and these can consist of any monotheistic religion with a prophet not just Christianity or Judaism. Just because Muhammad "lives on the Quran and Hadith" (which isn't the Islamic justification for why Muhammad is important or should be followed) doesn't mean that he's jackshit.
#14945800
Oxymandias wrote:Just because it seems reasonable to you doesn't mean that it actually happened. By stating that one thing in the Quran is true you effectively legitimatize everything else within it. Furthermore, we have no evidence of such a thing despite the fact that we should according to the Quran.

Except the hadiths were written after Muhammads death and it stands to reason that many of them are false. It doesn't matter how down-to-earth they seem, it doesn't stop them from being false. I can say that, in Iran, it rained yesterday. The statement itself is rather reasonable and unremarkable but that doesn't mean it can't be false. This goes for not only the hadiths but also the Quran itself. You can't just saying anything that is said in the Quran which seems reasonable is true since that would be intellectually dishonest of you.

Like I said there is falseness in them (for example the camel piss incident) but in general they don't seem made up entirely. If they were made up I doubt they would be so long and detailed nor would there be inconsistencies between different narrations and Mohammad would come out looking a lot more heroic and a lot less like a pathetically deranged psychopathic pedo.

Oxymandias wrote:1. It was a letter sent to the Emperor himself and thus would be mentioned in more than simply just that letter. This specific letter would be referenced in thousands or Byzantine texts decades after Mohammad's death. The strange thing is that no Byzantine texts mention such a letter despite how significant it should be.

I doubt that because Emperors get letters every day from people like their governors and generals they actually know and interested in. Some scribbled note from unknown savages far from the centres of civilisation is unlikely to have been accorded much interest. If it was kept it at all it would have been filed under "miscellaneous" along with peasant reports of ducks flying upside-down and other wacky irrelevant stuff and then forgotten.

Oxymandias wrote:2. Equally, you have no proof that a letter was sent at all. Thus, if we are to assume that there is no proof a letter was sent, we cannot confirm it as such. Therefore you have no argument.

It is in the hadith that is some evidence not a perfect proof but it is some evidence. Unlike you I did not make anything up. Now you can go on and make up some story about how the whole hadith was invented by a muslim general so that he would have a pretty excuse to go on campaign but then all you have done is invent the most retarded general the world has ever seen. Somehow most generals go on campaign without writing thousands of pages of invented gossip before hand. Ghengis Khan never did anything so feeble minded. Actually the hadith looks like what it purports to be: eyewitness testimony about a person that people around him believed was a genuine prophet. That doesn't mean he was a true prophet but it certainly doesn't look like a complete fiction.

Oxymandias wrote:1. A military leader isn't a warlord. Based on that, George Washington would qualify as a warlord.

2. Here is the definition of a warlord:

There was no state in 7th century Arabia at the time. Mohammad was the first to establish one. He cannot possibly be a warlord if he isn't acting autonomously within a sovereign nation.

Semantics. If he lead fighting men for the purpose of creating a state then he is exactly a warlord if a warlord is a sub-national military leader. He gets to be king when he is done.

Oxymandias wrote:3. I find it hypocritical of you to focus on the Banu Qurayza and not every single other tribe Muhammad also killed since his goal was to mitigate the influence of tribalism in the Caliphate. It called establishing a monopoly on violence which is what every single person who has ever established a state has done. The US did it, Britain did it several times, France did as well, and so did Germany.

The Banu Qurayza were butchered because they did not accept that Mo was a real prophet. Your alternative narrative is just something you made up which has zero evidence supporting it.

Oxymandias wrote:There is so many conflicting evidence on Muhammad's life and on the true meaning of Islam that any meaningful analysis of Muslims based on these things has failed from the start. You have to understand that it doesn't matter how you think the objective reality of Muhammad's life and Islam is, just what Muslims think it is. Thus, your narrative falls a part in this regard since it fails to anticipate the possibility of Muslims have their own agency. Your narrative assumes, whether you like it or not, that Muslims are a collective and not individuals. How ironic it is for this system of thinking to come from an Austrian.

You don't understand anything I say at all.

Oxymandias wrote:SolarCross, and I'll be frank with you here, you do not possess the knowledge on 7th century Arabia and early Islamic history to speak about any events that occurred to it let alone understand every single motivation behind such events as if you were actually there. Your entire narrative is simply baseless speculation conceived from biased assumptions of Muslims, their religion, and culture.

Waffle and made up stuff.

Oxymandias wrote:Also a Christian believes in djinn? Are you serious? Know superstition is something present in all religions but taking a spirit that has a fundamentally different role in Islam and believing in it while also simultaneously being a Christian which sees all innovations made in Islam as heretical is kind of ridiculous when you critically think about it. Although critical thinking is a bit too much to ask from you I admit.

I am not a Christian but everyone believes in non-human incorporeal spirits except for hard atheists only. Buddhists, Christians, polythiests of every kind, all believe in spirits. Djinn is just the arabic word for these beings.

Oxymandias wrote:Dude he was a merchant. He's literally the bourgeois of Late Antiquity and was a part of the most powerful Arabian tribe in the region. He was also Nestorian (with pagan elements) since that was his religion prior to founding Islam. The idea that he was illiterate or could not afford to read Byzantine philosophical works or was to ignorant for that is simply anachronistic. You are applying your own biases to history and want to see a narrative, not the truth. If he was ignorant or illiterate, how would he even come to know of Christian or Jewish prophets? Even if someone told him about them, words can only go so far. Furthermore, are you implying that you believing the Islamic myth that Muhammad suddenly learned how to read after being given the Quran?

Illiterate people don't read and write but they can still listen and talk. If he was a merchant then almost certainly spent time chatting with all sorts of people who travel. Syria, the levant and Egypt was substantially Christian then and there were lots of jews in Medina which wasn't far away at all. All he has to do is chat with some Christian traders or non-christian traders who traded in Christian lands or those who traded with the local jews to pick up all sorts of stuff about the respective religions. Coming to learn some of the basic stories from the Judeo-Christian religions doesn't make you an expert theologist though which is why the jews were unimpressed by him.

Oxymandias wrote:Combined with your djinn statement, it seems to me that you're being increasingly more Muslim SolarCross. A very strange thing indeed...

No because a muslim believes that mohammad was guided by an angel of the jew's god. Whereas I think he was possessed by an evil spirit.

Oxymandias wrote:>There is variety in Islam
>It isn't diverse

These statements contradict one another. If you admit that there is variety in Islamic sects and interpretations then stating immediately afterward that they aren't diverse is a clear paradox. This is a logical conflict and it can only be solved by choosing one or the other. Furthermore, the fact that Islam is so spread out contributes to it's diversity. Islam in India for example is completely different from Islam in East Africa or Islam in Pakistan for that matter since there are great differences in both culture and society in that region and Islam assimilates into that. Thus, stating that Islam isn't diverse because it's so spread out is factually incorrect.

You changed my statement so that you could go an a aimless rant about nothing.

Oxymandias wrote:1. Islamic texts are very vague and there are huge amounts of arguments about what they mean which is why there are so many sects in Islam. There are more sects in Islam than there are in Christianity for fuck's sake.

2. There is no central authority in Islam so there are no punishments for "getting it wrong" since no one has the right to tell you that you're wrong. They have no authority. Some states sponsor specific sects of Islam but that doesn't mean that they are central authorities of Islam because of that, it just means that they favor a specific sect. Anyone who claims that they are the central authority of Islam (i.e. Saudi Arabia) deserves to suck dick.

3. Given how Islam has lead to the creation of three separate religions and over 40+ sects I question your claim that the punishments were "severe". Caliphates, for the most part, let believe in whatever fucking interpretation of Islam they wanted especially under the Rashidun Caliphate.

It remains that despite the variety muslims are all drinking from the same well even if their piss doesn't all smell the same. This is why despite the differences between sunni and shia they are more alike than they are different. The same goes for Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox Christians.

Oxymandias wrote:Muhammad is just a messenger. The only central authority in Islam is God or Allah. Muhammad just spreads God's word. Not only that, but he's not the only messenger. There can be thousands of messengers sent by God and these can consist of any monotheistic religion with a prophet not just Christianity or Judaism. Just because Muhammad "lives on the Quran and Hadith" (which isn't the Islamic justification for why Muhammad is important or should be followed) doesn't mean that he's jackshit.

No muslim knows anything about what Allah wants from them except from what they get from what Mohammad said.
Last edited by SolarCross on 12 Sep 2018 13:55, edited 1 time in total.
#14945858
@SolarCross

Like I said there is falseness in them (for example the camel piss incident) but in general they don't seem made up entirely. If they were made up I doubt they would be so long and detailed nor would there be inconsistencies between different narrations and Mohammad would come out looking a lot more heroic and a lot less like a pathetically deranged psychopathic pedo.


So you think that they seem not made up because they make Mohammad look bad? Clearly you need to reexamine what you consider "truthfulness". You cannot be exactly sure what is made up and what is not. The usual method for examining the validity of a hadith is based on what is said in the Quran and pretty much all the pathetic or deranged stuff is considered false from most Muslims perspective although it primarily depends on the sect. What you consider deranged or pathetic was merely Muslims or scholars making up stories about Muhammad that validated their superstitions and narratives (just like you are doing now) thus they are to be taken critically.

You are incapable of confirming the validity of these hadiths. If you are, then prove that the hadiths you're mentioning are valid. There is a reason why historians don't tend to use Islamic sources.

I doubt that because Emperors get letters every day from people like their governors and generals they actually know and interested in. Some scribbled note from unknown savages far from the centres of civilisation is unlikely to have been accorded much interest. If it was kept it at all it would have been filed under "miscellaneous" along with peasant reports of ducks flying upside-down and other wacky irrelevant stuff and then forgotten.


>Letters everyday
>In the 7th fucking century
:lol:

A letter from an unknown political leader is something different entirely especially when you consider the hindsight of a letter and the fact that Muhammad indirectly threatens the royal Emperor. Such a letter would be especially significant and wouldn't just be discarded but referenced in the Byzantines many histories of their empire. Such a letter would cause an uproar in the royal court and many would investigate this matter since a death threat from a political leader means war and thus very fucking significant if you ask me. This hasn't happened at all. We don't even have reports of a courier from Arabia.

Regardless, you're just speculating at this point. You have no idea whether or not a letter was actually sent. All you have is Muhammad's word for it and if you really think that he was the false prophet, you would think everything that comes out of his mouth are lies. You contradict yourself in your attempt to construct a narrative.

It is in the hadith that is some evidence not a perfect proof but it is some evidence. Unlike you I did not make anything up. Now you can go on and make up some story about how the whole hadith was invented by a muslim general so that he would have a pretty excuse to go on campaign but then all you have done is invent the most retarded general the world has ever seen. Somehow most generals go on campaign without writing thousands of pages of invented gossip before hand. Ghengis Khan never did anything so feeble minded. Actually the hadith looks like what it purports to be: eyewitness testimony about a person that people around him believed was a genuine prophet. That doesn't mean he was a true prophet but it certainly doesn't look like a complete fiction.


>Says it's in the hadith
>Doesn't state the hadith

Based on how you immediately follow afterward with "unlike you I don't make stuff up" and then begin on a long angry rant about what I'm about to say makes me think that you're projecting. You don't know for certain that there is a hadith probably because you haven't read a hadith in full ever in your entire life and certainly not enough to know every single hadith. The sad thing is, you lied for no reason since hadiths aren't even that valid most of the time given that they were written after Muhammad's death. This is why you need to be skeptical of hadith because it's not always correct and often is written by people who have innate biases behind them such as yourself. Some can be valid but many of them aren't and there are huge debates about the validity of a certain hadith without any capability to truly confirm that.

Also it was a speech; Muhammad just called a part of his revelation. The Quran wasn't even widely available in written form until the Umayyad era. That was literally a decade after Muhammad's death and the Rashidun Caliphate. Btw, wasn't your original argument that Muhammad was a false prophet? Why are you arguing now that the idea of Muhammad being a prophet isn't complete fiction?

Semantics. If he lead fighting men for the purpose of creating a state then he is exactly a warlord if a warlord is a sub-national military leader. He gets to be king when he is done.


Semantics are important, especially when you use terms that are meant to be used by historians. Historians don't define "men fighting for the purpose of creating a state" because there are clear differences from how those people go about things and warlords. Warlords seek to establish their own state within a state through the usage of sheer power and strength. Muhammad didn't do this given that there was no state at the time so this begs the question of exactly what state Muhammad was establishing himself within?

The definition of a warlord is definitive. If you disagree with me, you disagree with the English fucking language.

The Banu Qurayza were butchered because they did not accept that Mo was a real prophet. Your alternative narrative is just something you made up which has zero evidence supporting it.


This is ironic when you consider that the first place you've heard of the Banu Qurayza from is probably an Islamophobic conservative Christian website. Clearly such a website would have no reason to give out an alternate narrative. Furthermore, what the fuck do you think you're doing SolarCross? You think you aren't pushing out a narrative? Half the shit you say is speculation and the other half is just baseless.

Dude, Muhammad was first invited to settle disputes between two opposing tribes, the Aws and the Khazraj. Muhammad established a compact, the Constitution of Medina, which committed the Jewish and Muslim tribes to mutual cooperation. During his arrival, Muhammad signed a special treaty with the Qurayza chief Ka'b ibn Asad.

After Muhammad's arrival in Medina, the Banu Qurayza were involved in a dispute with the Banu Nadir: The more powerful Nadir rigorously applied lex talionis against the Qurayza while not allowing it being enforced against themselves. Further, the blood money paid for killing a man of the Qurayza was only half of the blood-money required for killing a man of the Nadir, placing the Qurayza in a socially inferior position. The Qurayza called on Muhammad as arbitrator, who delivered the surah 5:42-45 and judged that the Nadir and Qurayza should be treated alike in the application of lex talionis and raised the assessment of the Qurayza to the full amount of blood money.

Tensions quickly mounted between the growing numbers of Muslims and Jewish tribes, while Muhammad found himself at war with his native Meccan tribe of the Quraysh. In 624, after his victory over the Meccans in the Battle of Badr, Banu Qaynuqa threatened Muhammad's political position and assaulted a Muslim woman which led to their expulsion from Medina for breaking the peace treaty of Constitution of Medina. The Qurayza remained passive during the whole Qaynuqa affair, apparently because the Qaynuqa were historically allied with the Khazraj, while the Qurayza were the allies of the Aws.

Soon afterwards, Muhammad came into conflict with the Banu Nadir. He had one of the Banu Nadir's chiefs, the poet Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf, assassinated. and after the Battle of Uhud accused the tribe of treachery and plotting against his life and expelled them from the city. The Qurayza remained passive during this conflict because of the blood money issue related above.

In 627, the Meccans, accompanied by tribal allies as well as the Banu Nadir - who had been very active in supporting the Meccans - marched against Medina - the Muslim stronghold - and laid siege to it. It is unclear whether their treaty with Muhammad obliged the Qurayza to help him defend Medina, or merely to remain neutral, according to Ramadan, they had signed an agreement of mutual assistance with Muhammad. The Qurayza did not participate in the fighting but lent tools to the town's defenders. According to Al-Waqidi, the Banu Qurayza helped the defense effort of Medina by supplying spades, picks, and baskets for the excavation of the defensive trench the defenders of Medina had dug in preparation. According to Watt, the Banu Qurayza "seem to have tried to remain neutral" in the battle but later changed their attitude when a Jew from Khaybar persuaded them that Muhammad was sure to be overwhelmed and though they did not commit any act overtly hostile to Muhammad, they entered into negotiations with the invading army.

The Qurayza readmitted Huyayy ibn Akhtab, the chief of the Banu Nadir whom Muhammad had exiled and who had instigated the alliance of his tribe with the besieging Quraysh and Ghatafan tribes. Huyayy persuaded the Qurayza chief Ka'b ibn Asad to help the Meccans conquer Medina. Ka'b was, according to Al-Waqidi's account, initially reluctant to break the contract and argued that Muhammad never broke any contract with them or exposed them to any shame, but decided to support the Meccans after Huyayy had promised to join the Qurayza in Medina if the besieging army would return to Mecca without having killed Muhammad. Ibn Kathir and al-Waqidi report that Huyayy tore into pieces the agreement between Ka'b and Muhammad.

Rumors of this one-sided renunciation of the pact spread and were confirmed by Muhammad's emissaries, Sa'd ibn Mua'dh and Sa'd ibn Ubadah, leading men of the Aws and Khazraj respectively. Sa'd ibn Mua'dh reportedly issued threats against the Qurayza but was restrained by his colleague. As this would have allowed the besiegers to access the city and thus meant the collapse of the defenders' strategy, Muhammad "became anxious about their conduct and sent some of the leading Muslims to talk to them; the result was disquieting." According to Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad sent Nuaym ibn Masud, a well-respected elder of the Ghatafan who had secretly converted to Islam, to go to Muhammad's enemies and sow discord among them. Nuaym went to the Qurayza and advised them to join the hostilities against Muhammad only if the besiegers provide hostages from among their chiefs. He then hurried to the invaders and warned them that if the Qurayza asked for hostages, it is because they intended to turn them over to the Medinan defenders. When the representatives of the Quraysh and the Ghatafan came to the Qurayza, asking for support in the planned decisive battle with Muhammad, the Qurayza indeed demanded hostages. The representatives of the besiegers refused, breaking down negotiations and resulting in the Banu Qurayza becoming extremely distrustful of the besieging army. The Qurayza did not take any actions to support them until the besieging forces retreated. Thus the threat of a second front against the defenders never materialised.

After the Meccans' withdrawal, Muhammad then led his forces against the Banu Qurayza neighborhood. The Banu Qurayza retreated into their stronghold and endured the siege for 25 days. As their morale waned, Ka'b ibn Asad suggested three alternative ways out of their predicament: embrace Islam; kill their own children and women, then rush out for a charge to either win or die; or make a surprise attack on the Sabbath. The Banu Qurayza accepted none of these alternatives. Instead they asked to confer with Abu Lubaba, one of their allies from the Aws. According to Ibn Ishaq, Abu Lubaba felt pity for the women and children of the tribe who were crying and when asked whether the Qurayza should surrender to Muhammad, advised them to do so. However he also "made a sign with his hand toward his throat, indicating that [their fate] at the hands of the Prophet would be slaughter". The next morning, the Banu Qurayza surrendered and the Muslims seized their stronghold and their stores. The men - Ibn Ishaq numbers between 400 and 900 - were bound and placed under the custody of one Muhammad ibn Maslamah, who had killed Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf, while the women and children - numbering about 1,000 - were placed under Abdullah ibn Sallam, a former rabbi who had converted to Islam.

The circumstances of the Qurayza's demise have been related by Ibn Ishaq and other Muslim historians who relied upon his account. According to Watt, Peters and Stillman, the Qurayza surrendered to Muhammad's judgement - a move Watt classifies as unconditional. The Aws, who wanted to honor their old alliance with the Qurayza, asked Muhammad to treat the Qurayza leniently as he had previously treated the Qaynuqa for the sake of Ibn Ubayy. (Arab custom required support of an ally, independent of the ally's conduct to a third party.) Muhammad then suggested to bring the case before an arbitrator chosen from the Aws, to which both the Aws and the Qurayza agreed to. Muhammad then appointed Sa'd ibn Mua'dh to decide the fate of the Jewish tribe.

The tribe agreed to surrender on the condition of a Muslim arbitrator of their choosing.[56] According to Khadduri (also cited by Abu-Nimer), "both parties agreed to submit their dispute to a person chosen by them"[57][58] in accordance with the Arabian tradition of arbitration. Muir holds that the Qurayza surrendered on the condition that "their fate was decided by their allies, the Bani Aws".

In all accounts, the appointed arbitrator was Sa'd ibn Mua'dh, a leading man among the Aws. During the Battle of the Trench, he had been one of Muhammad's emissaries to the Qurayza and now was dying from a wound he had received later in the battle. When Sa'd arrived, his fellow Aws pleaded for leniency towards the Qurayza and on his request pledged that they would abide by his decision. He then decreed that "the men should be killed, the property divided, and the women and children taken as captives". Muhammad approved of the ruling, calling it similar to God's judgment. Chiragh Ali argued that this statement may have referred to "king" or "ruler" rather than God.

Sa'd dismissed the pleas of the Aws, according to Watt because being close to death and concerned with his afterlife, he put what he considered "his duty to God and the Muslim community" before tribal allegiance. Tariq Ramadan argues that Muhammad deviated from his earlier, more lenient treatment of prisoners as this was seen "as sign of weakness if not madness". Peterson concurs that the Muslims wanted to deter future treachery by setting an example with severe punishment. Lings reports that Sa'ad feared that if expelled, the Qurayza would join the Nadir in the fight against the Muslims. Some authors assert that the judgement of Sa'd ibn Mua'dh was conducted according to laws of Torah. Then the massacre of the Banu Qurayza occurred.

As you can see, it's more complex than "Mohammad wanted them to convert, they said no, then death". What are you a five year old? Furthermore, here is the evidence as this directly shows how political decisions influenced Muhammad and his goal of destroying tribalism which is also directly evident by the fact that all pre-7th century tribes have been wiped out by Muhammad both in the Ridda Wars and in his conquest of Arabia. Now you prove your claim.

You don't understand anything I say at all.


I certainly understood more than you and I directly answered your post. If you think it is irrelevant then note that I am responding to your post's implications and along with it directly. You would certainly get the answer to your question if you had bothered to read anything I say.

Waffle and made up stuff.


Clearly it's made up when you literally have not given a single piece of evidence to support your claims. My arguments have more validity than yours for simply the sheer evidence I have given you. You have done nothing this debate but speculate and speculate. You've speculated that there is hadith that supports your point, you've speculate that there was a letter sent to the Byzantine emperor, and you've speculated what happened to the Banu Qurayza.

I am not a Christian but everyone believes in non-human incorporeal spirits except for hard atheists only. Buddhists, Christians, polythiests of every kind, all believe in spirits. Djinn is just the arabic word for these beings.


So you believe in ghosts. So much for mister rational over here.

Regardless I don't think you know that djinns have a very significant role in Islam and by believing in djinn, you place credence in Islam as a valid representation of the world. Furthermore, why the fuck would an atheist give a fuck about who is and is not a false prophet? For all you know, every single prophet is a false one.

Illiterate people don't read and write but they can still listen and talk. If he was a merchant then almost certainly spent time chatting with all sorts of people who travel. Syria, the levant and Egypt was substantially Christian then and there were lots of jews in Medina which wasn't far away at all. All he has to do is chat with some Christian traders or non-christian traders who traded in Christian lands or those who traded with the local jews to pick up all sorts of stuff about the respective religions. Coming to learn some of the basic stories from the Judeo-Christian religions doesn't make you an expert theologist though which is why the jews were unimpressed by him.


I have addressed this. Muhammad was capable of reading and writing because not only did he say this with his claim that he suddenly knew how to read and write but this is further shown by the fact that he wrote the Quran. Do you think that the Quran is a divine text and if not, who the fuck do you think wrote it? I have already given my arguments against this point so I won't go into it's further but to address your point that the Jews were unimpressed by him because of his lack of theological understanding, you will be delighted to learn that most Jewish tribes in Arabia converted to Islam. As such, it seems like they were impressed by him.

Like I said before, you're speculating. You don't know what the Jews thought of him, you just want to construct a baseless narrative that suits you.

No because a muslim believes that mohammad was guided by an angel of the jew's god. Whereas I think he was possessed by an evil spirit.


Well clearly you do since you think that the Quran was given by Muhammad and note written by him. Furthermore, do you have any concrete proof that such spirits even exist? You've come a long way from "everything must be rational" to "ghosts and djinn exist!".

You changed my statement so that you could go an a aimless rant about nothing.


And how did I change your statement? I'm not the one who states that Islam has a variety of sects and then says that they aren't diverse at all. Is it because I left out the word "some" out of your statement? Is "some" such an integral part of your argument that it cannot function without it? Fine, here is my argument with "some" added to it:

Oxymandias wrote:
>There is some variety in Islam
>It isn't diverse

These statements contradict one another. If you admit that there is variety in Islamic sects and interpretations then stating immediately afterward that they aren't diverse is a clear paradox. This is a logical conflict and it can only be solved by choosing one or the other. Furthermore, the fact that Islam is so spread out contributes to it's diversity. Islam in India for example is completely different from Islam in East Africa or Islam in Pakistan for that matter since there are great differences in both culture and society in that region and Islam assimilates into that. Thus, stating that Islam isn't diverse because it's so spread out is factually incorrect.


There. It doesn't change anything, does it? I still address all your points. It seems to me that you're just nitpicking since you have no way of arguing against my points.

It remains that despite the variety muslims are all drinking from the same well even if their piss doesn't all smell the same. This is why despite the differences between sunni and shia they are more alike than they are different. The same goes for Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox Christians.


That is such a retarded analogy that I cannot even wrap my head around it. Why don't you say what you're saying know to the Druze or Bahaists or Yazidis? Why don't you tell Shias that they are theologically the same to Sunnis despite there being massive differences between them. Why not tell them that the Sunni/Shia divide makes no sense and that they are all the same in your eyes. Quite frankly, you'd just get punched in the face. You show no theological understanding of Islam and thus are unqualified to talk about it.

No muslim knows anything about what Allah wants from them except from what they get from what Mohammad said.


Except that most of what Muhammad has said and written is vague and a lot of what he has said and done is also frequently made up.
#14945859
@foxdemon

There's a difference between prophets and messengers. Prophets are people chosen by God to do his will while messengers are people sent by God to spread his message. Messengers don't necessarily have to be Muslim and can be of any religion.
#14946178
Did anyone refer to the topic?
(I mean whether the crusades were justified)
Has anyone of the writers tried to regard the claimed topic?

Very little substance, but great opinions.
Typically the primates are drumming their chest,s or let us say they are "trumping" it.
Aren't you ashamed?
#14947695
The conduct , if not the cause , was not justified , per just war theory , as non-combatant bystanders , including not only Muslims but also Jews and even Eastern Orthodox Christians were murdered in massacres . http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/gh2_crusades.htm Also from a biblical Christian standpoint , the Crusades were not justified . God did not will it . < Romans 12:18-19 , 2 Corinthians 10:3-4 , 1 Peter 2:21-23 >
  • 1
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14

PMS can be deadly! 8)

Is a corporation a person?

Personally I don't know fuck all about Corporation[…]

Steve Bannon Nails It

When did I say Bannon was wrong about everything? […]

Nonsense. What's nonsense is you saying "[…]