x
Click to expand

alltimetens

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Interests: Interesting things
Date Signed Up:2/07/2012
Last Login:5/06/2015
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Ranking:#3598
Comment Ranking:#6223
Highest Content Rank:#14
Highest Comment Rank:#1365
Content Thumbs: 120948 total,  132403 ,  11455
Comment Thumbs: 5266 total,  9323 ,  4057
Content Level Progress: 5.39% (539/10000)
Level 312 Content: Wizard → Level 313 Content: Wizard
Comment Level Progress: 31% (31/100)
Level 247 Comments: Doinitrite → Level 248 Comments: Doinitrite
Subscribers:28
Content Views:4794133
Times Content Favorited:7228 times
Total Comments Made:4859
FJ Points:110478
Favorite Tags: The Game (2)
Just an average Funny Junk user who shares images. I am not accepting any trade requests. You can have my items, however, I am not giving/trading my FJ points. Feel free to subscribe.

latest user's comments

#420 - Another full of **** statement from a guy who has no kn…  [+] (8 new replies) 04/21/2014 on Long live Putin 0
User avatar #430 - schnizel (04/21/2014) [-]
"Muhammad is a narcissist, a pedophile, a mass murderer,
a terrorist, a misogynist, a lecher, a cult leader, a madman
a rapist, a torturer, an assassin and a looter."
Former Muslim Ali Sina offered $50,000 to anyone
who could prove otherwise based on Islamic texts.
The reward has gone unclaimed.
User avatar #429 - schnizel (04/21/2014) [-]
I was a muslim.
Quran is a crude version of the art of war.
>Jihad had many different meanings. The most widely accepted one, and the one that is defined in Quranic terms is the defense agreement of Muslims.
There are 2 jihads you idiot. The lesser and the greater Jihad.
The lesser Jihad is waging war on infidels.
The greater Jihad is being a muslim.
You know shit.
>In Islam, forcing other people to become Muslims is strictly forbidden.
Quran (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle.
>AD 632 -- Muhammad’s death.
>AD 635 -- Christian Damascas fell to invading Muslims.
>AD 636 -- Christian Antioch fell to invading Muslims.
>AD 638 -- Christian Jerusalem,and later Alexandria,fell to invading Muslims.
>AD 650 -- Muslim armies reached Cilicia and Caesarea of Cappodocia. In the same period Muslim forces carried out raids on Cyprus, Rhodes, Crete and Sicily, carrying off thousands of Christian slaves.
>AD 668 -- Muslim armies laid siege to Constantinople. They were repulsed.
>AD 711 -- Muslim armies invaded Spain. By AD 715 they had conquered most of Spain.
>AD 717 -- Muslim armies again laid siege to Constantinople. Again repulsed.
>AD 732 -- Muslim armies invaded France. Charles Martel stopped them at Tours.
>AD 792 -- The Muslim ruler of Spain, Hisham, called for a new invasion of France. An international Islamic crusade was assembled, and was repulsed by the French.
>AD 827 -- Muslim warriors invaded Italy and Sicily, terrorised monks,and raped nuns. Sicily was held by Muslims until AD 1091.
>AD 846 -- Muslim armies reached Rome, where they forced the Pope to pay them tribute.
>AD 848 -- France was again invaded by Muslims. And again repulsed.
>AD 1059 -- Pope Urban II launched the FIRST Crusade.
You got nailed the the cross.
User avatar #434 - alltimetens (04/21/2014) [-]
The quote that you cherry picked from the book without any context doesn't count, retard. If anything, this had to do with Islamic war against pagans.
User avatar #435 - schnizel (04/21/2014) [-]
Prove that it's cherry picked.
Pro tip: You can't.
Muslims started the war with the pagans also and pagans were very tolerant to islam until muslims started killing their own.
User avatar #443 - alltimetens (04/21/2014) [-]
Yes... Yet another bs claim. You aren't a very good troll.
User avatar #447 - schnizel (04/22/2014) [-]
You insult me.
You call me a troll.
You call my claims bullshit and yet you have no idea on what you are talking about.
1/10
User avatar #433 - alltimetens (04/21/2014) [-]
Are you fucking retarded? Why do you think there are dozens of Islamic terrorist groups and pacifistic groups, both claiming to follow jihadic principles?
#437 - schnizel (04/21/2014) [-]
It's Not the ''Radical Shaykh'' it's Islam - Fahad Qureshi
>pacifistic groups
TOP KEK
It's not radical islam, it's islam goy.
Also if you are a muslim you must know sharia and you must know the entire quran alongside the life of the prophet, his words and actions.
#291 - I don't think I need to provide you with quotes when it is obv…  [+] (10 new replies) 04/20/2014 on Long live Putin 0
#431 - punkrockdude (04/21/2014) [-]
Fuck this is annoying lol.

As I said before, which religious group made up the majority of the founders, explorers, and settlers that founded and settled western nations? Christians. (Aside from Natives of course). That is one of the main reasons we celebrate their holidays.

Also, how many of the numerous Christian holidays do people actally get time off for as a national holiday? The only ones that come to mind are Easter and Christmas, which i mentioned earlier. That is only two of many celebrated by Christians.
#427 - punkrockdude (04/21/2014) [-]
Ah ok I see. Really, as far as holidays go, the only religious one we techincally get time off for is Easter, which also coincides with Passover. As for Christmas, It coincides with multiple other holidays. Plus, both Christmas and Easter have become very commercialized, to the point where they arent even very religious anymore. For instance, half of my family is very non-religious and we celebrate all of those holidays. Not by going to church or praying, but by getting together for a big meal and enjoying and celebrating being a family. That is what the holidays have essentially become for many people
User avatar #428 - alltimetens (04/21/2014) [-]
But the issue here isn't what the reason for holidays is. It's the fact that certain religions aren't given the same privileges as others. If we're gonna play this game where we favor certain religions over others, might we well remove all of the holidays.
#424 - punkrockdude (04/21/2014) [-]
Did you block me? I can't reply to your new posts.

Excellent point, why then don't we celebrate Buddhist, Hindu, fucking pagan, etc. Second thought, why don't we just say fuck it, everyday is important to some tiny group, no work or school at all anymore?

Tell me, which religious groups discovered, founded, and settled these nations? That is the reason we have and celebrate these hollidays in schools. However, I agree that these concerts should either avoid the whole religious stories as a whole, or include something from all of them
User avatar #426 - alltimetens (04/21/2014) [-]
Exactly. Religious holidays shouldn't even yield breaks/vacations. Even as a Muslim, I think that when it comes to laws and government, religion should be regarded as nothing more than fairy tales.
User avatar #425 - alltimetens (04/21/2014) [-]
No no no. I didn't block you. It is just that each thread has a certain limit of posts that can be made. After like twenty posts, you can't reply anymore.
#422 - punkrockdude (04/21/2014) [-]
I can't reply to the newest post? I'm still not getting where he is referring to ALL muslims. He clearly states, as I quoted before, that he is talking to that tiny group of muslims that do want to change things.

Also, if that group is so small, why can't our schools have Christmas Concerts and Christmas trees, instead of Non-denominational Winter-time-snowy concerts and trees?
User avatar #423 - alltimetens (04/21/2014) [-]
Religion shouldn't be taught in schools or be a part of the government.

If you're gonna allow students to celebrate Christian holidays, then why should Jewish and Muslim holidays be excluded?
#294 - punkrockdude (04/20/2014) [-]
For fucks sake: "IF minorities prefer Sharia Law then we advise them to go to places where that is the state law" as in if they prefer it to existing russian laws, they should leave. He's not saying fuck the mulsims, theyre all evil, He's basically saying: if you don't like our laws, get out, we aren't changing them for you
User avatar #421 - alltimetens (04/21/2014) [-]
Listen. I totally one hundred percent agree with Putin. Russia was founded by hardworking Russians. Muslim immigrants have no right to take what is not theirs and alter it to their benefit, nobody does. However, seeing as how only a teeny tiny minority of Muslims actually want anything to change, then obviously Putin should not have regarded Muslims as a whole, or Muslims in particular.


As a politician, Putin should have made his wording more appealing to everyone. So rather than targeting Muslims in specific, he should have said something along the lines of "all minorities"
But really, he shouldn't use addressed something that wasn't an issue to begin with.
#281 - In theory it would be. But when you actually single out an ent…  [+] (12 new replies) 04/20/2014 on Long live Putin 0
#282 - punkrockdude (04/20/2014) [-]
Tel me, where in that article does it say anything about your average muslim? With quotes
User avatar #291 - alltimetens (04/20/2014) [-]
I don't think I need to provide you with quotes when it is obvious whom he was referring to by using Sharia Law as an example.


This brings me back to my previous argument because Putin acts as if Chadian Law is just one thing and that one thing contradicts Russian laws.
#431 - punkrockdude (04/21/2014) [-]
Fuck this is annoying lol.

As I said before, which religious group made up the majority of the founders, explorers, and settlers that founded and settled western nations? Christians. (Aside from Natives of course). That is one of the main reasons we celebrate their holidays.

Also, how many of the numerous Christian holidays do people actally get time off for as a national holiday? The only ones that come to mind are Easter and Christmas, which i mentioned earlier. That is only two of many celebrated by Christians.
#427 - punkrockdude (04/21/2014) [-]
Ah ok I see. Really, as far as holidays go, the only religious one we techincally get time off for is Easter, which also coincides with Passover. As for Christmas, It coincides with multiple other holidays. Plus, both Christmas and Easter have become very commercialized, to the point where they arent even very religious anymore. For instance, half of my family is very non-religious and we celebrate all of those holidays. Not by going to church or praying, but by getting together for a big meal and enjoying and celebrating being a family. That is what the holidays have essentially become for many people
User avatar #428 - alltimetens (04/21/2014) [-]
But the issue here isn't what the reason for holidays is. It's the fact that certain religions aren't given the same privileges as others. If we're gonna play this game where we favor certain religions over others, might we well remove all of the holidays.
#424 - punkrockdude (04/21/2014) [-]
Did you block me? I can't reply to your new posts.

Excellent point, why then don't we celebrate Buddhist, Hindu, fucking pagan, etc. Second thought, why don't we just say fuck it, everyday is important to some tiny group, no work or school at all anymore?

Tell me, which religious groups discovered, founded, and settled these nations? That is the reason we have and celebrate these hollidays in schools. However, I agree that these concerts should either avoid the whole religious stories as a whole, or include something from all of them
User avatar #426 - alltimetens (04/21/2014) [-]
Exactly. Religious holidays shouldn't even yield breaks/vacations. Even as a Muslim, I think that when it comes to laws and government, religion should be regarded as nothing more than fairy tales.
User avatar #425 - alltimetens (04/21/2014) [-]
No no no. I didn't block you. It is just that each thread has a certain limit of posts that can be made. After like twenty posts, you can't reply anymore.
#422 - punkrockdude (04/21/2014) [-]
I can't reply to the newest post? I'm still not getting where he is referring to ALL muslims. He clearly states, as I quoted before, that he is talking to that tiny group of muslims that do want to change things.

Also, if that group is so small, why can't our schools have Christmas Concerts and Christmas trees, instead of Non-denominational Winter-time-snowy concerts and trees?
User avatar #423 - alltimetens (04/21/2014) [-]
Religion shouldn't be taught in schools or be a part of the government.

If you're gonna allow students to celebrate Christian holidays, then why should Jewish and Muslim holidays be excluded?
#294 - punkrockdude (04/20/2014) [-]
For fucks sake: "IF minorities prefer Sharia Law then we advise them to go to places where that is the state law" as in if they prefer it to existing russian laws, they should leave. He's not saying fuck the mulsims, theyre all evil, He's basically saying: if you don't like our laws, get out, we aren't changing them for you
User avatar #421 - alltimetens (04/21/2014) [-]
Listen. I totally one hundred percent agree with Putin. Russia was founded by hardworking Russians. Muslim immigrants have no right to take what is not theirs and alter it to their benefit, nobody does. However, seeing as how only a teeny tiny minority of Muslims actually want anything to change, then obviously Putin should not have regarded Muslims as a whole, or Muslims in particular.


As a politician, Putin should have made his wording more appealing to everyone. So rather than targeting Muslims in specific, he should have said something along the lines of "all minorities"
But really, he shouldn't use addressed something that wasn't an issue to begin with.
#472 - White women are the most attractive. I'm gonna go on …  [+] (1 new reply) 04/20/2014 on Hottest Girls Of FJ Round 2... 0
User avatar #560 - Sunset (04/20/2014) [-]
mixed race
#269 - Okay okay... Let us assume that Putin is right for ta…  [+] (14 new replies) 04/20/2014 on Long live Putin 0
#277 - punkrockdude (04/20/2014) [-]
In all honesty, I think that the world wouldbe a better place if they could flat out say who is causing the problems
User avatar #281 - alltimetens (04/20/2014) [-]
In theory it would be. But when you actually single out an entire race, it doesn't work out so well.
#282 - punkrockdude (04/20/2014) [-]
Tel me, where in that article does it say anything about your average muslim? With quotes
User avatar #291 - alltimetens (04/20/2014) [-]
I don't think I need to provide you with quotes when it is obvious whom he was referring to by using Sharia Law as an example.


This brings me back to my previous argument because Putin acts as if Chadian Law is just one thing and that one thing contradicts Russian laws.
#431 - punkrockdude (04/21/2014) [-]
Fuck this is annoying lol.

As I said before, which religious group made up the majority of the founders, explorers, and settlers that founded and settled western nations? Christians. (Aside from Natives of course). That is one of the main reasons we celebrate their holidays.

Also, how many of the numerous Christian holidays do people actally get time off for as a national holiday? The only ones that come to mind are Easter and Christmas, which i mentioned earlier. That is only two of many celebrated by Christians.
#427 - punkrockdude (04/21/2014) [-]
Ah ok I see. Really, as far as holidays go, the only religious one we techincally get time off for is Easter, which also coincides with Passover. As for Christmas, It coincides with multiple other holidays. Plus, both Christmas and Easter have become very commercialized, to the point where they arent even very religious anymore. For instance, half of my family is very non-religious and we celebrate all of those holidays. Not by going to church or praying, but by getting together for a big meal and enjoying and celebrating being a family. That is what the holidays have essentially become for many people
User avatar #428 - alltimetens (04/21/2014) [-]
But the issue here isn't what the reason for holidays is. It's the fact that certain religions aren't given the same privileges as others. If we're gonna play this game where we favor certain religions over others, might we well remove all of the holidays.
#424 - punkrockdude (04/21/2014) [-]
Did you block me? I can't reply to your new posts.

Excellent point, why then don't we celebrate Buddhist, Hindu, fucking pagan, etc. Second thought, why don't we just say fuck it, everyday is important to some tiny group, no work or school at all anymore?

Tell me, which religious groups discovered, founded, and settled these nations? That is the reason we have and celebrate these hollidays in schools. However, I agree that these concerts should either avoid the whole religious stories as a whole, or include something from all of them
User avatar #426 - alltimetens (04/21/2014) [-]
Exactly. Religious holidays shouldn't even yield breaks/vacations. Even as a Muslim, I think that when it comes to laws and government, religion should be regarded as nothing more than fairy tales.
User avatar #425 - alltimetens (04/21/2014) [-]
No no no. I didn't block you. It is just that each thread has a certain limit of posts that can be made. After like twenty posts, you can't reply anymore.
#422 - punkrockdude (04/21/2014) [-]
I can't reply to the newest post? I'm still not getting where he is referring to ALL muslims. He clearly states, as I quoted before, that he is talking to that tiny group of muslims that do want to change things.

Also, if that group is so small, why can't our schools have Christmas Concerts and Christmas trees, instead of Non-denominational Winter-time-snowy concerts and trees?
User avatar #423 - alltimetens (04/21/2014) [-]
Religion shouldn't be taught in schools or be a part of the government.

If you're gonna allow students to celebrate Christian holidays, then why should Jewish and Muslim holidays be excluded?
#294 - punkrockdude (04/20/2014) [-]
For fucks sake: "IF minorities prefer Sharia Law then we advise them to go to places where that is the state law" as in if they prefer it to existing russian laws, they should leave. He's not saying fuck the mulsims, theyre all evil, He's basically saying: if you don't like our laws, get out, we aren't changing them for you
User avatar #421 - alltimetens (04/21/2014) [-]
Listen. I totally one hundred percent agree with Putin. Russia was founded by hardworking Russians. Muslim immigrants have no right to take what is not theirs and alter it to their benefit, nobody does. However, seeing as how only a teeny tiny minority of Muslims actually want anything to change, then obviously Putin should not have regarded Muslims as a whole, or Muslims in particular.


As a politician, Putin should have made his wording more appealing to everyone. So rather than targeting Muslims in specific, he should have said something along the lines of "all minorities"
But really, he shouldn't use addressed something that wasn't an issue to begin with.
#258 - Listen. I've already said this before. Only the tiny tiny tiny…  [+] (21 new replies) 04/20/2014 on Long live Putin 0
User avatar #325 - danmanjonesnz (04/20/2014) [-]
why do you attribute the desire for Sharia law to just a tiny tiny minority and yet attribute Putin's statement towards all Muslims?

He was clearly addressing those people who think they're gonna campaign for Sharia in Russia.
User avatar #317 - schnizel (04/20/2014) [-]
A poll in 2006 found some 40 percent of British Mus
lims wanted to be governed by Sharia laws,
while some 60 percent of them wanted to see Sharia
courts operate for the mediation of Muslim affairs.
A recent study by the Center for Social Cohesion in t
he U.K. found some 4 percent of Muslim students in
British Universities support killing to "promote an
d preserve" Islam; 32 percent thought that killing was
justified in the defence of Islam; 40 percent suppo
rt the introduction of Sharia law for Muslims in Britain and
37 percent oppose it. Some 33 percent of them suppo
rt the creation of a worldwide Muslim caliphate, with
only 25 percent opposed to the idea.
So your comment goes into the trash.
#318 - Common Pepe (04/20/2014) [-]
"A poll"
Very credible source
User avatar #320 - schnizel (04/20/2014) [-]
Why do you follow me around anon?
User avatar #319 - schnizel (04/20/2014) [-]
www.islam-watch.org/books/islamic-jihad-legacy-of-forced-conversion-imperialism-slavery.pdf
The book, "Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism and Slavery", is M. A. Khan's gift to mankind. It is an essential read for all of us, for it depicts the true nature of Islam and the serious threat it poses to the safety and wellbeing of nonMuslims. I thank the author for giving us such a precious gift."
– Mohammad Asghar, author of Muhammad & His Quran
#265 - punkrockdude (04/20/2014) [-]
Yeah I get that, but that tiny group is also one of the loudest. That is who he is aiming the message to. And really, the loudest and most obnoxious in society, tend to be the stupidest (NOT saying muslims are stupid), and as such would probably think that the message is meant for someone else
User avatar #269 - alltimetens (04/20/2014) [-]
Okay okay...

Let us assume that Putin is right for targeting Muslims.

Don't you thin that he needs to be more professional? Is he not obligated to treat all races equally?
#277 - punkrockdude (04/20/2014) [-]
In all honesty, I think that the world wouldbe a better place if they could flat out say who is causing the problems
User avatar #281 - alltimetens (04/20/2014) [-]
In theory it would be. But when you actually single out an entire race, it doesn't work out so well.
#282 - punkrockdude (04/20/2014) [-]
Tel me, where in that article does it say anything about your average muslim? With quotes
User avatar #291 - alltimetens (04/20/2014) [-]
I don't think I need to provide you with quotes when it is obvious whom he was referring to by using Sharia Law as an example.


This brings me back to my previous argument because Putin acts as if Chadian Law is just one thing and that one thing contradicts Russian laws.
#431 - punkrockdude (04/21/2014) [-]
Fuck this is annoying lol.

As I said before, which religious group made up the majority of the founders, explorers, and settlers that founded and settled western nations? Christians. (Aside from Natives of course). That is one of the main reasons we celebrate their holidays.

Also, how many of the numerous Christian holidays do people actally get time off for as a national holiday? The only ones that come to mind are Easter and Christmas, which i mentioned earlier. That is only two of many celebrated by Christians.
#427 - punkrockdude (04/21/2014) [-]
Ah ok I see. Really, as far as holidays go, the only religious one we techincally get time off for is Easter, which also coincides with Passover. As for Christmas, It coincides with multiple other holidays. Plus, both Christmas and Easter have become very commercialized, to the point where they arent even very religious anymore. For instance, half of my family is very non-religious and we celebrate all of those holidays. Not by going to church or praying, but by getting together for a big meal and enjoying and celebrating being a family. That is what the holidays have essentially become for many people
User avatar #428 - alltimetens (04/21/2014) [-]
But the issue here isn't what the reason for holidays is. It's the fact that certain religions aren't given the same privileges as others. If we're gonna play this game where we favor certain religions over others, might we well remove all of the holidays.
#424 - punkrockdude (04/21/2014) [-]
Did you block me? I can't reply to your new posts.

Excellent point, why then don't we celebrate Buddhist, Hindu, fucking pagan, etc. Second thought, why don't we just say fuck it, everyday is important to some tiny group, no work or school at all anymore?

Tell me, which religious groups discovered, founded, and settled these nations? That is the reason we have and celebrate these hollidays in schools. However, I agree that these concerts should either avoid the whole religious stories as a whole, or include something from all of them
User avatar #426 - alltimetens (04/21/2014) [-]
Exactly. Religious holidays shouldn't even yield breaks/vacations. Even as a Muslim, I think that when it comes to laws and government, religion should be regarded as nothing more than fairy tales.
User avatar #425 - alltimetens (04/21/2014) [-]
No no no. I didn't block you. It is just that each thread has a certain limit of posts that can be made. After like twenty posts, you can't reply anymore.
#422 - punkrockdude (04/21/2014) [-]
I can't reply to the newest post? I'm still not getting where he is referring to ALL muslims. He clearly states, as I quoted before, that he is talking to that tiny group of muslims that do want to change things.

Also, if that group is so small, why can't our schools have Christmas Concerts and Christmas trees, instead of Non-denominational Winter-time-snowy concerts and trees?
User avatar #423 - alltimetens (04/21/2014) [-]
Religion shouldn't be taught in schools or be a part of the government.

If you're gonna allow students to celebrate Christian holidays, then why should Jewish and Muslim holidays be excluded?
#294 - punkrockdude (04/20/2014) [-]
For fucks sake: "IF minorities prefer Sharia Law then we advise them to go to places where that is the state law" as in if they prefer it to existing russian laws, they should leave. He's not saying fuck the mulsims, theyre all evil, He's basically saying: if you don't like our laws, get out, we aren't changing them for you
User avatar #421 - alltimetens (04/21/2014) [-]
Listen. I totally one hundred percent agree with Putin. Russia was founded by hardworking Russians. Muslim immigrants have no right to take what is not theirs and alter it to their benefit, nobody does. However, seeing as how only a teeny tiny minority of Muslims actually want anything to change, then obviously Putin should not have regarded Muslims as a whole, or Muslims in particular.


As a politician, Putin should have made his wording more appealing to everyone. So rather than targeting Muslims in specific, he should have said something along the lines of "all minorities"
But really, he shouldn't use addressed something that wasn't an issue to begin with.
#252 - Do I disagree with that view? No. As a politician, h…  [+] (23 new replies) 04/20/2014 on Long live Putin 0
#254 - punkrockdude (04/20/2014) [-]
Yes because most other minorities aren't trying to get laws changed to fit their desires.
User avatar #258 - alltimetens (04/20/2014) [-]
Listen. I've already said this before. Only the tiny tiny tiny minority of Muslims want to change anything. Stop trying to smear the same image.

Since Putin is a leader, he has to be professional. Part of being professional s not singling out an entire race/religion.
User avatar #325 - danmanjonesnz (04/20/2014) [-]
why do you attribute the desire for Sharia law to just a tiny tiny minority and yet attribute Putin's statement towards all Muslims?

He was clearly addressing those people who think they're gonna campaign for Sharia in Russia.
User avatar #317 - schnizel (04/20/2014) [-]
A poll in 2006 found some 40 percent of British Mus
lims wanted to be governed by Sharia laws,
while some 60 percent of them wanted to see Sharia
courts operate for the mediation of Muslim affairs.
A recent study by the Center for Social Cohesion in t
he U.K. found some 4 percent of Muslim students in
British Universities support killing to "promote an
d preserve" Islam; 32 percent thought that killing was
justified in the defence of Islam; 40 percent suppo
rt the introduction of Sharia law for Muslims in Britain and
37 percent oppose it. Some 33 percent of them suppo
rt the creation of a worldwide Muslim caliphate, with
only 25 percent opposed to the idea.
So your comment goes into the trash.
#318 - Common Pepe (04/20/2014) [-]
"A poll"
Very credible source
User avatar #320 - schnizel (04/20/2014) [-]
Why do you follow me around anon?
User avatar #319 - schnizel (04/20/2014) [-]
www.islam-watch.org/books/islamic-jihad-legacy-of-forced-conversion-imperialism-slavery.pdf
The book, "Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism and Slavery", is M. A. Khan's gift to mankind. It is an essential read for all of us, for it depicts the true nature of Islam and the serious threat it poses to the safety and wellbeing of nonMuslims. I thank the author for giving us such a precious gift."
– Mohammad Asghar, author of Muhammad & His Quran
#265 - punkrockdude (04/20/2014) [-]
Yeah I get that, but that tiny group is also one of the loudest. That is who he is aiming the message to. And really, the loudest and most obnoxious in society, tend to be the stupidest (NOT saying muslims are stupid), and as such would probably think that the message is meant for someone else
User avatar #269 - alltimetens (04/20/2014) [-]
Okay okay...

Let us assume that Putin is right for targeting Muslims.

Don't you thin that he needs to be more professional? Is he not obligated to treat all races equally?
#277 - punkrockdude (04/20/2014) [-]
In all honesty, I think that the world wouldbe a better place if they could flat out say who is causing the problems
User avatar #281 - alltimetens (04/20/2014) [-]
In theory it would be. But when you actually single out an entire race, it doesn't work out so well.
#282 - punkrockdude (04/20/2014) [-]
Tel me, where in that article does it say anything about your average muslim? With quotes
User avatar #291 - alltimetens (04/20/2014) [-]
I don't think I need to provide you with quotes when it is obvious whom he was referring to by using Sharia Law as an example.


This brings me back to my previous argument because Putin acts as if Chadian Law is just one thing and that one thing contradicts Russian laws.
#431 - punkrockdude (04/21/2014) [-]
Fuck this is annoying lol.

As I said before, which religious group made up the majority of the founders, explorers, and settlers that founded and settled western nations? Christians. (Aside from Natives of course). That is one of the main reasons we celebrate their holidays.

Also, how many of the numerous Christian holidays do people actally get time off for as a national holiday? The only ones that come to mind are Easter and Christmas, which i mentioned earlier. That is only two of many celebrated by Christians.
#427 - punkrockdude (04/21/2014) [-]
Ah ok I see. Really, as far as holidays go, the only religious one we techincally get time off for is Easter, which also coincides with Passover. As for Christmas, It coincides with multiple other holidays. Plus, both Christmas and Easter have become very commercialized, to the point where they arent even very religious anymore. For instance, half of my family is very non-religious and we celebrate all of those holidays. Not by going to church or praying, but by getting together for a big meal and enjoying and celebrating being a family. That is what the holidays have essentially become for many people
User avatar #428 - alltimetens (04/21/2014) [-]
But the issue here isn't what the reason for holidays is. It's the fact that certain religions aren't given the same privileges as others. If we're gonna play this game where we favor certain religions over others, might we well remove all of the holidays.
#424 - punkrockdude (04/21/2014) [-]
Did you block me? I can't reply to your new posts.

Excellent point, why then don't we celebrate Buddhist, Hindu, fucking pagan, etc. Second thought, why don't we just say fuck it, everyday is important to some tiny group, no work or school at all anymore?

Tell me, which religious groups discovered, founded, and settled these nations? That is the reason we have and celebrate these hollidays in schools. However, I agree that these concerts should either avoid the whole religious stories as a whole, or include something from all of them
User avatar #426 - alltimetens (04/21/2014) [-]
Exactly. Religious holidays shouldn't even yield breaks/vacations. Even as a Muslim, I think that when it comes to laws and government, religion should be regarded as nothing more than fairy tales.
User avatar #425 - alltimetens (04/21/2014) [-]
No no no. I didn't block you. It is just that each thread has a certain limit of posts that can be made. After like twenty posts, you can't reply anymore.
#422 - punkrockdude (04/21/2014) [-]
I can't reply to the newest post? I'm still not getting where he is referring to ALL muslims. He clearly states, as I quoted before, that he is talking to that tiny group of muslims that do want to change things.

Also, if that group is so small, why can't our schools have Christmas Concerts and Christmas trees, instead of Non-denominational Winter-time-snowy concerts and trees?
User avatar #423 - alltimetens (04/21/2014) [-]
Religion shouldn't be taught in schools or be a part of the government.

If you're gonna allow students to celebrate Christian holidays, then why should Jewish and Muslim holidays be excluded?
#294 - punkrockdude (04/20/2014) [-]
For fucks sake: "IF minorities prefer Sharia Law then we advise them to go to places where that is the state law" as in if they prefer it to existing russian laws, they should leave. He's not saying fuck the mulsims, theyre all evil, He's basically saying: if you don't like our laws, get out, we aren't changing them for you
User avatar #421 - alltimetens (04/21/2014) [-]
Listen. I totally one hundred percent agree with Putin. Russia was founded by hardworking Russians. Muslim immigrants have no right to take what is not theirs and alter it to their benefit, nobody does. However, seeing as how only a teeny tiny minority of Muslims actually want anything to change, then obviously Putin should not have regarded Muslims as a whole, or Muslims in particular.


As a politician, Putin should have made his wording more appealing to everyone. So rather than targeting Muslims in specific, he should have said something along the lines of "all minorities"
But really, he shouldn't use addressed something that wasn't an issue to begin with.
#250 - I'm not trying to say that Putin is some reincarnated Islamoph…  [+] (1 new reply) 04/20/2014 on Long live Putin 0
#306 - schnizel (04/20/2014) [-]
Hitler was allied with the muslims and islamophobia is not real, it's called common sense.
#245 - Most Christians don't are no where near religious or united as…  [+] (46 new replies) 04/20/2014 on Long live Putin 0
User avatar #315 - schnizel (04/20/2014) [-]
There shouldn't be any argument over who the "true Muslim" is because the Quran clearly distinguishes the true Muslim from the pretender in Sura 9 and elsewhere. According to this - one of the last chapters of the Quran - the true believer "strives and fights with their wealth and persons" while the hypocrites are those who "sit at home," refusing to join the jihad against unbelievers in foreign lands.

In truth, Muhammad organized 65 military campaigns in the last ten years of his life and personally led 27 of them. The more power that he attained, the smaller the excuse needed to go to battle, until finally he began attacking tribes merely because they were not yet part of his growing empire.

After Muhammad’s death, his successor immediately went to war with former allied tribes which wanted to go their own way. Abu Bakr called them 'apostates' and slaughtered anyone who did not want to remain Muslim. Eventually, he was successful in holding the empire together through blood and violence.
#432 - punkrockdude (04/21/2014) [-]
Despite me being on your side of this argument, I have to say that I don't agree when people bring up Muhammad's violence and habits. That kind of thing can be found in almost every relion, not to mention from many historic leaders. Attila the Hun and Genghis Khan murdered and raped their way through most of the known world just for power. Even the Romans held an empire built entirely on blood and war.

And for the pedophilia and things like that, those were an accepted norm back then. Sure times have changed, but we can't change how things were viewed in the past
User avatar #436 - schnizel (04/21/2014) [-]
a)They are still muslim
b)They still venerate his name as a man of God
c)Genghis Khan would not kill you nor sack your city if you payed 1% from your entire wealth
#440 - punkrockdude (04/21/2014) [-]
How about the Crusades then? Christians went through muslim territory and destroyed tons of them. Does that mean Christians are all violent today? Even going by the bible, we are talking about a god that didn't like how shit was going so he destroy them evil?
User avatar #441 - schnizel (04/21/2014) [-]
It's sides in life.
Christians were defending their land.
Christianity is falling and there is no use in stepping in when the enemy is destroying himself.
THERE ARE A SHITTON BIBLE TRANSLATIONS and many types of christianity and it's as devided as ever.
Most christians didn't even read the bible nor do they even match the fighting spirit of the muslims which I admire (just their spirit and loyalty not who they kill).
Let me educate you a little bit more.
>AD 632 -- Muhammad’s death.
>AD 635 -- Christian Damascas fell to invading Muslims.
>AD 636 -- Christian Antioch fell to invading Muslims.
>AD 638 -- Christian Jerusalem,and later Alexandria,fell to invading Muslims.
>AD 650 -- Muslim armies reached Cilicia and Caesarea of Cappodocia. In the same period Muslim forces carried out raids on Cyprus, Rhodes, Crete and Sicily, carrying off thousands of Christian slaves.
>AD 668 -- Muslim armies laid siege to Constantinople. They were repulsed.
>AD 711 -- Muslim armies invaded Spain. By AD 715 they had conquered most of Spain.
>AD 717 -- Muslim armies again laid siege to Constantinople. Again repulsed.
>AD 732 -- Muslim armies invaded France. Charles Martel stopped them at Tours.
>AD 792 -- The Muslim ruler of Spain, Hisham, called for a new invasion of France. An international Islamic crusade was assembled, and was repulsed by the French.
>AD 827 -- Muslim warriors invaded Italy and Sicily, terrorised monks,and raped nuns. Sicily was held by Muslims until AD 1091.
>AD 846 -- Muslim armies reached Rome, where they forced the Pope to pay them tribute.
>AD 848 -- France was again invaded by Muslims. And again repulsed.
>AD 1059 -- Pope Urban II launched the FIRST Crusade.
#442 - punkrockdude (04/21/2014) [-]
Like you said, it's sides in life (and history). Whenever anybody attempts to conquer other nations, they don't just stop because of what other people believe.

So just because they are muslim and trying to conquer other nations, they are evil? What about the European explorers and settlers that conqured Native Americans and Africans? Do you see them as evil? Or the countless nations and leaders that murdered and raped their way accross continents for domination?
#446 - schnizel (04/22/2014) [-]
>So just because they are muslim and trying to conquer other nations, they are evil?
We are the one they are conquering so we fight back.
>What about the European explorers and settlers that conqured Native Americans and Africans?
They were primitive savages and we brought civilization to them?
>Or the countless nations and leaders that murdered and raped their way accross continents for domination?
Who and where?
#448 - punkrockdude (04/22/2014) [-]
So the Natives were a large group of people that practiced a different religion and held different values? Sound familiar. And sure we brought civilization to them, civilization that they really didn't need. but we still brought it. To those we didn't kill in bttle or with disease anyway...

So just because we are a more advanced and "better" society, that gives us the right to murder and rape those we see below us? I think Hiler would agree anyway

> Who and where?
Let's see, as I mentioned, Attila the Hun and Genghis Khan, as well as Alexander the Great, the Vikings, Napoleon, The Roman Empire (and by relation the Catholic Church), and many more
#449 - schnizel (04/22/2014) [-]
>So the Natives were a large group of people that practiced a different religion and held different values?
Primitives that killed eachother on huge temples and cut eachothers hearts out.
>So just because we are a more advanced and "better" society, that gives us the right to murder and rape those we see below us? I think Hiler would agree anyway
The smaller fish eats the bigger fish.
>Attila the Hun
I'm not on his side. He was a great commander tho.
>Genghis Khan
He was only demanding 1% from all wealth and all peoples kept their religions and culture and he didn't force his culture on anyone.
>Alexander the Great
He invaided the Persian empire because of what the Persians did in the past.
>the Vikings
Would have killed them myself if I was defening my tribe.
Again, it's sides in life.
>The Roman Empire
Brough civilization to barbaric savages.
>Catholic Church
Who said I like it?
#450 - punkrockdude (04/23/2014) [-]
>Primitives that killed eachother on huge temples and cut eachothers hearts out.
So people practicing an older religion that involved sacrificing people? Doesn't sound at all like Christianity.
>The smaller fish eats the bigger fish.
Ohhhhh so thats why there are still "primitive" people living in Africa and the middle east. And why the entire world practices the same religion and has the same values
>He invaided the Persian empire because of what the Persians did in the past.
That's essentially what Muhammad did to the persian and Byzantine empires
Muslims also would have viewed Christianity as an old eligion that needed t o be changed, the same way Europeans and the Roman Empire viewed the "savages"of the new world.
And I don't really get what you are saying about the others, sorry
User avatar #461 - schnizel (04/23/2014) [-]
Barbarian means anyone who is not Roman or Greek.
And I don't give a shit about the US. They are a shithole.
User avatar #459 - schnizel (04/23/2014) [-]
>Actually, the Native villages wouldve been pretty good until the white folk showed up
Colonisation and expansion and a quest for resources.
> Sure his wartime methods might have been, in a way, ssavage. That doesn't make him a bararian
You have to be kidding me. He acts like one, he does barbaric acts but he is not one?
>And congrats, that whole passage basically describes the leaders of most empires past and present. Most empires tortured/raped and killed their captured prisoners (or they took them as slaves which basically was torture and rape). just look at the Egyptians, Vikings, etc.
And before generalising leaders and empires you could learn the how and why of each empire.
#460 - punkrockdude (04/23/2014) [-]
Great, you described why the white folk showed up. Not really sure why, but good for you

If there is one term to describe him, it would be savage, not barbaric. is the United States Barbaric because their army has a record of torturing captives and killing civilians? Barbaric implies he raped and killed for the fun of it, which he really didn't. He did it to spread islam and gain power. That is the reason for every empire conquering nations, POWER. That is the why

T
User avatar #457 - schnizel (04/23/2014) [-]
THIRD PART
At one point following a battle, Muhammad provided instructions on how women should be raped after capture, telling his men not to worry about coitus interruptus, since "Allah has written whom he is going to create."
Following the battle against the Hunain, late in his life, Muhammad's men were reluctant to rape the captured women in front of their husbands (who were apparently still alive to witness the abomination), but Allah came to the rescue with a handy "revelation" that allowed the debauchery. (This is the origin of Sura 4:24 according to Abu Dawud 2150).
From Medina, Muhammad waged a campaign of terror, to which he openly attributed his success (Bukhari 52:220). His gang of robbers launched raids in which hapless communities were savaged, looted, murdered and raped. The tribes around the Muslims began to convert to Islam out of self-preservation.
The excuse for military campaign began to shrink to the point that it hardly existed at all. Muhammad told his followers that Muslims were meant to rule over other people. Supremacist teachings became the driving force behind Jihad, and Jihad became the driving force behind Islam.
The brutal conquest of the people of Khaybar, a peaceful farming community that was not at war with the Muslims, is a striking example. Muhammad marched in secret, took them by surprise and easily defeated them. He had many of the men killed, simply for defending their town. He enslaved women and children and had surviving men live on the land as virtual serfs, paying Muslims an ongoing share of their crops not to attack them again.
Muhammad suspected that the town's treasurer was holding out and had his men barbarically torture the poor fellow by building a fire on his chest until he revealed the location of hidden treasure.
Afterwards, the prophet of Islam beheaded the man and "married" his widow on the same day (she first had to pass through the hands of one of his lieutenants). Given that the woman's father was also killed by Muhammad, it isn't much of a stretch to say that true love had very little to do with this "marriage."
I could go on and on but we all know where this takes.



#458 - punkrockdude (04/23/2014) [-]
Actually, the Native villages wouldve been pretty good until the white folk showed up

Barbarian: a person in a savage, primitive state; uncivilized person. Sure his wartime methods might have been, in a way, ssavage. That doesn't make him a bararian

And congrats, that whole passage basically describes the leaders of most empires past and present. Most empires tortured/raped and killed their captured prisoners (or they took them as slaves which basically was torture and rape). just look at the Egyptians, Vikings, etc.
User avatar #455 - schnizel (04/23/2014) [-]
>Comparing a modern slum to a village of natives
The cities didn't fall from the skies, they were built by men.
>Implying someone is a barbarian just because he was on the other side of history
Someone is a barbarian if he is a barbarian.
>>Implying I know and/or Care about your religious preferences
Ok.
>Implying that is any different from any other religion
He was more brutal and more successful.
>
"Muhammad did not attract much support in Mecca. In fact, his preaching against the corrupt practices of traders earned him many enemies in a city whose wealth depended on trade. Warned of an attempt on his life in 622, he fled to the town of Medina. Torn apart by political struggles, Medina had invited him to rule it. Muhammad took control of the town and unified it under Islam. Local tribes flocked to convert to Islam. Within seven years, he led warriors back to Mecca and conquered it. By the time of his death, he had succeeded in unifying most of Arabia under Islam, personally leading about 20 military campaigns against pagan Arab tribes. Because Muhammad held both religious and political authority, the Koran and Sunna did not just contain religious teachings. They also set down civil and criminal laws (collectively known as the Sharia)."
Ok, let me educate you.
According to early Muslim historians, the Meccans did not mind Muhammad practicing his religion, nor did they feel threatened by his promotion of it. This changed only after the self-proclaimed prophet began attacking their religion, including the customs and ancestors of the people (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 167). This was enough to stir up the resentment of the influential leaders of Mecca, who then mocked his humble background against his pretentious claims.
Still, Mecca at the time was a remarkably tolerant society. Muhammad was allowed to attack the local customs for thirteen years, even though the town's economy depended on the annual pilgrimage attended by visiting pagans, whose religion he actively disparaged.
At first, Muhammad was only successful with friends and family. After thirteen years, “the street preacher” could boast of only about a hundred determined followers, who called themselves Muslims. Outside of his wife, his first convert was his young cousin Ali (who would later become his son-in-law and the fourth caliph of Islam). Another early convert was Abu Bakr, a wealthy merchant whose money and credulous acceptance of Muhammad can be credited with the survival of the fledgling cult. (Muhammad would later "marry" Abu Bakr's 6-year-old daughter).
Relations with the Meccans turned particularly sour after an episode known as "the Satanic Verses" in which Muhammad agreed to recognize the local gods in addition to Allah. This delighted the Meccans, who generously extended their welcome. But Muhammad soon changed his mind after his own people began to lose faith in him. He claimed that Satan had spoken through him, and he rescinded recognition of the Meccan gods (Tabari 1192, Quran 22:52 & 53:19-26).
The locals intensified their mockery of Muslims and made life particularly difficult for some of them. Although Muslims today often use the word "persecution" to describe this ordeal (justifiably, in some cases), it is important to note that the earliest and most reliable biographers (Ibn Ishaq and al-Tabari) record the death of only one Muslim during this period, an older woman who died from stress.
To deal with this unpleasant truth, sympathetic narratives of the early Meccan years usually exaggerate the struggle of the Muslims with claims that they were "under constant torture."
The death of his uncle, Abu Talib, in 619 left Muhammad without a protector against the Meccan leadership, which was gradually losing patience with him. The true agitator in this situation, however, is quite clearly Muhammad himself, as even Muslim historians note. Consider this account of what happened at Abu Talib's deathbed, as the Meccans implored him a final time for peace with his nephew:
[Muhammad's chief adversary] Abu Sufyan, with other sundry notables, went to Abu Talib and said: "You know the trouble that exists between us and your nephew, so call him and let us make an agreement that he will leave us alone and we will leave him alone; let him have his religion and we will have ours." (Ibn Ishaq 278)
Muhammad rejected the offer of peaceful co-existence. His new religion was obviously intended to dominate the others, not be on equal standing with them. Meanwhile, the Muslims were beginning to become violent with the people around them.
Muhammad's search for political alliance led him to make a treaty of war against the Meccans with the people of Medina, another Arab town far to the north (Ibn Ishaq 299-301). This was the last straw for the Meccans, who finally decided to capture Muhammad and put him to death.
Although this sounds harsh against Western standards, it is important to note the contrast between the Meccan reaction and that of Muhammad when he had the opportunity to deal with perceived treachery in Medina at a later date on the part of those who hadn't even harmed anyone.
The Meccans limited their deadly aggression to Muhammad himself. This is quite clear from the episode in which Muhammad escapes his home by using his son-in-law, Ali, to trick his would-be assassins into thinking that they had him trapped (Ibn Ishaq 326). No harm was done to Ali or his wife, both of whom subsequently remained in the city for several days to complete the transfer of Muhammad's family business to Medina.
Compare this to the episode of the Banu Qurayza , in which Muhammad slaughtered an entire tribe of people based on their leader having switched loyalties in a conflict in which none of them even participated.
Stinging from the rejection of his own town and tribe, Muhammad's message quickly become more intolerant and ruthless - particularly as he gained power. Islam's holiest book clearly reflects this contrast, with the later parts of the Quran adding violence and earthly defeats at the hands of Muslims to the woes of eternal damnation that the earlier parts of the book promises those who will not believe in Muhammad.
It was at Medina that Islam evolved from a relatively peaceful religion borrowed from others and into a military force that was intended to govern all aspects of society. During these last ten years of Muhammad's life, infidels were evicted or enslaved, converted upon point of death and even rounded up and slaughtered depending on expediency.
To fund his quest for control, Muhammad first directed his followers to raid Meccan caravans in the holy months, when the victims would least expect it. This was despite the fact that the Meccans were not bothering him in Medina.
Muhammad provided his people with convenient revelations "from Allah" which allowed them to murder innocent drivers and steal their property (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 426). The people around him gradually developed a lust for things that could be taken in battle, including material comforts and captured women and children.
Often the people captured in battle would be brought before the self-proclaimed prophet, where they would plead for their lives, arguing, for example, that they would never have treated the Muslims that way. The traditions are quite clear in portraying Muhammad as largely unmoved by their pleas, and ordering their deaths anyway, often by horrible means. In one case, he orders a man slain, telling him that “Hell” will take care of the poor fellow’s orphaned daughter (Ishaq 459).
User avatar #456 - schnizel (04/23/2014) [-]
The raids on caravans preceded the first major battle involving a Muslim army, the Battle of Badr. This was the spot where the Meccans had sent their own army to protect their caravans from Muslim raiders. Although, Muslims today like to claim that they only attack others in self-defense, this was clearly not the case in Muhammad's time. In fact, he had to compel his reluctant warriors with promises of paradise and assurances that their religion was more important than the lives of others.
Muhammad defeated the Meccan army at Badr, which emboldened him to begin dividing and conquering the three local Jewish tribes at Medina. Their mistake was to accept the Muslim presence, but reject Muhammad's claim that he was in the line of Jewish prophets. His stories from the Torah simply did not agree with their own. (Muhammad's recited version of Bible stories sounds more like fragmented fairy tales with the same moral - believe in his personal claim to be a prophet or else).
How these three tribes, the Banu Qaynuqa, the Banu Nadir, and the Banu Quyrayza met their fate is insightful into the Muslim mindset, which employs an inherent double standard in its relations with those outside the faith.
First, to try and gain their favor, Muhammad briefly preached that Christians and Jews could attain salvation through their own faith. In fact, he changed his followers' direction for prayer from Mecca to Jerusalem, which prompted the Jews' tolerance of him while he worked surreptitiously for the power to evict them. These earlier concessions and teachings were later revoked by Muhammad, since the Jews ultimately refused his religion. The rare early verses of tolerance in the Quran are abrogated by later verses such as 9:29.
The Jews' knowledge of the Torah naturally threatened the Muslim leader's credibility, since it easily refuted the claims that he made about himself as a prophet of God. They also saw through the Biblical narrations that he had picked up from secondhand sources and knew that these contradicted established revelation. Conveniently, Allah stepped in to tell Muhammad that the Jews had deliberately corrupted their own texts to hide the very evidence of his own prophethood that he had previously insisted existed. (To this day, Muslims have never been able to produce a copy of the "true" Torah or Gospel to which their own Quran refers).
While the Jews remained unconvinced by such obvious gimmickry, Arab polytheists converted to Islam in large numbers, which soon gave Muhammad the power to make his intentions clear that Islam would be imposed by force:
While we were in the Mosque, the Prophet came out and said, "Let us go to the Jews" We went out till we reached Bait-ul-Midras. He said to them, "If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to expel you from this land. So, if anyone amongst you owns some property, he is permitted to sell it, otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle." Bukhari 53:392
The Jews of Mecca were the first in a very long line of unfortunate people to be offered the opportunity to convert to Islam under obvious duress. Forcible conversion is very much a Muslim tradition started by Muhammad.
Since they chose to hold on to their religion (and their property) Muhammad looked for reasons to go to war against the Jews at Medina. According to some Muslims, the first tribe, the Qaynuqa, were driven from their homes and land on the pretext that one of their own had harassed a Muslim woman. Although the offender was killed prior to this by a Muslim, the Muslim was also killed by Jews in retaliation for the first murder.
After laying siege to the entire community and defeating the tribe, Muhammad wanted to put every male member to death, but was talked out of it by an associate - something that Allah later "rebuked" him for. The Qaynuqa were forced into exile and the Muslims took their possessions and property, making it their own. Muhammad personally reserved a fifth of the ill-gotten gain for himself (a rule that he was sure to include in the Quran).
This episode helped ingrain within Islam the immature principle of group identity, whereby any member of a religion or social unit outside of Islam is just as guilty as any of their peers who insult or harm a Muslim - and just as deserving of punishment. (Muhammad's punishments usually did not fit the crime).
Members of the second tribe, the Banu Nadir, were accused by Muhammad of plotting to kill him. What is most intriguing about this episode is that it occurred after the Muslims had killed several prominent Jews on Muhammad's order, including a leader of the Banu Nadir (named Ka'b al-Ashraf).
When the prophet of Islam learned that he might be targeted in retaliation (something that he claimed was "revealed" to him by Allah), he promptly laid siege to the Banu Nadir community. After forcing them to surrender, these original inhabitants of Medina were then banished from their homes and land by the Muslim newcomers, who again started to take as much as they could for themselves (Ibn Ishaq 653). (To the disappointment of his people, this time Muhammad produced a revelation from Allah that allowed him to confiscate the entire portion for himself).
In a critical example of how deception is sanctioned under Islam, a surviving contingent of the Banu Nadir (under Usayr ibn Zarim) was later tricked into leaving their fortress by promise of peace talks. The contingent of Muslims sent by Muhammad to "escort" them, however, easily slaughtered the victims once they let down their guard (Ibn Ishaq 981).
By the time the Banu Qurayza met their fate, Muhammad was wealthy and powerful from his defeat of the other two tribes.
The Jews of the Banu Qurayza tasted Muhammad's wrath after their leader half-heartedly sided with the Meccan army during a siege of Medina (the Battle of the Trench). By then, Muhammad had evicted the other Jews and declared that all land at Medina belonged to him, so the original constitution of the town was no longer in effect. It is important to note that the Qurayza did not attack the Muslims, even after switching loyalties (contrary to another popular myth).
Although the Qurayza surrendered peacefully to the Muslims, Muhammad determined to have every man of the tribe executed, along with every boy that had reached the initial stages of puberty (between the ages of 12 and 14). He ordered a ditch dug outside of the town and had the victims brought to him in several groups. Each person would be forced to kneel, and their head would be cut off and then dumped along with the body into the trench.
Between 700 and 900 men and boys were slaughtered by the Muslims after their surrender.
The surviving children of the men became slaves of the Muslims, and their widows became sex slaves. This included the Jewish girl, Rayhana, who became one of Muhammad's personal concubines the very night that her husband was killed. The prophet of Islam apparently "enjoyed her pleasures" (ie. raped her) even as the very execution of her people was taking place.
In some ways, women were much like any other possession taken in battle, to be done with however their captors pleased. But Muslims found them useful in other ways as well. In fact, one of the methods by which Islam owed its expansion down through the centuries was through the reproductive capabilities of captured women. In addition to four wives, a man was allowed an unlimited number of sex slaves, with the only rule being that any resulting children would automatically be Muslim.
Muhammad ordered that a fifth of the women taken captive be reserved for him. Many were absorbed into his personal stable of sex slaves that he maintained in addition to his eleven wives. Others were doled out like party favors to others.
#453 - schnizel (04/23/2014) [-]
Or a savage?
#452 - schnizel (04/23/2014) [-]
Would you rather live like a Roman?
User avatar #451 - schnizel (04/23/2014) [-]
>So people practicing an older religion that involved sacrificing people? Doesn't sound at all like Christianity.
Do I sound like I like it?
>That's essentially what Muhammad did to the persian and Byzantine empires
No, he did not.
>Muslims also would have viewed Christianity as an old eligion that needed t o be changed, the same way Europeans and the Roman Empire viewed the "savages"of the new world.
Ok, Muhhamed was a barbaric warlord who killed others for not believeing in his sky daddy and would not stop until everyone is either muslim or in charge by muslims.
Rome has set a task to save its citizents from further celtic attacks because celts sacked Rome many times and the Romans got sick and kicked their asses.
Rome was attacked first, Muhammed wasn't.
It's sides in life, as always.
#454 - punkrockdude (04/23/2014) [-]
>Comparing a modern slum to a village of natives
>Implying someone is a barbarian just because he was on the other side of history
>Implying I know and/or Care about your religious preferences

>Ok, Muhhamed was a barbaric warlord who killed others for not believeing in his sky daddy and would not stop until everyone is either muslim or in charge by muslims.
Implying that is any different from any other religion

"Muhammad did not attract much support in Mecca. In fact, his preaching against the corrupt practices of traders earned him many enemies in a city whose wealth depended on trade. Warned of an attempt on his life in 622, he fled to the town of Medina. Torn apart by political struggles, Medina had invited him to rule it. Muhammad took control of the town and unified it under Islam. Local tribes flocked to convert to Islam. Within seven years, he led warriors back to Mecca and conquered it. By the time of his death, he had succeeded in unifying most of Arabia under Islam, personally leading about 20 military campaigns against pagan Arab tribes. Because Muhammad held both religious and political authority, the Koran and Sunna did not just contain religious teachings. They also set down civil and criminal laws (collectively known as the Sharia)."
-www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-20-1-b-muslim-conquests-in-europe


#246 - punkrockdude (04/20/2014) [-]
Exactly, and he is telling those loud-mouthed muslims to either stop bitching or leave. Everyone else can stay. Just not the loud-mouthed bitchy ones
User avatar #252 - alltimetens (04/20/2014) [-]
Do I disagree with that view? No.

As a politician, however, Putin gratuitously targeted a single minority.

Rather than saying "all Muslims that can't handleRussian standards must leave"
He should have said something along the lines of "all minorities that can't deal with Russian laws must leave"

That is like me saying "all blacks who can't follow the law can go back to Africa"

You see how that would be perceived as gratuitously offensive? It targets specifically blacks. Same thing with what Putin is doing except he is targeting Muslims.
#254 - punkrockdude (04/20/2014) [-]
Yes because most other minorities aren't trying to get laws changed to fit their desires.
User avatar #258 - alltimetens (04/20/2014) [-]
Listen. I've already said this before. Only the tiny tiny tiny minority of Muslims want to change anything. Stop trying to smear the same image.

Since Putin is a leader, he has to be professional. Part of being professional s not singling out an entire race/religion.
User avatar #325 - danmanjonesnz (04/20/2014) [-]
why do you attribute the desire for Sharia law to just a tiny tiny minority and yet attribute Putin's statement towards all Muslims?

He was clearly addressing those people who think they're gonna campaign for Sharia in Russia.
User avatar #317 - schnizel (04/20/2014) [-]
A poll in 2006 found some 40 percent of British Mus
lims wanted to be governed by Sharia laws,
while some 60 percent of them wanted to see Sharia
courts operate for the mediation of Muslim affairs.
A recent study by the Center for Social Cohesion in t
he U.K. found some 4 percent of Muslim students in
British Universities support killing to "promote an
d preserve" Islam; 32 percent thought that killing was
justified in the defence of Islam; 40 percent suppo
rt the introduction of Sharia law for Muslims in Britain and
37 percent oppose it. Some 33 percent of them suppo
rt the creation of a worldwide Muslim caliphate, with
only 25 percent opposed to the idea.
So your comment goes into the trash.
#318 - Common Pepe (04/20/2014) [-]
"A poll"
Very credible source
User avatar #320 - schnizel (04/20/2014) [-]
Why do you follow me around anon?
User avatar #319 - schnizel (04/20/2014) [-]
www.islam-watch.org/books/islamic-jihad-legacy-of-forced-conversion-imperialism-slavery.pdf
The book, "Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism and Slavery", is M. A. Khan's gift to mankind. It is an essential read for all of us, for it depicts the true nature of Islam and the serious threat it poses to the safety and wellbeing of nonMuslims. I thank the author for giving us such a precious gift."
– Mohammad Asghar, author of Muhammad & His Quran
#265 - punkrockdude (04/20/2014) [-]
Yeah I get that, but that tiny group is also one of the loudest. That is who he is aiming the message to. And really, the loudest and most obnoxious in society, tend to be the stupidest (NOT saying muslims are stupid), and as such would probably think that the message is meant for someone else
User avatar #269 - alltimetens (04/20/2014) [-]
Okay okay...

Let us assume that Putin is right for targeting Muslims.

Don't you thin that he needs to be more professional? Is he not obligated to treat all races equally?
#277 - punkrockdude (04/20/2014) [-]
In all honesty, I think that the world wouldbe a better place if they could flat out say who is causing the problems
User avatar #281 - alltimetens (04/20/2014) [-]
In theory it would be. But when you actually single out an entire race, it doesn't work out so well.
#282 - punkrockdude (04/20/2014) [-]
Tel me, where in that article does it say anything about your average muslim? With quotes
User avatar #291 - alltimetens (04/20/2014) [-]
I don't think I need to provide you with quotes when it is obvious whom he was referring to by using Sharia Law as an example.


This brings me back to my previous argument because Putin acts as if Chadian Law is just one thing and that one thing contradicts Russian laws.
#431 - punkrockdude (04/21/2014) [-]
Fuck this is annoying lol.

As I said before, which religious group made up the majority of the founders, explorers, and settlers that founded and settled western nations? Christians. (Aside from Natives of course). That is one of the main reasons we celebrate their holidays.

Also, how many of the numerous Christian holidays do people actally get time off for as a national holiday? The only ones that come to mind are Easter and Christmas, which i mentioned earlier. That is only two of many celebrated by Christians.
#427 - punkrockdude (04/21/2014) [-]
Ah ok I see. Really, as far as holidays go, the only religious one we techincally get time off for is Easter, which also coincides with Passover. As for Christmas, It coincides with multiple other holidays. Plus, both Christmas and Easter have become very commercialized, to the point where they arent even very religious anymore. For instance, half of my family is very non-religious and we celebrate all of those holidays. Not by going to church or praying, but by getting together for a big meal and enjoying and celebrating being a family. That is what the holidays have essentially become for many people
User avatar #428 - alltimetens (04/21/2014) [-]
But the issue here isn't what the reason for holidays is. It's the fact that certain religions aren't given the same privileges as others. If we're gonna play this game where we favor certain religions over others, might we well remove all of the holidays.
#424 - punkrockdude (04/21/2014) [-]
Did you block me? I can't reply to your new posts.

Excellent point, why then don't we celebrate Buddhist, Hindu, fucking pagan, etc. Second thought, why don't we just say fuck it, everyday is important to some tiny group, no work or school at all anymore?

Tell me, which religious groups discovered, founded, and settled these nations? That is the reason we have and celebrate these hollidays in schools. However, I agree that these concerts should either avoid the whole religious stories as a whole, or include something from all of them
User avatar #426 - alltimetens (04/21/2014) [-]
Exactly. Religious holidays shouldn't even yield breaks/vacations. Even as a Muslim, I think that when it comes to laws and government, religion should be regarded as nothing more than fairy tales.
User avatar #425 - alltimetens (04/21/2014) [-]
No no no. I didn't block you. It is just that each thread has a certain limit of posts that can be made. After like twenty posts, you can't reply anymore.
#422 - punkrockdude (04/21/2014) [-]
I can't reply to the newest post? I'm still not getting where he is referring to ALL muslims. He clearly states, as I quoted before, that he is talking to that tiny group of muslims that do want to change things.

Also, if that group is so small, why can't our schools have Christmas Concerts and Christmas trees, instead of Non-denominational Winter-time-snowy concerts and trees?
User avatar #423 - alltimetens (04/21/2014) [-]
Religion shouldn't be taught in schools or be a part of the government.

If you're gonna allow students to celebrate Christian holidays, then why should Jewish and Muslim holidays be excluded?
#294 - punkrockdude (04/20/2014) [-]
For fucks sake: "IF minorities prefer Sharia Law then we advise them to go to places where that is the state law" as in if they prefer it to existing russian laws, they should leave. He's not saying fuck the mulsims, theyre all evil, He's basically saying: if you don't like our laws, get out, we aren't changing them for you
User avatar #421 - alltimetens (04/21/2014) [-]
Listen. I totally one hundred percent agree with Putin. Russia was founded by hardworking Russians. Muslim immigrants have no right to take what is not theirs and alter it to their benefit, nobody does. However, seeing as how only a teeny tiny minority of Muslims actually want anything to change, then obviously Putin should not have regarded Muslims as a whole, or Muslims in particular.


As a politician, Putin should have made his wording more appealing to everyone. So rather than targeting Muslims in specific, he should have said something along the lines of "all minorities"
But really, he shouldn't use addressed something that wasn't an issue to begin with.
#41 - That is implying that European nations didn't place their flag… 04/20/2014 on rodeo -1
#240 - Nobody wants to alter the laws of the state. The issue with yo…  [+] (5 new replies) 04/20/2014 on Long live Putin -5
User avatar #340 - hadden (04/20/2014) [-]
most russian muslims are peaceful bystanders? You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Like...at all
#305 - schnizel (04/20/2014) [-]
Muslims are instructed to not follow non-islamic laws.
So that's bullshit.
User avatar #243 - schneidend (04/20/2014) [-]
I think the issue with your side of the debate is that you believe that, by arguing against the campaigns of the minority to impose Sharia laws that conflict with the laws of the state, that people like Putin are out to get the majority of Muslims. It's pretty clear that Putin is talking about Muslims that want Sharia Law, and not Muslims that want to adapt to the laws of the state.
User avatar #250 - alltimetens (04/20/2014) [-]
I'm not trying to say that Putin is some reincarnated Islamophobic Hitler; I'm saying that his speech and his agenda are both repudiating something that was not addressed formally.
#306 - schnizel (04/20/2014) [-]
Hitler was allied with the muslims and islamophobia is not real, it's called common sense.
#238 - Don't be pseudo-smart. You know exactly what message Putin wan…  [+] (1 new reply) 04/20/2014 on Long live Putin 0
User avatar #324 - danmanjonesnz (04/20/2014) [-]
Yeah I know what message he was sending - forget about Sharia law. How is this depicting Islam as gruesome etc?
Russia is a secular nation full of Christians. There is some Sharia law in Chechnya but at some point you have to draw the line & that's what he's doing.

I'm still waiting for you to provide ANY evidence of Putin expressing his opinion of Islam or Muslims.

....tick tock.
#237 - You used the word 'obviously' as if Putin would not have cause…  [+] (48 new replies) 04/20/2014 on Long live Putin 0
#241 - punkrockdude (04/20/2014) [-]
No, he is nothing like Hitler. He isn't saying that he wants to exterminate all Muslims, or that he even wants them to leave. He just wants it understood that they will not get any special privilege because they are Muslims. Andyeah, I agree with that. It doesn't make me racist.
Sure, he maybe used a poor choice of words. When a politician refers to one faction of Christianity, do all of the other ones get mad and offended?
User avatar #245 - alltimetens (04/20/2014) [-]
Most Christians don't are no where near religious or united as Muslims are.

And yet again, you generalize Muslims. Most Musims in Russia are peaceful civilians that are just as willing to abide by Russian law as any other race. However, there are the few loud-mouthed Muslims that ruin this image.

But I don't see why Putin targets Muslims when there are other minorities.
User avatar #315 - schnizel (04/20/2014) [-]
There shouldn't be any argument over who the "true Muslim" is because the Quran clearly distinguishes the true Muslim from the pretender in Sura 9 and elsewhere. According to this - one of the last chapters of the Quran - the true believer "strives and fights with their wealth and persons" while the hypocrites are those who "sit at home," refusing to join the jihad against unbelievers in foreign lands.

In truth, Muhammad organized 65 military campaigns in the last ten years of his life and personally led 27 of them. The more power that he attained, the smaller the excuse needed to go to battle, until finally he began attacking tribes merely because they were not yet part of his growing empire.

After Muhammad’s death, his successor immediately went to war with former allied tribes which wanted to go their own way. Abu Bakr called them 'apostates' and slaughtered anyone who did not want to remain Muslim. Eventually, he was successful in holding the empire together through blood and violence.
#432 - punkrockdude (04/21/2014) [-]
Despite me being on your side of this argument, I have to say that I don't agree when people bring up Muhammad's violence and habits. That kind of thing can be found in almost every relion, not to mention from many historic leaders. Attila the Hun and Genghis Khan murdered and raped their way through most of the known world just for power. Even the Romans held an empire built entirely on blood and war.

And for the pedophilia and things like that, those were an accepted norm back then. Sure times have changed, but we can't change how things were viewed in the past
User avatar #436 - schnizel (04/21/2014) [-]
a)They are still muslim
b)They still venerate his name as a man of God
c)Genghis Khan would not kill you nor sack your city if you payed 1% from your entire wealth
#440 - punkrockdude (04/21/2014) [-]
How about the Crusades then? Christians went through muslim territory and destroyed tons of them. Does that mean Christians are all violent today? Even going by the bible, we are talking about a god that didn't like how shit was going so he destroy them evil?
User avatar #441 - schnizel (04/21/2014) [-]
It's sides in life.
Christians were defending their land.
Christianity is falling and there is no use in stepping in when the enemy is destroying himself.
THERE ARE A SHITTON BIBLE TRANSLATIONS and many types of christianity and it's as devided as ever.
Most christians didn't even read the bible nor do they even match the fighting spirit of the muslims which I admire (just their spirit and loyalty not who they kill).
Let me educate you a little bit more.
>AD 632 -- Muhammad’s death.
>AD 635 -- Christian Damascas fell to invading Muslims.
>AD 636 -- Christian Antioch fell to invading Muslims.
>AD 638 -- Christian Jerusalem,and later Alexandria,fell to invading Muslims.
>AD 650 -- Muslim armies reached Cilicia and Caesarea of Cappodocia. In the same period Muslim forces carried out raids on Cyprus, Rhodes, Crete and Sicily, carrying off thousands of Christian slaves.
>AD 668 -- Muslim armies laid siege to Constantinople. They were repulsed.
>AD 711 -- Muslim armies invaded Spain. By AD 715 they had conquered most of Spain.
>AD 717 -- Muslim armies again laid siege to Constantinople. Again repulsed.
>AD 732 -- Muslim armies invaded France. Charles Martel stopped them at Tours.
>AD 792 -- The Muslim ruler of Spain, Hisham, called for a new invasion of France. An international Islamic crusade was assembled, and was repulsed by the French.
>AD 827 -- Muslim warriors invaded Italy and Sicily, terrorised monks,and raped nuns. Sicily was held by Muslims until AD 1091.
>AD 846 -- Muslim armies reached Rome, where they forced the Pope to pay them tribute.
>AD 848 -- France was again invaded by Muslims. And again repulsed.
>AD 1059 -- Pope Urban II launched the FIRST Crusade.
#442 - punkrockdude (04/21/2014) [-]
Like you said, it's sides in life (and history). Whenever anybody attempts to conquer other nations, they don't just stop because of what other people believe.

So just because they are muslim and trying to conquer other nations, they are evil? What about the European explorers and settlers that conqured Native Americans and Africans? Do you see them as evil? Or the countless nations and leaders that murdered and raped their way accross continents for domination?
#446 - schnizel (04/22/2014) [-]
>So just because they are muslim and trying to conquer other nations, they are evil?
We are the one they are conquering so we fight back.
>What about the European explorers and settlers that conqured Native Americans and Africans?
They were primitive savages and we brought civilization to them?
>Or the countless nations and leaders that murdered and raped their way accross continents for domination?
Who and where?
#448 - punkrockdude (04/22/2014) [-]
So the Natives were a large group of people that practiced a different religion and held different values? Sound familiar. And sure we brought civilization to them, civilization that they really didn't need. but we still brought it. To those we didn't kill in bttle or with disease anyway...

So just because we are a more advanced and "better" society, that gives us the right to murder and rape those we see below us? I think Hiler would agree anyway

> Who and where?
Let's see, as I mentioned, Attila the Hun and Genghis Khan, as well as Alexander the Great, the Vikings, Napoleon, The Roman Empire (and by relation the Catholic Church), and many more
#449 - schnizel (04/22/2014) [-]
>So the Natives were a large group of people that practiced a different religion and held different values?
Primitives that killed eachother on huge temples and cut eachothers hearts out.
>So just because we are a more advanced and "better" society, that gives us the right to murder and rape those we see below us? I think Hiler would agree anyway
The smaller fish eats the bigger fish.
>Attila the Hun
I'm not on his side. He was a great commander tho.
>Genghis Khan
He was only demanding 1% from all wealth and all peoples kept their religions and culture and he didn't force his culture on anyone.
>Alexander the Great
He invaided the Persian empire because of what the Persians did in the past.
>the Vikings
Would have killed them myself if I was defening my tribe.
Again, it's sides in life.
>The Roman Empire
Brough civilization to barbaric savages.
>Catholic Church
Who said I like it?
#450 - punkrockdude (04/23/2014) [-]
>Primitives that killed eachother on huge temples and cut eachothers hearts out.
So people practicing an older religion that involved sacrificing people? Doesn't sound at all like Christianity.
>The smaller fish eats the bigger fish.
Ohhhhh so thats why there are still "primitive" people living in Africa and the middle east. And why the entire world practices the same religion and has the same values
>He invaided the Persian empire because of what the Persians did in the past.
That's essentially what Muhammad did to the persian and Byzantine empires
Muslims also would have viewed Christianity as an old eligion that needed t o be changed, the same way Europeans and the Roman Empire viewed the "savages"of the new world.
And I don't really get what you are saying about the others, sorry
User avatar #461 - schnizel (04/23/2014) [-]
Barbarian means anyone who is not Roman or Greek.
And I don't give a shit about the US. They are a shithole.
User avatar #459 - schnizel (04/23/2014) [-]
>Actually, the Native villages wouldve been pretty good until the white folk showed up
Colonisation and expansion and a quest for resources.
> Sure his wartime methods might have been, in a way, ssavage. That doesn't make him a bararian
You have to be kidding me. He acts like one, he does barbaric acts but he is not one?
>And congrats, that whole passage basically describes the leaders of most empires past and present. Most empires tortured/raped and killed their captured prisoners (or they took them as slaves which basically was torture and rape). just look at the Egyptians, Vikings, etc.
And before generalising leaders and empires you could learn the how and why of each empire.
#460 - punkrockdude (04/23/2014) [-]
Great, you described why the white folk showed up. Not really sure why, but good for you

If there is one term to describe him, it would be savage, not barbaric. is the United States Barbaric because their army has a record of torturing captives and killing civilians? Barbaric implies he raped and killed for the fun of it, which he really didn't. He did it to spread islam and gain power. That is the reason for every empire conquering nations, POWER. That is the why

T
User avatar #457 - schnizel (04/23/2014) [-]
THIRD PART
At one point following a battle, Muhammad provided instructions on how women should be raped after capture, telling his men not to worry about coitus interruptus, since "Allah has written whom he is going to create."
Following the battle against the Hunain, late in his life, Muhammad's men were reluctant to rape the captured women in front of their husbands (who were apparently still alive to witness the abomination), but Allah came to the rescue with a handy "revelation" that allowed the debauchery. (This is the origin of Sura 4:24 according to Abu Dawud 2150).
From Medina, Muhammad waged a campaign of terror, to which he openly attributed his success (Bukhari 52:220). His gang of robbers launched raids in which hapless communities were savaged, looted, murdered and raped. The tribes around the Muslims began to convert to Islam out of self-preservation.
The excuse for military campaign began to shrink to the point that it hardly existed at all. Muhammad told his followers that Muslims were meant to rule over other people. Supremacist teachings became the driving force behind Jihad, and Jihad became the driving force behind Islam.
The brutal conquest of the people of Khaybar, a peaceful farming community that was not at war with the Muslims, is a striking example. Muhammad marched in secret, took them by surprise and easily defeated them. He had many of the men killed, simply for defending their town. He enslaved women and children and had surviving men live on the land as virtual serfs, paying Muslims an ongoing share of their crops not to attack them again.
Muhammad suspected that the town's treasurer was holding out and had his men barbarically torture the poor fellow by building a fire on his chest until he revealed the location of hidden treasure.
Afterwards, the prophet of Islam beheaded the man and "married" his widow on the same day (she first had to pass through the hands of one of his lieutenants). Given that the woman's father was also killed by Muhammad, it isn't much of a stretch to say that true love had very little to do with this "marriage."
I could go on and on but we all know where this takes.



#458 - punkrockdude (04/23/2014) [-]
Actually, the Native villages wouldve been pretty good until the white folk showed up

Barbarian: a person in a savage, primitive state; uncivilized person. Sure his wartime methods might have been, in a way, ssavage. That doesn't make him a bararian

And congrats, that whole passage basically describes the leaders of most empires past and present. Most empires tortured/raped and killed their captured prisoners (or they took them as slaves which basically was torture and rape). just look at the Egyptians, Vikings, etc.
User avatar #455 - schnizel (04/23/2014) [-]
>Comparing a modern slum to a village of natives
The cities didn't fall from the skies, they were built by men.
>Implying someone is a barbarian just because he was on the other side of history
Someone is a barbarian if he is a barbarian.
>>Implying I know and/or Care about your religious preferences
Ok.
>Implying that is any different from any other religion
He was more brutal and more successful.
>
"Muhammad did not attract much support in Mecca. In fact, his preaching against the corrupt practices of traders earned him many enemies in a city whose wealth depended on trade. Warned of an attempt on his life in 622, he fled to the town of Medina. Torn apart by political struggles, Medina had invited him to rule it. Muhammad took control of the town and unified it under Islam. Local tribes flocked to convert to Islam. Within seven years, he led warriors back to Mecca and conquered it. By the time of his death, he had succeeded in unifying most of Arabia under Islam, personally leading about 20 military campaigns against pagan Arab tribes. Because Muhammad held both religious and political authority, the Koran and Sunna did not just contain religious teachings. They also set down civil and criminal laws (collectively known as the Sharia)."
Ok, let me educate you.
According to early Muslim historians, the Meccans did not mind Muhammad practicing his religion, nor did they feel threatened by his promotion of it. This changed only after the self-proclaimed prophet began attacking their religion, including the customs and ancestors of the people (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 167). This was enough to stir up the resentment of the influential leaders of Mecca, who then mocked his humble background against his pretentious claims.
Still, Mecca at the time was a remarkably tolerant society. Muhammad was allowed to attack the local customs for thirteen years, even though the town's economy depended on the annual pilgrimage attended by visiting pagans, whose religion he actively disparaged.
At first, Muhammad was only successful with friends and family. After thirteen years, “the street preacher” could boast of only about a hundred determined followers, who called themselves Muslims. Outside of his wife, his first convert was his young cousin Ali (who would later become his son-in-law and the fourth caliph of Islam). Another early convert was Abu Bakr, a wealthy merchant whose money and credulous acceptance of Muhammad can be credited with the survival of the fledgling cult. (Muhammad would later "marry" Abu Bakr's 6-year-old daughter).
Relations with the Meccans turned particularly sour after an episode known as "the Satanic Verses" in which Muhammad agreed to recognize the local gods in addition to Allah. This delighted the Meccans, who generously extended their welcome. But Muhammad soon changed his mind after his own people began to lose faith in him. He claimed that Satan had spoken through him, and he rescinded recognition of the Meccan gods (Tabari 1192, Quran 22:52 & 53:19-26).
The locals intensified their mockery of Muslims and made life particularly difficult for some of them. Although Muslims today often use the word "persecution" to describe this ordeal (justifiably, in some cases), it is important to note that the earliest and most reliable biographers (Ibn Ishaq and al-Tabari) record the death of only one Muslim during this period, an older woman who died from stress.
To deal with this unpleasant truth, sympathetic narratives of the early Meccan years usually exaggerate the struggle of the Muslims with claims that they were "under constant torture."
The death of his uncle, Abu Talib, in 619 left Muhammad without a protector against the Meccan leadership, which was gradually losing patience with him. The true agitator in this situation, however, is quite clearly Muhammad himself, as even Muslim historians note. Consider this account of what happened at Abu Talib's deathbed, as the Meccans implored him a final time for peace with his nephew:
[Muhammad's chief adversary] Abu Sufyan, with other sundry notables, went to Abu Talib and said: "You know the trouble that exists between us and your nephew, so call him and let us make an agreement that he will leave us alone and we will leave him alone; let him have his religion and we will have ours." (Ibn Ishaq 278)
Muhammad rejected the offer of peaceful co-existence. His new religion was obviously intended to dominate the others, not be on equal standing with them. Meanwhile, the Muslims were beginning to become violent with the people around them.
Muhammad's search for political alliance led him to make a treaty of war against the Meccans with the people of Medina, another Arab town far to the north (Ibn Ishaq 299-301). This was the last straw for the Meccans, who finally decided to capture Muhammad and put him to death.
Although this sounds harsh against Western standards, it is important to note the contrast between the Meccan reaction and that of Muhammad when he had the opportunity to deal with perceived treachery in Medina at a later date on the part of those who hadn't even harmed anyone.
The Meccans limited their deadly aggression to Muhammad himself. This is quite clear from the episode in which Muhammad escapes his home by using his son-in-law, Ali, to trick his would-be assassins into thinking that they had him trapped (Ibn Ishaq 326). No harm was done to Ali or his wife, both of whom subsequently remained in the city for several days to complete the transfer of Muhammad's family business to Medina.
Compare this to the episode of the Banu Qurayza , in which Muhammad slaughtered an entire tribe of people based on their leader having switched loyalties in a conflict in which none of them even participated.
Stinging from the rejection of his own town and tribe, Muhammad's message quickly become more intolerant and ruthless - particularly as he gained power. Islam's holiest book clearly reflects this contrast, with the later parts of the Quran adding violence and earthly defeats at the hands of Muslims to the woes of eternal damnation that the earlier parts of the book promises those who will not believe in Muhammad.
It was at Medina that Islam evolved from a relatively peaceful religion borrowed from others and into a military force that was intended to govern all aspects of society. During these last ten years of Muhammad's life, infidels were evicted or enslaved, converted upon point of death and even rounded up and slaughtered depending on expediency.
To fund his quest for control, Muhammad first directed his followers to raid Meccan caravans in the holy months, when the victims would least expect it. This was despite the fact that the Meccans were not bothering him in Medina.
Muhammad provided his people with convenient revelations "from Allah" which allowed them to murder innocent drivers and steal their property (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 426). The people around him gradually developed a lust for things that could be taken in battle, including material comforts and captured women and children.
Often the people captured in battle would be brought before the self-proclaimed prophet, where they would plead for their lives, arguing, for example, that they would never have treated the Muslims that way. The traditions are quite clear in portraying Muhammad as largely unmoved by their pleas, and ordering their deaths anyway, often by horrible means. In one case, he orders a man slain, telling him that “Hell” will take care of the poor fellow’s orphaned daughter (Ishaq 459).
User avatar #456 - schnizel (04/23/2014) [-]
The raids on caravans preceded the first major battle involving a Muslim army, the Battle of Badr. This was the spot where the Meccans had sent their own army to protect their caravans from Muslim raiders. Although, Muslims today like to claim that they only attack others in self-defense, this was clearly not the case in Muhammad's time. In fact, he had to compel his reluctant warriors with promises of paradise and assurances that their religion was more important than the lives of others.
Muhammad defeated the Meccan army at Badr, which emboldened him to begin dividing and conquering the three local Jewish tribes at Medina. Their mistake was to accept the Muslim presence, but reject Muhammad's claim that he was in the line of Jewish prophets. His stories from the Torah simply did not agree with their own. (Muhammad's recited version of Bible stories sounds more like fragmented fairy tales with the same moral - believe in his personal claim to be a prophet or else).
How these three tribes, the Banu Qaynuqa, the Banu Nadir, and the Banu Quyrayza met their fate is insightful into the Muslim mindset, which employs an inherent double standard in its relations with those outside the faith.
First, to try and gain their favor, Muhammad briefly preached that Christians and Jews could attain salvation through their own faith. In fact, he changed his followers' direction for prayer from Mecca to Jerusalem, which prompted the Jews' tolerance of him while he worked surreptitiously for the power to evict them. These earlier concessions and teachings were later revoked by Muhammad, since the Jews ultimately refused his religion. The rare early verses of tolerance in the Quran are abrogated by later verses such as 9:29.
The Jews' knowledge of the Torah naturally threatened the Muslim leader's credibility, since it easily refuted the claims that he made about himself as a prophet of God. They also saw through the Biblical narrations that he had picked up from secondhand sources and knew that these contradicted established revelation. Conveniently, Allah stepped in to tell Muhammad that the Jews had deliberately corrupted their own texts to hide the very evidence of his own prophethood that he had previously insisted existed. (To this day, Muslims have never been able to produce a copy of the "true" Torah or Gospel to which their own Quran refers).
While the Jews remained unconvinced by such obvious gimmickry, Arab polytheists converted to Islam in large numbers, which soon gave Muhammad the power to make his intentions clear that Islam would be imposed by force:
While we were in the Mosque, the Prophet came out and said, "Let us go to the Jews" We went out till we reached Bait-ul-Midras. He said to them, "If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to expel you from this land. So, if anyone amongst you owns some property, he is permitted to sell it, otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle." Bukhari 53:392
The Jews of Mecca were the first in a very long line of unfortunate people to be offered the opportunity to convert to Islam under obvious duress. Forcible conversion is very much a Muslim tradition started by Muhammad.
Since they chose to hold on to their religion (and their property) Muhammad looked for reasons to go to war against the Jews at Medina. According to some Muslims, the first tribe, the Qaynuqa, were driven from their homes and land on the pretext that one of their own had harassed a Muslim woman. Although the offender was killed prior to this by a Muslim, the Muslim was also killed by Jews in retaliation for the first murder.
After laying siege to the entire community and defeating the tribe, Muhammad wanted to put every male member to death, but was talked out of it by an associate - something that Allah later "rebuked" him for. The Qaynuqa were forced into exile and the Muslims took their possessions and property, making it their own. Muhammad personally reserved a fifth of the ill-gotten gain for himself (a rule that he was sure to include in the Quran).
This episode helped ingrain within Islam the immature principle of group identity, whereby any member of a religion or social unit outside of Islam is just as guilty as any of their peers who insult or harm a Muslim - and just as deserving of punishment. (Muhammad's punishments usually did not fit the crime).
Members of the second tribe, the Banu Nadir, were accused by Muhammad of plotting to kill him. What is most intriguing about this episode is that it occurred after the Muslims had killed several prominent Jews on Muhammad's order, including a leader of the Banu Nadir (named Ka'b al-Ashraf).
When the prophet of Islam learned that he might be targeted in retaliation (something that he claimed was "revealed" to him by Allah), he promptly laid siege to the Banu Nadir community. After forcing them to surrender, these original inhabitants of Medina were then banished from their homes and land by the Muslim newcomers, who again started to take as much as they could for themselves (Ibn Ishaq 653). (To the disappointment of his people, this time Muhammad produced a revelation from Allah that allowed him to confiscate the entire portion for himself).
In a critical example of how deception is sanctioned under Islam, a surviving contingent of the Banu Nadir (under Usayr ibn Zarim) was later tricked into leaving their fortress by promise of peace talks. The contingent of Muslims sent by Muhammad to "escort" them, however, easily slaughtered the victims once they let down their guard (Ibn Ishaq 981).
By the time the Banu Qurayza met their fate, Muhammad was wealthy and powerful from his defeat of the other two tribes.
The Jews of the Banu Qurayza tasted Muhammad's wrath after their leader half-heartedly sided with the Meccan army during a siege of Medina (the Battle of the Trench). By then, Muhammad had evicted the other Jews and declared that all land at Medina belonged to him, so the original constitution of the town was no longer in effect. It is important to note that the Qurayza did not attack the Muslims, even after switching loyalties (contrary to another popular myth).
Although the Qurayza surrendered peacefully to the Muslims, Muhammad determined to have every man of the tribe executed, along with every boy that had reached the initial stages of puberty (between the ages of 12 and 14). He ordered a ditch dug outside of the town and had the victims brought to him in several groups. Each person would be forced to kneel, and their head would be cut off and then dumped along with the body into the trench.
Between 700 and 900 men and boys were slaughtered by the Muslims after their surrender.
The surviving children of the men became slaves of the Muslims, and their widows became sex slaves. This included the Jewish girl, Rayhana, who became one of Muhammad's personal concubines the very night that her husband was killed. The prophet of Islam apparently "enjoyed her pleasures" (ie. raped her) even as the very execution of her people was taking place.
In some ways, women were much like any other possession taken in battle, to be done with however their captors pleased. But Muslims found them useful in other ways as well. In fact, one of the methods by which Islam owed its expansion down through the centuries was through the reproductive capabilities of captured women. In addition to four wives, a man was allowed an unlimited number of sex slaves, with the only rule being that any resulting children would automatically be Muslim.
Muhammad ordered that a fifth of the women taken captive be reserved for him. Many were absorbed into his personal stable of sex slaves that he maintained in addition to his eleven wives. Others were doled out like party favors to others.
#453 - schnizel (04/23/2014) [-]
Or a savage?
#452 - schnizel (04/23/2014) [-]
Would you rather live like a Roman?
User avatar #451 - schnizel (04/23/2014) [-]
>So people practicing an older religion that involved sacrificing people? Doesn't sound at all like Christianity.
Do I sound like I like it?
>That's essentially what Muhammad did to the persian and Byzantine empires
No, he did not.
>Muslims also would have viewed Christianity as an old eligion that needed t o be changed, the same way Europeans and the Roman Empire viewed the "savages"of the new world.
Ok, Muhhamed was a barbaric warlord who killed others for not believeing in his sky daddy and would not stop until everyone is either muslim or in charge by muslims.
Rome has set a task to save its citizents from further celtic attacks because celts sacked Rome many times and the Romans got sick and kicked their asses.
Rome was attacked first, Muhammed wasn't.
It's sides in life, as always.
#454 - punkrockdude (04/23/2014) [-]
>Comparing a modern slum to a village of natives
>Implying someone is a barbarian just because he was on the other side of history
>Implying I know and/or Care about your religious preferences

>Ok, Muhhamed was a barbaric warlord who killed others for not believeing in his sky daddy and would not stop until everyone is either muslim or in charge by muslims.
Implying that is any different from any other religion

"Muhammad did not attract much support in Mecca. In fact, his preaching against the corrupt practices of traders earned him many enemies in a city whose wealth depended on trade. Warned of an attempt on his life in 622, he fled to the town of Medina. Torn apart by political struggles, Medina had invited him to rule it. Muhammad took control of the town and unified it under Islam. Local tribes flocked to convert to Islam. Within seven years, he led warriors back to Mecca and conquered it. By the time of his death, he had succeeded in unifying most of Arabia under Islam, personally leading about 20 military campaigns against pagan Arab tribes. Because Muhammad held both religious and political authority, the Koran and Sunna did not just contain religious teachings. They also set down civil and criminal laws (collectively known as the Sharia)."
-www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-20-1-b-muslim-conquests-in-europe


#246 - punkrockdude (04/20/2014) [-]
Exactly, and he is telling those loud-mouthed muslims to either stop bitching or leave. Everyone else can stay. Just not the loud-mouthed bitchy ones
User avatar #252 - alltimetens (04/20/2014) [-]
Do I disagree with that view? No.

As a politician, however, Putin gratuitously targeted a single minority.

Rather than saying "all Muslims that can't handleRussian standards must leave"
He should have said something along the lines of "all minorities that can't deal with Russian laws must leave"

That is like me saying "all blacks who can't follow the law can go back to Africa"

You see how that would be perceived as gratuitously offensive? It targets specifically blacks. Same thing with what Putin is doing except he is targeting Muslims.
#254 - punkrockdude (04/20/2014) [-]
Yes because most other minorities aren't trying to get laws changed to fit their desires.
User avatar #258 - alltimetens (04/20/2014) [-]
Listen. I've already said this before. Only the tiny tiny tiny minority of Muslims want to change anything. Stop trying to smear the same image.

Since Putin is a leader, he has to be professional. Part of being professional s not singling out an entire race/religion.
User avatar #325 - danmanjonesnz (04/20/2014) [-]
why do you attribute the desire for Sharia law to just a tiny tiny minority and yet attribute Putin's statement towards all Muslims?

He was clearly addressing those people who think they're gonna campaign for Sharia in Russia.
User avatar #317 - schnizel (04/20/2014) [-]
A poll in 2006 found some 40 percent of British Mus
lims wanted to be governed by Sharia laws,
while some 60 percent of them wanted to see Sharia
courts operate for the mediation of Muslim affairs.
A recent study by the Center for Social Cohesion in t
he U.K. found some 4 percent of Muslim students in
British Universities support killing to "promote an
d preserve" Islam; 32 percent thought that killing was
justified in the defence of Islam; 40 percent suppo
rt the introduction of Sharia law for Muslims in Britain and
37 percent oppose it. Some 33 percent of them suppo
rt the creation of a worldwide Muslim caliphate, with
only 25 percent opposed to the idea.
So your comment goes into the trash.
#318 - Common Pepe (04/20/2014) [-]
"A poll"
Very credible source
User avatar #320 - schnizel (04/20/2014) [-]
Why do you follow me around anon?
User avatar #319 - schnizel (04/20/2014) [-]
www.islam-watch.org/books/islamic-jihad-legacy-of-forced-conversion-imperialism-slavery.pdf
The book, "Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism and Slavery", is M. A. Khan's gift to mankind. It is an essential read for all of us, for it depicts the true nature of Islam and the serious threat it poses to the safety and wellbeing of nonMuslims. I thank the author for giving us such a precious gift."
– Mohammad Asghar, author of Muhammad & His Quran
#265 - punkrockdude (04/20/2014) [-]
Yeah I get that, but that tiny group is also one of the loudest. That is who he is aiming the message to. And really, the loudest and most obnoxious in society, tend to be the stupidest (NOT saying muslims are stupid), and as such would probably think that the message is meant for someone else
User avatar #269 - alltimetens (04/20/2014) [-]
Okay okay...

Let us assume that Putin is right for targeting Muslims.

Don't you thin that he needs to be more professional? Is he not obligated to treat all races equally?
#277 - punkrockdude (04/20/2014) [-]
In all honesty, I think that the world wouldbe a better place if they could flat out say who is causing the problems
User avatar #281 - alltimetens (04/20/2014) [-]
In theory it would be. But when you actually single out an entire race, it doesn't work out so well.
#282 - punkrockdude (04/20/2014) [-]
Tel me, where in that article does it say anything about your average muslim? With quotes
User avatar #291 - alltimetens (04/20/2014) [-]
I don't think I need to provide you with quotes when it is obvious whom he was referring to by using Sharia Law as an example.


This brings me back to my previous argument because Putin acts as if Chadian Law is just one thing and that one thing contradicts Russian laws.
#431 - punkrockdude (04/21/2014) [-]
Fuck this is annoying lol.

As I said before, which religious group made up the majority of the founders, explorers, and settlers that founded and settled western nations? Christians. (Aside from Natives of course). That is one of the main reasons we celebrate their holidays.

Also, how many of the numerous Christian holidays do people actally get time off for as a national holiday? The only ones that come to mind are Easter and Christmas, which i mentioned earlier. That is only two of many celebrated by Christians.
#427 - punkrockdude (04/21/2014) [-]
Ah ok I see. Really, as far as holidays go, the only religious one we techincally get time off for is Easter, which also coincides with Passover. As for Christmas, It coincides with multiple other holidays. Plus, both Christmas and Easter have become very commercialized, to the point where they arent even very religious anymore. For instance, half of my family is very non-religious and we celebrate all of those holidays. Not by going to church or praying, but by getting together for a big meal and enjoying and celebrating being a family. That is what the holidays have essentially become for many people
User avatar #428 - alltimetens (04/21/2014) [-]
But the issue here isn't what the reason for holidays is. It's the fact that certain religions aren't given the same privileges as others. If we're gonna play this game where we favor certain religions over others, might we well remove all of the holidays.
#424 - punkrockdude (04/21/2014) [-]
Did you block me? I can't reply to your new posts.

Excellent point, why then don't we celebrate Buddhist, Hindu, fucking pagan, etc. Second thought, why don't we just say fuck it, everyday is important to some tiny group, no work or school at all anymore?

Tell me, which religious groups discovered, founded, and settled these nations? That is the reason we have and celebrate these hollidays in schools. However, I agree that these concerts should either avoid the whole religious stories as a whole, or include something from all of them
User avatar #426 - alltimetens (04/21/2014) [-]
Exactly. Religious holidays shouldn't even yield breaks/vacations. Even as a Muslim, I think that when it comes to laws and government, religion should be regarded as nothing more than fairy tales.
User avatar #425 - alltimetens (04/21/2014) [-]
No no no. I didn't block you. It is just that each thread has a certain limit of posts that can be made. After like twenty posts, you can't reply anymore.
#422 - punkrockdude (04/21/2014) [-]
I can't reply to the newest post? I'm still not getting where he is referring to ALL muslims. He clearly states, as I quoted before, that he is talking to that tiny group of muslims that do want to change things.

Also, if that group is so small, why can't our schools have Christmas Concerts and Christmas trees, instead of Non-denominational Winter-time-snowy concerts and trees?
User avatar #423 - alltimetens (04/21/2014) [-]
Religion shouldn't be taught in schools or be a part of the government.

If you're gonna allow students to celebrate Christian holidays, then why should Jewish and Muslim holidays be excluded?
#294 - punkrockdude (04/20/2014) [-]
For fucks sake: "IF minorities prefer Sharia Law then we advise them to go to places where that is the state law" as in if they prefer it to existing russian laws, they should leave. He's not saying fuck the mulsims, theyre all evil, He's basically saying: if you don't like our laws, get out, we aren't changing them for you
User avatar #421 - alltimetens (04/21/2014) [-]
Listen. I totally one hundred percent agree with Putin. Russia was founded by hardworking Russians. Muslim immigrants have no right to take what is not theirs and alter it to their benefit, nobody does. However, seeing as how only a teeny tiny minority of Muslims actually want anything to change, then obviously Putin should not have regarded Muslims as a whole, or Muslims in particular.


As a politician, Putin should have made his wording more appealing to everyone. So rather than targeting Muslims in specific, he should have said something along the lines of "all minorities"
But really, he shouldn't use addressed something that wasn't an issue to begin with.
#231 - Well if you're referring to the caliphates, then you should kn…  [+] (2 new replies) 04/20/2014 on Long live Putin 0
User avatar #395 - ihatem (04/20/2014) [-]
You can't really be insinuating that just because way up in power there were representatives that the early caliphates were as happy sunshine secular democracy as Switzerland? There were religious law representatives in power who were obsessed with dominion, and didn't pick caliphs that would represent the people, they picked whoever was tough enough to move Islam forward, so they most certainly were states that represent fresh new raw Islam and suggests, like I said, the latter. The history just isn't pretty and there's no way around it.
#309 - schnizel (04/20/2014) [-]
#218 - I agree with him. But as you can see, my argument wasn't that …  [+] (50 new replies) 04/20/2014 on Long live Putin 0
#224 - punkrockdude (04/20/2014) [-]
In all honesty, it's not like it would be all that hard to give them a bad name. The extremists have already done a pretty good job of that. BUT, the nazis did the same thing for germany. There were plenty of good germans that didn't agree with Hitler before, during, and after the war. But lots of people viewed them all as evil.

Putin is obviously refering to the worst interpretations of sharia law
User avatar #237 - alltimetens (04/20/2014) [-]
You used the word 'obviously' as if Putin would not have caused certain idiots to misinterpret his speech.

Even here, we have a bunch of people that use Putin's words as a defense of their racist and bigoted views.

It should also be noted that Putin himself used a poor choice of words. So it pretty much looks like he himself is a reflection of Hitler.
#241 - punkrockdude (04/20/2014) [-]
No, he is nothing like Hitler. He isn't saying that he wants to exterminate all Muslims, or that he even wants them to leave. He just wants it understood that they will not get any special privilege because they are Muslims. Andyeah, I agree with that. It doesn't make me racist.
Sure, he maybe used a poor choice of words. When a politician refers to one faction of Christianity, do all of the other ones get mad and offended?
User avatar #245 - alltimetens (04/20/2014) [-]
Most Christians don't are no where near religious or united as Muslims are.

And yet again, you generalize Muslims. Most Musims in Russia are peaceful civilians that are just as willing to abide by Russian law as any other race. However, there are the few loud-mouthed Muslims that ruin this image.

But I don't see why Putin targets Muslims when there are other minorities.
User avatar #315 - schnizel (04/20/2014) [-]
There shouldn't be any argument over who the "true Muslim" is because the Quran clearly distinguishes the true Muslim from the pretender in Sura 9 and elsewhere. According to this - one of the last chapters of the Quran - the true believer "strives and fights with their wealth and persons" while the hypocrites are those who "sit at home," refusing to join the jihad against unbelievers in foreign lands.

In truth, Muhammad organized 65 military campaigns in the last ten years of his life and personally led 27 of them. The more power that he attained, the smaller the excuse needed to go to battle, until finally he began attacking tribes merely because they were not yet part of his growing empire.

After Muhammad’s death, his successor immediately went to war with former allied tribes which wanted to go their own way. Abu Bakr called them 'apostates' and slaughtered anyone who did not want to remain Muslim. Eventually, he was successful in holding the empire together through blood and violence.
#432 - punkrockdude (04/21/2014) [-]
Despite me being on your side of this argument, I have to say that I don't agree when people bring up Muhammad's violence and habits. That kind of thing can be found in almost every relion, not to mention from many historic leaders. Attila the Hun and Genghis Khan murdered and raped their way through most of the known world just for power. Even the Romans held an empire built entirely on blood and war.

And for the pedophilia and things like that, those were an accepted norm back then. Sure times have changed, but we can't change how things were viewed in the past
User avatar #436 - schnizel (04/21/2014) [-]
a)They are still muslim
b)They still venerate his name as a man of God
c)Genghis Khan would not kill you nor sack your city if you payed 1% from your entire wealth
#440 - punkrockdude (04/21/2014) [-]
How about the Crusades then? Christians went through muslim territory and destroyed tons of them. Does that mean Christians are all violent today? Even going by the bible, we are talking about a god that didn't like how shit was going so he destroy them evil?
User avatar #441 - schnizel (04/21/2014) [-]
It's sides in life.
Christians were defending their land.
Christianity is falling and there is no use in stepping in when the enemy is destroying himself.
THERE ARE A SHITTON BIBLE TRANSLATIONS and many types of christianity and it's as devided as ever.
Most christians didn't even read the bible nor do they even match the fighting spirit of the muslims which I admire (just their spirit and loyalty not who they kill).
Let me educate you a little bit more.
>AD 632 -- Muhammad’s death.
>AD 635 -- Christian Damascas fell to invading Muslims.
>AD 636 -- Christian Antioch fell to invading Muslims.
>AD 638 -- Christian Jerusalem,and later Alexandria,fell to invading Muslims.
>AD 650 -- Muslim armies reached Cilicia and Caesarea of Cappodocia. In the same period Muslim forces carried out raids on Cyprus, Rhodes, Crete and Sicily, carrying off thousands of Christian slaves.
>AD 668 -- Muslim armies laid siege to Constantinople. They were repulsed.
>AD 711 -- Muslim armies invaded Spain. By AD 715 they had conquered most of Spain.
>AD 717 -- Muslim armies again laid siege to Constantinople. Again repulsed.
>AD 732 -- Muslim armies invaded France. Charles Martel stopped them at Tours.
>AD 792 -- The Muslim ruler of Spain, Hisham, called for a new invasion of France. An international Islamic crusade was assembled, and was repulsed by the French.
>AD 827 -- Muslim warriors invaded Italy and Sicily, terrorised monks,and raped nuns. Sicily was held by Muslims until AD 1091.
>AD 846 -- Muslim armies reached Rome, where they forced the Pope to pay them tribute.
>AD 848 -- France was again invaded by Muslims. And again repulsed.
>AD 1059 -- Pope Urban II launched the FIRST Crusade.
#442 - punkrockdude (04/21/2014) [-]
Like you said, it's sides in life (and history). Whenever anybody attempts to conquer other nations, they don't just stop because of what other people believe.

So just because they are muslim and trying to conquer other nations, they are evil? What about the European explorers and settlers that conqured Native Americans and Africans? Do you see them as evil? Or the countless nations and leaders that murdered and raped their way accross continents for domination?
#446 - schnizel (04/22/2014) [-]
>So just because they are muslim and trying to conquer other nations, they are evil?
We are the one they are conquering so we fight back.
>What about the European explorers and settlers that conqured Native Americans and Africans?
They were primitive savages and we brought civilization to them?
>Or the countless nations and leaders that murdered and raped their way accross continents for domination?
Who and where?
#448 - punkrockdude (04/22/2014) [-]
So the Natives were a large group of people that practiced a different religion and held different values? Sound familiar. And sure we brought civilization to them, civilization that they really didn't need. but we still brought it. To those we didn't kill in bttle or with disease anyway...

So just because we are a more advanced and "better" society, that gives us the right to murder and rape those we see below us? I think Hiler would agree anyway

> Who and where?
Let's see, as I mentioned, Attila the Hun and Genghis Khan, as well as Alexander the Great, the Vikings, Napoleon, The Roman Empire (and by relation the Catholic Church), and many more
#449 - schnizel (04/22/2014) [-]
>So the Natives were a large group of people that practiced a different religion and held different values?
Primitives that killed eachother on huge temples and cut eachothers hearts out.
>So just because we are a more advanced and "better" society, that gives us the right to murder and rape those we see below us? I think Hiler would agree anyway
The smaller fish eats the bigger fish.
>Attila the Hun
I'm not on his side. He was a great commander tho.
>Genghis Khan
He was only demanding 1% from all wealth and all peoples kept their religions and culture and he didn't force his culture on anyone.
>Alexander the Great
He invaided the Persian empire because of what the Persians did in the past.
>the Vikings
Would have killed them myself if I was defening my tribe.
Again, it's sides in life.
>The Roman Empire
Brough civilization to barbaric savages.
>Catholic Church
Who said I like it?
#450 - punkrockdude (04/23/2014) [-]
>Primitives that killed eachother on huge temples and cut eachothers hearts out.
So people practicing an older religion that involved sacrificing people? Doesn't sound at all like Christianity.
>The smaller fish eats the bigger fish.
Ohhhhh so thats why there are still "primitive" people living in Africa and the middle east. And why the entire world practices the same religion and has the same values
>He invaided the Persian empire because of what the Persians did in the past.
That's essentially what Muhammad did to the persian and Byzantine empires
Muslims also would have viewed Christianity as an old eligion that needed t o be changed, the same way Europeans and the Roman Empire viewed the "savages"of the new world.
And I don't really get what you are saying about the others, sorry
User avatar #461 - schnizel (04/23/2014) [-]
Barbarian means anyone who is not Roman or Greek.
And I don't give a shit about the US. They are a shithole.
User avatar #459 - schnizel (04/23/2014) [-]
>Actually, the Native villages wouldve been pretty good until the white folk showed up
Colonisation and expansion and a quest for resources.
> Sure his wartime methods might have been, in a way, ssavage. That doesn't make him a bararian
You have to be kidding me. He acts like one, he does barbaric acts but he is not one?
>And congrats, that whole passage basically describes the leaders of most empires past and present. Most empires tortured/raped and killed their captured prisoners (or they took them as slaves which basically was torture and rape). just look at the Egyptians, Vikings, etc.
And before generalising leaders and empires you could learn the how and why of each empire.
#460 - punkrockdude (04/23/2014) [-]
Great, you described why the white folk showed up. Not really sure why, but good for you

If there is one term to describe him, it would be savage, not barbaric. is the United States Barbaric because their army has a record of torturing captives and killing civilians? Barbaric implies he raped and killed for the fun of it, which he really didn't. He did it to spread islam and gain power. That is the reason for every empire conquering nations, POWER. That is the why

T
User avatar #457 - schnizel (04/23/2014) [-]
THIRD PART
At one point following a battle, Muhammad provided instructions on how women should be raped after capture, telling his men not to worry about coitus interruptus, since "Allah has written whom he is going to create."
Following the battle against the Hunain, late in his life, Muhammad's men were reluctant to rape the captured women in front of their husbands (who were apparently still alive to witness the abomination), but Allah came to the rescue with a handy "revelation" that allowed the debauchery. (This is the origin of Sura 4:24 according to Abu Dawud 2150).
From Medina, Muhammad waged a campaign of terror, to which he openly attributed his success (Bukhari 52:220). His gang of robbers launched raids in which hapless communities were savaged, looted, murdered and raped. The tribes around the Muslims began to convert to Islam out of self-preservation.
The excuse for military campaign began to shrink to the point that it hardly existed at all. Muhammad told his followers that Muslims were meant to rule over other people. Supremacist teachings became the driving force behind Jihad, and Jihad became the driving force behind Islam.
The brutal conquest of the people of Khaybar, a peaceful farming community that was not at war with the Muslims, is a striking example. Muhammad marched in secret, took them by surprise and easily defeated them. He had many of the men killed, simply for defending their town. He enslaved women and children and had surviving men live on the land as virtual serfs, paying Muslims an ongoing share of their crops not to attack them again.
Muhammad suspected that the town's treasurer was holding out and had his men barbarically torture the poor fellow by building a fire on his chest until he revealed the location of hidden treasure.
Afterwards, the prophet of Islam beheaded the man and "married" his widow on the same day (she first had to pass through the hands of one of his lieutenants). Given that the woman's father was also killed by Muhammad, it isn't much of a stretch to say that true love had very little to do with this "marriage."
I could go on and on but we all know where this takes.



#458 - punkrockdude (04/23/2014) [-]
Actually, the Native villages wouldve been pretty good until the white folk showed up

Barbarian: a person in a savage, primitive state; uncivilized person. Sure his wartime methods might have been, in a way, ssavage. That doesn't make him a bararian

And congrats, that whole passage basically describes the leaders of most empires past and present. Most empires tortured/raped and killed their captured prisoners (or they took them as slaves which basically was torture and rape). just look at the Egyptians, Vikings, etc.
User avatar #455 - schnizel (04/23/2014) [-]
>Comparing a modern slum to a village of natives
The cities didn't fall from the skies, they were built by men.
>Implying someone is a barbarian just because he was on the other side of history
Someone is a barbarian if he is a barbarian.
>>Implying I know and/or Care about your religious preferences
Ok.
>Implying that is any different from any other religion
He was more brutal and more successful.
>
"Muhammad did not attract much support in Mecca. In fact, his preaching against the corrupt practices of traders earned him many enemies in a city whose wealth depended on trade. Warned of an attempt on his life in 622, he fled to the town of Medina. Torn apart by political struggles, Medina had invited him to rule it. Muhammad took control of the town and unified it under Islam. Local tribes flocked to convert to Islam. Within seven years, he led warriors back to Mecca and conquered it. By the time of his death, he had succeeded in unifying most of Arabia under Islam, personally leading about 20 military campaigns against pagan Arab tribes. Because Muhammad held both religious and political authority, the Koran and Sunna did not just contain religious teachings. They also set down civil and criminal laws (collectively known as the Sharia)."
Ok, let me educate you.
According to early Muslim historians, the Meccans did not mind Muhammad practicing his religion, nor did they feel threatened by his promotion of it. This changed only after the self-proclaimed prophet began attacking their religion, including the customs and ancestors of the people (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 167). This was enough to stir up the resentment of the influential leaders of Mecca, who then mocked his humble background against his pretentious claims.
Still, Mecca at the time was a remarkably tolerant society. Muhammad was allowed to attack the local customs for thirteen years, even though the town's economy depended on the annual pilgrimage attended by visiting pagans, whose religion he actively disparaged.
At first, Muhammad was only successful with friends and family. After thirteen years, “the street preacher” could boast of only about a hundred determined followers, who called themselves Muslims. Outside of his wife, his first convert was his young cousin Ali (who would later become his son-in-law and the fourth caliph of Islam). Another early convert was Abu Bakr, a wealthy merchant whose money and credulous acceptance of Muhammad can be credited with the survival of the fledgling cult. (Muhammad would later "marry" Abu Bakr's 6-year-old daughter).
Relations with the Meccans turned particularly sour after an episode known as "the Satanic Verses" in which Muhammad agreed to recognize the local gods in addition to Allah. This delighted the Meccans, who generously extended their welcome. But Muhammad soon changed his mind after his own people began to lose faith in him. He claimed that Satan had spoken through him, and he rescinded recognition of the Meccan gods (Tabari 1192, Quran 22:52 & 53:19-26).
The locals intensified their mockery of Muslims and made life particularly difficult for some of them. Although Muslims today often use the word "persecution" to describe this ordeal (justifiably, in some cases), it is important to note that the earliest and most reliable biographers (Ibn Ishaq and al-Tabari) record the death of only one Muslim during this period, an older woman who died from stress.
To deal with this unpleasant truth, sympathetic narratives of the early Meccan years usually exaggerate the struggle of the Muslims with claims that they were "under constant torture."
The death of his uncle, Abu Talib, in 619 left Muhammad without a protector against the Meccan leadership, which was gradually losing patience with him. The true agitator in this situation, however, is quite clearly Muhammad himself, as even Muslim historians note. Consider this account of what happened at Abu Talib's deathbed, as the Meccans implored him a final time for peace with his nephew:
[Muhammad's chief adversary] Abu Sufyan, with other sundry notables, went to Abu Talib and said: "You know the trouble that exists between us and your nephew, so call him and let us make an agreement that he will leave us alone and we will leave him alone; let him have his religion and we will have ours." (Ibn Ishaq 278)
Muhammad rejected the offer of peaceful co-existence. His new religion was obviously intended to dominate the others, not be on equal standing with them. Meanwhile, the Muslims were beginning to become violent with the people around them.
Muhammad's search for political alliance led him to make a treaty of war against the Meccans with the people of Medina, another Arab town far to the north (Ibn Ishaq 299-301). This was the last straw for the Meccans, who finally decided to capture Muhammad and put him to death.
Although this sounds harsh against Western standards, it is important to note the contrast between the Meccan reaction and that of Muhammad when he had the opportunity to deal with perceived treachery in Medina at a later date on the part of those who hadn't even harmed anyone.
The Meccans limited their deadly aggression to Muhammad himself. This is quite clear from the episode in which Muhammad escapes his home by using his son-in-law, Ali, to trick his would-be assassins into thinking that they had him trapped (Ibn Ishaq 326). No harm was done to Ali or his wife, both of whom subsequently remained in the city for several days to complete the transfer of Muhammad's family business to Medina.
Compare this to the episode of the Banu Qurayza , in which Muhammad slaughtered an entire tribe of people based on their leader having switched loyalties in a conflict in which none of them even participated.
Stinging from the rejection of his own town and tribe, Muhammad's message quickly become more intolerant and ruthless - particularly as he gained power. Islam's holiest book clearly reflects this contrast, with the later parts of the Quran adding violence and earthly defeats at the hands of Muslims to the woes of eternal damnation that the earlier parts of the book promises those who will not believe in Muhammad.
It was at Medina that Islam evolved from a relatively peaceful religion borrowed from others and into a military force that was intended to govern all aspects of society. During these last ten years of Muhammad's life, infidels were evicted or enslaved, converted upon point of death and even rounded up and slaughtered depending on expediency.
To fund his quest for control, Muhammad first directed his followers to raid Meccan caravans in the holy months, when the victims would least expect it. This was despite the fact that the Meccans were not bothering him in Medina.
Muhammad provided his people with convenient revelations "from Allah" which allowed them to murder innocent drivers and steal their property (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 426). The people around him gradually developed a lust for things that could be taken in battle, including material comforts and captured women and children.
Often the people captured in battle would be brought before the self-proclaimed prophet, where they would plead for their lives, arguing, for example, that they would never have treated the Muslims that way. The traditions are quite clear in portraying Muhammad as largely unmoved by their pleas, and ordering their deaths anyway, often by horrible means. In one case, he orders a man slain, telling him that “Hell” will take care of the poor fellow’s orphaned daughter (Ishaq 459).
User avatar #456 - schnizel (04/23/2014) [-]
The raids on caravans preceded the first major battle involving a Muslim army, the Battle of Badr. This was the spot where the Meccans had sent their own army to protect their caravans from Muslim raiders. Although, Muslims today like to claim that they only attack others in self-defense, this was clearly not the case in Muhammad's time. In fact, he had to compel his reluctant warriors with promises of paradise and assurances that their religion was more important than the lives of others.
Muhammad defeated the Meccan army at Badr, which emboldened him to begin dividing and conquering the three local Jewish tribes at Medina. Their mistake was to accept the Muslim presence, but reject Muhammad's claim that he was in the line of Jewish prophets. His stories from the Torah simply did not agree with their own. (Muhammad's recited version of Bible stories sounds more like fragmented fairy tales with the same moral - believe in his personal claim to be a prophet or else).
How these three tribes, the Banu Qaynuqa, the Banu Nadir, and the Banu Quyrayza met their fate is insightful into the Muslim mindset, which employs an inherent double standard in its relations with those outside the faith.
First, to try and gain their favor, Muhammad briefly preached that Christians and Jews could attain salvation through their own faith. In fact, he changed his followers' direction for prayer from Mecca to Jerusalem, which prompted the Jews' tolerance of him while he worked surreptitiously for the power to evict them. These earlier concessions and teachings were later revoked by Muhammad, since the Jews ultimately refused his religion. The rare early verses of tolerance in the Quran are abrogated by later verses such as 9:29.
The Jews' knowledge of the Torah naturally threatened the Muslim leader's credibility, since it easily refuted the claims that he made about himself as a prophet of God. They also saw through the Biblical narrations that he had picked up from secondhand sources and knew that these contradicted established revelation. Conveniently, Allah stepped in to tell Muhammad that the Jews had deliberately corrupted their own texts to hide the very evidence of his own prophethood that he had previously insisted existed. (To this day, Muslims have never been able to produce a copy of the "true" Torah or Gospel to which their own Quran refers).
While the Jews remained unconvinced by such obvious gimmickry, Arab polytheists converted to Islam in large numbers, which soon gave Muhammad the power to make his intentions clear that Islam would be imposed by force:
While we were in the Mosque, the Prophet came out and said, "Let us go to the Jews" We went out till we reached Bait-ul-Midras. He said to them, "If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to expel you from this land. So, if anyone amongst you owns some property, he is permitted to sell it, otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle." Bukhari 53:392
The Jews of Mecca were the first in a very long line of unfortunate people to be offered the opportunity to convert to Islam under obvious duress. Forcible conversion is very much a Muslim tradition started by Muhammad.
Since they chose to hold on to their religion (and their property) Muhammad looked for reasons to go to war against the Jews at Medina. According to some Muslims, the first tribe, the Qaynuqa, were driven from their homes and land on the pretext that one of their own had harassed a Muslim woman. Although the offender was killed prior to this by a Muslim, the Muslim was also killed by Jews in retaliation for the first murder.
After laying siege to the entire community and defeating the tribe, Muhammad wanted to put every male member to death, but was talked out of it by an associate - something that Allah later "rebuked" him for. The Qaynuqa were forced into exile and the Muslims took their possessions and property, making it their own. Muhammad personally reserved a fifth of the ill-gotten gain for himself (a rule that he was sure to include in the Quran).
This episode helped ingrain within Islam the immature principle of group identity, whereby any member of a religion or social unit outside of Islam is just as guilty as any of their peers who insult or harm a Muslim - and just as deserving of punishment. (Muhammad's punishments usually did not fit the crime).
Members of the second tribe, the Banu Nadir, were accused by Muhammad of plotting to kill him. What is most intriguing about this episode is that it occurred after the Muslims had killed several prominent Jews on Muhammad's order, including a leader of the Banu Nadir (named Ka'b al-Ashraf).
When the prophet of Islam learned that he might be targeted in retaliation (something that he claimed was "revealed" to him by Allah), he promptly laid siege to the Banu Nadir community. After forcing them to surrender, these original inhabitants of Medina were then banished from their homes and land by the Muslim newcomers, who again started to take as much as they could for themselves (Ibn Ishaq 653). (To the disappointment of his people, this time Muhammad produced a revelation from Allah that allowed him to confiscate the entire portion for himself).
In a critical example of how deception is sanctioned under Islam, a surviving contingent of the Banu Nadir (under Usayr ibn Zarim) was later tricked into leaving their fortress by promise of peace talks. The contingent of Muslims sent by Muhammad to "escort" them, however, easily slaughtered the victims once they let down their guard (Ibn Ishaq 981).
By the time the Banu Qurayza met their fate, Muhammad was wealthy and powerful from his defeat of the other two tribes.
The Jews of the Banu Qurayza tasted Muhammad's wrath after their leader half-heartedly sided with the Meccan army during a siege of Medina (the Battle of the Trench). By then, Muhammad had evicted the other Jews and declared that all land at Medina belonged to him, so the original constitution of the town was no longer in effect. It is important to note that the Qurayza did not attack the Muslims, even after switching loyalties (contrary to another popular myth).
Although the Qurayza surrendered peacefully to the Muslims, Muhammad determined to have every man of the tribe executed, along with every boy that had reached the initial stages of puberty (between the ages of 12 and 14). He ordered a ditch dug outside of the town and had the victims brought to him in several groups. Each person would be forced to kneel, and their head would be cut off and then dumped along with the body into the trench.
Between 700 and 900 men and boys were slaughtered by the Muslims after their surrender.
The surviving children of the men became slaves of the Muslims, and their widows became sex slaves. This included the Jewish girl, Rayhana, who became one of Muhammad's personal concubines the very night that her husband was killed. The prophet of Islam apparently "enjoyed her pleasures" (ie. raped her) even as the very execution of her people was taking place.
In some ways, women were much like any other possession taken in battle, to be done with however their captors pleased. But Muslims found them useful in other ways as well. In fact, one of the methods by which Islam owed its expansion down through the centuries was through the reproductive capabilities of captured women. In addition to four wives, a man was allowed an unlimited number of sex slaves, with the only rule being that any resulting children would automatically be Muslim.
Muhammad ordered that a fifth of the women taken captive be reserved for him. Many were absorbed into his personal stable of sex slaves that he maintained in addition to his eleven wives. Others were doled out like party favors to others.
#453 - schnizel (04/23/2014) [-]
Or a savage?
#452 - schnizel (04/23/2014) [-]
Would you rather live like a Roman?
User avatar #451 - schnizel (04/23/2014) [-]
>So people practicing an older religion that involved sacrificing people? Doesn't sound at all like Christianity.
Do I sound like I like it?
>That's essentially what Muhammad did to the persian and Byzantine empires
No, he did not.
>Muslims also would have viewed Christianity as an old eligion that needed t o be changed, the same way Europeans and the Roman Empire viewed the "savages"of the new world.
Ok, Muhhamed was a barbaric warlord who killed others for not believeing in his sky daddy and would not stop until everyone is either muslim or in charge by muslims.
Rome has set a task to save its citizents from further celtic attacks because celts sacked Rome many times and the Romans got sick and kicked their asses.
Rome was attacked first, Muhammed wasn't.
It's sides in life, as always.
#454 - punkrockdude (04/23/2014) [-]
>Comparing a modern slum to a village of natives
>Implying someone is a barbarian just because he was on the other side of history
>Implying I know and/or Care about your religious preferences

>Ok, Muhhamed was a barbaric warlord who killed others for not believeing in his sky daddy and would not stop until everyone is either muslim or in charge by muslims.
Implying that is any different from any other religion

"Muhammad did not attract much support in Mecca. In fact, his preaching against the corrupt practices of traders earned him many enemies in a city whose wealth depended on trade. Warned of an attempt on his life in 622, he fled to the town of Medina. Torn apart by political struggles, Medina had invited him to rule it. Muhammad took control of the town and unified it under Islam. Local tribes flocked to convert to Islam. Within seven years, he led warriors back to Mecca and conquered it. By the time of his death, he had succeeded in unifying most of Arabia under Islam, personally leading about 20 military campaigns against pagan Arab tribes. Because Muhammad held both religious and political authority, the Koran and Sunna did not just contain religious teachings. They also set down civil and criminal laws (collectively known as the Sharia)."
-www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-20-1-b-muslim-conquests-in-europe


#246 - punkrockdude (04/20/2014) [-]
Exactly, and he is telling those loud-mouthed muslims to either stop bitching or leave. Everyone else can stay. Just not the loud-mouthed bitchy ones
User avatar #252 - alltimetens (04/20/2014) [-]
Do I disagree with that view? No.

As a politician, however, Putin gratuitously targeted a single minority.

Rather than saying "all Muslims that can't handleRussian standards must leave"
He should have said something along the lines of "all minorities that can't deal with Russian laws must leave"

That is like me saying "all blacks who can't follow the law can go back to Africa"

You see how that would be perceived as gratuitously offensive? It targets specifically blacks. Same thing with what Putin is doing except he is targeting Muslims.
#254 - punkrockdude (04/20/2014) [-]
Yes because most other minorities aren't trying to get laws changed to fit their desires.
User avatar #258 - alltimetens (04/20/2014) [-]
Listen. I've already said this before. Only the tiny tiny tiny minority of Muslims want to change anything. Stop trying to smear the same image.

Since Putin is a leader, he has to be professional. Part of being professional s not singling out an entire race/religion.
User avatar #325 - danmanjonesnz (04/20/2014) [-]
why do you attribute the desire for Sharia law to just a tiny tiny minority and yet attribute Putin's statement towards all Muslims?

He was clearly addressing those people who think they're gonna campaign for Sharia in Russia.
User avatar #317 - schnizel (04/20/2014) [-]
A poll in 2006 found some 40 percent of British Mus
lims wanted to be governed by Sharia laws,
while some 60 percent of them wanted to see Sharia
courts operate for the mediation of Muslim affairs.
A recent study by the Center for Social Cohesion in t
he U.K. found some 4 percent of Muslim students in
British Universities support killing to "promote an
d preserve" Islam; 32 percent thought that killing was
justified in the defence of Islam; 40 percent suppo
rt the introduction of Sharia law for Muslims in Britain and
37 percent oppose it. Some 33 percent of them suppo
rt the creation of a worldwide Muslim caliphate, with
only 25 percent opposed to the idea.
So your comment goes into the trash.
#318 - Common Pepe (04/20/2014) [-]
"A poll"
Very credible source
User avatar #320 - schnizel (04/20/2014) [-]
Why do you follow me around anon?
User avatar #319 - schnizel (04/20/2014) [-]
www.islam-watch.org/books/islamic-jihad-legacy-of-forced-conversion-imperialism-slavery.pdf
The book, "Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism and Slavery", is M. A. Khan's gift to mankind. It is an essential read for all of us, for it depicts the true nature of Islam and the serious threat it poses to the safety and wellbeing of nonMuslims. I thank the author for giving us such a precious gift."
– Mohammad Asghar, author of Muhammad & His Quran
#265 - punkrockdude (04/20/2014) [-]
Yeah I get that, but that tiny group is also one of the loudest. That is who he is aiming the message to. And really, the loudest and most obnoxious in society, tend to be the stupidest (NOT saying muslims are stupid), and as such would probably think that the message is meant for someone else
User avatar #269 - alltimetens (04/20/2014) [-]
Okay okay...

Let us assume that Putin is right for targeting Muslims.

Don't you thin that he needs to be more professional? Is he not obligated to treat all races equally?
#277 - punkrockdude (04/20/2014) [-]
In all honesty, I think that the world wouldbe a better place if they could flat out say who is causing the problems
User avatar #281 - alltimetens (04/20/2014) [-]
In theory it would be. But when you actually single out an entire race, it doesn't work out so well.
#282 - punkrockdude (04/20/2014) [-]
Tel me, where in that article does it say anything about your average muslim? With quotes
User avatar #291 - alltimetens (04/20/2014) [-]
I don't think I need to provide you with quotes when it is obvious whom he was referring to by using Sharia Law as an example.


This brings me back to my previous argument because Putin acts as if Chadian Law is just one thing and that one thing contradicts Russian laws.
#431 - punkrockdude (04/21/2014) [-]
Fuck this is annoying lol.

As I said before, which religious group made up the majority of the founders, explorers, and settlers that founded and settled western nations? Christians. (Aside from Natives of course). That is one of the main reasons we celebrate their holidays.

Also, how many of the numerous Christian holidays do people actally get time off for as a national holiday? The only ones that come to mind are Easter and Christmas, which i mentioned earlier. That is only two of many celebrated by Christians.
#427 - punkrockdude (04/21/2014) [-]
Ah ok I see. Really, as far as holidays go, the only religious one we techincally get time off for is Easter, which also coincides with Passover. As for Christmas, It coincides with multiple other holidays. Plus, both Christmas and Easter have become very commercialized, to the point where they arent even very religious anymore. For instance, half of my family is very non-religious and we celebrate all of those holidays. Not by going to church or praying, but by getting together for a big meal and enjoying and celebrating being a family. That is what the holidays have essentially become for many people
User avatar #428 - alltimetens (04/21/2014) [-]
But the issue here isn't what the reason for holidays is. It's the fact that certain religions aren't given the same privileges as others. If we're gonna play this game where we favor certain religions over others, might we well remove all of the holidays.
#424 - punkrockdude (04/21/2014) [-]
Did you block me? I can't reply to your new posts.

Excellent point, why then don't we celebrate Buddhist, Hindu, fucking pagan, etc. Second thought, why don't we just say fuck it, everyday is important to some tiny group, no work or school at all anymore?

Tell me, which religious groups discovered, founded, and settled these nations? That is the reason we have and celebrate these hollidays in schools. However, I agree that these concerts should either avoid the whole religious stories as a whole, or include something from all of them
User avatar #426 - alltimetens (04/21/2014) [-]
Exactly. Religious holidays shouldn't even yield breaks/vacations. Even as a Muslim, I think that when it comes to laws and government, religion should be regarded as nothing more than fairy tales.
User avatar #425 - alltimetens (04/21/2014) [-]
No no no. I didn't block you. It is just that each thread has a certain limit of posts that can be made. After like twenty posts, you can't reply anymore.
#422 - punkrockdude (04/21/2014) [-]
I can't reply to the newest post? I'm still not getting where he is referring to ALL muslims. He clearly states, as I quoted before, that he is talking to that tiny group of muslims that do want to change things.

Also, if that group is so small, why can't our schools have Christmas Concerts and Christmas trees, instead of Non-denominational Winter-time-snowy concerts and trees?
User avatar #423 - alltimetens (04/21/2014) [-]
Religion shouldn't be taught in schools or be a part of the government.

If you're gonna allow students to celebrate Christian holidays, then why should Jewish and Muslim holidays be excluded?
#294 - punkrockdude (04/20/2014) [-]
For fucks sake: "IF minorities prefer Sharia Law then we advise them to go to places where that is the state law" as in if they prefer it to existing russian laws, they should leave. He's not saying fuck the mulsims, theyre all evil, He's basically saying: if you don't like our laws, get out, we aren't changing them for you
User avatar #421 - alltimetens (04/21/2014) [-]
Listen. I totally one hundred percent agree with Putin. Russia was founded by hardworking Russians. Muslim immigrants have no right to take what is not theirs and alter it to their benefit, nobody does. However, seeing as how only a teeny tiny minority of Muslims actually want anything to change, then obviously Putin should not have regarded Muslims as a whole, or Muslims in particular.


As a politician, Putin should have made his wording more appealing to everyone. So rather than targeting Muslims in specific, he should have said something along the lines of "all minorities"
But really, he shouldn't use addressed something that wasn't an issue to begin with.
#217 - Islamic Caliphates were described as being a direct democracy.…  [+] (5 new replies) 04/20/2014 on Long live Putin 0
User avatar #307 - schnizel (04/20/2014) [-]
>Islamic Caliphates were described as being a direct democracy.
AHAHAHAHAH, HOLY SHIT, HOLY SHIT YOU DUMB MOTHERFUCKER!
It's an authoritarian dictatorship you dunce.
User avatar #220 - ihatem (04/20/2014) [-]
I'm not sure how that addresses my point. Actually your second and third line don't make any sense. Could you explain a little further?
User avatar #231 - alltimetens (04/20/2014) [-]
Well if you're referring to the caliphates, then you should know that they were organized much how Switzerland is.

Also, I'm talking about how Putin acknowledged Sharia Law and Muslims. His choice of wording was very poor.
User avatar #395 - ihatem (04/20/2014) [-]
You can't really be insinuating that just because way up in power there were representatives that the early caliphates were as happy sunshine secular democracy as Switzerland? There were religious law representatives in power who were obsessed with dominion, and didn't pick caliphs that would represent the people, they picked whoever was tough enough to move Islam forward, so they most certainly were states that represent fresh new raw Islam and suggests, like I said, the latter. The history just isn't pretty and there's no way around it.
#309 - schnizel (04/20/2014) [-]
#215 - Obviously those Muslims are retarded. But hey, it's …  [+] (62 new replies) 04/20/2014 on Long live Putin 0
#311 - schnizel (04/20/2014) [-]
Daily reminder
An Arabic word only has one root. The root word for Islam is “al-Silm,” which means “submission” or “surrender.” There is no disagreement about this among Islamic scholars. al-Silm (submission) does not mean the same thing as al-Salaam (peace), otherwise they would be the same word.

Submission and peace can be very different concepts, even if a form of peace is often brought about through forcing others into submission. As the modern-day Islamic scholar, Ibrahim Sulaiman, puts it, "Jihad is not inhumane, despite its necessary violence and bloodshed, its ultimate desire is peace which is protected and enhanced by the rule of law."

In truth, the Quran not only calls Muslims to submit to Allah, it also commands them to subdue people of other religions until they are in a full state of submission to Islamic rule. This has inspired the aggressive history of Islam and its success in conquering other cultures.
User avatar #420 - alltimetens (04/21/2014) [-]
Another full of shit statement from a guy who has no knowledge of what he is talking about.


As a Muslim, who has read the Quran cover to cover, I will tell you that you are absolutely incorrect.
I would not follow a religion that introduces my God to me as some kind of God of war or wrath.

Jihad had many different meanings. The most widely accepted one, and the one that is defined in Quranic terms is the defense agreement of Muslims.

In Islam, forcing other people to become Muslims is strictly forbidden.



Then again, you're a troll so I couldn't care less.
User avatar #430 - schnizel (04/21/2014) [-]
"Muhammad is a narcissist, a pedophile, a mass murderer,
a terrorist, a misogynist, a lecher, a cult leader, a madman
a rapist, a torturer, an assassin and a looter."
Former Muslim Ali Sina offered $50,000 to anyone
who could prove otherwise based on Islamic texts.
The reward has gone unclaimed.
User avatar #429 - schnizel (04/21/2014) [-]
I was a muslim.
Quran is a crude version of the art of war.
>Jihad had many different meanings. The most widely accepted one, and the one that is defined in Quranic terms is the defense agreement of Muslims.
There are 2 jihads you idiot. The lesser and the greater Jihad.
The lesser Jihad is waging war on infidels.
The greater Jihad is being a muslim.
You know shit.
>In Islam, forcing other people to become Muslims is strictly forbidden.
Quran (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle.
>AD 632 -- Muhammad’s death.
>AD 635 -- Christian Damascas fell to invading Muslims.
>AD 636 -- Christian Antioch fell to invading Muslims.
>AD 638 -- Christian Jerusalem,and later Alexandria,fell to invading Muslims.
>AD 650 -- Muslim armies reached Cilicia and Caesarea of Cappodocia. In the same period Muslim forces carried out raids on Cyprus, Rhodes, Crete and Sicily, carrying off thousands of Christian slaves.
>AD 668 -- Muslim armies laid siege to Constantinople. They were repulsed.
>AD 711 -- Muslim armies invaded Spain. By AD 715 they had conquered most of Spain.
>AD 717 -- Muslim armies again laid siege to Constantinople. Again repulsed.
>AD 732 -- Muslim armies invaded France. Charles Martel stopped them at Tours.
>AD 792 -- The Muslim ruler of Spain, Hisham, called for a new invasion of France. An international Islamic crusade was assembled, and was repulsed by the French.
>AD 827 -- Muslim warriors invaded Italy and Sicily, terrorised monks,and raped nuns. Sicily was held by Muslims until AD 1091.
>AD 846 -- Muslim armies reached Rome, where they forced the Pope to pay them tribute.
>AD 848 -- France was again invaded by Muslims. And again repulsed.
>AD 1059 -- Pope Urban II launched the FIRST Crusade.
You got nailed the the cross.
User avatar #434 - alltimetens (04/21/2014) [-]
The quote that you cherry picked from the book without any context doesn't count, retard. If anything, this had to do with Islamic war against pagans.
User avatar #435 - schnizel (04/21/2014) [-]
Prove that it's cherry picked.
Pro tip: You can't.
Muslims started the war with the pagans also and pagans were very tolerant to islam until muslims started killing their own.
User avatar #443 - alltimetens (04/21/2014) [-]
Yes... Yet another bs claim. You aren't a very good troll.
User avatar #447 - schnizel (04/22/2014) [-]
You insult me.
You call me a troll.
You call my claims bullshit and yet you have no idea on what you are talking about.
1/10
User avatar #433 - alltimetens (04/21/2014) [-]
Are you fucking retarded? Why do you think there are dozens of Islamic terrorist groups and pacifistic groups, both claiming to follow jihadic principles?
#437 - schnizel (04/21/2014) [-]
It's Not the ''Radical Shaykh'' it's Islam - Fahad Qureshi
>pacifistic groups
TOP KEK
It's not radical islam, it's islam goy.
Also if you are a muslim you must know sharia and you must know the entire quran alongside the life of the prophet, his words and actions.
#216 - punkrockdude (04/20/2014) [-]
No, see he's not saying "All muslims need to get the fuck out", he's saying that if you think you are going to get special treatment just because of your religion, you might as well just go somewhere else
User avatar #218 - alltimetens (04/20/2014) [-]
I agree with him. But as you can see, my argument wasn't that Putin was telling minority Muslims to "get the fuck out."

My argument was that Putin was demeaning Muslims.

Basically, he is giving Sharia Law and Muslims a bad name.
#224 - punkrockdude (04/20/2014) [-]
In all honesty, it's not like it would be all that hard to give them a bad name. The extremists have already done a pretty good job of that. BUT, the nazis did the same thing for germany. There were plenty of good germans that didn't agree with Hitler before, during, and after the war. But lots of people viewed them all as evil.

Putin is obviously refering to the worst interpretations of sharia law
User avatar #237 - alltimetens (04/20/2014) [-]
You used the word 'obviously' as if Putin would not have caused certain idiots to misinterpret his speech.

Even here, we have a bunch of people that use Putin's words as a defense of their racist and bigoted views.

It should also be noted that Putin himself used a poor choice of words. So it pretty much looks like he himself is a reflection of Hitler.
#241 - punkrockdude (04/20/2014) [-]
No, he is nothing like Hitler. He isn't saying that he wants to exterminate all Muslims, or that he even wants them to leave. He just wants it understood that they will not get any special privilege because they are Muslims. Andyeah, I agree with that. It doesn't make me racist.
Sure, he maybe used a poor choice of words. When a politician refers to one faction of Christianity, do all of the other ones get mad and offended?
User avatar #245 - alltimetens (04/20/2014) [-]
Most Christians don't are no where near religious or united as Muslims are.

And yet again, you generalize Muslims. Most Musims in Russia are peaceful civilians that are just as willing to abide by Russian law as any other race. However, there are the few loud-mouthed Muslims that ruin this image.

But I don't see why Putin targets Muslims when there are other minorities.
User avatar #315 - schnizel (04/20/2014) [-]
There shouldn't be any argument over who the "true Muslim" is because the Quran clearly distinguishes the true Muslim from the pretender in Sura 9 and elsewhere. According to this - one of the last chapters of the Quran - the true believer "strives and fights with their wealth and persons" while the hypocrites are those who "sit at home," refusing to join the jihad against unbelievers in foreign lands.

In truth, Muhammad organized 65 military campaigns in the last ten years of his life and personally led 27 of them. The more power that he attained, the smaller the excuse needed to go to battle, until finally he began attacking tribes merely because they were not yet part of his growing empire.

After Muhammad’s death, his successor immediately went to war with former allied tribes which wanted to go their own way. Abu Bakr called them 'apostates' and slaughtered anyone who did not want to remain Muslim. Eventually, he was successful in holding the empire together through blood and violence.
#432 - punkrockdude (04/21/2014) [-]
Despite me being on your side of this argument, I have to say that I don't agree when people bring up Muhammad's violence and habits. That kind of thing can be found in almost every relion, not to mention from many historic leaders. Attila the Hun and Genghis Khan murdered and raped their way through most of the known world just for power. Even the Romans held an empire built entirely on blood and war.

And for the pedophilia and things like that, those were an accepted norm back then. Sure times have changed, but we can't change how things were viewed in the past
User avatar #436 - schnizel (04/21/2014) [-]
a)They are still muslim
b)They still venerate his name as a man of God
c)Genghis Khan would not kill you nor sack your city if you payed 1% from your entire wealth
#440 - punkrockdude (04/21/2014) [-]
How about the Crusades then? Christians went through muslim territory and destroyed tons of them. Does that mean Christians are all violent today? Even going by the bible, we are talking about a god that didn't like how shit was going so he destroy them evil?
User avatar #441 - schnizel (04/21/2014) [-]
It's sides in life.
Christians were defending their land.
Christianity is falling and there is no use in stepping in when the enemy is destroying himself.
THERE ARE A SHITTON BIBLE TRANSLATIONS and many types of christianity and it's as devided as ever.
Most christians didn't even read the bible nor do they even match the fighting spirit of the muslims which I admire (just their spirit and loyalty not who they kill).
Let me educate you a little bit more.
>AD 632 -- Muhammad’s death.
>AD 635 -- Christian Damascas fell to invading Muslims.
>AD 636 -- Christian Antioch fell to invading Muslims.
>AD 638 -- Christian Jerusalem,and later Alexandria,fell to invading Muslims.
>AD 650 -- Muslim armies reached Cilicia and Caesarea of Cappodocia. In the same period Muslim forces carried out raids on Cyprus, Rhodes, Crete and Sicily, carrying off thousands of Christian slaves.
>AD 668 -- Muslim armies laid siege to Constantinople. They were repulsed.
>AD 711 -- Muslim armies invaded Spain. By AD 715 they had conquered most of Spain.
>AD 717 -- Muslim armies again laid siege to Constantinople. Again repulsed.
>AD 732 -- Muslim armies invaded France. Charles Martel stopped them at Tours.
>AD 792 -- The Muslim ruler of Spain, Hisham, called for a new invasion of France. An international Islamic crusade was assembled, and was repulsed by the French.
>AD 827 -- Muslim warriors invaded Italy and Sicily, terrorised monks,and raped nuns. Sicily was held by Muslims until AD 1091.
>AD 846 -- Muslim armies reached Rome, where they forced the Pope to pay them tribute.
>AD 848 -- France was again invaded by Muslims. And again repulsed.
>AD 1059 -- Pope Urban II launched the FIRST Crusade.
#442 - punkrockdude (04/21/2014) [-]
Like you said, it's sides in life (and history). Whenever anybody attempts to conquer other nations, they don't just stop because of what other people believe.

So just because they are muslim and trying to conquer other nations, they are evil? What about the European explorers and settlers that conqured Native Americans and Africans? Do you see them as evil? Or the countless nations and leaders that murdered and raped their way accross continents for domination?
#446 - schnizel (04/22/2014) [-]
>So just because they are muslim and trying to conquer other nations, they are evil?
We are the one they are conquering so we fight back.
>What about the European explorers and settlers that conqured Native Americans and Africans?
They were primitive savages and we brought civilization to them?
>Or the countless nations and leaders that murdered and raped their way accross continents for domination?
Who and where?
#448 - punkrockdude (04/22/2014) [-]
So the Natives were a large group of people that practiced a different religion and held different values? Sound familiar. And sure we brought civilization to them, civilization that they really didn't need. but we still brought it. To those we didn't kill in bttle or with disease anyway...

So just because we are a more advanced and "better" society, that gives us the right to murder and rape those we see below us? I think Hiler would agree anyway

> Who and where?
Let's see, as I mentioned, Attila the Hun and Genghis Khan, as well as Alexander the Great, the Vikings, Napoleon, The Roman Empire (and by relation the Catholic Church), and many more
#449 - schnizel (04/22/2014) [-]
>So the Natives were a large group of people that practiced a different religion and held different values?
Primitives that killed eachother on huge temples and cut eachothers hearts out.
>So just because we are a more advanced and "better" society, that gives us the right to murder and rape those we see below us? I think Hiler would agree anyway
The smaller fish eats the bigger fish.
>Attila the Hun
I'm not on his side. He was a great commander tho.
>Genghis Khan
He was only demanding 1% from all wealth and all peoples kept their religions and culture and he didn't force his culture on anyone.
>Alexander the Great
He invaided the Persian empire because of what the Persians did in the past.
>the Vikings
Would have killed them myself if I was defening my tribe.
Again, it's sides in life.
>The Roman Empire
Brough civilization to barbaric savages.
>Catholic Church
Who said I like it?
#450 - punkrockdude (04/23/2014) [-]
>Primitives that killed eachother on huge temples and cut eachothers hearts out.
So people practicing an older religion that involved sacrificing people? Doesn't sound at all like Christianity.
>The smaller fish eats the bigger fish.
Ohhhhh so thats why there are still "primitive" people living in Africa and the middle east. And why the entire world practices the same religion and has the same values
>He invaided the Persian empire because of what the Persians did in the past.
That's essentially what Muhammad did to the persian and Byzantine empires
Muslims also would have viewed Christianity as an old eligion that needed t o be changed, the same way Europeans and the Roman Empire viewed the "savages"of the new world.
And I don't really get what you are saying about the others, sorry
User avatar #461 - schnizel (04/23/2014) [-]
Barbarian means anyone who is not Roman or Greek.
And I don't give a shit about the US. They are a shithole.
User avatar #459 - schnizel (04/23/2014) [-]
>Actually, the Native villages wouldve been pretty good until the white folk showed up
Colonisation and expansion and a quest for resources.
> Sure his wartime methods might have been, in a way, ssavage. That doesn't make him a bararian
You have to be kidding me. He acts like one, he does barbaric acts but he is not one?
>And congrats, that whole passage basically describes the leaders of most empires past and present. Most empires tortured/raped and killed their captured prisoners (or they took them as slaves which basically was torture and rape). just look at the Egyptians, Vikings, etc.
And before generalising leaders and empires you could learn the how and why of each empire.
#460 - punkrockdude (04/23/2014) [-]
Great, you described why the white folk showed up. Not really sure why, but good for you

If there is one term to describe him, it would be savage, not barbaric. is the United States Barbaric because their army has a record of torturing captives and killing civilians? Barbaric implies he raped and killed for the fun of it, which he really didn't. He did it to spread islam and gain power. That is the reason for every empire conquering nations, POWER. That is the why

T
User avatar #457 - schnizel (04/23/2014) [-]
THIRD PART
At one point following a battle, Muhammad provided instructions on how women should be raped after capture, telling his men not to worry about coitus interruptus, since "Allah has written whom he is going to create."
Following the battle against the Hunain, late in his life, Muhammad's men were reluctant to rape the captured women in front of their husbands (who were apparently still alive to witness the abomination), but Allah came to the rescue with a handy "revelation" that allowed the debauchery. (This is the origin of Sura 4:24 according to Abu Dawud 2150).
From Medina, Muhammad waged a campaign of terror, to which he openly attributed his success (Bukhari 52:220). His gang of robbers launched raids in which hapless communities were savaged, looted, murdered and raped. The tribes around the Muslims began to convert to Islam out of self-preservation.
The excuse for military campaign began to shrink to the point that it hardly existed at all. Muhammad told his followers that Muslims were meant to rule over other people. Supremacist teachings became the driving force behind Jihad, and Jihad became the driving force behind Islam.
The brutal conquest of the people of Khaybar, a peaceful farming community that was not at war with the Muslims, is a striking example. Muhammad marched in secret, took them by surprise and easily defeated them. He had many of the men killed, simply for defending their town. He enslaved women and children and had surviving men live on the land as virtual serfs, paying Muslims an ongoing share of their crops not to attack them again.
Muhammad suspected that the town's treasurer was holding out and had his men barbarically torture the poor fellow by building a fire on his chest until he revealed the location of hidden treasure.
Afterwards, the prophet of Islam beheaded the man and "married" his widow on the same day (she first had to pass through the hands of one of his lieutenants). Given that the woman's father was also killed by Muhammad, it isn't much of a stretch to say that true love had very little to do with this "marriage."
I could go on and on but we all know where this takes.



#458 - punkrockdude (04/23/2014) [-]
Actually, the Native villages wouldve been pretty good until the white folk showed up

Barbarian: a person in a savage, primitive state; uncivilized person. Sure his wartime methods might have been, in a way, ssavage. That doesn't make him a bararian

And congrats, that whole passage basically describes the leaders of most empires past and present. Most empires tortured/raped and killed their captured prisoners (or they took them as slaves which basically was torture and rape). just look at the Egyptians, Vikings, etc.
User avatar #455 - schnizel (04/23/2014) [-]
>Comparing a modern slum to a village of natives
The cities didn't fall from the skies, they were built by men.
>Implying someone is a barbarian just because he was on the other side of history
Someone is a barbarian if he is a barbarian.
>>Implying I know and/or Care about your religious preferences
Ok.
>Implying that is any different from any other religion
He was more brutal and more successful.
>
"Muhammad did not attract much support in Mecca. In fact, his preaching against the corrupt practices of traders earned him many enemies in a city whose wealth depended on trade. Warned of an attempt on his life in 622, he fled to the town of Medina. Torn apart by political struggles, Medina had invited him to rule it. Muhammad took control of the town and unified it under Islam. Local tribes flocked to convert to Islam. Within seven years, he led warriors back to Mecca and conquered it. By the time of his death, he had succeeded in unifying most of Arabia under Islam, personally leading about 20 military campaigns against pagan Arab tribes. Because Muhammad held both religious and political authority, the Koran and Sunna did not just contain religious teachings. They also set down civil and criminal laws (collectively known as the Sharia)."
Ok, let me educate you.
According to early Muslim historians, the Meccans did not mind Muhammad practicing his religion, nor did they feel threatened by his promotion of it. This changed only after the self-proclaimed prophet began attacking their religion, including the customs and ancestors of the people (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 167). This was enough to stir up the resentment of the influential leaders of Mecca, who then mocked his humble background against his pretentious claims.
Still, Mecca at the time was a remarkably tolerant society. Muhammad was allowed to attack the local customs for thirteen years, even though the town's economy depended on the annual pilgrimage attended by visiting pagans, whose religion he actively disparaged.
At first, Muhammad was only successful with friends and family. After thirteen years, “the street preacher” could boast of only about a hundred determined followers, who called themselves Muslims. Outside of his wife, his first convert was his young cousin Ali (who would later become his son-in-law and the fourth caliph of Islam). Another early convert was Abu Bakr, a wealthy merchant whose money and credulous acceptance of Muhammad can be credited with the survival of the fledgling cult. (Muhammad would later "marry" Abu Bakr's 6-year-old daughter).
Relations with the Meccans turned particularly sour after an episode known as "the Satanic Verses" in which Muhammad agreed to recognize the local gods in addition to Allah. This delighted the Meccans, who generously extended their welcome. But Muhammad soon changed his mind after his own people began to lose faith in him. He claimed that Satan had spoken through him, and he rescinded recognition of the Meccan gods (Tabari 1192, Quran 22:52 & 53:19-26).
The locals intensified their mockery of Muslims and made life particularly difficult for some of them. Although Muslims today often use the word "persecution" to describe this ordeal (justifiably, in some cases), it is important to note that the earliest and most reliable biographers (Ibn Ishaq and al-Tabari) record the death of only one Muslim during this period, an older woman who died from stress.
To deal with this unpleasant truth, sympathetic narratives of the early Meccan years usually exaggerate the struggle of the Muslims with claims that they were "under constant torture."
The death of his uncle, Abu Talib, in 619 left Muhammad without a protector against the Meccan leadership, which was gradually losing patience with him. The true agitator in this situation, however, is quite clearly Muhammad himself, as even Muslim historians note. Consider this account of what happened at Abu Talib's deathbed, as the Meccans implored him a final time for peace with his nephew:
[Muhammad's chief adversary] Abu Sufyan, with other sundry notables, went to Abu Talib and said: "You know the trouble that exists between us and your nephew, so call him and let us make an agreement that he will leave us alone and we will leave him alone; let him have his religion and we will have ours." (Ibn Ishaq 278)
Muhammad rejected the offer of peaceful co-existence. His new religion was obviously intended to dominate the others, not be on equal standing with them. Meanwhile, the Muslims were beginning to become violent with the people around them.
Muhammad's search for political alliance led him to make a treaty of war against the Meccans with the people of Medina, another Arab town far to the north (Ibn Ishaq 299-301). This was the last straw for the Meccans, who finally decided to capture Muhammad and put him to death.
Although this sounds harsh against Western standards, it is important to note the contrast between the Meccan reaction and that of Muhammad when he had the opportunity to deal with perceived treachery in Medina at a later date on the part of those who hadn't even harmed anyone.
The Meccans limited their deadly aggression to Muhammad himself. This is quite clear from the episode in which Muhammad escapes his home by using his son-in-law, Ali, to trick his would-be assassins into thinking that they had him trapped (Ibn Ishaq 326). No harm was done to Ali or his wife, both of whom subsequently remained in the city for several days to complete the transfer of Muhammad's family business to Medina.
Compare this to the episode of the Banu Qurayza , in which Muhammad slaughtered an entire tribe of people based on their leader having switched loyalties in a conflict in which none of them even participated.
Stinging from the rejection of his own town and tribe, Muhammad's message quickly become more intolerant and ruthless - particularly as he gained power. Islam's holiest book clearly reflects this contrast, with the later parts of the Quran adding violence and earthly defeats at the hands of Muslims to the woes of eternal damnation that the earlier parts of the book promises those who will not believe in Muhammad.
It was at Medina that Islam evolved from a relatively peaceful religion borrowed from others and into a military force that was intended to govern all aspects of society. During these last ten years of Muhammad's life, infidels were evicted or enslaved, converted upon point of death and even rounded up and slaughtered depending on expediency.
To fund his quest for control, Muhammad first directed his followers to raid Meccan caravans in the holy months, when the victims would least expect it. This was despite the fact that the Meccans were not bothering him in Medina.
Muhammad provided his people with convenient revelations "from Allah" which allowed them to murder innocent drivers and steal their property (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 426). The people around him gradually developed a lust for things that could be taken in battle, including material comforts and captured women and children.
Often the people captured in battle would be brought before the self-proclaimed prophet, where they would plead for their lives, arguing, for example, that they would never have treated the Muslims that way. The traditions are quite clear in portraying Muhammad as largely unmoved by their pleas, and ordering their deaths anyway, often by horrible means. In one case, he orders a man slain, telling him that “Hell” will take care of the poor fellow’s orphaned daughter (Ishaq 459).
User avatar #456 - schnizel (04/23/2014) [-]
The raids on caravans preceded the first major battle involving a Muslim army, the Battle of Badr. This was the spot where the Meccans had sent their own army to protect their caravans from Muslim raiders. Although, Muslims today like to claim that they only attack others in self-defense, this was clearly not the case in Muhammad's time. In fact, he had to compel his reluctant warriors with promises of paradise and assurances that their religion was more important than the lives of others.
Muhammad defeated the Meccan army at Badr, which emboldened him to begin dividing and conquering the three local Jewish tribes at Medina. Their mistake was to accept the Muslim presence, but reject Muhammad's claim that he was in the line of Jewish prophets. His stories from the Torah simply did not agree with their own. (Muhammad's recited version of Bible stories sounds more like fragmented fairy tales with the same moral - believe in his personal claim to be a prophet or else).
How these three tribes, the Banu Qaynuqa, the Banu Nadir, and the Banu Quyrayza met their fate is insightful into the Muslim mindset, which employs an inherent double standard in its relations with those outside the faith.
First, to try and gain their favor, Muhammad briefly preached that Christians and Jews could attain salvation through their own faith. In fact, he changed his followers' direction for prayer from Mecca to Jerusalem, which prompted the Jews' tolerance of him while he worked surreptitiously for the power to evict them. These earlier concessions and teachings were later revoked by Muhammad, since the Jews ultimately refused his religion. The rare early verses of tolerance in the Quran are abrogated by later verses such as 9:29.
The Jews' knowledge of the Torah naturally threatened the Muslim leader's credibility, since it easily refuted the claims that he made about himself as a prophet of God. They also saw through the Biblical narrations that he had picked up from secondhand sources and knew that these contradicted established revelation. Conveniently, Allah stepped in to tell Muhammad that the Jews had deliberately corrupted their own texts to hide the very evidence of his own prophethood that he had previously insisted existed. (To this day, Muslims have never been able to produce a copy of the "true" Torah or Gospel to which their own Quran refers).
While the Jews remained unconvinced by such obvious gimmickry, Arab polytheists converted to Islam in large numbers, which soon gave Muhammad the power to make his intentions clear that Islam would be imposed by force:
While we were in the Mosque, the Prophet came out and said, "Let us go to the Jews" We went out till we reached Bait-ul-Midras. He said to them, "If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to expel you from this land. So, if anyone amongst you owns some property, he is permitted to sell it, otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle." Bukhari 53:392
The Jews of Mecca were the first in a very long line of unfortunate people to be offered the opportunity to convert to Islam under obvious duress. Forcible conversion is very much a Muslim tradition started by Muhammad.
Since they chose to hold on to their religion (and their property) Muhammad looked for reasons to go to war against the Jews at Medina. According to some Muslims, the first tribe, the Qaynuqa, were driven from their homes and land on the pretext that one of their own had harassed a Muslim woman. Although the offender was killed prior to this by a Muslim, the Muslim was also killed by Jews in retaliation for the first murder.
After laying siege to the entire community and defeating the tribe, Muhammad wanted to put every male member to death, but was talked out of it by an associate - something that Allah later "rebuked" him for. The Qaynuqa were forced into exile and the Muslims took their possessions and property, making it their own. Muhammad personally reserved a fifth of the ill-gotten gain for himself (a rule that he was sure to include in the Quran).
This episode helped ingrain within Islam the immature principle of group identity, whereby any member of a religion or social unit outside of Islam is just as guilty as any of their peers who insult or harm a Muslim - and just as deserving of punishment. (Muhammad's punishments usually did not fit the crime).
Members of the second tribe, the Banu Nadir, were accused by Muhammad of plotting to kill him. What is most intriguing about this episode is that it occurred after the Muslims had killed several prominent Jews on Muhammad's order, including a leader of the Banu Nadir (named Ka'b al-Ashraf).
When the prophet of Islam learned that he might be targeted in retaliation (something that he claimed was "revealed" to him by Allah), he promptly laid siege to the Banu Nadir community. After forcing them to surrender, these original inhabitants of Medina were then banished from their homes and land by the Muslim newcomers, who again started to take as much as they could for themselves (Ibn Ishaq 653). (To the disappointment of his people, this time Muhammad produced a revelation from Allah that allowed him to confiscate the entire portion for himself).
In a critical example of how deception is sanctioned under Islam, a surviving contingent of the Banu Nadir (under Usayr ibn Zarim) was later tricked into leaving their fortress by promise of peace talks. The contingent of Muslims sent by Muhammad to "escort" them, however, easily slaughtered the victims once they let down their guard (Ibn Ishaq 981).
By the time the Banu Qurayza met their fate, Muhammad was wealthy and powerful from his defeat of the other two tribes.
The Jews of the Banu Qurayza tasted Muhammad's wrath after their leader half-heartedly sided with the Meccan army during a siege of Medina (the Battle of the Trench). By then, Muhammad had evicted the other Jews and declared that all land at Medina belonged to him, so the original constitution of the town was no longer in effect. It is important to note that the Qurayza did not attack the Muslims, even after switching loyalties (contrary to another popular myth).
Although the Qurayza surrendered peacefully to the Muslims, Muhammad determined to have every man of the tribe executed, along with every boy that had reached the initial stages of puberty (between the ages of 12 and 14). He ordered a ditch dug outside of the town and had the victims brought to him in several groups. Each person would be forced to kneel, and their head would be cut off and then dumped along with the body into the trench.
Between 700 and 900 men and boys were slaughtered by the Muslims after their surrender.
The surviving children of the men became slaves of the Muslims, and their widows became sex slaves. This included the Jewish girl, Rayhana, who became one of Muhammad's personal concubines the very night that her husband was killed. The prophet of Islam apparently "enjoyed her pleasures" (ie. raped her) even as the very execution of her people was taking place.
In some ways, women were much like any other possession taken in battle, to be done with however their captors pleased. But Muslims found them useful in other ways as well. In fact, one of the methods by which Islam owed its expansion down through the centuries was through the reproductive capabilities of captured women. In addition to four wives, a man was allowed an unlimited number of sex slaves, with the only rule being that any resulting children would automatically be Muslim.
Muhammad ordered that a fifth of the women taken captive be reserved for him. Many were absorbed into his personal stable of sex slaves that he maintained in addition to his eleven wives. Others were doled out like party favors to others.
#453 - schnizel (04/23/2014) [-]
Or a savage?
#452 - schnizel (04/23/2014) [-]
Would you rather live like a Roman?
User avatar #451 - schnizel (04/23/2014) [-]
>So people practicing an older religion that involved sacrificing people? Doesn't sound at all like Christianity.
Do I sound like I like it?
>That's essentially what Muhammad did to the persian and Byzantine empires
No, he did not.
>Muslims also would have viewed Christianity as an old eligion that needed t o be changed, the same way Europeans and the Roman Empire viewed the "savages"of the new world.
Ok, Muhhamed was a barbaric warlord who killed others for not believeing in his sky daddy and would not stop until everyone is either muslim or in charge by muslims.
Rome has set a task to save its citizents from further celtic attacks because celts sacked Rome many times and the Romans got sick and kicked their asses.
Rome was attacked first, Muhammed wasn't.
It's sides in life, as always.
#454 - punkrockdude (04/23/2014) [-]
>Comparing a modern slum to a village of natives
>Implying someone is a barbarian just because he was on the other side of history
>Implying I know and/or Care about your religious preferences

>Ok, Muhhamed was a barbaric warlord who killed others for not believeing in his sky daddy and would not stop until everyone is either muslim or in charge by muslims.
Implying that is any different from any other religion

"Muhammad did not attract much support in Mecca. In fact, his preaching against the corrupt practices of traders earned him many enemies in a city whose wealth depended on trade. Warned of an attempt on his life in 622, he fled to the town of Medina. Torn apart by political struggles, Medina had invited him to rule it. Muhammad took control of the town and unified it under Islam. Local tribes flocked to convert to Islam. Within seven years, he led warriors back to Mecca and conquered it. By the time of his death, he had succeeded in unifying most of Arabia under Islam, personally leading about 20 military campaigns against pagan Arab tribes. Because Muhammad held both religious and political authority, the Koran and Sunna did not just contain religious teachings. They also set down civil and criminal laws (collectively known as the Sharia)."
-www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-20-1-b-muslim-conquests-in-europe


#246 - punkrockdude (04/20/2014) [-]
Exactly, and he is telling those loud-mouthed muslims to either stop bitching or leave. Everyone else can stay. Just not the loud-mouthed bitchy ones
User avatar #252 - alltimetens (04/20/2014) [-]
Do I disagree with that view? No.

As a politician, however, Putin gratuitously targeted a single minority.

Rather than saying "all Muslims that can't handleRussian standards must leave"
He should have said something along the lines of "all minorities that can't deal with Russian laws must leave"

That is like me saying "all blacks who can't follow the law can go back to Africa"

You see how that would be perceived as gratuitously offensive? It targets specifically blacks. Same thing with what Putin is doing except he is targeting Muslims.
#254 - punkrockdude (04/20/2014) [-]
Yes because most other minorities aren't trying to get laws changed to fit their desires.
User avatar #258 - alltimetens (04/20/2014) [-]
Listen. I've already said this before. Only the tiny tiny tiny minority of Muslims want to change anything. Stop trying to smear the same image.

Since Putin is a leader, he has to be professional. Part of being professional s not singling out an entire race/religion.
User avatar #325 - danmanjonesnz (04/20/2014) [-]
why do you attribute the desire for Sharia law to just a tiny tiny minority and yet attribute Putin's statement towards all Muslims?

He was clearly addressing those people who think they're gonna campaign for Sharia in Russia.
User avatar #317 - schnizel (04/20/2014) [-]
A poll in 2006 found some 40 percent of British Mus
lims wanted to be governed by Sharia laws,
while some 60 percent of them wanted to see Sharia
courts operate for the mediation of Muslim affairs.
A recent study by the Center for Social Cohesion in t
he U.K. found some 4 percent of Muslim students in
British Universities support killing to "promote an
d preserve" Islam; 32 percent thought that killing was
justified in the defence of Islam; 40 percent suppo
rt the introduction of Sharia law for Muslims in Britain and
37 percent oppose it. Some 33 percent of them suppo
rt the creation of a worldwide Muslim caliphate, with
only 25 percent opposed to the idea.
So your comment goes into the trash.
#318 - Common Pepe (04/20/2014) [-]
"A poll"
Very credible source
User avatar #320 - schnizel (04/20/2014) [-]
Why do you follow me around anon?
User avatar #319 - schnizel (04/20/2014) [-]
www.islam-watch.org/books/islamic-jihad-legacy-of-forced-conversion-imperialism-slavery.pdf
The book, "Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism and Slavery", is M. A. Khan's gift to mankind. It is an essential read for all of us, for it depicts the true nature of Islam and the serious threat it poses to the safety and wellbeing of nonMuslims. I thank the author for giving us such a precious gift."
– Mohammad Asghar, author of Muhammad & His Quran
#265 - punkrockdude (04/20/2014) [-]
Yeah I get that, but that tiny group is also one of the loudest. That is who he is aiming the message to. And really, the loudest and most obnoxious in society, tend to be the stupidest (NOT saying muslims are stupid), and as such would probably think that the message is meant for someone else
User avatar #269 - alltimetens (04/20/2014) [-]
Okay okay...

Let us assume that Putin is right for targeting Muslims.

Don't you thin that he needs to be more professional? Is he not obligated to treat all races equally?
#277 - punkrockdude (04/20/2014) [-]
In all honesty, I think that the world wouldbe a better place if they could flat out say who is causing the problems
User avatar #281 - alltimetens (04/20/2014) [-]
In theory it would be. But when you actually single out an entire race, it doesn't work out so well.
#282 - punkrockdude (04/20/2014) [-]
Tel me, where in that article does it say anything about your average muslim? With quotes
User avatar #291 - alltimetens (04/20/2014) [-]
I don't think I need to provide you with quotes when it is obvious whom he was referring to by using Sharia Law as an example.


This brings me back to my previous argument because Putin acts as if Chadian Law is just one thing and that one thing contradicts Russian laws.
#431 - punkrockdude (04/21/2014) [-]
Fuck this is annoying lol.

As I said before, which religious group made up the majority of the founders, explorers, and settlers that founded and settled western nations? Christians. (Aside from Natives of course). That is one of the main reasons we celebrate their holidays.

Also, how many of the numerous Christian holidays do people actally get time off for as a national holiday? The only ones that come to mind are Easter and Christmas, which i mentioned earlier. That is only two of many celebrated by Christians.
#427 - punkrockdude (04/21/2014) [-]
Ah ok I see. Really, as far as holidays go, the only religious one we techincally get time off for is Easter, which also coincides with Passover. As for Christmas, It coincides with multiple other holidays. Plus, both Christmas and Easter have become very commercialized, to the point where they arent even very religious anymore. For instance, half of my family is very non-religious and we celebrate all of those holidays. Not by going to church or praying, but by getting together for a big meal and enjoying and celebrating being a family. That is what the holidays have essentially become for many people
User avatar #428 - alltimetens (04/21/2014) [-]
But the issue here isn't what the reason for holidays is. It's the fact that certain religions aren't given the same privileges as others. If we're gonna play this game where we favor certain religions over others, might we well remove all of the holidays.
#424 - punkrockdude (04/21/2014) [-]
Did you block me? I can't reply to your new posts.

Excellent point, why then don't we celebrate Buddhist, Hindu, fucking pagan, etc. Second thought, why don't we just say fuck it, everyday is important to some tiny group, no work or school at all anymore?

Tell me, which religious groups discovered, founded, and settled these nations? That is the reason we have and celebrate these hollidays in schools. However, I agree that these concerts should either avoid the whole religious stories as a whole, or include something from all of them
User avatar #426 - alltimetens (04/21/2014) [-]
Exactly. Religious holidays shouldn't even yield breaks/vacations. Even as a Muslim, I think that when it comes to laws and government, religion should be regarded as nothing more than fairy tales.
User avatar #425 - alltimetens (04/21/2014) [-]
No no no. I didn't block you. It is just that each thread has a certain limit of posts that can be made. After like twenty posts, you can't reply anymore.
#422 - punkrockdude (04/21/2014) [-]
I can't reply to the newest post? I'm still not getting where he is referring to ALL muslims. He clearly states, as I quoted before, that he is talking to that tiny group of muslims that do want to change things.

Also, if that group is so small, why can't our schools have Christmas Concerts and Christmas trees, instead of Non-denominational Winter-time-snowy concerts and trees?
User avatar #423 - alltimetens (04/21/2014) [-]
Religion shouldn't be taught in schools or be a part of the government.

If you're gonna allow students to celebrate Christian holidays, then why should Jewish and Muslim holidays be excluded?
#294 - punkrockdude (04/20/2014) [-]
For fucks sake: "IF minorities prefer Sharia Law then we advise them to go to places where that is the state law" as in if they prefer it to existing russian laws, they should leave. He's not saying fuck the mulsims, theyre all evil, He's basically saying: if you don't like our laws, get out, we aren't changing them for you
User avatar #421 - alltimetens (04/21/2014) [-]
Listen. I totally one hundred percent agree with Putin. Russia was founded by hardworking Russians. Muslim immigrants have no right to take what is not theirs and alter it to their benefit, nobody does. However, seeing as how only a teeny tiny minority of Muslims actually want anything to change, then obviously Putin should not have regarded Muslims as a whole, or Muslims in particular.


As a politician, Putin should have made his wording more appealing to everyone. So rather than targeting Muslims in specific, he should have said something along the lines of "all minorities"
But really, he shouldn't use addressed something that wasn't an issue to begin with.
#205 - Allow me to briefly explain why Putin is full of **** .…  [+] (84 new replies) 04/20/2014 on Long live Putin -13
User avatar #327 - ludislavonac (04/20/2014) [-]
Ah, the words of a penal law professor I know come to mind: Whenever a rule is unclear and left to interpretation - we're all wrong. And that's the biggest problem with Sharia law, it's mostly guidlines scattered through the Qur'an and the rest of the Islamic literature which can be interpreted in many ways
User avatar #261 - schnizel (04/20/2014) [-]
Putin is love, Putin is life.
We all know who he is, but he looks cool
#298 - Common Pepe (04/20/2014) [-]
gaaaaaaaaay
User avatar #228 - schneidend (04/20/2014) [-]
Regardless of what it is, it should in no way be allowed to interfere with or supersede state laws or the personal liberties a state deigns to grant.
User avatar #240 - alltimetens (04/20/2014) [-]
Nobody wants to alter the laws of the state. The issue with your side of the debate is that you fail to differentiate between the wants of the minority and the wants of the majority of Muslims.

Most Russian Muslims are peaceful bystanders and ordinary citizens that are willing to adapt to Russian laws. Yet Putin as well as most of FJ either directly or indirectly depict minorities as a burden.
User avatar #340 - hadden (04/20/2014) [-]
most russian muslims are peaceful bystanders? You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Like...at all
#305 - schnizel (04/20/2014) [-]
Muslims are instructed to not follow non-islamic laws.
So that's bullshit.
User avatar #243 - schneidend (04/20/2014) [-]
I think the issue with your side of the debate is that you believe that, by arguing against the campaigns of the minority to impose Sharia laws that conflict with the laws of the state, that people like Putin are out to get the majority of Muslims. It's pretty clear that Putin is talking about Muslims that want Sharia Law, and not Muslims that want to adapt to the laws of the state.
User avatar #250 - alltimetens (04/20/2014) [-]
I'm not trying to say that Putin is some reincarnated Islamophobic Hitler; I'm saying that his speech and his agenda are both repudiating something that was not addressed formally.
#306 - schnizel (04/20/2014) [-]
Hitler was allied with the muslims and islamophobia is not real, it's called common sense.
User avatar #221 - danmanjonesnz (04/20/2014) [-]
Why don't you start by citing Putin depicting Sharia law as a gruesome, primitive lifestyle that promotes savagery, injustice, and hatred.

Otherwise it's you who's full of shit.
User avatar #238 - alltimetens (04/20/2014) [-]
Don't be pseudo-smart. You know exactly what message Putin wanted to disperse.
User avatar #324 - danmanjonesnz (04/20/2014) [-]
Yeah I know what message he was sending - forget about Sharia law. How is this depicting Islam as gruesome etc?
Russia is a secular nation full of Christians. There is some Sharia law in Chechnya but at some point you have to draw the line & that's what he's doing.

I'm still waiting for you to provide ANY evidence of Putin expressing his opinion of Islam or Muslims.

....tick tock.
User avatar #214 - ihatem (04/20/2014) [-]
I dunno, I'm pretty sure the way the starting Islamic Caliphates behaved, I'm feeling it's traditionally understood as the latter. Also, the attitude of the rest of the book.
User avatar #217 - alltimetens (04/20/2014) [-]
Islamic Caliphates were described as being a direct democracy.

And again, just because a small group of loud-mouthed dickheads acts out of line, doesn't mean Putin can just degrade and demean an entire race/religion.

It would be the equivalent of Barack Obama calling out Hispanics because a small minority of them caused a disturbance.
User avatar #307 - schnizel (04/20/2014) [-]
>Islamic Caliphates were described as being a direct democracy.
AHAHAHAHAH, HOLY SHIT, HOLY SHIT YOU DUMB MOTHERFUCKER!
It's an authoritarian dictatorship you dunce.
User avatar #220 - ihatem (04/20/2014) [-]
I'm not sure how that addresses my point. Actually your second and third line don't make any sense. Could you explain a little further?
User avatar #231 - alltimetens (04/20/2014) [-]
Well if you're referring to the caliphates, then you should know that they were organized much how Switzerland is.

Also, I'm talking about how Putin acknowledged Sharia Law and Muslims. His choice of wording was very poor.
User avatar #395 - ihatem (04/20/2014) [-]
You can't really be insinuating that just because way up in power there were representatives that the early caliphates were as happy sunshine secular democracy as Switzerland? There were religious law representatives in power who were obsessed with dominion, and didn't pick caliphs that would represent the people, they picked whoever was tough enough to move Islam forward, so they most certainly were states that represent fresh new raw Islam and suggests, like I said, the latter. The history just isn't pretty and there's no way around it.
#309 - schnizel (04/20/2014) [-]
#212 - punkrockdude (04/20/2014) [-]
No he's not doing that. He's referring to the fact that when muslims move to western nations, they expect extra special privileges just because they are muslims. They expect us to abandon our holidays because they are "offensive". Gotta love religious freedom (if youre muslim)
User avatar #215 - alltimetens (04/20/2014) [-]
Obviously those Muslims are retarded.

But hey, it's always the minority assholes that have the loudest mouths.
Essentially, these minority Muslims are only just that; the minority. I can understand why Putin would neglect them.

But when you get to the point where you act as if an entire group of people are a burden/inferior race, then you are REALLY offending/demeaning people.
#311 - schnizel (04/20/2014) [-]
Daily reminder
An Arabic word only has one root. The root word for Islam is “al-Silm,” which means “submission” or “surrender.” There is no disagreement about this among Islamic scholars. al-Silm (submission) does not mean the same thing as al-Salaam (peace), otherwise they would be the same word.

Submission and peace can be very different concepts, even if a form of peace is often brought about through forcing others into submission. As the modern-day Islamic scholar, Ibrahim Sulaiman, puts it, "Jihad is not inhumane, despite its necessary violence and bloodshed, its ultimate desire is peace which is protected and enhanced by the rule of law."

In truth, the Quran not only calls Muslims to submit to Allah, it also commands them to subdue people of other religions until they are in a full state of submission to Islamic rule. This has inspired the aggressive history of Islam and its success in conquering other cultures.
User avatar #420 - alltimetens (04/21/2014) [-]
Another full of shit statement from a guy who has no knowledge of what he is talking about.


As a Muslim, who has read the Quran cover to cover, I will tell you that you are absolutely incorrect.
I would not follow a religion that introduces my God to me as some kind of God of war or wrath.

Jihad had many different meanings. The most widely accepted one, and the one that is defined in Quranic terms is the defense agreement of Muslims.

In Islam, forcing other people to become Muslims is strictly forbidden.



Then again, you're a troll so I couldn't care less.
User avatar #430 - schnizel (04/21/2014) [-]
"Muhammad is a narcissist, a pedophile, a mass murderer,
a terrorist, a misogynist, a lecher, a cult leader, a madman
a rapist, a torturer, an assassin and a looter."
Former Muslim Ali Sina offered $50,000 to anyone
who could prove otherwise based on Islamic texts.
The reward has gone unclaimed.
User avatar #429 - schnizel (04/21/2014) [-]
I was a muslim.
Quran is a crude version of the art of war.
>Jihad had many different meanings. The most widely accepted one, and the one that is defined in Quranic terms is the defense agreement of Muslims.
There are 2 jihads you idiot. The lesser and the greater Jihad.
The lesser Jihad is waging war on infidels.
The greater Jihad is being a muslim.
You know shit.
>In Islam, forcing other people to become Muslims is strictly forbidden.
Quran (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle.
>AD 632 -- Muhammad’s death.
>AD 635 -- Christian Damascas fell to invading Muslims.
>AD 636 -- Christian Antioch fell to invading Muslims.
>AD 638 -- Christian Jerusalem,and later Alexandria,fell to invading Muslims.
>AD 650 -- Muslim armies reached Cilicia and Caesarea of Cappodocia. In the same period Muslim forces carried out raids on Cyprus, Rhodes, Crete and Sicily, carrying off thousands of Christian slaves.
>AD 668 -- Muslim armies laid siege to Constantinople. They were repulsed.
>AD 711 -- Muslim armies invaded Spain. By AD 715 they had conquered most of Spain.
>AD 717 -- Muslim armies again laid siege to Constantinople. Again repulsed.
>AD 732 -- Muslim armies invaded France. Charles Martel stopped them at Tours.
>AD 792 -- The Muslim ruler of Spain, Hisham, called for a new invasion of France. An international Islamic crusade was assembled, and was repulsed by the French.
>AD 827 -- Muslim warriors invaded Italy and Sicily, terrorised monks,and raped nuns. Sicily was held by Muslims until AD 1091.
>AD 846 -- Muslim armies reached Rome, where they forced the Pope to pay them tribute.
>AD 848 -- France was again invaded by Muslims. And again repulsed.
>AD 1059 -- Pope Urban II launched the FIRST Crusade.
You got nailed the the cross.
User avatar #434 - alltimetens (04/21/2014) [-]
The quote that you cherry picked from the book without any context doesn't count, retard. If anything, this had to do with Islamic war against pagans.
User avatar #435 - schnizel (04/21/2014) [-]
Prove that it's cherry picked.
Pro tip: You can't.
Muslims started the war with the pagans also and pagans were very tolerant to islam until muslims started killing their own.
User avatar #443 - alltimetens (04/21/2014) [-]
Yes... Yet another bs claim. You aren't a very good troll.
User avatar #447 - schnizel (04/22/2014) [-]
You insult me.
You call me a troll.
You call my claims bullshit and yet you have no idea on what you are talking about.
1/10
User avatar #433 - alltimetens (04/21/2014) [-]
Are you fucking retarded? Why do you think there are dozens of Islamic terrorist groups and pacifistic groups, both claiming to follow jihadic principles?
#437 - schnizel (04/21/2014) [-]
It's Not the ''Radical Shaykh'' it's Islam - Fahad Qureshi
>pacifistic groups
TOP KEK
It's not radical islam, it's islam goy.
Also if you are a muslim you must know sharia and you must know the entire quran alongside the life of the prophet, his words and actions.
#216 - punkrockdude (04/20/2014) [-]
No, see he's not saying "All muslims need to get the fuck out", he's saying that if you think you are going to get special treatment just because of your religion, you might as well just go somewhere else
User avatar #218 - alltimetens (04/20/2014) [-]
I agree with him. But as you can see, my argument wasn't that Putin was telling minority Muslims to "get the fuck out."

My argument was that Putin was demeaning Muslims.

Basically, he is giving Sharia Law and Muslims a bad name.
#224 - punkrockdude (04/20/2014) [-]
In all honesty, it's not like it would be all that hard to give them a bad name. The extremists have already done a pretty good job of that. BUT, the nazis did the same thing for germany. There were plenty of good germans that didn't agree with Hitler before, during, and after the war. But lots of people viewed them all as evil.

Putin is obviously refering to the worst interpretations of sharia law
User avatar #237 - alltimetens (04/20/2014) [-]
You used the word 'obviously' as if Putin would not have caused certain idiots to misinterpret his speech.

Even here, we have a bunch of people that use Putin's words as a defense of their racist and bigoted views.

It should also be noted that Putin himself used a poor choice of words. So it pretty much looks like he himself is a reflection of Hitler.
#241 - punkrockdude (04/20/2014) [-]
No, he is nothing like Hitler. He isn't saying that he wants to exterminate all Muslims, or that he even wants them to leave. He just wants it understood that they will not get any special privilege because they are Muslims. Andyeah, I agree with that. It doesn't make me racist.
Sure, he maybe used a poor choice of words. When a politician refers to one faction of Christianity, do all of the other ones get mad and offended?
User avatar #245 - alltimetens (04/20/2014) [-]
Most Christians don't are no where near religious or united as Muslims are.

And yet again, you generalize Muslims. Most Musims in Russia are peaceful civilians that are just as willing to abide by Russian law as any other race. However, there are the few loud-mouthed Muslims that ruin this image.

But I don't see why Putin targets Muslims when there are other minorities.
User avatar #315 - schnizel (04/20/2014) [-]
There shouldn't be any argument over who the "true Muslim" is because the Quran clearly distinguishes the true Muslim from the pretender in Sura 9 and elsewhere. According to this - one of the last chapters of the Quran - the true believer "strives and fights with their wealth and persons" while the hypocrites are those who "sit at home," refusing to join the jihad against unbelievers in foreign lands.

In truth, Muhammad organized 65 military campaigns in the last ten years of his life and personally led 27 of them. The more power that he attained, the smaller the excuse needed to go to battle, until finally he began attacking tribes merely because they were not yet part of his growing empire.

After Muhammad’s death, his successor immediately went to war with former allied tribes which wanted to go their own way. Abu Bakr called them 'apostates' and slaughtered anyone who did not want to remain Muslim. Eventually, he was successful in holding the empire together through blood and violence.
#432 - punkrockdude (04/21/2014) [-]
Despite me being on your side of this argument, I have to say that I don't agree when people bring up Muhammad's violence and habits. That kind of thing can be found in almost every relion, not to mention from many historic leaders. Attila the Hun and Genghis Khan murdered and raped their way through most of the known world just for power. Even the Romans held an empire built entirely on blood and war.

And for the pedophilia and things like that, those were an accepted norm back then. Sure times have changed, but we can't change how things were viewed in the past
User avatar #436 - schnizel (04/21/2014) [-]
a)They are still muslim
b)They still venerate his name as a man of God
c)Genghis Khan would not kill you nor sack your city if you payed 1% from your entire wealth
#440 - punkrockdude (04/21/2014) [-]
How about the Crusades then? Christians went through muslim territory and destroyed tons of them. Does that mean Christians are all violent today? Even going by the bible, we are talking about a god that didn't like how shit was going so he destroy them evil?
User avatar #441 - schnizel (04/21/2014) [-]
It's sides in life.
Christians were defending their land.
Christianity is falling and there is no use in stepping in when the enemy is destroying himself.
THERE ARE A SHITTON BIBLE TRANSLATIONS and many types of christianity and it's as devided as ever.
Most christians didn't even read the bible nor do they even match the fighting spirit of the muslims which I admire (just their spirit and loyalty not who they kill).
Let me educate you a little bit more.
>AD 632 -- Muhammad’s death.
>AD 635 -- Christian Damascas fell to invading Muslims.
>AD 636 -- Christian Antioch fell to invading Muslims.
>AD 638 -- Christian Jerusalem,and later Alexandria,fell to invading Muslims.
>AD 650 -- Muslim armies reached Cilicia and Caesarea of Cappodocia. In the same period Muslim forces carried out raids on Cyprus, Rhodes, Crete and Sicily, carrying off thousands of Christian slaves.
>AD 668 -- Muslim armies laid siege to Constantinople. They were repulsed.
>AD 711 -- Muslim armies invaded Spain. By AD 715 they had conquered most of Spain.
>AD 717 -- Muslim armies again laid siege to Constantinople. Again repulsed.
>AD 732 -- Muslim armies invaded France. Charles Martel stopped them at Tours.
>AD 792 -- The Muslim ruler of Spain, Hisham, called for a new invasion of France. An international Islamic crusade was assembled, and was repulsed by the French.
>AD 827 -- Muslim warriors invaded Italy and Sicily, terrorised monks,and raped nuns. Sicily was held by Muslims until AD 1091.
>AD 846 -- Muslim armies reached Rome, where they forced the Pope to pay them tribute.
>AD 848 -- France was again invaded by Muslims. And again repulsed.
>AD 1059 -- Pope Urban II launched the FIRST Crusade.
#442 - punkrockdude (04/21/2014) [-]
Like you said, it's sides in life (and history). Whenever anybody attempts to conquer other nations, they don't just stop because of what other people believe.

So just because they are muslim and trying to conquer other nations, they are evil? What about the European explorers and settlers that conqured Native Americans and Africans? Do you see them as evil? Or the countless nations and leaders that murdered and raped their way accross continents for domination?
#446 - schnizel (04/22/2014) [-]
>So just because they are muslim and trying to conquer other nations, they are evil?
We are the one they are conquering so we fight back.
>What about the European explorers and settlers that conqured Native Americans and Africans?
They were primitive savages and we brought civilization to them?
>Or the countless nations and leaders that murdered and raped their way accross continents for domination?
Who and where?
#448 - punkrockdude (04/22/2014) [-]
So the Natives were a large group of people that practiced a different religion and held different values? Sound familiar. And sure we brought civilization to them, civilization that they really didn't need. but we still brought it. To those we didn't kill in bttle or with disease anyway...

So just because we are a more advanced and "better" society, that gives us the right to murder and rape those we see below us? I think Hiler would agree anyway

> Who and where?
Let's see, as I mentioned, Attila the Hun and Genghis Khan, as well as Alexander the Great, the Vikings, Napoleon, The Roman Empire (and by relation the Catholic Church), and many more
#449 - schnizel (04/22/2014) [-]
>So the Natives were a large group of people that practiced a different religion and held different values?
Primitives that killed eachother on huge temples and cut eachothers hearts out.
>So just because we are a more advanced and "better" society, that gives us the right to murder and rape those we see below us? I think Hiler would agree anyway
The smaller fish eats the bigger fish.
>Attila the Hun
I'm not on his side. He was a great commander tho.
>Genghis Khan
He was only demanding 1% from all wealth and all peoples kept their religions and culture and he didn't force his culture on anyone.
>Alexander the Great
He invaided the Persian empire because of what the Persians did in the past.
>the Vikings
Would have killed them myself if I was defening my tribe.
Again, it's sides in life.
>The Roman Empire
Brough civilization to barbaric savages.
>Catholic Church
Who said I like it?
#450 - punkrockdude (04/23/2014) [-]
>Primitives that killed eachother on huge temples and cut eachothers hearts out.
So people practicing an older religion that involved sacrificing people? Doesn't sound at all like Christianity.
>The smaller fish eats the bigger fish.
Ohhhhh so thats why there are still "primitive" people living in Africa and the middle east. And why the entire world practices the same religion and has the same values
>He invaided the Persian empire because of what the Persians did in the past.
That's essentially what Muhammad did to the persian and Byzantine empires
Muslims also would have viewed Christianity as an old eligion that needed t o be changed, the same way Europeans and the Roman Empire viewed the "savages"of the new world.
And I don't really get what you are saying about the others, sorry
User avatar #461 - schnizel (04/23/2014) [-]
Barbarian means anyone who is not Roman or Greek.
And I don't give a shit about the US. They are a shithole.
User avatar #459 - schnizel (04/23/2014) [-]
>Actually, the Native villages wouldve been pretty good until the white folk showed up
Colonisation and expansion and a quest for resources.
> Sure his wartime methods might have been, in a way, ssavage. That doesn't make him a bararian
You have to be kidding me. He acts like one, he does barbaric acts but he is not one?
>And congrats, that whole passage basically describes the leaders of most empires past and present. Most empires tortured/raped and killed their captured prisoners (or they took them as slaves which basically was torture and rape). just look at the Egyptians, Vikings, etc.
And before generalising leaders and empires you could learn the how and why of each empire.
#460 - punkrockdude (04/23/2014) [-]
Great, you described why the white folk showed up. Not really sure why, but good for you

If there is one term to describe him, it would be savage, not barbaric. is the United States Barbaric because their army has a record of torturing captives and killing civilians? Barbaric implies he raped and killed for the fun of it, which he really didn't. He did it to spread islam and gain power. That is the reason for every empire conquering nations, POWER. That is the why

T
User avatar #457 - schnizel (04/23/2014) [-]
THIRD PART
At one point following a battle, Muhammad provided instructions on how women should be raped after capture, telling his men not to worry about coitus interruptus, since "Allah has written whom he is going to create."
Following the battle against the Hunain, late in his life, Muhammad's men were reluctant to rape the captured women in front of their husbands (who were apparently still alive to witness the abomination), but Allah came to the rescue with a handy "revelation" that allowed the debauchery. (This is the origin of Sura 4:24 according to Abu Dawud 2150).
From Medina, Muhammad waged a campaign of terror, to which he openly attributed his success (Bukhari 52:220). His gang of robbers launched raids in which hapless communities were savaged, looted, murdered and raped. The tribes around the Muslims began to convert to Islam out of self-preservation.
The excuse for military campaign began to shrink to the point that it hardly existed at all. Muhammad told his followers that Muslims were meant to rule over other people. Supremacist teachings became the driving force behind Jihad, and Jihad became the driving force behind Islam.
The brutal conquest of the people of Khaybar, a peaceful farming community that was not at war with the Muslims, is a striking example. Muhammad marched in secret, took them by surprise and easily defeated them. He had many of the men killed, simply for defending their town. He enslaved women and children and had surviving men live on the land as virtual serfs, paying Muslims an ongoing share of their crops not to attack them again.
Muhammad suspected that the town's treasurer was holding out and had his men barbarically torture the poor fellow by building a fire on his chest until he revealed the location of hidden treasure.
Afterwards, the prophet of Islam beheaded the man and "married" his widow on the same day (she first had to pass through the hands of one of his lieutenants). Given that the woman's father was also killed by Muhammad, it isn't much of a stretch to say that true love had very little to do with this "marriage."
I could go on and on but we all know where this takes.



#458 - punkrockdude (04/23/2014) [-]
Actually, the Native villages wouldve been pretty good until the white folk showed up

Barbarian: a person in a savage, primitive state; uncivilized person. Sure his wartime methods might have been, in a way, ssavage. That doesn't make him a bararian

And congrats, that whole passage basically describes the leaders of most empires past and present. Most empires tortured/raped and killed their captured prisoners (or they took them as slaves which basically was torture and rape). just look at the Egyptians, Vikings, etc.
User avatar #455 - schnizel (04/23/2014) [-]
>Comparing a modern slum to a village of natives
The cities didn't fall from the skies, they were built by men.
>Implying someone is a barbarian just because he was on the other side of history
Someone is a barbarian if he is a barbarian.
>>Implying I know and/or Care about your religious preferences
Ok.
>Implying that is any different from any other religion
He was more brutal and more successful.
>
"Muhammad did not attract much support in Mecca. In fact, his preaching against the corrupt practices of traders earned him many enemies in a city whose wealth depended on trade. Warned of an attempt on his life in 622, he fled to the town of Medina. Torn apart by political struggles, Medina had invited him to rule it. Muhammad took control of the town and unified it under Islam. Local tribes flocked to convert to Islam. Within seven years, he led warriors back to Mecca and conquered it. By the time of his death, he had succeeded in unifying most of Arabia under Islam, personally leading about 20 military campaigns against pagan Arab tribes. Because Muhammad held both religious and political authority, the Koran and Sunna did not just contain religious teachings. They also set down civil and criminal laws (collectively known as the Sharia)."
Ok, let me educate you.
According to early Muslim historians, the Meccans did not mind Muhammad practicing his religion, nor did they feel threatened by his promotion of it. This changed only after the self-proclaimed prophet began attacking their religion, including the customs and ancestors of the people (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 167). This was enough to stir up the resentment of the influential leaders of Mecca, who then mocked his humble background against his pretentious claims.
Still, Mecca at the time was a remarkably tolerant society. Muhammad was allowed to attack the local customs for thirteen years, even though the town's economy depended on the annual pilgrimage attended by visiting pagans, whose religion he actively disparaged.
At first, Muhammad was only successful with friends and family. After thirteen years, “the street preacher” could boast of only about a hundred determined followers, who called themselves Muslims. Outside of his wife, his first convert was his young cousin Ali (who would later become his son-in-law and the fourth caliph of Islam). Another early convert was Abu Bakr, a wealthy merchant whose money and credulous acceptance of Muhammad can be credited with the survival of the fledgling cult. (Muhammad would later "marry" Abu Bakr's 6-year-old daughter).
Relations with the Meccans turned particularly sour after an episode known as "the Satanic Verses" in which Muhammad agreed to recognize the local gods in addition to Allah. This delighted the Meccans, who generously extended their welcome. But Muhammad soon changed his mind after his own people began to lose faith in him. He claimed that Satan had spoken through him, and he rescinded recognition of the Meccan gods (Tabari 1192, Quran 22:52 & 53:19-26).
The locals intensified their mockery of Muslims and made life particularly difficult for some of them. Although Muslims today often use the word "persecution" to describe this ordeal (justifiably, in some cases), it is important to note that the earliest and most reliable biographers (Ibn Ishaq and al-Tabari) record the death of only one Muslim during this period, an older woman who died from stress.
To deal with this unpleasant truth, sympathetic narratives of the early Meccan years usually exaggerate the struggle of the Muslims with claims that they were "under constant torture."
The death of his uncle, Abu Talib, in 619 left Muhammad without a protector against the Meccan leadership, which was gradually losing patience with him. The true agitator in this situation, however, is quite clearly Muhammad himself, as even Muslim historians note. Consider this account of what happened at Abu Talib's deathbed, as the Meccans implored him a final time for peace with his nephew:
[Muhammad's chief adversary] Abu Sufyan, with other sundry notables, went to Abu Talib and said: "You know the trouble that exists between us and your nephew, so call him and let us make an agreement that he will leave us alone and we will leave him alone; let him have his religion and we will have ours." (Ibn Ishaq 278)
Muhammad rejected the offer of peaceful co-existence. His new religion was obviously intended to dominate the others, not be on equal standing with them. Meanwhile, the Muslims were beginning to become violent with the people around them.
Muhammad's search for political alliance led him to make a treaty of war against the Meccans with the people of Medina, another Arab town far to the north (Ibn Ishaq 299-301). This was the last straw for the Meccans, who finally decided to capture Muhammad and put him to death.
Although this sounds harsh against Western standards, it is important to note the contrast between the Meccan reaction and that of Muhammad when he had the opportunity to deal with perceived treachery in Medina at a later date on the part of those who hadn't even harmed anyone.
The Meccans limited their deadly aggression to Muhammad himself. This is quite clear from the episode in which Muhammad escapes his home by using his son-in-law, Ali, to trick his would-be assassins into thinking that they had him trapped (Ibn Ishaq 326). No harm was done to Ali or his wife, both of whom subsequently remained in the city for several days to complete the transfer of Muhammad's family business to Medina.
Compare this to the episode of the Banu Qurayza , in which Muhammad slaughtered an entire tribe of people based on their leader having switched loyalties in a conflict in which none of them even participated.
Stinging from the rejection of his own town and tribe, Muhammad's message quickly become more intolerant and ruthless - particularly as he gained power. Islam's holiest book clearly reflects this contrast, with the later parts of the Quran adding violence and earthly defeats at the hands of Muslims to the woes of eternal damnation that the earlier parts of the book promises those who will not believe in Muhammad.
It was at Medina that Islam evolved from a relatively peaceful religion borrowed from others and into a military force that was intended to govern all aspects of society. During these last ten years of Muhammad's life, infidels were evicted or enslaved, converted upon point of death and even rounded up and slaughtered depending on expediency.
To fund his quest for control, Muhammad first directed his followers to raid Meccan caravans in the holy months, when the victims would least expect it. This was despite the fact that the Meccans were not bothering him in Medina.
Muhammad provided his people with convenient revelations "from Allah" which allowed them to murder innocent drivers and steal their property (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 426). The people around him gradually developed a lust for things that could be taken in battle, including material comforts and captured women and children.
Often the people captured in battle would be brought before the self-proclaimed prophet, where they would plead for their lives, arguing, for example, that they would never have treated the Muslims that way. The traditions are quite clear in portraying Muhammad as largely unmoved by their pleas, and ordering their deaths anyway, often by horrible means. In one case, he orders a man slain, telling him that “Hell” will take care of the poor fellow’s orphaned daughter (Ishaq 459).
User avatar #456 - schnizel (04/23/2014) [-]
The raids on caravans preceded the first major battle involving a Muslim army, the Battle of Badr. This was the spot where the Meccans had sent their own army to protect their caravans from Muslim raiders. Although, Muslims today like to claim that they only attack others in self-defense, this was clearly not the case in Muhammad's time. In fact, he had to compel his reluctant warriors with promises of paradise and assurances that their religion was more important than the lives of others.
Muhammad defeated the Meccan army at Badr, which emboldened him to begin dividing and conquering the three local Jewish tribes at Medina. Their mistake was to accept the Muslim presence, but reject Muhammad's claim that he was in the line of Jewish prophets. His stories from the Torah simply did not agree with their own. (Muhammad's recited version of Bible stories sounds more like fragmented fairy tales with the same moral - believe in his personal claim to be a prophet or else).
How these three tribes, the Banu Qaynuqa, the Banu Nadir, and the Banu Quyrayza met their fate is insightful into the Muslim mindset, which employs an inherent double standard in its relations with those outside the faith.
First, to try and gain their favor, Muhammad briefly preached that Christians and Jews could attain salvation through their own faith. In fact, he changed his followers' direction for prayer from Mecca to Jerusalem, which prompted the Jews' tolerance of him while he worked surreptitiously for the power to evict them. These earlier concessions and teachings were later revoked by Muhammad, since the Jews ultimately refused his religion. The rare early verses of tolerance in the Quran are abrogated by later verses such as 9:29.
The Jews' knowledge of the Torah naturally threatened the Muslim leader's credibility, since it easily refuted the claims that he made about himself as a prophet of God. They also saw through the Biblical narrations that he had picked up from secondhand sources and knew that these contradicted established revelation. Conveniently, Allah stepped in to tell Muhammad that the Jews had deliberately corrupted their own texts to hide the very evidence of his own prophethood that he had previously insisted existed. (To this day, Muslims have never been able to produce a copy of the "true" Torah or Gospel to which their own Quran refers).
While the Jews remained unconvinced by such obvious gimmickry, Arab polytheists converted to Islam in large numbers, which soon gave Muhammad the power to make his intentions clear that Islam would be imposed by force:
While we were in the Mosque, the Prophet came out and said, "Let us go to the Jews" We went out till we reached Bait-ul-Midras. He said to them, "If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to expel you from this land. So, if anyone amongst you owns some property, he is permitted to sell it, otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle." Bukhari 53:392
The Jews of Mecca were the first in a very long line of unfortunate people to be offered the opportunity to convert to Islam under obvious duress. Forcible conversion is very much a Muslim tradition started by Muhammad.
Since they chose to hold on to their religion (and their property) Muhammad looked for reasons to go to war against the Jews at Medina. According to some Muslims, the first tribe, the Qaynuqa, were driven from their homes and land on the pretext that one of their own had harassed a Muslim woman. Although the offender was killed prior to this by a Muslim, the Muslim was also killed by Jews in retaliation for the first murder.
After laying siege to the entire community and defeating the tribe, Muhammad wanted to put every male member to death, but was talked out of it by an associate - something that Allah later "rebuked" him for. The Qaynuqa were forced into exile and the Muslims took their possessions and property, making it their own. Muhammad personally reserved a fifth of the ill-gotten gain for himself (a rule that he was sure to include in the Quran).
This episode helped ingrain within Islam the immature principle of group identity, whereby any member of a religion or social unit outside of Islam is just as guilty as any of their peers who insult or harm a Muslim - and just as deserving of punishment. (Muhammad's punishments usually did not fit the crime).
Members of the second tribe, the Banu Nadir, were accused by Muhammad of plotting to kill him. What is most intriguing about this episode is that it occurred after the Muslims had killed several prominent Jews on Muhammad's order, including a leader of the Banu Nadir (named Ka'b al-Ashraf).
When the prophet of Islam learned that he might be targeted in retaliation (something that he claimed was "revealed" to him by Allah), he promptly laid siege to the Banu Nadir community. After forcing them to surrender, these original inhabitants of Medina were then banished from their homes and land by the Muslim newcomers, who again started to take as much as they could for themselves (Ibn Ishaq 653). (To the disappointment of his people, this time Muhammad produced a revelation from Allah that allowed him to confiscate the entire portion for himself).
In a critical example of how deception is sanctioned under Islam, a surviving contingent of the Banu Nadir (under Usayr ibn Zarim) was later tricked into leaving their fortress by promise of peace talks. The contingent of Muslims sent by Muhammad to "escort" them, however, easily slaughtered the victims once they let down their guard (Ibn Ishaq 981).
By the time the Banu Qurayza met their fate, Muhammad was wealthy and powerful from his defeat of the other two tribes.
The Jews of the Banu Qurayza tasted Muhammad's wrath after their leader half-heartedly sided with the Meccan army during a siege of Medina (the Battle of the Trench). By then, Muhammad had evicted the other Jews and declared that all land at Medina belonged to him, so the original constitution of the town was no longer in effect. It is important to note that the Qurayza did not attack the Muslims, even after switching loyalties (contrary to another popular myth).
Although the Qurayza surrendered peacefully to the Muslims, Muhammad determined to have every man of the tribe executed, along with every boy that had reached the initial stages of puberty (between the ages of 12 and 14). He ordered a ditch dug outside of the town and had the victims brought to him in several groups. Each person would be forced to kneel, and their head would be cut off and then dumped along with the body into the trench.
Between 700 and 900 men and boys were slaughtered by the Muslims after their surrender.
The surviving children of the men became slaves of the Muslims, and their widows became sex slaves. This included the Jewish girl, Rayhana, who became one of Muhammad's personal concubines the very night that her husband was killed. The prophet of Islam apparently "enjoyed her pleasures" (ie. raped her) even as the very execution of her people was taking place.
In some ways, women were much like any other possession taken in battle, to be done with however their captors pleased. But Muslims found them useful in other ways as well. In fact, one of the methods by which Islam owed its expansion down through the centuries was through the reproductive capabilities of captured women. In addition to four wives, a man was allowed an unlimited number of sex slaves, with the only rule being that any resulting children would automatically be Muslim.
Muhammad ordered that a fifth of the women taken captive be reserved for him. Many were absorbed into his personal stable of sex slaves that he maintained in addition to his eleven wives. Others were doled out like party favors to others.
#453 - schnizel (04/23/2014) [-]
Or a savage?
#452 - schnizel (04/23/2014) [-]
Would you rather live like a Roman?
User avatar #451 - schnizel (04/23/2014) [-]
>So people practicing an older religion that involved sacrificing people? Doesn't sound at all like Christianity.
Do I sound like I like it?
>That's essentially what Muhammad did to the persian and Byzantine empires
No, he did not.
>Muslims also would have viewed Christianity as an old eligion that needed t o be changed, the same way Europeans and the Roman Empire viewed the "savages"of the new world.
Ok, Muhhamed was a barbaric warlord who killed others for not believeing in his sky daddy and would not stop until everyone is either muslim or in charge by muslims.
Rome has set a task to save its citizents from further celtic attacks because celts sacked Rome many times and the Romans got sick and kicked their asses.
Rome was attacked first, Muhammed wasn't.
It's sides in life, as always.
#454 - punkrockdude (04/23/2014) [-]
>Comparing a modern slum to a village of natives
>Implying someone is a barbarian just because he was on the other side of history
>Implying I know and/or Care about your religious preferences

>Ok, Muhhamed was a barbaric warlord who killed others for not believeing in his sky daddy and would not stop until everyone is either muslim or in charge by muslims.
Implying that is any different from any other religion

"Muhammad did not attract much support in Mecca. In fact, his preaching against the corrupt practices of traders earned him many enemies in a city whose wealth depended on trade. Warned of an attempt on his life in 622, he fled to the town of Medina. Torn apart by political struggles, Medina had invited him to rule it. Muhammad took control of the town and unified it under Islam. Local tribes flocked to convert to Islam. Within seven years, he led warriors back to Mecca and conquered it. By the time of his death, he had succeeded in unifying most of Arabia under Islam, personally leading about 20 military campaigns against pagan Arab tribes. Because Muhammad held both religious and political authority, the Koran and Sunna did not just contain religious teachings. They also set down civil and criminal laws (collectively known as the Sharia)."
-www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-20-1-b-muslim-conquests-in-europe


#246 - punkrockdude (04/20/2014) [-]
Exactly, and he is telling those loud-mouthed muslims to either stop bitching or leave. Everyone else can stay. Just not the loud-mouthed bitchy ones
User avatar #252 - alltimetens (04/20/2014) [-]
Do I disagree with that view? No.

As a politician, however, Putin gratuitously targeted a single minority.

Rather than saying "all Muslims that can't handleRussian standards must leave"
He should have said something along the lines of "all minorities that can't deal with Russian laws must leave"

That is like me saying "all blacks who can't follow the law can go back to Africa"

You see how that would be perceived as gratuitously offensive? It targets specifically blacks. Same thing with what Putin is doing except he is targeting Muslims.
#254 - punkrockdude (04/20/2014) [-]
Yes because most other minorities aren't trying to get laws changed to fit their desires.
User avatar #258 - alltimetens (04/20/2014) [-]
Listen. I've already said this before. Only the tiny tiny tiny minority of Muslims want to change anything. Stop trying to smear the same image.

Since Putin is a leader, he has to be professional. Part of being professional s not singling out an entire race/religion.
User avatar #325 - danmanjonesnz (04/20/2014) [-]
why do you attribute the desire for Sharia law to just a tiny tiny minority and yet attribute Putin's statement towards all Muslims?

He was clearly addressing those people who think they're gonna campaign for Sharia in Russia.
User avatar #317 - schnizel (04/20/2014) [-]
A poll in 2006 found some 40 percent of British Mus
lims wanted to be governed by Sharia laws,
while some 60 percent of them wanted to see Sharia
courts operate for the mediation of Muslim affairs.
A recent study by the Center for Social Cohesion in t
he U.K. found some 4 percent of Muslim students in
British Universities support killing to "promote an
d preserve" Islam; 32 percent thought that killing was
justified in the defence of Islam; 40 percent suppo
rt the introduction of Sharia law for Muslims in Britain and
37 percent oppose it. Some 33 percent of them suppo
rt the creation of a worldwide Muslim caliphate, with
only 25 percent opposed to the idea.
So your comment goes into the trash.
#318 - Common Pepe (04/20/2014) [-]
"A poll"
Very credible source
User avatar #320 - schnizel (04/20/2014) [-]
Why do you follow me around anon?
User avatar #319 - schnizel (04/20/2014) [-]
www.islam-watch.org/books/islamic-jihad-legacy-of-forced-conversion-imperialism-slavery.pdf
The book, "Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism and Slavery", is M. A. Khan's gift to mankind. It is an essential read for all of us, for it depicts the true nature of Islam and the serious threat it poses to the safety and wellbeing of nonMuslims. I thank the author for giving us such a precious gift."
– Mohammad Asghar, author of Muhammad & His Quran
#265 - punkrockdude (04/20/2014) [-]
Yeah I get that, but that tiny group is also one of the loudest. That is who he is aiming the message to. And really, the loudest and most obnoxious in society, tend to be the stupidest (NOT saying muslims are stupid), and as such would probably think that the message is meant for someone else
User avatar #269 - alltimetens (04/20/2014) [-]
Okay okay...

Let us assume that Putin is right for targeting Muslims.

Don't you thin that he needs to be more professional? Is he not obligated to treat all races equally?
#277 - punkrockdude (04/20/2014) [-]
In all honesty, I think that the world wouldbe a better place if they could flat out say who is causing the problems
User avatar #281 - alltimetens (04/20/2014) [-]
In theory it would be. But when you actually single out an entire race, it doesn't work out so well.
#282 - punkrockdude (04/20/2014) [-]
Tel me, where in that article does it say anything about your average muslim? With quotes
User avatar #291 - alltimetens (04/20/2014) [-]
I don't think I need to provide you with quotes when it is obvious whom he was referring to by using Sharia Law as an example.


This brings me back to my previous argument because Putin acts as if Chadian Law is just one thing and that one thing contradicts Russian laws.
#431 - punkrockdude (04/21/2014) [-]
Fuck this is annoying lol.

As I said before, which religious group made up the majority of the founders, explorers, and settlers that founded and settled western nations? Christians. (Aside from Natives of course). That is one of the main reasons we celebrate their holidays.

Also, how many of the numerous Christian holidays do people actally get time off for as a national holiday? The only ones that come to mind are Easter and Christmas, which i mentioned earlier. That is only two of many celebrated by Christians.
#427 - punkrockdude (04/21/2014) [-]
Ah ok I see. Really, as far as holidays go, the only religious one we techincally get time off for is Easter, which also coincides with Passover. As for Christmas, It coincides with multiple other holidays. Plus, both Christmas and Easter have become very commercialized, to the point where they arent even very religious anymore. For instance, half of my family is very non-religious and we celebrate all of those holidays. Not by going to church or praying, but by getting together for a big meal and enjoying and celebrating being a family. That is what the holidays have essentially become for many people
User avatar #428 - alltimetens (04/21/2014) [-]
But the issue here isn't what the reason for holidays is. It's the fact that certain religions aren't given the same privileges as others. If we're gonna play this game where we favor certain religions over others, might we well remove all of the holidays.
#424 - punkrockdude (04/21/2014) [-]
Did you block me? I can't reply to your new posts.

Excellent point, why then don't we celebrate Buddhist, Hindu, fucking pagan, etc. Second thought, why don't we just say fuck it, everyday is important to some tiny group, no work or school at all anymore?

Tell me, which religious groups discovered, founded, and settled these nations? That is the reason we have and celebrate these hollidays in schools. However, I agree that these concerts should either avoid the whole religious stories as a whole, or include something from all of them
User avatar #426 - alltimetens (04/21/2014) [-]
Exactly. Religious holidays shouldn't even yield breaks/vacations. Even as a Muslim, I think that when it comes to laws and government, religion should be regarded as nothing more than fairy tales.
User avatar #425 - alltimetens (04/21/2014) [-]
No no no. I didn't block you. It is just that each thread has a certain limit of posts that can be made. After like twenty posts, you can't reply anymore.
#422 - punkrockdude (04/21/2014) [-]
I can't reply to the newest post? I'm still not getting where he is referring to ALL muslims. He clearly states, as I quoted before, that he is talking to that tiny group of muslims that do want to change things.

Also, if that group is so small, why can't our schools have Christmas Concerts and Christmas trees, instead of Non-denominational Winter-time-snowy concerts and trees?
User avatar #423 - alltimetens (04/21/2014) [-]
Religion shouldn't be taught in schools or be a part of the government.

If you're gonna allow students to celebrate Christian holidays, then why should Jewish and Muslim holidays be excluded?
#294 - punkrockdude (04/20/2014) [-]
For fucks sake: "IF minorities prefer Sharia Law then we advise them to go to places where that is the state law" as in if they prefer it to existing russian laws, they should leave. He's not saying fuck the mulsims, theyre all evil, He's basically saying: if you don't like our laws, get out, we aren't changing them for you
User avatar #421 - alltimetens (04/21/2014) [-]
Listen. I totally one hundred percent agree with Putin. Russia was founded by hardworking Russians. Muslim immigrants have no right to take what is not theirs and alter it to their benefit, nobody does. However, seeing as how only a teeny tiny minority of Muslims actually want anything to change, then obviously Putin should not have regarded Muslims as a whole, or Muslims in particular.


As a politician, Putin should have made his wording more appealing to everyone. So rather than targeting Muslims in specific, he should have said something along the lines of "all minorities"
But really, he shouldn't use addressed something that wasn't an issue to begin with.
#291 - Thank you for stating the obvious.  [+] (1 new reply) 04/12/2014 on Batman is a troll 0
User avatar #297 - malhaloc (04/12/2014) [-]
Apparently that's the subject of debate. I dont get it.
#1438 - What anime is this?  [+] (1 new reply) 04/09/2014 on Assasins name 0
User avatar #1439 - amalur (04/09/2014) [-]
Her name's Remilia Scarlet from Touhou Project. It's a game.
#21 - nahh... i dont agree 04/08/2014 on sheit +3
#67 - Hiei from Yu Yu Hakusho was easily the best anti-hero of all time.  [+] (1 new reply) 04/08/2014 on fuck that bitch +1
#106 - Common Pepe (04/08/2014) [-]
#12 - It's kinda funny how the Dinklebergs were displayed as Jews. …  [+] (1 new reply) 04/08/2014 on Dinkleberg +24
User avatar #23 - emperorskittles (04/08/2014) [-]
Not sure if that is the actual alltimetens channel
#8404543 - ADD Me on FACEBOOK 04/07/2014 on Autism Board 0
#8404299 - Add me on Facebook? 04/07/2014 on Autism Board 0

items

Total unique items point value: 550 / Total items point value: 1000

Comments(155):

[ 155 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#179 - mahaiz (04/30/2015) [-]
mfw entering your profile   
   
Mainly your name caught my interest.
mfw entering your profile

Mainly your name caught my interest.
User avatar #166 - badmotorfinger (03/09/2015) [-]
sup man aint talked in a while
User avatar #167 to #166 - alltimetens (03/09/2015) [-]
Hiya! Glad you stI'll remember me
User avatar #168 to #167 - badmotorfinger (03/09/2015) [-]
yeah, you're the iviagic guy
User avatar #170 to #168 - alltimetens (03/09/2015) [-]
Shhhhh
User avatar #171 to #170 - badmotorfinger (03/09/2015) [-]
haha whoops
cover blown
User avatar #169 to #168 - badmotorfinger (03/09/2015) [-]
that was forever ago
User avatar #172 to #169 - alltimetens (03/09/2015) [-]
Yeah
2015 already... good lord
User avatar #173 to #172 - badmotorfinger (03/09/2015) [-]
2010 still feels like 2 years ago
User avatar #175 to #173 - alltimetens (03/09/2015) [-]
Tell me about it. remember gangnam style? Felix Baumgartner? 2012 has been my favorite year so far.
User avatar #176 to #175 - badmotorfinger (03/09/2015) [-]
how could i forget gangnam style? or staying up on dec 21st to see whether or not i'd die
good times
User avatar #177 to #176 - alltimetens (03/09/2015) [-]
I remember spending hours and hours on skyrim. Loved that game dearly

When we're old, we'll be some weird ass grandparents
User avatar #178 to #177 - badmotorfinger (03/09/2015) [-]
i just want to live to see america turn 300
User avatar #174 to #173 - badmotorfinger (03/09/2015) [-]
so what have you been up to?
User avatar #163 - joshlol (12/21/2014) [-]
**joshlol waves at you**
User avatar #164 to #163 - alltimetens (12/21/2014) [-]
hey

i know nobody ever lived you before...


but i sorta like you
User avatar #165 to #164 - joshlol (12/21/2014) [-]
I'm not worth liking.

But thanks, what's up?
#162 - syrianassassin (05/31/2014) [-]
because you are new in the religion board, you must know what your enemy will do to your opinions

this is my first post in the religion board i talked with ethics and total respect and look what happened

www.funnyjunk.com/religion/54159#54159


now i am a troll who troll atheist trolls using their own logic and piss them off using their own life system and belief

new atheism =/= atheism

new atheism mean you shall be a total asshole against religion no matter how logical the answer is given

the board is full of heretics and you shall take care
#159 - syrianassassin (05/31/2014) [-]
i see you are a christian who came for some question in the religion board, and all you saw is some faggots trolling and ************
User avatar #160 to #159 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
I'm not really a Christian. I'm more of an agnostic.
User avatar #161 to #160 - syrianassassin (05/31/2014) [-]
and when you wanted answer, all you found is some new atheism bitches and cock sucking tranny faggots trolling you with nonsense
right?
#149 - Common Pepe (04/08/2014) [-]
hey your the guy from youtube
i like your videos dude
User avatar #154 to #149 - tranquilizer (04/20/2014) [-]
He's not them
User avatar #155 to #154 - badmotorfinger (05/02/2014) [-]
get the euthanization needle. they're becoming aware.
User avatar #156 to #155 - tranquilizer (05/02/2014) [-]
Wait
Where did you come from
The future?
#157 to #156 - nickypickle (05/23/2014) [-]
I dunno if all this charade about being the one on youtube or not is all part of a 'sekretu klub' thing but its really getting to the point where someone needs some answers

yes? no? why is this such an issue I dont understand
User avatar #158 to #157 - tranquilizer (05/23/2014) [-]
Where do you people keep coming from I'm scared ;_;
#143 - zafara (04/07/2014) [-]
And with the mildly aroused Karasu picture, I am finished. Sorry for the spamish stuff, but you did ask me to and they do make good reaction images.
User avatar #145 to #143 - alltimetens (04/07/2014) [-]
No problem, man.

I appreciate all these reaction pics. Fukken savin' all of em'. I'm glad there are others here who have enjoyed the same anime as I.
User avatar #146 to #145 - zafara (04/07/2014) [-]
Might be an odd thing to say, but you might want to join Tumblr. A lot of us are actually males who enjoy certain fandoms and have deep discussions about them, especially with Yu Yu Hakusho.

Might I suggest Kill La Kill or HunterXHunter? The latter apparently takes place in the future of Yu Yu Hakusho. Of course, Inuyasha is said to take place in the past, with Kikyo being Raizen's original daughter.
User avatar #147 to #146 - alltimetens (04/07/2014) [-]
Damn... I better get watching.
User avatar #148 to #147 - zafara (04/07/2014) [-]
Go for Inuyasha first. I feel like Yu Yu Hakusho took a lot from that show. "Ooohhh we're losing viewers during the Dark Tournament, better show them Kurama's true form!" Fricken love child of Sesshomaru and Inuyasha (Which given Sesshomaru's mother isn't entirely out of the question even though they are a different species). Also, character types for both Toguro brothers, Bui, Karasu, and others were in that show.
#142 - zafara (04/07/2014) [-]
Sometimes I edit a strikethrough over the 'not' to make a joke.
#140 - zafara (04/07/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#139 - zafara (04/07/2014) [-]
This is my wallpaper and icon
#138 - zafara (04/07/2014) [-]
This too.
This too.
#137 - zafara (04/07/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#136 - zafara (04/07/2014) [-]
By the way, there is a user named Toguro here, but they aren't named after this Toguro.
By the way, there is a user named Toguro here, but they aren't named after this Toguro.
#150 to #136 - toguro (04/17/2014) [-]
You like telling everyone that don'tcha?
User avatar #151 to #150 - zafara (04/17/2014) [-]
Well, we were talking about Toguro anyway. You usually pop up whenever Toguro is mentioned, so I wanted to let him know that you would probably show up. I also wanted to warn him that you don't really watch the show and named yourself Toguro after something else so that they didn't ask you questions about Yu Yu Hakusho you don't know.

Basically, I wanted to save some time by warning him that while you have the name, you don't know the show.

You know what I'm trying to say?
#152 to #151 - toguro (04/17/2014) [-]
Yeah I understood the 4th time you did it - I dont mind really
User avatar #153 to #152 - zafara (04/17/2014) [-]
I didn't think I was mentioning you that much. Sorry.
#135 - zafara (04/07/2014) [-]
This works as a good, I am mildly confused and/or disturbed by what I see
#132 - zafara (04/07/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#130 - zafara (04/07/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#129 - zafara (04/07/2014) [-]
Remember this scene?
Remember this scene?
User avatar #134 to #129 - alltimetens (04/07/2014) [-]
this **** was creepy
User avatar #144 to #134 - zafara (04/07/2014) [-]
Yep. You know what's even more creepy? Elder Toguro decapitated himself into a small aquarium and swam around in there as a head for a while without anyone really noticing.
[ 155 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)