Islam just can't stand images of Mohammed

[dismal]

Ananta Bijoy Das, a Bangladeshi writer known for advocating science and secularism, was hacked to death by masked men wielding machetes while on his way to work Tuesday morning…. He is the third Bangladeshi [secularist] writer to be killed in less than four months.

...

In addition to writing for Mukto-Mona, where he won a “Rationalist Award” in 2006, Das edited a local science magazine, according to CNN. Fellow bloggers said that Das sometimes wrote against religious fundamentalism but most often focused on championing science

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...lar-blogger-ananta-bijoy-das-hacked-to-death/

It appears blogging about science and secularism is the equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theatre too.

Wait, did I just come to a webpage where people blog about science and secularism to point that out?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

On the face of it, drawing Mohammed cartoons for muslims to see is kind of an inconsiderate and rude thing to do, kind of like sending a spiced ham as a gift just because you know the person is a vegetarian.

Rather more like serving spiced ham at a party, despite knowing that several of the guests are vegetarians. It's not a slur directed at any particular individual, even though you know some people are more likely to find it distasteful than others; if some people get pissed off about it, then it's because they are arseholes who want to impose their choices on everyone else.

No, not really. More like inviting a bunch of vegetarians over and serving nothing but meat, just to make a point to them, even though you yourself don't much like meat. Let's not pretend that this event would exist if muslims had no issue with images of Mohammed. You certainly do have a right to draw Mohammed, and even to do it with the intention of showing it to muslims, just like you have a right to make fun of the disabled or send a vegetarian a spiced ham, but it is a bit of a dick move.

What turns this from a simple rude gesture into something that is important and perhaps even vital, is the threats of violence in reaction to it. Before such threats it is just impolite. But now, in the face of such threats and terrorist actions, drawing the cartoons becomes a way to tell the terrorists that we won't reward their violence.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Right, fine as long as you are being consistent, though I wonder what precisely your point is in applying anachronistic labels to historic people is. To me it seems to be a barrier to thought and understanding, a flippant way to dismiss the realities of other people's lives, circumstances and upbringing, all with the underlying motive of making the self feel superior.

I disagree. If you're going to use the fact that an honoured and respected historical figure had a given position on a topic as evidence of the merit of that topic, then that figure's actions in regards to the topic become very relevant.

For instance, if you're having a discussion about the topic of freedom and back up your position by saying something along the lines of "Well, Thomas Jefferson said this quote which agrees with me about the value of freedom and therefore I'm right because THOMAS JEFFERSON", then the fact that Thomas Jefferson owned slaves is very relevant to the discussion. The quote itself may be very good and correct but the fact that it was said by a slave owner detracts from its value instead of adds to it.

It's the same with Mohammed. Islam uses his statements in the Koran as a basis of moral behaviour. Attacking the moral character of Mohammed is an extremely relevant rebuttal to the notion that the Koran makes for a decent basis for morality. There are a number of good and valid moral arguments in the Koran, but the fact that they were said by Mohammed undercuts any intrinsic lessons that the parables (or whatever the Koran calls them) themselves may contain.

This makes attacking and demonizing Mohammed a good thing because it leads to the position of "Hey, maybe we shouldn't give so much of a shit about what this pedophile terrorist had to say about moral behaviour".

 

[Deepak]

Ananta Bijoy Das, a Bangladeshi writer known for advocating science and secularism, was hacked to death by masked men wielding machetes while on his way to work Tuesday morning…. He is the third Bangladeshi [secularist] writer to be killed in less than four months.

...

In addition to writing for Mukto-Mona, where he won a “Rationalist Award” in 2006, Das edited a local science magazine, according to CNN. Fellow bloggers said that Das sometimes wrote against religious fundamentalism but most often focused on championing science

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...lar-blogger-ananta-bijoy-das-hacked-to-death/

It appears blogging about science and secularism is the equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theatre too.

Wait, did I just come to a webpage where people blog about science and secularism to point that out?

This calls to mind the folks who were at the heart of that Justice's statement about yelling fire in a theater. Quite like the textbook case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

There are a number of good and valid moral arguments in the Koran, but the fact that they were said by Mohammed undercuts any intrinsic lessons that the parables (or whatever the Koran calls them) themselves may contain.

I agree that if we hold somebody up as an authority, and ask people to accept a point based on that authority, then undercutting that authority makes sense. But if there are good and valid moral arguments made in the Koran, as you say (what are they?), then it shouldn't matter if the person saying them was a "pedophile terrorist" or otherwise vile human being. Wouldn't to say otherwise be simple ad hominem?

 

[Sarpedon]

I disagree. If you're going to use the fact that an honoured and respected historical figure had a given position on a topic as evidence of the merit of that topic, then that figure's actions in regards to the topic become very relevant.

For instance, if you're having a discussion about the topic of freedom and back up your position by saying something along the lines of "Well, Thomas Jefferson said this quote which agrees with me about the value of freedom and therefore I'm right because THOMAS JEFFERSON", then the fact that Thomas Jefferson owned slaves is very relevant to the discussion. The quote itself may be very good and correct but the fact that it was said by a slave owner detracts from its value instead of adds to it.

It's the same with Mohammed. Islam uses his statements in the Koran as a basis of moral behaviour. Attacking the moral character of Mohammed is an extremely relevant rebuttal to the notion that the Koran makes for a decent basis for morality. There are a number of good and valid moral arguments in the Koran, but the fact that they were said by Mohammed undercuts any intrinsic lessons that the parables (or whatever the Koran calls them) themselves may contain.

This makes attacking and demonizing Mohammed a good thing because it leads to the position of "Hey, maybe we shouldn't give so much of a shit about what this pedophile terrorist had to say about moral behaviour".

Hmmm, the same effect might be achieved by dismissing all arguments from authority, rather than just throwing labels around. They have labels for us too.

The difference between Jefferson and Muhammed is that the one lived in a time where the morality of slavery was certainly being questioned, whereas the other was completely in sync with the spirit of his times. Jefferson conciously decided to put his own status and comfort over what he very obviously thought was right. Muhammed was just doing as he saw everyone do. Gaining power through violence and fear was considered admirable.

Your way is essentially vilifying someone for being born into a certain culture. The uncomfortable truth is that anyone would probably be a quite different person had they been born into different circumstances. People would rather not confront that truth, and hence they demonize the other person, rather than confront the true cause of the problem. Working to improve circumstances is the obvious goal. But that would require people to stop pretending to be better than others, stop labelling, and start trying to understand. It is no different for terrorists than it is for the poor people we stuff into our prisons. If we spent half the money we spend on police and prisons and armies and bombs on improving circumstances, everyone would be better off.

 

[dismal]

There are a number of good and valid moral arguments in the Koran, but the fact that they were said by Mohammed undercuts any intrinsic lessons that the parables (or whatever the Koran calls them) themselves may contain.

I agree that if we hold somebody up as an authority, and ask people to accept a point based on that authority, then undercutting that authority makes sense. But if there are good and valid moral arguments made in the Koran, as you say (what are they?), then it shouldn't matter if the person saying them was a "pedophile terrorist" or otherwise vile human being. Wouldn't to say otherwise be simple ad hominem?

Religions are not about "good and valid moral arguments" they are about revealed truths from a higher authority. These revealed truths may or may not coincide with what secular mortals consider to be "good and valid moral arguments".

This is not an insult against religions, it is a description religious authorities would agree with, so put the machetes away folks.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

There are a number of good and valid moral arguments in the Koran, but the fact that they were said by Mohammed undercuts any intrinsic lessons that the parables (or whatever the Koran calls them) themselves may contain.

I agree that if we hold somebody up as an authority, and ask people to accept a point based on that authority, then undercutting that authority makes sense. But if there are good and valid moral arguments made in the Koran, as you say (what are they?), then it shouldn't matter if the person saying them was a "pedophile terrorist" or otherwise vile human being. Wouldn't to say otherwise be simple ad hominem?

Yes, but doing that gets one to the point that "this is a valid moral argument because of X, Y and Z" and away from "this is a valid moral argument because it's in the Koran".

It's the same as saying "Thou shalt not kill" is a good moral rule based on all the reasons why killing someone is bad as opposed to it being a good moral rule based on the fact that God put it on a tablet.

 

[Shadowy Man]

It's the same as saying "Thou shalt not kill" is a good moral rule based on all the reasons why killing someone is bad as opposed to it being a good moral rule based on the fact that God put it on a tablet.

Especially in light of the fact that the very same holy book has a long list of reasons why its ok to kill certain people.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I disagree. If you're going to use the fact that an honoured and respected historical figure had a given position on a topic as evidence of the merit of that topic, then that figure's actions in regards to the topic become very relevant.

For instance, if you're having a discussion about the topic of freedom and back up your position by saying something along the lines of "Well, Thomas Jefferson said this quote which agrees with me about the value of freedom and therefore I'm right because THOMAS JEFFERSON", then the fact that Thomas Jefferson owned slaves is very relevant to the discussion. The quote itself may be very good and correct but the fact that it was said by a slave owner detracts from its value instead of adds to it.

It's the same with Mohammed. Islam uses his statements in the Koran as a basis of moral behaviour. Attacking the moral character of Mohammed is an extremely relevant rebuttal to the notion that the Koran makes for a decent basis for morality. There are a number of good and valid moral arguments in the Koran, but the fact that they were said by Mohammed undercuts any intrinsic lessons that the parables (or whatever the Koran calls them) themselves may contain.

This makes attacking and demonizing Mohammed a good thing because it leads to the position of "Hey, maybe we shouldn't give so much of a shit about what this pedophile terrorist had to say about moral behaviour".

Hmmm, the same effect might be achieved by dismissing all arguments from authority, rather than just throwing labels around. They have labels for us too.

The difference between Jefferson and Muhammed is that the one lived in a time where the morality of slavery was certainly being questioned, whereas the other was completely in sync with the spirit of his times. Jefferson conciously decided to put his own status and comfort over what he very obviously thought was right. Muhammed was just doing as he saw everyone do. Gaining power through violence and fear was considered admirable.

Your way is essentially vilifying someone for being born into a certain culture. The uncomfortable truth is that anyone would probably be a quite different person had they been born into different circumstances. People would rather not confront that truth, and hence they demonize the other person, rather than confront the true cause of the problem. Working to improve circumstances is the obvious goal. But that would require people to stop pretending to be better than others, stop labelling, and start trying to understand. It is no different for terrorists than it is for the poor people we stuff into our prisons. If we spent half the money we spend on police and prisons and armies and bombs on improving circumstances, everyone would be better off.

It's not villifying someone for being part of a certain culture, it's saying that this person isn't a good example for people who are living in our culture. Even if Mohammed was the nicest of all the shitheads of his time, that doesn't make him any less of a shithead himself. If someone who is currently living says "I will use this immoral shithead here as my guide to moral behaviour", odds are that this someone is going to end up being an immoral shithead. Even if the same behaviour would have made him the most moral immoral shithead of the seventh century, some types of behaviour which were acceptable in the past aren't acceptable today so we shouldn't hold up people who engaged in those behaviours as current paragons of morality.

Mohammed is not a man who deserves to be venerated by people who are alive today. He is a man who deserves to the criticized.

 

[Deepak]

I agree that if we hold somebody up as an authority, and ask people to accept a point based on that authority, then undercutting that authority makes sense. But if there are good and valid moral arguments made in the Koran, as you say (what are they?), then it shouldn't matter if the person saying them was a "pedophile terrorist" or otherwise vile human being. Wouldn't to say otherwise be simple ad hominem?

Religions are not about "good and valid moral arguments" they are about revealed truths from a higher authority. These revealed truths may or may not coincide with what secular mortals consider to be "good and valid moral arguments".

This is not an insult against religions, it is a description religious authorities would agree with, so put the machetes away folks.

I don't think this is true in that not all religions are revealed religions. Forgetting about the actual validity for a second, I'd say that religions like Hinduism, Jainism, and in it's own inscrutable ways Buddhism proffer what they consider 'good and valid moral arguments'.

 

[Metaphor]

Being gay in Iran should be called what it is: incitement to violence. What else can the State do except hang these men by the neck until they are dead? They know being gay will provoke the State into murder, yet they do it anyway.

There were no gays in Iran until after the U.S. Invasion of Iraq. Coincidence? I think not!

Fair point.

 

[Bomb#20]

Back then did everyone rule by the fear that he'd murder your children?

That was my impression. I read books much later than that era where destroying a family is a prescribed punishment, in much more 'civilized' areas. For example, T'ang China would probably be considered the most civilized nation existing in the period, and yes, wiping out a family 'to the third generation' was a punishment for treason on the books.

Not sure what your criteria for "most civilized" are. And not sure what "much later" has to do with it -- lots of countries have gotten more evil as they got bigger and more powerful. One of the chief contributors to getting big and powerful is willingness of your rulers to murder a lot of people, and the middle ages were predominantly an age of thousands of tiny countries with hundreds of thousands of rulers hardly anyone has ever heard of, when most people were illiterate, most deeds went unrecorded, and the chief way to become famous was by killing a lot of people. There's no reason to assume rulers of great empires are an unbiased sample of rulers. There could have been thousands of kinglets in that period who would react to disobedience like a non-psychopath and simply kill the offender, leaving the kids out of it, and you'd never have heard of them.

Be that as it may, Alfred of Wessex had quite a reputation for justice and moderation. He got famous by killing a lot of people and I can't find any indication that he ever targeted children. But then it probably helps if the people you're famous for killing are attacking your country rather than vice versa.

In the Byzantine Empire, another of the more civilized nations to exist, after the 'Nika' revolt, 30,000 were put to death. This was a century before the death of Muhammed. Ever hear of Justinian? In my high school history class we learned about his progressive for the time legal code. This was a piece of his work we didn't learn about.

So, if one of the earliest practitioners of burning heretics to death also punished people by murdering their children then practically everybody must have been doing it?

I have read medieval manuscripts where various lords threaten all sorts of acts against those who displeased them, like destroying everything that they even liked, for example, a church, "I will stable my horses upon your altar, and give the nuns over to my squires.'

So if the justification for not calling somebody a terrorist is that it was common, where does that leave us? I guess that means it's still okay to call Alexander a megalomaniac since he so thoroughly out megaloed the rest of the maniacs. So would you argue that it's also useless and unintelligent to call Torquemada a totalitarian, Jefferson Davis a racist, and Teddy Roosevelt an imperialist? Or is it just "terrorist" that you're insisting we grade on the curve?

Have you any idea what happened when a town was sacked? The Song of Roland, for example, speaks of Charlemagne's revenge upon the muslim spanish, after the battle of Roncevalles. Charlemagne is considered by many to be admirable, but the Song speaks of barbaric cruelty.

Charlemagne is admired mostly for having killed a lot of people. You'd have a better argument if your examples were drawn from people who were admired for something else. Funny story about Roncesvalles, by the way. Both armies were Christian.

 

[Sarpedon]

Well first of all, calling Teddy Rooseveldt an imperialist is not anachronistic, as the concept was well established at the time. Calling Torquemada a totalitarian isn't quite accurate either, as he was the agent of the Church, and had no problem with the existence of the monarchy and the feudal system, which seems at odds with the usual definition of totalitarianism: the idea that power be concentrated in the hands of a single institution. So you are being both anachronistic and inaccurate. As for Davis, again, while the word 'racist' wasn't in much use in his time, the concept of a social order based on race, and that this was wrong, was.

Second, the problem of 'terrorist' as a label is how mutable it is. Once upon a time it meant one who used random violence against civilians to cause fear in order to intimidate people to achieve political goals. The first people who were generally called 'terrorists' were the early anarchists and communists who would do things like fling dynamite into Paris cafes. The randomness of the violence is what distinguishes the acts of someone like Muhammed, in that he killed the innocent, but did not kill randomly. That's the difference between what was originally called terrorism and what is called these days 'state sponsered terrorism' in that the first is largely random, while the second is not. I hate arguing semantics, but my main problem is this problem of inconsistency: you are not using words in a systematic way. I will allow a particular word to be defined in any well understood way for the sake of discussion. You seem to be throwing around words as insults rather than showing any sort of understanding of them, or interest in having a meaningful conversation: your errors with Rooseveldt, Torquemada, and Davis show that. and Alexander; was he a megalomaniac? Given the ancient Greeks invented the concept of 'Hubris,' and it means essentially the same thing as megalomania, I don't think it is at all inappropriate to use the term. I can't say I know enough about him to say. (I do not say this because I am ignorant of the period, I am not. I merely think there is not enough evidence to psychoanalyze this person over the space of 2000+years) He was certainly proud, but then, he had much to be proud of. Was he pathologically egotistical? I don't think you or I can say. Your eagerness to slap an insulting label on him, despite not actually knowing enough to make a fair judgement, reinforces my impression that you are simply acting out of animus, and ego.

Finally, Charlemagne was admired for killing people? Really?

You are the one making the positive claim that Muhammed's behavior was inconsistent with the time. I gave examples of similar behavior in the same period, which you flippantly dismiss, without presenting counter-examples of the supposed enlightened rulers who were supposedly common during the period. Please do. I recall Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," in which he gives a one-paragraph summary of Antoninus Pius's reign, in which there was 20 years of peace and prosperity, with the Emperor doing absolutely nothing horrible. Gibbon remarks on how the best rulers are the ones that have so little to write about. This might make it hard to find the references I ask for, but also, I note that of the Emperors Gibbon covers, Antoninus Pius is the ONLY one that earns that distinction. One out of dozens. The rest were to varying degrees, despicable brutes, or people like Pertinax, who's reign was very short, due to his virtuous nature not being very popular.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Side issue:

I'm pretty sure killing a child modifies his behavior. By "others" you mean people other than the ones you're killing? Not sure why that would be a requirement. It's a counterintuitive rule -- it would mean if you try to kill half the Muslims in Kosovo you're a terrorist but if you try to kill them all you're not.

Be that as it may, you think when he murdered that poetess it never occurred to Mohammed what effect that might have on the next person tempted to write an insulting poem about him?

I'm not a Native speaker so that may be the reason, but at least by the way I would have been (at least until recently) inclined to use the word "terrorist" (but see below), I would not have found the rule counterintuitive.
For example, I would have been inclined to say that if A tries to kill either all or half the Muslims in Kosovo - or half or all of the population of the planet, etc. - just for fun (the fun of making them dead, not of scaring them) , but without caring whether someone else is terrorized, changes their behavior, etc., he is not a terrorist even though he's evil.
Generally, I would have found "trying to change the behavior of someone not killed"intuitive, but not sufficient to capture the conditions for terrorism. But then again, that would only be if I were to analyze the way I would have been inclined to use the word. Now I think there are several different usages, and people sometimes talk past each other.
ETA: Sorry, "for fun" would not meet the "political goals" criterion, either, so it's a bad example. But if the goal is that he wants to exterminate all Muslims (or, say, kill 95% of them, at least) to change the political system in many places, but isn't interested in terrorizing anyone in order to achieve his goal (the killing of Muslims would just change the political system in places where Muslims are a majority and support a kind of system others don't), I wouldn't have been inclined to classified him as a terrorist, either.

That said, going by the deeds of Muhammad you describe, he falls under category "terrorist" under any common usage I can think of - well, unless the "only recent behavior" rule or something like that is common, but I don't think it is.


By the way, what source are you going by? Some Hadith, or some other sources?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I hate arguing semantics, but my main problem is this problem of inconsistency: you are not using words in a systematic way.

How was he ever inconsistent in his usage of "terrorist"?

Do we really want to discuss what war was like in the 7th century? Nothing he did was out of line of the standards of war in his time and place. "Warrior" is correct in that context. Call him a brute, as what he did was brutal even by his times standards. But don't call him a 'terrorist' because back then EVERYONE ruled by fear. If someone today were to do what he did, sure we could call him a terrorist. Calling someone in the 7th century a terrorist is about as intelligent and useful as calling a dog that shits in the street a litterbug.

If he meets the criteria for "terrorist", that's that. Why would the behavior of other rulers be part of the criteria?
On that note, about calling Muhammad a rapist, a murderer, a thief, and a slaver? Do you think those don't apply, either, for some reason related to the behavior of some other rulers? Or do you think they apply?

 

[Sarpedon]

How was he ever inconsistent in his usage of "terrorist"?

Well he never quite made the leap between 'killing people who he considered his enemies' and 'killing people for the purpose of intimidation.' Killing children is doubtless terrifying. But, from a certain point of view, killing the children of someone you just killed is simply prudent; they won't be around to take revenge. People pretend to know the motive behind the killings, and that it was terroristic in nature. If killing people who you consider enemies is 'terrorism' the term has been bent beyond all usable meaning. Again, it is the unjustified assumptions that go along with the use of the label that offends me. That is what I previously called 'lazy' which provoked such ire.

If he meets the criteria for "terrorist", that's that. Why would the behavior of other rulers be part of the criteria?

Because it shows a dogmatic attachment to the so called 'definition' of the word, rather than the idea behind it. Words are just noises we grunt at each other in an attempt to communicate. It is the idea that matters. I contend that if you went to your typical dark ages ruler, and told him that he couldn't go around killing people who displeased or disobeyed him, simply to strike fear into the hearts of others, because this is wrong, he'd be flabbergasted. The concept that it was wrong to use fear to reinforce authority did not exist in general culture. I can think of a few exceptions: Some of the Buddhist kingdoms of India, and pre-norman britain might, MIGHT, have been different.

This is important because it is downright silly to hold people responsible for doing things they don't understand is wrong. All this ranting and raving against the character of Muhammed is ludicrous, and I think it is motivated more by a desire to mobilize hostility against muslims than for any sort of scholarly purpose or aim. So what if Muhammed checks off the boxes of criteria that you have made and called the definition of terrorism? Understanding and scholarship is more than categorization. Categorizing is a useful tool in scholarship, provided it is used correctly. I am not convinced that people throwing around labels here have any interest beyond provocation and scoring points in a debate. The fact is we don't know if he made up the religion just for power and sex, or if he actually believed it. Personally, I think it is the former, but I don't flippantly label him a fraud, because I DON'T KNOW. All of you are so proud and confident in your labels and definitions and checklists that you just don't see that you really don't know either.

I do so miss the old forum.

 

[J842P]

Well he never quite made the leap between 'killing people who he considered his enemies' and 'killing people for the purpose of intimidation.' Killing children is doubtless terrifying. But, from a certain point of view, killing the children of someone you just killed is simply prudent; they won't be around to take revenge. People pretend to know the motive behind the killings, and that it was terroristic in nature. If killing people who you consider enemies is 'terrorism' the term has been bent beyond all usable meaning. Again, it is the unjustified assumptions that go along with the use of the label that offends me. That is what I previously called 'lazy' which provoked such ire.

If he meets the criteria for "terrorist", that's that. Why would the behavior of other rulers be part of the criteria?

Because it shows a dogmatic attachment to the so called 'definition' of the word, rather than the idea behind it. Words are just noises we grunt at each other in an attempt to communicate. It is the idea that matters. I contend that if you went to your typical dark ages ruler, and told him that he couldn't go around killing people who displeased or disobeyed him, simply to strike fear into the hearts of others, because this is wrong, he'd be flabbergasted. The concept that it was wrong to use fear to reinforce authority did not exist in general culture. I can think of a few exceptions: Some of the Buddhist kingdoms of India, and pre-norman britain might, MIGHT, have been different.

This is important because it is downright silly to hold people responsible for doing things they don't understand is wrong. All this ranting and raving against the character of Muhammed is ludicrous, and I think it is motivated more by a desire to mobilize hostility against muslims than for any sort of scholarly purpose or aim. So what if Muhammed checks off the boxes of criteria that you have made and called the definition of terrorism? Understanding and scholarship is more than categorization. Categorizing is a useful tool in scholarship, provided it is used correctly. I am not convinced that people throwing around labels here have any interest beyond provocation and scoring points in a debate. The fact is we don't know if he made up the religion just for power and sex, or if he actually believed it. Personally, I think it is the former, but I don't flippantly label him a fraud, because I DON'T KNOW. All of you are so proud and confident in your labels and definitions and checklists that you just don't see that you really don't know either.

I do so miss the old forum.

Why would Mohammed have made Islam for sex?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Well he never quite made the leap between 'killing people who he considered his enemies' and 'killing people for the purpose of intimidation.' Killing children is doubtless terrifying. But, from a certain point of view, killing the children of someone you just killed is simply prudent; they won't be around to take revenge. People pretend to know the motive behind the killings, and that it was terroristic in nature. If killing people who you consider enemies is 'terrorism' the term has been bent beyond all usable meaning. Again, it is the unjustified assumptions that go along with the use of the label that offends me. That is what I previously called 'lazy' which provoked such ire.

Bomb#20 said "I'm describing violence deliberately targeted at noncombatants for political goals. That's the definition of terrorism."
If you think that he wasn't justified in thinking that Muhammad's killings of non-combatants had political goals, I would disagree, but even that would not make his use of the word "terrorism" inconsistent. Inconsistency would require that he applies the label "terrorism" to actions he believes didn't consist in violence deliberately targeting at noncombatants for political goals.

Because it shows a dogmatic attachment to the so called 'definition' of the word, rather than the idea behind it. Words are just noises we grunt at each other in an attempt to communicate. It is the idea that matters.

But the "idea" is the meaning of the word. If that's what the word means, it is.

I contend that if you went to your typical dark ages ruler, and told him that he couldn't go around killing people who displeased or disobeyed him, simply to strike fear into the hearts of others, because this is wrong, he'd be flabbergasted. The concept that it was wrong to use fear to reinforce authority did not exist in general culture. I can think of a few exceptions: Some of the Buddhist kingdoms of India, and pre-norman britain might, MIGHT, have been different.

If there is a society in which if you were to say warlords that they can't take sex slaves because it's wrong, they would be flabbergasted, that would not make those who engage in said actions not rapists.
Whether he's a terrorist or a rapist does not depend on whether he believes it's immoral to behave as he does.

All this ranting and raving against the character of Muhammed is ludicrous, and I think it is motivated more by a desire to mobilize hostility against muslims than for any sort of scholarly purpose or aim.

You have no good grounds to suppose that that's the purpose of what you call "raving and ranting" (in fact, the purpose varies from person to person).

The fact is we don't know if he made up the religion just for power and sex, or if he actually believed it. Personally, I think it is the former, but I don't flippantly label him a fraud, because I DON'T KNOW.

But that's not the point. Even if he believed his nonsense. He raped women, so he was a rapist. He stole other people's land, so he was a thief. He murdered plenty of people (including unarmed, defenseless prisoners, etc.), so he was a murderer. The labels "murderer", "rapist", "thief", "enslaver", etc., apply because his behavior matches the description given by those words.

On that note, I would like to ask: Do you object to calling Muhammad a rapist, murderer, thief, enslaver, and torturer, or only to call him a terrorist?

 

[angelo]

Muhammad was all of the above and more. He used brutality and terrorism to cower his next targets. Paedophilia has been left out of the many murderous traits of the founder of islam.