Islam just can't stand images of Mohammed

[Arctish]

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.

So how does he compare with Moses and Joshua?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

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.

So how does he compare with Moses and Joshua?

I don't think he's fictional. That's a difference.

 

[dismal]

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'.

I suppose it's largely semantics. I could argue that a religion that is not based in faith in some revealed truth it's not *really* a "religion". If it's based on adherence to a series of logical arguments and propositions it's more of a "philosophy".

We often use the terms "religion" and "faith" interchangeably.

In any case, as far as this particular thread is concerned islam is a religion based in faith in revealed truths.

 

[Sarpedon]

Why would Mohammed have made Islam for sex?

Virtually everyone who starts a cult has some kind of sex agenda. It goes with the psychology of the cult leader. Some are anti-sex, some are pro-sex. Given that Muhammed established polygamy in a previously monogamous society and married multiple wives, I think it is safe to conclude he is of the pro-sex kidney.

 

[Deepak]

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'.

I suppose it's largely semantics. I could argue that a religion that is not based in faith in some revealed truth it's not *really* a "religion". If it's based on adherence to a series of logical arguments and propositions it's more of a "philosophy".

We often use the terms "religion" and "faith" interchangeably.

In any case, as far as this particular thread is concerned islam is a religion based in faith in revealed truths.

While I don't think they're devoid of faith - I have heard people make exactly that argument, though on purely philosophical grounds I don't actually think most of it stands up to scrutiny.

Islam, like other Abrahamic traditions, certainly is a revealed religion and no one would argue against that.

 

[Sarpedon]

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.

The concept of rape is ancient. The concept of murder is ancient, though killing in war is not considered murder. The concept of thieving is ancient, though the idea that it was wrong to gain land by conquest is not. It was a fairly universal belief that God or the gods determined victory in war based on the merits of the combatants. Thus conquest of land was virtuous. The idea that prisoners shouldn't be killed or enslaved is likewise modern. This is why there is more to an idea than simply the definition of a word. You can't pretend that if you make up a word, assign a definition to it, and apply it to something, then you have necessarily produced a worthwhile idea. Especially when you are using loaded words with an obvious unstated motive. That is my point.

We can argue back and forth on this, but the fact is that if you take your dumb arguments out into the field, you won't convince anyone who isnt already on your side. People will come back and say 'well George Washington stole land from the indians and owned slaves' and the whole argument devolves into a pissing match as to who's historic antecedants were worse bastards. A pointless argument, easily avoided if one acknowledges that the world changes, and people living centuries ago in a different world can't be judged by modern standards by people sitting safely at home in a peaceful country. You guys are fighting a culture war, and you are not having a discussion so much as you are trying to rally the troops by vilifying the enemy. The other side will do the same. Don't expect me to start marching in step with you.

 

[Shadowy Man]

So how does he compare with Moses and Joshua?

I don't think he's fictional. That's a difference.

But it's an irrelevant difference, unless there are people following Islam today that knew the prophet personally.

 

[Deepak]

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.

The concept of rape is ancient. The concept of murder is ancient, though killing in war is not considered murder. The concept of thieving is ancient, though the idea that it was wrong to gain land by conquest is not. It was a fairly universal belief that God or the gods determined victory in war based on the merits of the combatants. Thus conquest of land was virtuous. The idea that prisoners shouldn't be killed or enslaved is likewise modern. This is why there is more to an idea than simply the definition of a word. You can't pretend that if you make up a word, assign a definition to it, and apply it to something, then you have necessarily produced a worthwhile idea. Especially when you are using loaded words with an obvious unstated motive. That is my point.

We can argue back and forth on this, but the fact is that if you take your dumb arguments out into the field, you won't convince anyone who isnt already on your side. People will come back and say 'well George Washington stole land from the indians and owned slaves' and the whole argument devolves into a pissing match as to who's historic antecedants were worse bastards. A pointless argument, easily avoided if one acknowledges that the world changes, and people living centuries ago in a different world can't be judged by modern standards by people sitting safely at home in a peaceful country. You guys are fighting a culture war, and you are not having a discussion so much as you are trying to rally the troops by vilifying the enemy. The other side will do the same. Don't expect me to start marching in step with you.

The question at hand, though, is whether he's a better role model than Charles Barkley, not whether his morality was fitting his peers. If he's being offered as a moral guide then we have no choice but to consider him through a modern lens.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I don't think he's fictional. That's a difference.

But it's an irrelevant difference, unless there are people following Islam today that knew the prophet personally.

OK, fair point.

Let's say that Moses was a historical figure and, while bargaining with the Pharaoh for the release of the Jewish slaves, he ordered his people go around the city and slaughter the first born children of all the guys who worked for the Pharaoh as part of his negotiating tactics. In that case, if we run across anyone who argues that we should be listening to what Moses said in order to build our system of morality, the fact that he ordered the mass slaughter of children would be a very relevant point to counter the notion that his example is the one we should be using. This doesn't mean that there aren't other stories from Moses's life which make for good moral lessons, but we'd need to divorce those lessons from Moses himself in order to judge their worth.

It's kind of like how we currently refer to the guy who's actually said to have given the order as a "genocidal maniac" when someone claims he's the source of light, goodness and baby kittens. We'd refer to anyone else who did the things he did in the same way we refer to him.

I can't really recall what Joshua did, but the same standards would apply. I think he knocked down some city walls without getting municpal workers to put up traffic cones around the demolition area to make sure that rocks don't fall on people's heads. Anyone who wants to do that today, I have a problem with too.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Let's say that Moses was a historical figure and, while bargaining with the Pharaoh for the release of the Jewish slaves, he ordered his people go around the city and slaughter the first born children of all the guys who worked for the Pharaoh as part of his negotiating tactics. In that case, if we run across anyone who argues that we should be listening to what Moses said in order to build our system of morality, the fact that he ordered the mass slaughter of children would be a very relevant point to counter the notion that his example is the one we should be using. This doesn't mean that there aren't other stories from Moses's life which make for good moral lessons, but we'd need to divorce those lessons from Moses himself in order to judge their worth.

Another good lesson from Moses is when he ordered the killing of 3000 people (his own people, whom he had just helped flee from the tyranny of the Pharaoh) who were worshipping a golden calf, in violation of a commandment that they had yet to receive. But, you know, God wanted them to die, so maybe it really wasn't that bad a thing to do anyway.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Let's say that Moses was a historical figure and, while bargaining with the Pharaoh for the release of the Jewish slaves, he ordered his people go around the city and slaughter the first born children of all the guys who worked for the Pharaoh as part of his negotiating tactics. In that case, if we run across anyone who argues that we should be listening to what Moses said in order to build our system of morality, the fact that he ordered the mass slaughter of children would be a very relevant point to counter the notion that his example is the one we should be using. This doesn't mean that there aren't other stories from Moses's life which make for good moral lessons, but we'd need to divorce those lessons from Moses himself in order to judge their worth.

Another good lesson from Moses is when he ordered the killing of 3000 people (his own people, whom he had just helped flee from the tyranny of the Pharaoh) who were worshipping a golden calf, in violation of a commandment that they had yet to receive. But, you know, God wanted them to die, so maybe it really wasn't that bad a thing to do anyway.

Ya, Moses was a dick. If any Jewish guy threatens to shoot me for disrespecting the man, I'm totally disrespecting the man even more just to make the point that he was a dick.

 

[Bomb#20]

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?

The story of the murder of the poetess is from Sira, traditional Islamic biographies of Muhammad. The Massacre of Banu Qurayza is famous -- it's in Hadith and Sira, and there's a one-line reference to it in the Quran.

 

[Sarpedon]

The question at hand, though, is whether he's a better role model than Charles Barkley, not whether his morality was fitting his peers. If he's being offered as a moral guide then we have no choice but to consider him through a modern lens.

Do Muslims really go around and say "let us behave exactly like muhammed," any more than Jews say "let us behave exactly like Joshua?" Sure, I've heard extremists from both groups say things like that, but the vast majority tend to take a more tempered view of their historical antecedants. Kind of like they realize that the world changes and certain things that people did long ago are no longer acceptable. You can admire George Washington for his courage and modesty while ignoring his slave owning and indian land stealing. You can admire Muhammed's piety and fortitude while ignoring his pederasty and violence. People do this all the time. Are you really being fair to Muslims by singling them out for supposedly embracing Muhammed's dark age ways?

 

[Bomb#20]

A butcher who hacks off a xtians head is a warrior now is he?

Oh, are you going to call Charlemagne a terrorist for hacking off muslim heads?

Thought not.

What the hell makes you think you have the right to give angelo's answers for him? It's up to him to say whether he'd call Charlemagne a terrorist, not up to you. For cutting off Muslim heads? Your source for that charge seems to be the Song of Roland which as previously noted is not history. But Charlemagne murdered 4500 Saxon POWs and enacted laws making paganism a capital crime. So yes, he was a terrorist. Duh.

I don't know what sort of fairies and unicorns world you imagine the dark ages were like before the Dark Lord Muhammed came along, but your ignorance and double standards are comical.

What on earth makes you think that you can deduce a person's knowledge of the facts of history from his taking a different moral perspective on them from yours? You really need to give your long-running ESP act a rest. You aren't good at it.

Did you know that, for example, King 'Saint' Olaf threatened to sail over to Iceland and kill every person there if they didn't convert to Christianity? (they talked it over and they decided to do what the man said) Is Saint Olaf a terrorist?

Obviously. Why do you ask? Did you imagine we'd be reluctant to call somebody a terrorist because you emphasize "Saint"? You know you're on an atheist forum, don't you?

 

[Deepak]

The question at hand, though, is whether he's a better role model than Charles Barkley, not whether his morality was fitting his peers. If he's being offered as a moral guide then we have no choice but to consider him through a modern lens.

Do Muslims really go around and say "let us behave exactly like muhammed," any more than Jews say "let us behave exactly like Joshua?" Sure, I've heard extremists from both groups say things like that, but the vast majority tend to take a more tempered view of their historical antecedants. Kind of like they realize that the world changes and certain things that people did long ago are no longer acceptable. You can admire George Washington for his courage and modesty while ignoring his slave owning and indian land stealing. You can admire Muhammed's piety and fortitude while ignoring his pederasty and violence. People do this all the time. Are you really being fair to Muslims by singling them out for supposedly embracing Muhammed's dark age ways?

How am I being unfair? I'd say the same thing to anyone doing similarly for Moses, Conan, Genghis Khan, the Catholic Church, or Harold Bloom.

My understanding of the Koran is that Mohammed is represented to exemplify the teachings, and not simply state them. If people call themselves Muslims but don't actually think Mohammed was a moral guide then I have no problem with that.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The question at hand, though, is whether he's a better role model than Charles Barkley, not whether his morality was fitting his peers. If he's being offered as a moral guide then we have no choice but to consider him through a modern lens.

Do Muslims really go around and say "let us behave exactly like muhammed," any more than Jews say "let us behave exactly like Joshua?" Sure, I've heard extremists from both groups say things like that, but the vast majority tend to take a more tempered view of their historical antecedants. Kind of like they realize that the world changes and certain things that people did long ago are no longer acceptable. You can admire George Washington for his courage and modesty while ignoring his slave owning and indian land stealing. You can admire Muhammed's piety and fortitude while ignoring his pederasty and violence. People do this all the time. Are you really being fair to Muslims by singling them out for supposedly embracing Muhammed's dark age ways?

Because when they use the Koran as a source of morality, they are basically saying "Mohammed said it and therefore it is right". Pointing out what an immoral bastard Mohammed was helps to undercut this message. It's no different than pointing out what a misogynistic twit Paul was when certain Biblical passages are used to justify how it's moral to treat women as less important than men or pointing out various acts of genocide when "Because God said so" is used as a justification for particular behaviour.

Mohammed is a poor choice of someone to use to get ideas about moral behaviour from and he was not a man who is worthy of respect. You can admire aspects of anyone's character while ignoring other aspects, but if someone is going to call him worthy of respect as a whole then all those parts which you decided to ignore become very relevant.

 

[TSwizzle]

You can admire Muhammed's piety and fortitude while ignoring his pederasty and violence.

Pederasty ? Interesting, that's something I have never heard leveled at "the prophet" before.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

You can admire Muhammed's piety and fortitude while ignoring his pederasty and violence.

Pederasty ? Interesting, that's something I have never heard leveled at "the prophet" before.

It's an internal thing amongst the Muslim nations. The leader of the Shiite branch was one of Aisha's children, so it's not uncommon amongst the Sunnis to claim that Aisha was actually a nine year old boy and the Shiite founder wasn't actually related to Mohammed at all. Then the Shiites start yelling about how the Sunnis are calling Mohammed gay and then they all just start shooting each other.

 

[Sarpedon]

Pederasty ? Interesting, that's something I have never heard leveled at "the prophet" before.

Oh, I have heard it leveled at him, not from anyone credible. I don't really know. I was just getting in the spirit of flinging random, unverifiable insults at historical figures.

How am I being unfair? I'd say the same thing to anyone doing similarly for Moses, Conan, Genghis Khan, the Catholic Church, or Harold Bloom.

Some people do worship Ghenghis Khan as a god, you know. And there's a fine line between standing up for the truth and being an asshole. These people aren't going away any time soon, so lets be considerate. People raised today to revere Muhammed, Moses or Ghenghis Khan are in no more control over their cultural upbringing than Muhammed, Moses, or Ghenghis Khan themselves. They can and do compartmentalize, and realize that THE WORLD CHANGES, and just because someone is your hero for certain reasons, doesn't mean you should imitate him in all things. Many of them probably revere an imaginary version of their hero, one they construct to be suited to their time and place, rather than the man himself. This is why I keep emphasizing understanding, rather than judgement. I've definitely softened over the years on this point. You are being unfair by not taking the feelings of others, innocents, into consideration.

Because when they use the Koran as a source of morality, they are basically saying "Mohammed said it and therefore it is right". Pointing out what an immoral bastard Mohammed was helps to undercut this message. It's no different than pointing out what a misogynistic twit Paul was when certain Biblical passages are used to justify how it's moral to treat women as less important than men or pointing out various acts of genocide when "Because God said so" is used as a justification for particular behaviour.

If you like using ad hominem arguments and just piss people off instead of being convincing, go right ahead. Just because Watson was a racist doesn't mean he was wrong about the double helix. Just because Jefferson was a hypocrite doesn't mean he was wrong about slavery being evil. Heck, for all we know, the Koran was dictated by an older, wiser Muhammed who perhaps repented of his earlier violent, thieving ways, and wanted to create something better for his followers. To be a muslim doesn't actually require you to emulate muhammed: Follow the five pillars, and you are a muslim. There's nothing in the five pillars about rape, murder, stealing, or unkindness. (unless of course you are a Shia, and add Jihad to the list, and even they say its figurative)

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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.

The concept of rape is ancient. The concept of murder is ancient, though killing in war is not considered murder. The concept of thieving is ancient, though the idea that it was wrong to gain land by conquest is not. It was a fairly universal belief that God or the gods determined victory in war based on the merits of the combatants. Thus conquest of land was virtuous. The idea that prisoners shouldn't be killed or enslaved is likewise modern. This is why there is more to an idea than simply the definition of a word. You can't pretend that if you make up a word, assign a definition to it, and apply it to something, then you have necessarily produced a worthwhile idea. Especially when you are using loaded words with an obvious unstated motive. That is my point.

That misses the point entirely.
For example, the concept of bipolarity is not ancient, nor was it present in the time of Muhammad. But that does not mean that there were no bipolar people then. The concept of gayness in the sense of sexual orientation probably didn't exist then, either. But that does not mean that no man or woman at the time of Muhammad, was gay. The concept of a brain tumor didn't exist, either. But some people had brain tumors. And so on. Whether the concept of terrorism existed has nothing to do with whether someone was a terrorist.

Since you insist, you said the concept of rape was ancient, and apparently you seem to believe that whether the concepts are ancient matter. So, how about the following?
I assert: Muhammad was an evil rapist. Hence, Islam is false. Do you have any objections?

Also, your accusation is baseless. You shouldn't insist on it (what is the allegedly "obvious" motive I have here?)

We can argue back and forth on this, but the fact is that if you take your dumb arguments out into the field, you won't convince anyone who isnt already on your side. People will come back and say 'well George Washington stole land from the indians and owned slaves' and the whole argument devolves into a pissing match as to who's historic antecedants were worse bastards. A pointless argument, easily avoided if one acknowledges that the world changes, and people living centuries ago in a different world can't be judged by modern standards by people sitting safely at home in a peaceful country. You guys are fighting a culture war, and you are not having a discussion so much as you are trying to rally the troops by vilifying the enemy. The other side will do the same. Don't expect me to start marching in step with you.

1. I made no dumb arguments here.
2. I'm not trying to persuade Muslims. I'm making my points prompted by your (and other posters') claims against classifing Muhammad as a terrorist.
3. If I were to actually point out the fact that Muhammad was a rapist, a enslaver, murderer and thief in the context of a case against Islam, and someone accuses Washington of whatever, my reply would be along the lines of: "You're missing the point. Regardless of what Washington did, Muhammad was an evil bastard, which implies that Islam is false. I'm not an expert on Washington, and I don't know how much of a bastard he was though I'm pretty sure not nearly as evil as Muhammad. But let's say for the sake of the argument Washington was just as evil or worse. It remains the case that Muhammad was evil, therefore Islam is false.
4. I'm not fighting a culture war in this thread (whatever that is; maybe now I am. What do I know? Muhammad was still an evil rapist, murderer, etc., culture wars aside). I'm engaging your arguments (I didn't post in the thread before).