That's all I'm going to say on this thread. Trying to defend Islam and the Prophet of Islam on the internet is a great way to have hate flung your way.

But that's God's command for a nation to destroy another, not saying that it's alright to kill non-believers on an individual level. Though, the verses in the Koran might very well be/probably are the same kind of thing.

Trying to defend anything Emon or Darkjedibob don't agree with is a good way to get hate flung your way.

No. If memory serves me, according to Islam, Mohammed was first thrown out with his believers by the Meccans. Mohammed & Co. fled to Medina/Yathrib, and were pursued by the Meccans. Mohammed beat the Meccans, and they went back to nurse their wounds. They attacked him again, and lost - a truce was formed that they were to evacuate the city. The Meccans who had persecuted Mohammed then returned to the city once he left. He took the city "by force" without a fight; he declared a general amnesty for the Meccans when he conquered the city.

Nope. The Meccans didn't pursue Mohammed. They seemed thrilled to have him gone. Your account also leaves out the part where the Muslims started the violence by leading attacks on Meccan merchant caravans. It was only afterwards that Mecca sent an army to deal with 'Mohammed & Co.', which lost. Mohammed then raised an army on Mecca and sent four columns of troops into Mecca, one of which was involved in heavy fighting until it broke the Meccan defenders. Not quite without a fight.

He also wiped out the Jewish tribe that lived in Medina after the first battle with Mecca. He wasn't acting out of defense of his people, he was actively conquering the region.

There is a HUGE difference between an almighty God snuffing out people and a God who tells humans to go and murder other humans. Seriously.

What all these verses give you is the basis of Jihad. Perhaps it's a context thing, perhaps not. While I think that they do mean what they say, I haven't actually read most of the Koran, and I could be completely wrong on that point.

What are your references?

But if god is really the force of pure good that religious people make him out to be shouldn't we try to become more like him and carry out our own genocides?

What is a nation if not a group of individuals? I'm sorry but God doesn't get off the hook just because he doesn't give individual names to go forth and kill. He still tells Joshua to commit genocide upon a nation of non-believers.

I have the sudden urge to post those Mohammed pictures of him with TNT around his chest.

But that would get me banned, so look them up yourself.

I was raised as a Pentecostal (Protestant) and we were taught to believe that everyone outside of our denomination was going to hell (they were known as "The World"). When we would ask about children dying in Africa of starvation or AIDS, we were told that they were being punished for the sins of their parents and that their lives and deaths were an example. There are insane people leading insane people in virtually every religion on this planet. There are many violent groups that attempt to justify their violent acts with religion. The skinheads in the U.S.A. would be a good example of a group using Christianity to justify their violent behavior.

I make no distinction between "faith" and "blind faith". To me, they are the exact same thing. "Faith" is simply a word that people use to attempt to justify why they pretend to know that a creator exists or why they belong to a religion. I'm not claiming that a creator doesn't exist, I'm just stating that "faith" seems to be more of an excuse than a reason, in my opinion.

Those nations were destroyed as punishment for grossly sinning against God. Joshua was merely the instrument God used for punishment.

There is a massive amount of ignorance in this thread; I wonder if there is a shortage somewhere else.

(psst, obi. I think you were one of the people he was talking about)

stuff

It's widely accepted knowledge within the Arab world. I believe I myself learned it in World History in tenth grade.


Edit: Try wikipedia for starters

At least we didn't have to put up with your fallacious/misuse of logic this time.

Oh Mort, where have you been?

Err, fine. Deceptive use of fallacious logic. For example, making a statement "if X then Y" without proving that there is a connection between the two. He will claim the connection exists yet refuse to prove it.



You guys are jackasses.

I didn't really even say anything. But I sure see a lot of stupid comments that show people really have no idea what they're talking about.

Spider-Man doesn't teach hate and he's the son of God.
Anyone who says otherwise can DIAF.

Dude, "if X then Y" is a conditional. You're given X to be true, and you deduce Y from it. There's no 'proving' involved.

Articles such as this one indicate that raids were carried out while the Meccans were persecuting the Muslims. Furthermore, this article states that it was the Meccans who broke the treaty, and that the city was peacefully surrendered to Mohammed's army.

Before armed conflict started between the Meccans and Medinans, Sa'd ibn Mua'dh warned the Meccans of upcoming raids. Muslims started raiding caravans going to and from Mecca. Such activities were initially denounced by Muhammad. When a group of Muslims started raiding caravans with Abu Basir...

It was only when they were permitted to fight, that the Muslim community started a mission to capture the wealth of meccan caravans, these expeditions were bloodless, with the first blood being spilt by the death of a guard of the Al-Hadrami caravan at Nakhlah, thereby formally setting up a blood feud from the Meccan end, though the Muslims would claim it had started when they were expelled and lost their property.

On or near January 11, 630, Muhammad sent four columns of troops into Mecca. Only one column met any resistance. Twenty-eight Meccans were killed and the rest of those opposing the Muslim entry fled. The remaining Meccans surrendered to Muhammad. Some Meccans were then killed for alleged offenses against the Muslims.

The Meccan statues of Arabian gods housed in the Kaaba were destroyed and the Kaaba was converted into a Muslim shrine.

I think you missed the point. He's saying that you make sure of an implication without justifying that there actually is an implication.

1. X -> Y
2. X
3. Therefore: Y

That much is true, what he's saying is that you do the following:

1. X
2. Assumption: X -> Y
3. Therefore: Y

You are allowed to make assumptions in logic, but you have to prove or disprove them at some later point before making your final conclusion. Now it's pretty obvious that you know this but I felt like saying it anyway.

Such activities were initially denounced by Muhammad.