A friend called me a racist

[Marko]

I asked my friend why he believes that the polygamous, woman-abusing pedophile Mohammad is the Prophet.

He became angry although I calmly explained that because Mohammad had sex with his 9-year-old prepubescent "wife" Aisha he was a pedophile according to the medical criteria.

I don't believe in any religion but I think that Mohammad was a complete asshat as a person unlike e.g. Buddha and Jesus (assuming the historical accounts are true).

Does that make me a racist? Hell, Islam is not a race and I have nothing against Muslims as people.

[RHIZOMES]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 07:49 am
I asked my friend why he believes that the polygamous, woman-abusing pedophile Mohammad is the Prophet.

He became angry although I calmly explained that because Mohammad had sex with his 9-year-old prepubescent "wife" Aisha he was a pedophile according to the medical criteria.

I don't believe in any religion but I think that Mohammad was a complete asshat as a person unlike e.g. Buddha and Jesus (assuming the historical accounts are true).

Does that make me a racist? Hell, Islam is not a race and I have nothing against Muslims as people.
okay first of all...

Your assumptions on Muhammad are incredibly ignorant and strike me as the only thing you know about Islam is from skim reading a Robert Spencer book.

Most of the marriages Muhammad did were for political reasons, such as uniting tribes, etc.

Aisha wasn't prepubescent when they fucked. It was taboo to have sex with prepubescent girls. He had sex with her when she starting having her period. Judging Muhammad by today's standards is like judging Abraham because of his slave wife. And Abraham started the religion that Jesus reformed right?

Also, Muhammad abhorred the practice of wife-beating, as is shown here:

"How does anyone of you beat his wife as he beats the stallion camel and then embrace (sleep with) her?” (Al-Bukhari, English Translation, vol. 8, Hadith 68, pp. 42-43)

Have you ever even read anything about the history of Islam and what Arabian society was like before Muhammad came, do you know anything about Muhammad at all? Here's a handy list:
*Rampant slave ownership
*Women were not allowed to own property
*While in Islam 4 wives is the limit, before Muhammad's reforms Arabs could have as many wives as they want
*Women weren't allowed to divorce their husbands if they became abusive
*Arabian society was the 7th century equivalent of neoliberal capitalism, rich people became richer, poor people became poorer
*Muhammad created the first welfare state and made it obligatory to pay a tax if you were a Muslim and then he redistributed it to the poor
*He gave religious minorities such as Jews and Christians garanteed protection and they were allowed to proselytize and worship their God under his rule
*Arabs used to murder their babies if they were female for honour-related reasons. Muhammad decried this practice and put an end to it.
*When Muhammad was in Mecca, he was abused, spat on, his followers were murdered, etc.

if Muhammad was a complete asshat of a person and I'm assuming you think he created his own religion for lust and power, how do you explain how he put up with all that abuse and spoke out against the injustices of pre-Islamic Arabian society?

Muhammad strikes me as being a legitimate religious leader (Like Jesus and Buddha), but that's because I actually took the time to read about him instead of believing neoconservative fundamentalist Christian propaganda.

[fashbash]

I notice he hasn't got round to replying yet...

[Marko]

Originally posted by mcteethinator+July 30, 2007 10:01 am--> (mcteethinator @ July 30, 2007 10:01 am)
[email protected] 30, 2007 07:49 am
I asked my friend why he believes that the polygamous, woman-abusing pedophile Mohammad is the Prophet.

He became angry although I calmly explained that because Mohammad had sex with his 9-year-old prepubescent "wife" Aisha he was a pedophile according to the medical criteria.

I don't believe in any religion but I think that Mohammad was a complete asshat as a person unlike e.g. Buddha and Jesus (assuming the historical accounts are true).

Does that make me a racist? Hell, Islam is not a race and I have nothing against Muslims as people.
okay first of all...

Your assumptions on Muhammad are incredibly ignorant and strike me as the only thing you know about Islam is from skim reading a Robert Spencer book.

Most of the marriages Muhammad did were for political reasons, such as uniting tribes, etc.

Aisha wasn't prepubescent when they fucked. It was taboo to have sex with prepubescent girls. He had sex with her when she starting having her period. Judging Muhammad by today's standards is like judging Abraham because of his slave wife. And Abraham started the religion that Jesus reformed right?

Also, Muhammad abhorred the practice of wife-beating, as is shown here:

"How does anyone of you beat his wife as he beats the stallion camel and then embrace (sleep with) her?” (Al-Bukhari, English Translation, vol. 8, Hadith 68, pp. 42-43)

Have you ever even read anything about the history of Islam and what Arabian society was like before Muhammad came, do you know anything about Muhammad at all? Here's a handy list:
*Rampant slave ownership
*Women were not allowed to own property
*While in Islam 4 wives is the limit, before Muhammad's reforms Arabs could have as many wives as they want
*Women weren't allowed to divorce their husbands if they became abusive
*Arabian society was the 7th century equivalent of neoliberal capitalism, rich people became richer, poor people became poorer
*Muhammad created the first welfare state and made it obligatory to pay a tax if you were a Muslim and then he redistributed it to the poor
*He gave religious minorities such as Jews and Christians garanteed protection and they were allowed to proselytize and worship their God under his rule
*Arabs used to murder their babies if they were female for honour-related reasons. Muhammad decried this practice and put an end to it.
*When Muhammad was in Mecca, he was abused, spat on, his followers were murdered, etc.

if Muhammad was a complete asshat of a person and I'm assuming you think he created his own religion for lust and power, how do you explain how he put up with all that abuse and spoke out against the injustices of pre-Islamic Arabian society?

Muhammad strikes me as being a legitimate religious leader (Like Jesus and Buddha), but that's because I actually took the time to read about him instead of believing neoconservative fundamentalist Christian propaganda. [/b]
Muhammed had sex with Aisha when she was 9 years old. That fact alone makes him a sick fuck whether Aisha had started her periods or not.

But Aisha was prepubescent because it is mentioned in Quran that only prepubescent children are allowed to play with dolls. Aisha was still playing with dolls when Muhammed took her virginity.

See: http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Aisha's_...of_Consummation (http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Aisha's_Age_of_Consummation)

Muhammed also had 9 wives: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/h...tml#007.062.142 (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/062.sbt.html#007.062.142)

As the Quran allows only 4 (!) wives to a man Muhammed didn't practice what he preached and thus was a hypocrite and a chauvinist. I don't see how a rational, modern person could regard him as an exemplary figure.

You can defend all religions but I mankind would have progressed much farther if people hadn't believed in any religions. (See Richard Dawkins' arguments)

[Cheung Mo]

The differen between Dawkins and Mohammed and the other prophets is that Dawkins isn't mentally ill.

[RHIZOMES]

Originally posted by Marko+July 30, 2007 10:36 am--> (Marko @ July 30, 2007 10:36 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 10:01 am

[email protected] 30, 2007 07:49 am
I asked my friend why he believes that the polygamous, woman-abusing pedophile Mohammad is the Prophet.

He became angry although I calmly explained that because Mohammad had sex with his 9-year-old prepubescent "wife" Aisha he was a pedophile according to the medical criteria.

I don't believe in any religion but I think that Mohammad was a complete asshat as a person unlike e.g. Buddha and Jesus (assuming the historical accounts are true).

Does that make me a racist? Hell, Islam is not a race and I have nothing against Muslims as people.
okay first of all...

Your assumptions on Muhammad are incredibly ignorant and strike me as the only thing you know about Islam is from skim reading a Robert Spencer book.

Most of the marriages Muhammad did were for political reasons, such as uniting tribes, etc.

Aisha wasn't prepubescent when they fucked. It was taboo to have sex with prepubescent girls. He had sex with her when she starting having her period. Judging Muhammad by today's standards is like judging Abraham because of his slave wife. And Abraham started the religion that Jesus reformed right?

Also, Muhammad abhorred the practice of wife-beating, as is shown here:

"How does anyone of you beat his wife as he beats the stallion camel and then embrace (sleep with) her?” (Al-Bukhari, English Translation, vol. 8, Hadith 68, pp. 42-43)

Have you ever even read anything about the history of Islam and what Arabian society was like before Muhammad came, do you know anything about Muhammad at all? Here's a handy list:
*Rampant slave ownership
*Women were not allowed to own property
*While in Islam 4 wives is the limit, before Muhammad's reforms Arabs could have as many wives as they want
*Women weren't allowed to divorce their husbands if they became abusive
*Arabian society was the 7th century equivalent of neoliberal capitalism, rich people became richer, poor people became poorer
*Muhammad created the first welfare state and made it obligatory to pay a tax if you were a Muslim and then he redistributed it to the poor
*He gave religious minorities such as Jews and Christians garanteed protection and they were allowed to proselytize and worship their God under his rule
*Arabs used to murder their babies if they were female for honour-related reasons. Muhammad decried this practice and put an end to it.
*When Muhammad was in Mecca, he was abused, spat on, his followers were murdered, etc.

if Muhammad was a complete asshat of a person and I'm assuming you think he created his own religion for lust and power, how do you explain how he put up with all that abuse and spoke out against the injustices of pre-Islamic Arabian society?

Muhammad strikes me as being a legitimate religious leader (Like Jesus and Buddha), but that's because I actually took the time to read about him instead of believing neoconservative fundamentalist Christian propaganda.
Muhammed had sex with Aisha when she was 9 years old. That fact alone makes him a sick fuck whether Aisha had started her periods or not.

But Aisha was prepubescent because it is mentioned in Quran that only prepubescent children are allowed to play with dolls. Aisha was still playing with dolls when Muhammed took her virginity.

See: http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Aisha's_...of_Consummation (http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Aisha's_Age_of_Consummation)

Muhammed also had 9 wives: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/h...tml#007.062.142 (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/062.sbt.html#007.062.142)

As the Quran allows only 4 (!) wives to a man Muhammed didn't practice what he preached and thus was a hypocrite and a chauvinist. I don't see how a rational, modern person could regard him as an exemplary figure.

You can defend all religions but I mankind would have progressed much farther if people hadn't believed in any religions. (See Richard Dawkins' arguments) [/b]
1. Missing my point. It was taboo to have sex with someone who was prepubescent back in those times. It was acceptable behaviour. You're judging someone who lived in the 7th century AD by 21st Century standards. It's stupid.

2. The doll-playing? Well, with that, I looked at your "resource" and it doesn't actually say *when* she was playing with dolls. You do realize they were married for 4 years before they consummated right? He married Aisha so he would have family ties with her father Abu Bakr to strengthen the Muslim community. Why would he wait 4 years other then to wait for puberty?

3. http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_1201..._so_many_wi.htm (http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_1201_1250/why_did_muhammad_have_so_many_wi.htm)

4. Your Richard Dawkins argument is irrelevant to this discussion. You were implying Muhammad was somehow inferior to Jesus and Buddha when Muhammad to reformed women's rights (How Muslims treat women today is a different story, much like how you can't judge Jesus by someone like... Pat Robertson) and was truly a rebel against society just like "Jesus and Buddha". This is my main issue with what you are saying and you didn't mention it at all with your rebuttal. Find somewhere that debunks the rights Muhammad gave women and monotheistic religious minorities, the zakat compulsory tax to was redistributed to the poor (A revolutionary idea for Arabian society) and if he was such a bad person, why did he put up with all the abuse for what I believe was about 10 years, for something he believed in?

Remember that bit in the Bible where Judas gets angry at Jesus for being bathed in oil by hot chicks and that he should sell the oil and give the money to the poor and Jesus laughed at him? That isn't "cool" right? But you still think Jesus is somehow superior to Muhammad and that Muhammad took advantage of his power and Jesus didn't and was this humble wise man. It seems, as a product of Western society, you are designed to see Muhammad's faults and not his strengths, and Jesus's strengths and not his faults. Good going.

[Marko]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 10:56 am
1. Missing my point. It was taboo to have sex with someone who was prepubescent back in those times. It was acceptable behaviour. You're judging someone who lived in the 7th century AD by 21st Century standards. It's stupid.

2. The doll-playing? Well, with that, I looked at your "resource" and it doesn't actually say *when* she was playing with dolls. You do realize they were married for 4 years before they consummated right? He married Aisha so he would have family ties with her father Abu Bakr to strengthen the Muslim community. Why would he wait 4 years other then to wait for puberty?

3. http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_1201..._so_many_wi.htm (http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_1201_1250/why_did_muhammad_have_so_many_wi.htm)

4. Your Richard Dawkins argument is irrelevant to this discussion. You were implying Muhammad was somehow inferior to Jesus and Buddha when Muhammad to reformed women's rights (How Muslims treat women today is a different story, much like how you can't judge Jesus by someone like... Pat Robertson) and was truly a rebel against society just like "Jesus and Buddha". This is my main issue with what you are saying and you didn't mention it at all with your rebuttal. Find somewhere that debunks the rights Muhammad gave women and monotheistic religious minorities, the zakat compulsory tax to was redistributed to the poor (A revolutionary idea for Arabian society) and if he was such a bad person, why did he put up with all the abuse for what I believe was about 10 years, for something he believed in?

Remember that bit in the Bible where Judas gets angry at Jesus for being bathed in oil by hot chicks and that he should sell the oil and give the money to the poor and Jesus laughed at him? That isn't "cool" right? But you still think Jesus is somehow superior to Muhammad and that Muhammad took advantage of his power and Jesus didn't and was this humble wise man. It seems, as a product of Western society, you are designed to see Muhammad's faults and not his strengths, and Jesus's strengths and not his faults. Good going.
1. This isn't about a cultural norm. People who abuse children sexually are mentally sick. My objection to Muhammed's behavior is objective and scientific and thus cultural relativism is not a valid counter-argument.

2. Maybe because he didn't think that Aisha would survive the experience when she was 6 years old because of the indevelopment of her genitalia.

3. Your source states that Mohammed had a privilege to have many wives because he was a prophet but ordinary people don't have that privilege. That is classist thinking and should be condemned.

4. I am sure that Muhammed did some very good things in his life. His accomplishments may have changed the Arab society to better direction though Islam also fuelled Arab imperialism which was a bad consequence of Islam. Perhaps Jesus and Buddha were not perfect but nothing indicates that they were mentally ill. I can understand why some people regard them as exemplary people.

However, despite his other accomplishments Muhammed was a sick fuck who abused children. Sick fucks should not be admired.

[Tekun]

I'll stick to answering the racist part of your question, I'll leave the religious shit to whoever's religious, few I believe

No, it doesn't make u racist to criticize a religious figure, regardless of the religious figure
Racists are ppl who judge others based on the color of their skin, ethnicity, ancestry,...
Something that u are clearly not doing
I think its more of a defence mechanism considering all the shit Muslim's have had to go through as a result of Middle Eastern imperialism by the US and the UK

[counterblast]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 10:36 am

Muhammed had sex with Aisha when she was 9 years old. That fact alone makes him a sick fuck whether Aisha had started her periods or not.


This isn't about a cultural norm. People who abuse children sexually are mentally sick. My objection to Muhammed's behavior is objective and scientific and thus cultural relativism is not a valid counter-argument.
Please keep in mind, it wasn't uncommon for a 9-year-old to work, own property, and begin a family by this age. The lifespan in the middle-East during those times was roughly only 40 years.

And perhaps your objection to her marriage stems from the western taboo of minor consent. Keep in mind, in many cultures (Central African, SE Asian, and Native American, especially) children were not treated as inferior beings as they are in western society. They were treated as equals, vital to the survival of the community. In such communities, there was clearly differences between consentual relations with a minor, and rape/abuse.

In our society, couldn't the influx of rape for women and children, be the result of a lifetime of trivial importance, and being viewed as "property"? Increasing and upholding the equal rights of women and children, leave both in a better position to resist rape.

[midnight marauder]

1. This isn't about a cultural norm. People who abuse children sexually are mentally sick. My objection to Muhammed's behavior is objective and scientific and thus cultural relativism is not a valid counter-argument.

people who abuse children are mentally sick by today's standards. the dsm-iv is a documented list of today's standards of what is acceptable as a cultural norm. unlike a physical illness which has objectively determinable symptoms, descriptions, etc., often mental illnesses are deeply related to culture, what's culuturally normal, understandable, and acceptable. what we define as a mental illness is often very indicative of where we are socially as a culture -- a few decades ago homosexuality would have been considered a mental illness according to the dsm-ii sited in your article.

children today are different than they were in 7th century arab society. they had different education, different responsibilites, different rights, and society and culture had different opinions on them, different attitudes to relationships with them, and entirely different understandings of classifactions of age.

which is only natural, considering the average lifespan of someone living then is vastly different than that of one of us. a mental illness in our culture now, for by far the majority of human existence it would have been acceptable to have relations that didn't follow the guidelines stated by the dsm.

it's just foolish and flat out wrong to try and compare the two. but that probably doesn't matter to you; it certainly doesn't matter to the website you linked (a less-than-credible joint with a clearly anti-islam agenda; to quote their faq: "Any pro-Islamic opinions that are found on WikiIslam will be rebutted." and conscerning the factuality of their articles, "Although sources are good to have, they are not absolutely required. The accuracy of any information is confirmed by the fact that there are other editors on the site to confirm the truthfulness of the content.").

to be honest, i find your opinion that being mentally ill (which he wasn't, at least not when it comes to pedophilia) bars them from being a roll model or a good person to be a lot more troubling than a man in the 7th century fucking a minor.

but to answer your question, a person is NOT racist solely because they do not believe in islam or are critical of it as a religion. but one should be wary that those who are outspoken against islam often to do so out of racial prejudice (like the folks on your site) and stereotyping. do you behave differently around muslims? do you have preconcieved notions of people who are muslim, specifically those who are of middle eastern descent? what are your motivations of critiquing islam? do you do the same to other religions? what religious beliefs do you hold?

i'm not going to say that you aren't racist. i don't know you or your motives. but i will, however, say that your arguments certainly coincide with modern closet racist tendencies of our pro-christian, pro-western, pro-white culture, although that alone doesn't necessarily make you racist. i'm interested to see your answers to these questions.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

No, you made no reference to Mohammed's race, only to his paedophilia. It's clearly a debatable point, but it's evidently not racist. Unless you would ignore the sexual history of a prophet of your own 'race', then you can tell him to fuck off and defend Mohammed properly.

It's interesting that Mohammed is being exonerated on the basis of cultural normality, particularly by the muslim in this thread. I'm not an expert on Islam, but I'm sure that it is necessary to believe that Mohammed was somehow divine. Given his manifest divinity, shouldn't he be able to transcend the morality of that period of history? To "rise above" it? If we're letting him off the hook for fucking a 9 year old because hey, they all did it back then, it seems to me that you need to accept that he was at most a normal person.

-Alex

[OneBrickOneVoice]

McTeethinator,

You mention that its upsurd to judge mohamed by todays standards. Why? All that shows is that the Quran is outdated and is not the path to liberation, a society where pedophelia and polygamy are "the standard" is fucked up, and definately not one that we should follow

Marko,

Now I don't know about Buddha but Jesus said some fucked up shit too. Once for example a man was grieving his father and said he could not follow jesus now because he had to bury his father. Jesus basically told him to fuck off and that once he was dead he would have time to bury his dad. The bible is no good way to live. Check out the "If you Believe" posters and the "The Bible Taken Literally is a horror" posters located on the right sidebar at the link below

http://revcom.us/s/graphics.htm

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 04:50 pm
I'm not an expert on Islam, but I'm sure that it is necessary to believe that Mohammed was somehow divine.
No, Muslisms don't believe that.


Only Allah is God, and Muhammad is his prophet.

Just that, a prophet, not God's son, not a part of Godhead, not possessed by God.

He just "listened" to Gabriel "telling" him what God wanted him to tell people, and then repeated it aloud to whomever would listen.

But even if Muslisms believed him to be divine, we certainly know that he wasn't. So why would we expect to act like he was?

Of course, Muhammad was a real, historical, person. That doesn't help him, when compared with Jesus or Buddha, who both are at least semi-mythical. Which possibly explains why these two seem morally more elevated than Muhammad.

Do you know something about Sabatai Zvi?

Luís Henrique

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique
Do you know something about Sabatai Zvi?
Yes, what do you want to know?
Devrim

[Black Cross]

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 30, 2007 05:59 pm
Do you know something about Sabatai Zvi?

Sabbatai Zevi, I assume? He was some sort of rabbi that died on yom kippur. He claimed to be the Messiah. Is that similar to what Muhammed did? I'm not very well read on Muhammed, so I'm not sure if he claimed to be some higher being.

[CubaSocialista]

Originally posted by mcteethinator+July 30, 2007 10:01 am--> (mcteethinator @ July 30, 2007 10:01 am)
[email protected] 30, 2007 07:49 am
I asked my friend why he believes that the polygamous, woman-abusing pedophile Mohammad is the Prophet.

He became angry although I calmly explained that because Mohammad had sex with his 9-year-old prepubescent "wife" Aisha he was a pedophile according to the medical criteria.

I don't believe in any religion but I think that Mohammad was a complete asshat as a person unlike e.g. Buddha and Jesus (assuming the historical accounts are true).

Does that make me a racist? Hell, Islam is not a race and I have nothing against Muslims as people.
okay first of all...

Your assumptions on Muhammad are incredibly ignorant and strike me as the only thing you know about Islam is from skim reading a Robert Spencer book.

Most of the marriages Muhammad did were for political reasons, such as uniting tribes, etc.

Aisha wasn't prepubescent when they fucked. It was taboo to have sex with prepubescent girls. He had sex with her when she starting having her period. Judging Muhammad by today's standards is like judging Abraham because of his slave wife. And Abraham started the religion that Jesus reformed right?

Also, Muhammad abhorred the practice of wife-beating, as is shown here:

"How does anyone of you beat his wife as he beats the stallion camel and then embrace (sleep with) her?” (Al-Bukhari, English Translation, vol. 8, Hadith 68, pp. 42-43)

Have you ever even read anything about the history of Islam and what Arabian society was like before Muhammad came, do you know anything about Muhammad at all? Here's a handy list:
*Rampant slave ownership
*Women were not allowed to own property
*While in Islam 4 wives is the limit, before Muhammad's reforms Arabs could have as many wives as they want
*Women weren't allowed to divorce their husbands if they became abusive
*Arabian society was the 7th century equivalent of neoliberal capitalism, rich people became richer, poor people became poorer
*Muhammad created the first welfare state and made it obligatory to pay a tax if you were a Muslim and then he redistributed it to the poor
*He gave religious minorities such as Jews and Christians garanteed protection and they were allowed to proselytize and worship their God under his rule
*Arabs used to murder their babies if they were female for honour-related reasons. Muhammad decried this practice and put an end to it.
*When Muhammad was in Mecca, he was abused, spat on, his followers were murdered, etc.

if Muhammad was a complete asshat of a person and I'm assuming you think he created his own religion for lust and power, how do you explain how he put up with all that abuse and spoke out against the injustices of pre-Islamic Arabian society?

Muhammad strikes me as being a legitimate religious leader (Like Jesus and Buddha), but that's because I actually took the time to read about him instead of believing neoconservative fundamentalist Christian propaganda. [/b]
mcteethinator is right.

Islam has been a very progressive force in human history. Only within the last century has it been used by fundamentalists, fanatics, psychopaths, etc. as a tool of reactionary thought.

[Revolution Until Victory]

ok, first of all, do you realize, just 100 years ago, in the US, the legal age for women to marry was 10?

during the Prophets times, it was the norm for women at that age to marry. So the Prophet married her according to the traditions of those times. The Prophet simply did what was the norm and what was socialy accepatble. In fact, Aisha was engaed before that, and had other men propose to her. Not to mention, that at 9 years old, Aisha had reached maturity. Until today, women in those desert regions reach puberty at an early age, 9-10. Besides, Aisha HAD to marry at that age, since during those times in those regions, it was considred a shame if a women waited any longer without getting married.
And of course, the Prophet married Aisha for purely sociopolitical reasons, not for any desire he had for her.

The Prophet had 9 wives at one time due to the fact that his wives, by being married to the Prophet, had a special position, and if divorced, will not be able to be married and will loose the honor of being part of the Prophet's family. Obviously, it would have been unjust to choose four to have this honor and leave the other for thier fate.


Your source states that Mohammed had a privilege to have many wives because he was a prophet but ordinary people don't have that privilege. That is classist thinking and should be condemned.

no, the reason the Prophet married 9 women in the first place was not for any desire or anything, but for the sole reason of uniting the muslims and the arabs. All of his marriges were vital for the unification of Muslims/Arabs.

[Boriznov]

Why is a leftist defending a fictious character ?

[Marko]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 04:15 pm

1. This isn't about a cultural norm. People who abuse children sexually are mentally sick. My objection to Muhammed's behavior is objective and scientific and thus cultural relativism is not a valid counter-argument.

people who abuse children are mentally sick by today's standards. the dsm-iv is a documented list of today's standards of what is acceptable as a cultural norm. unlike a physical illness which has objectively determinable symptoms, descriptions, etc., often mental illnesses are deeply related to culture, what's culuturally normal, understandable, and acceptable. what we define as a mental illness is often very indicative of where we are socially as a culture -- a few decades ago homosexuality would have been considered a mental illness according to the dsm-ii sited in your article.

children today are different than they were in 7th century arab society. they had different education, different responsibilites, different rights, and society and culture had different opinions on them, different attitudes to relationships with them, and entirely different understandings of classifactions of age.

which is only natural, considering the average lifespan of someone living then is vastly different than that of one of us. a mental illness in our culture now, for by far the majority of human existence it would have been acceptable to have relations that didn't follow the guidelines stated by the dsm.

it's just foolish and flat out wrong to try and compare the two. but that probably doesn't matter to you; it certainly doesn't matter to the website you linked (a less-than-credible joint with a clearly anti-islam agenda; to quote their faq: "Any pro-Islamic opinions that are found on WikiIslam will be rebutted." and conscerning the factuality of their articles, "Although sources are good to have, they are not absolutely required. The accuracy of any information is confirmed by the fact that there are other editors on the site to confirm the truthfulness of the content.").

to be honest, i find your opinion that being mentally ill (which he wasn't, at least not when it comes to pedophilia) bars them from being a roll model or a good person to be a lot more troubling than a man in the 7th century fucking a minor.

but to answer your question, a person is NOT racist solely because they do not believe in islam or are critical of it as a religion. but one should be wary that those who are outspoken against islam often to do so out of racial prejudice (like the folks on your site) and stereotyping. do you behave differently around muslims? do you have preconcieved notions of people who are muslim, specifically those who are of middle eastern descent? what are your motivations of critiquing islam? do you do the same to other religions? what religious beliefs do you hold?

i'm not going to say that you aren't racist. i don't know you or your motives. but i will, however, say that your arguments certainly coincide with modern closet racist tendencies of our pro-christian, pro-western, pro-white culture, although that alone doesn't necessarily make you racist. i'm interested to see your answers to these questions.
The only relevant physical difference between girls in modern and medieval times is that because of better nutrition modern girls enter puberty considerably earlier. In the 7th century girls probably started to menstruate when they were 15-16 years old.

http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/img_auth.php/b/b6/Mohammad_Aisha-cartoon.jpg

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Luis:

If not directly divine, then, at least influenced by Allah. Why would Allah allow his prophet to be a pedophile, on the basis that it is not out of the ordinary?


But even if Muslims believed him to be divine, we certainly know that he wasn't. So why would we expect to act like he was?

I was really addressing mcteethinator, who must at least believe he was better than your average joe of the time. Basically, he can't defend Mohammed on those grounds, because he believes Mohammed to be a special case, and surely is not bound by a backward but culturally normal ethical system.

-Alex

[Revolution Until Victory]

The only relevant physical difference between girls in modern and medieval times is that because of better nutrition modern girls enter puberty considerably earlier. In the 7th century girls probably started to menstruate when they were 15-16 years old.

I doubt this is the "only physical diffrence" between girls in the 21 century and girls 1400 years ago in the 7th century in the Arabian penesula.


In the 7th century girls probably started to menstruate when they were 15-16 years old

that's just utter bullshit. Women in colder areas might reach maturity at 21. Women in hot regions, such as the desert and the Arabian Peninsula, from the 7th century UNTIL NOW, reach maturity at ages 9-10.

[Faux Real]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 12:49 am
I asked my friend why he believes that the polygamous, woman-abusing pedophile Mohammad is the Prophet.

He became angry although I calmly explained that because Mohammad had sex with his 9-year-old prepubescent "wife" Aisha he was a pedophile according to the medical criteria.

I don't believe in any religion but I think that Mohammad was a complete asshat as a person unlike e.g. Buddha and Jesus (assuming the historical accounts are true).

Does that make me a racist? Hell, Islam is not a race and I have nothing against Muslims as people.
Muslims don't necessarily look at others by race, but rather on their religions and deeds. So the 'racism' in question doesn't equate to ethnicity in their eyes, but creed rather. Islam is both a culture and religion, like Christendom and Christianity, respectively.

You don't convince other people to join your side by attacking their religion, let alone their religion's prophet. As fragmented Muslims are today, all would take offense to the 'desecration' of the Prophet by calling him a pedophile by today's standards.

[NorthStarRepublicML]

"The Bible Taken Literally is a horror"

these are funny ... kinda ... but the one about homosexuality states that Leviticus 20:13 says: "if a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense."

however i'm wondering which version of the bible this comes from, i checked a bible i have here and then i checked online here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh3.htm

none of the quotes match .... now i know that the bible is interpreted and translated many different ways but the passage on the poster is very specific against Homosexuals, while traditionally this verse has variously been taken to mean:
All homosexual behavior, by either men or women, or all sexual behavior between two men, or only anal sex between two men, or only anal sex in a Pagan temple ritual, or sexual activity between two men in a woman's bed ....

although this may be off topic i thought it was little strange to see poster describing the literal interpretation of bible without citing which bible was being described .... I would imagine it is a evangelical bible because it is not any of the major versions


Why is a leftist defending a fictious character ?

i'm embarrassed to see a leftist post such a comment, we are supposed to be scholars and students of history .... and not all religious history is fictional .... Muhammad was certainly not fictional (although some of his deeds may have been fictionalized), he died in 632 and his tomb is located in Medina

[R_P_A_S]

what would Chris Hansen say?

[Never Give In]

I'm leaving out all the other stuff on this thread and answering only the orginal question. "Am I a RACIST?"

No. Perhaps Religiously Discriminative, but not Racist. Most Muslims would see you as Anti-Muslim because you criticise their prophet so harshly. But no, not a Racist. Racism pertains to RACE, not RELIGION.

[RHIZOMES]

Originally posted by Marko+July 30, 2007 11:25 am--> (Marko @ July 30, 2007 11:25 am)
[email protected] 30, 2007 10:56 am
1. Missing my point. It was taboo to have sex with someone who was prepubescent back in those times. It was acceptable behaviour. You're judging someone who lived in the 7th century AD by 21st Century standards. It's stupid.

2. The doll-playing? Well, with that, I looked at your "resource" and it doesn't actually say *when* she was playing with dolls. You do realize they were married for 4 years before they consummated right? He married Aisha so he would have family ties with her father Abu Bakr to strengthen the Muslim community. Why would he wait 4 years other then to wait for puberty?

3. http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_1201..._so_many_wi.htm (http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_1201_1250/why_did_muhammad_have_so_many_wi.htm)

4. Your Richard Dawkins argument is irrelevant to this discussion. You were implying Muhammad was somehow inferior to Jesus and Buddha when Muhammad to reformed women's rights (How Muslims treat women today is a different story, much like how you can't judge Jesus by someone like... Pat Robertson) and was truly a rebel against society just like "Jesus and Buddha". This is my main issue with what you are saying and you didn't mention it at all with your rebuttal. Find somewhere that debunks the rights Muhammad gave women and monotheistic religious minorities, the zakat compulsory tax to was redistributed to the poor (A revolutionary idea for Arabian society) and if he was such a bad person, why did he put up with all the abuse for what I believe was about 10 years, for something he believed in?

Remember that bit in the Bible where Judas gets angry at Jesus for being bathed in oil by hot chicks and that he should sell the oil and give the money to the poor and Jesus laughed at him? That isn't "cool" right? But you still think Jesus is somehow superior to Muhammad and that Muhammad took advantage of his power and Jesus didn't and was this humble wise man. It seems, as a product of Western society, you are designed to see Muhammad's faults and not his strengths, and Jesus's strengths and not his faults. Good going.
1. This isn't about a cultural norm. People who abuse children sexually are mentally sick. My objection to Muhammed's behavior is objective and scientific and thus cultural relativism is not a valid counter-argument.

2. Maybe because he didn't think that Aisha would survive the experience when she was 6 years old because of the indevelopment of her genitalia.

3. Your source states that Mohammed had a privilege to have many wives because he was a prophet but ordinary people don't have that privilege. That is classist thinking and should be condemned.

4. I am sure that Muhammed did some very good things in his life. His accomplishments may have changed the Arab society to better direction though Islam also fuelled Arab imperialism which was a bad consequence of Islam. Perhaps Jesus and Buddha were not perfect but nothing indicates that they were mentally ill. I can understand why some people regard them as exemplary people.

However, despite his other accomplishments Muhammed was a sick fuck who abused children. Sick fucks should not be admired. [/b]
1. Yes, but they did not know the psychological damage such a thing caused then. Plus, from my understanding of history, Aisha turned out quite a well-rounded person and didn't show the usually signs of molestation. And as another poster said, people had been proposing to Aisha even before Muhammad. Let's say... the age of consent raises from 16 to 21 in a few hundred years. You are a historical figure. Would you want historians to call you a pedophile for shacking up with a 16 year old when you were 23?

2. No, the generally accepted view of Aisha is that she had hit puberty. Muhammad was a moral man, and he was following the Arab morals. If they weren't pubescent, it was "pedophilia" as you say. So people don't even believe Aisha was 9, as is evidented http://www.islamonline.net/English/Views/2...article03.shtml (http://www.islamonline.net/English/Views/2004/12/article03.shtml) here, but I think she was imho.

3. My source also states that Muhammad had all those wives before the rule of 4 wives came into being. And even then, this is the 7th century. The fact he invented a welfare state and gave women rights in the notoriously indulgent and mysoginistic Arab society is amazing enough.

4. Well, if he did do good things (Which completely outweigh the issue of Aisha in my opinion, since he gave women rights and stopped female infanticide and lessened the rich-poor gap), then isn't he not "a complete asshat" of a person? Muhammad was a man like everyone else. And where does it indicate that he was mentally ill, unlike Jesus or Buddha? For following the cultural norms of his time?

Arab imperialism? You do realize that wars happened all the bloody time in those times right? How did Islam fuel "Arab Imperialism" (Choice of words again indicate you're brainwashed by the American media), anymore then Christianity fueled "Roman Imperialism"? Please back up your statements before making such wild proclamations.

[Hiero]

Yes you are a racist. You are repeating racist propoganda from the nationalist Christian right which aims to demonize all modern day Muslims. Which in turn attempts to justifies imperialism, terrorism laws, extra state powers and anti-immigration.

Since you have been here that is all you have done actually.

[RHIZOMES]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 05:30 am
Yes you are a racist. You are repeating racist propoganda from the nationalist Christian right which aims to demonize all modern day Muslims. Which in turn attempts to justifies imperialism, terrorism laws, extra state powers and anti-immigration.

Since you have been here that is all you have done actually.
I couldn't have said it better!

"Arab imperialists" indeed.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 02:02 am
what would Chris Hansen say?
I laughed at that, considering that I am watching To Catch a Predator right now.

Religion is no different than science in that it can be used for progressive or reactionary purposes. Practically the whole abolitionist movement in the run up to the Civil War based their opposition to slavery on two things - the Declaration of Independence and the Bible. John Brown was a deeply religious man who felt that his religion called him to wage a one-man war against slavery. I can never look down upon that. Also, Thomas Hagerty, a Catholic priest, edited the American Labor Union's Voice of Labor, was involved in organizing and agitating within working class circles, and was on the speakers' platform at the founding of the Industrial Workers of the World, also sugar-coded the class struggle with a veil of his religious mindset. How can we honestly dismiss that?

George Fitzhugh, a leading apologist of slavery, used socialist critiques of capitalist society to make the claim that the life of a slave was superior than the conditions of the "free" worker in the North. Racial theories; a pseudo-science within itself, were also used. So I don't think 'religion' could be made into some sort of evil trap. As Vov mentioned, religion is used as a vehicle for reaching out to workers.

You are not racist. I think you are being inconsiderate of cultural differences though; relationships between older and younger subjects were far more common back then, and though socially unacceptable today, it certainly was not back then.

[Marko]

1. Yes, but they did not know the psychological damage such a thing caused then. Plus, from my understanding of history, Aisha turned out quite a well-rounded person and didn't show the usually signs of molestation. And as another poster said, people had been proposing to Aisha even before Muhammad. Let's say... the age of consent raises from 16 to 21 in a few hundred years. You are a historical figure. Would you want historians to call you a pedophile for shacking up with a 16 year old when you were 23?
A false analogy. The body of a 9-year-old girl is not ready to sex. Thus, Muhammad abused her.



No, the generally accepted view of Aisha is that she had hit puberty. Muhammad was a moral man, and he was following the Arab morals. If they weren't pubescent, it was "pedophilia" as you say. So people don't even believe Aisha was 9, as is evidented
What if Muhammad was only following his own morals? So was Hitler. Does it excuse the genocidal anti-Semitism of these men?



3. My source also states that Muhammad had all those wives before the rule of 4 wives came into being. And even then, this is the 7th century. The fact he invented a welfare state and gave women rights in the notoriously indulgent and mysoginistic Arab society is amazing enough.
Blah, blah. In the Arab society slaveowners owned the means of production. It was backward even when compared to the European feudal system and the slave system continued in the Islamic world even after the feudal system was abolished in Europe.

Because Islam justified the slave system it hindered the class struggle in Middle East.



Well, if he did do good things (Which completely outweigh the issue of Aisha in my opinion, since he gave women rights and stopped female infanticide and lessened the rich-poor gap), then isn't he not "a complete asshat" of a person? Muhammad was a man like everyone else. And where does it indicate that he was mentally ill, unlike Jesus or Buddha? For following the cultural norms of his time?
What he did was minor progress compared to the fact that he founded a religion which includes immutable written norms which have hindered and will hinder social progress in all Islamic countries.

On modern standards Quran is a thoroughly reactionary book. It approves of a form of society based on private property and slave ownership.



Arab imperialism? You do realize that wars happened all the bloody time in those times right? How did Islam fuel "Arab Imperialism" (Choice of words again indicate you're brainwashed by the American media), anymore then Christianity fueled "Roman Imperialism"? Please back up your statements before making such wild proclamations.
The concept of Jihad motivated the Arabs to rapidly expand imperialistically: they attacked North Africa, Spain and even France. North Africa and a part of Spain became parts of their realm. Religious minorities were treated as second-class citizens and millions of blacks were enslaved by the Arabs.

This was a terrible thing because Islam made progress in the class struggle very difficult. The European societies progressed and the first Socialist state in the world was established in Europe.

And Aisha isn't the only reason I despite Muhammad.

1) Genocide of the Jews
"This is the story of the tragic end of the Jews of Medina. A case of ethnic cleansing, betrayal and genocide carried out by the Messenger of Allah (PBUH). The prophet raided the 2000 year old Jewish communities of Medina, killed their men, confiscated their properties, enslaved their wives and children and banished the unwanted with no provocation on the part of the Jews. The holy Prophet's sole motive was greed for their wealth and lust for their women."

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/jews.htm

2. Assassinations of political opponents
Allah's messenger said "Who is willing to kill Ka`b bin al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His apostle?" Thereupon Maslama got up saying, "O Allah's messenger! Would you like that I kill him?" The prophet said, "Yes". Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Ka`b). The prophet said, "You may say it."

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/assassinations.htm

3. Affairs with slaves
"Safiyah was born in Medinah. She belonged to the Jewish tribe of Banu 'I-Nadir. When this tribe was expelled from Medinah in the year 4 A.H, Huyaiy was one of those who settled in the fertile colony of Khaibar together with Kinana ibn al-Rabi' to whom Safiyah was married a little before the Muslims attacked Khaibar. She was then seventeen. She had formerly been the wife of Sallam ibn Mishkam, who divorced her. One mile from Khaibar. Here the Prophet married Safiyah. She was groomed and made-up for the Prophet by Umm Sulaim, the mother of Anas ibn Malik. They spent the night there. Abu Ayyub al-Ansari guarded the tent of the Prophet the whole night. When, in the early dawn, the Prophet saw Abu Ayyub strolling up and down, he asked him what he meant by this sentry-go; he replied: "I was afraid for you with this young lady. You had killed her father, her husband and many of her relatives, and till recently she was an unbeliever. I was really afraid for you on her account""

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/safiyah.htm

[RHIZOMES]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 07:50 am


1. Yes, but they did not know the psychological damage such a thing caused then. Plus, from my understanding of history, Aisha turned out quite a well-rounded person and didn't show the usually signs of molestation. And as another poster said, people had been proposing to Aisha even before Muhammad. Let's say... the age of consent raises from 16 to 21 in a few hundred years. You are a historical figure. Would you want historians to call you a pedophile for shacking up with a 16 year old when you were 23?
A false analogy. The body of a 9-year-old girl is not ready to sex. Thus, Muhammad abused her.



No, the generally accepted view of Aisha is that she had hit puberty. Muhammad was a moral man, and he was following the Arab morals. If they weren't pubescent, it was "pedophilia" as you say. So people don't even believe Aisha was 9, as is evidented
What if Muhammad was only following his own morals? So was Hitler. Does it excuse the genocidal anti-Semitism of these men?



3. My source also states that Muhammad had all those wives before the rule of 4 wives came into being. And even then, this is the 7th century. The fact he invented a welfare state and gave women rights in the notoriously indulgent and mysoginistic Arab society is amazing enough.
Blah, blah. In the Arab society slaveowners owned the means of production. It was backward even when compared to the European feudal system and the slave system continued in the Islamic world even after the feudal system was abolished in Europe.

Because Islam justified the slave system it hindered the class struggle in Middle East.



Well, if he did do good things (Which completely outweigh the issue of Aisha in my opinion, since he gave women rights and stopped female infanticide and lessened the rich-poor gap), then isn't he not "a complete asshat" of a person? Muhammad was a man like everyone else. And where does it indicate that he was mentally ill, unlike Jesus or Buddha? For following the cultural norms of his time?
What he did was minor progress compared to the fact that he founded a religion which includes immutable written norms which have hindered and will hinder social progress in all Islamic countries.

On modern standards Quran is a thoroughly reactionary book. It approves of a form of society based on private property and slave ownership.



Arab imperialism? You do realize that wars happened all the bloody time in those times right? How did Islam fuel "Arab Imperialism" (Choice of words again indicate you're brainwashed by the American media), anymore then Christianity fueled "Roman Imperialism"? Please back up your statements before making such wild proclamations.
The concept of Jihad motivated the Arabs to rapidly expand imperialistically: they attacked North Africa, Spain and even France. North Africa and a part of Spain became parts of their realm. Religious minorities were treated as second-class citizens and millions of blacks were enslaved by the Arabs.

This was a terrible thing because Islam made progress in the class struggle very difficult. The European societies progressed and the first Socialist state in the world was established in Europe.

And Aisha isn't the only reason I despite Muhammad.

1) Genocide of the Jews
"This is the story of the tragic end of the Jews of Medina. A case of ethnic cleansing, betrayal and genocide carried out by the Messenger of Allah (PBUH). The prophet raided the 2000 year old Jewish communities of Medina, killed their men, confiscated their properties, enslaved their wives and children and banished the unwanted with no provocation on the part of the Jews. The holy Prophet's sole motive was greed for their wealth and lust for their women."

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/jews.htm

2. Assassinations of political opponents
Allah's messenger said "Who is willing to kill Ka`b bin al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His apostle?" Thereupon Maslama got up saying, "O Allah's messenger! Would you like that I kill him?" The prophet said, "Yes". Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Ka`b). The prophet said, "You may say it."

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/assassinations.htm

3. Affairs with slaves
"Safiyah was born in Medinah. She belonged to the Jewish tribe of Banu 'I-Nadir. When this tribe was expelled from Medinah in the year 4 A.H, Huyaiy was one of those who settled in the fertile colony of Khaibar together with Kinana ibn al-Rabi' to whom Safiyah was married a little before the Muslims attacked Khaibar. She was then seventeen. She had formerly been the wife of Sallam ibn Mishkam, who divorced her. One mile from Khaibar. Here the Prophet married Safiyah. She was groomed and made-up for the Prophet by Umm Sulaim, the mother of Anas ibn Malik. They spent the night there. Abu Ayyub al-Ansari guarded the tent of the Prophet the whole night. When, in the early dawn, the Prophet saw Abu Ayyub strolling up and down, he asked him what he meant by this sentry-go; he replied: "I was afraid for you with this young lady. You had killed her father, her husband and many of her relatives, and till recently she was an unbeliever. I was really afraid for you on her account""

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/safiyah.htm
1. Again, cultural norms. I don't really see the need in elaborating on this anymore since if you've actually read the topic, most people agree with me here and have explained about everything in great depth on why you happen to be wrong.

2. Muhammad was an Anti-Semite? Wow, that sure strikes me as a surprise! Ever heard of Muslim Spain, and how Jews fled there to escape persecution from Christian Europe? Jews had positions in government and a "Golden Age of Judaism" appeared there. How is Muhammad an anti-Semite? Are you going to back up your wildly outrageous statements?

3. When Abu Bakr converted, he brought as many slaves in Mecca and freed them. A lot of the early Muslims were in fact freed slaves. During Ramadan, you are encouraged to free a slave. Again, widely inaccurate statements brought about by American propaganda. Islam did not justify the slave system, people took Islamic verses out of context to justify slavery, much like Christians.

4. Minor progress? I'm sure the the millions of Arab women at the time who were suddenly given the right to divorce and own property instead of being treated as property, the people in ghastly amounts of poverty who were suddenly cared for by the state and the female babies who suddenly weren't murdered anymore might have thought differently. Islam is not reactionary, Arab culture is. Muhammad tried to reform it and after he died they simply awkwardly merged their culture with Islamic ideals. And that isn't the debate, the debate is you're saying Muhammad was an asshole "unlike Buddha or Jesus" and that Islam is reactionary. Christianity can be reactionary too. So can Buddhism, ever heard of Sri Lanka? One person noted in this thread that Islam has been a very progressive religion, and it's only the past century or so that it's been hijacked by extremists and reactionaries.

Also, he did not write half of these things that are hindering progress, after he died, this thing called "hadiths" appeared, sayings attributed to the prophet. A lot of these are fradulent, but Islamic countries continue to practice some of them. Usually when I read a hadith that's reactionary, I do not believe it since if it's reactionary, it's usually in conflict with the Qur'an or Muhammad's egalitarian message in some way, shape or form. And even then, you're under-estimating how diverse Islamic thought is. A school of thought called "Wahhabism" has taken control of Saudi Arabia, and due to Saudi Arabia's oil supply, they have been able to fund mosques, Islamic movements, etc. Wahabism is ultra-extremist and reactionary. Osama is one such protege of Wahhabist doctrines. And that is not Muhammad's fault and that is not what this is about. You're insinuating Muhammad is a bad man who was "wife-abusing" despite the fact he detested the practice of wife-beating and gave women the right to divorce, he was a "pedophile" for following Arabian cultural norms and marrying a 9-year old to strengthen political ties and he was a "complete asshat of a person" for doing these things and defending himself from the ultra-reactionary neo-liberal Meccans.


5. The concept of Jihad was originally intended by Muhammad to defend himself from the Meccans who were actively trying to destroy him. It says to "defend yourselves from oppressors" and such verses as "strike the unbelievers" was specifically referring to the Meccans and other people that would oppress Muslims.

Millions of blacks were enslaved? Millions of blacks were enslaved BEFORE Islam took hold. Nevermind the fact the early Muslim community took refuge in Christian Ethiopia or the fact Abu Bakr freed as many slaves as he could when he became Muslim. The fact Arabs owned slaves means that Islam is at fault and not the Arabs! :rolleyes:

Uh, those Jewish tribes were actually Arab converts to Judaism, they didn't have copies of the Torah and didn't really even practice any of the Mosaic laws. And they were not killed for being Jews dumbass. That happened to them because the tribe had been actively seeking to overthrow Muhammad and betray him to the ultra-bourgeousie Meccans. Muhammad didn't even order it, he got a judge to decide their fate. And in fact, the Jewish tribes had tried to kill him twice before and he had just forgiven them and let them live (But kicked them out of Medina I believe). This "OMG IT WAS A PROTO-GENOCIDE HOLY SHIT HITLER" obviously have not read anything about the historical context on why that happened and like cherry-picking hadiths out of context.

I would like to see the context in why Ka`b bin al-Ashraf was killed please.

Hmm, the third historical thing seems a bit "Yikes". I'm going to ask my Imam about that. =P As the fact everything else you've said has been complete bullshit, I'm going to remain sceptical until then.

EDIT: It strikes me as a bit odd that you mentioned all this bullshit that I completely debunked, then you pulled out a "rape" hadith which is much worse and said it was one of the reasons you hated him. Google much?

EDIT: Hmm

"Muslim scholar Maulana Muhammad Ali holds that Muhammad married the widow, who had already fallen into his hands as a captive, as a gesture of goodwill. Safiya did not bear any children to Muhammad."

According to my sources, the marriage was consummated after the marriage, and not before. Safiya seems oddly loyal for a rape victim! Even after Muhammad's death! Hmm..

Oh. And I forgot to mention your bullshit "second class citizen religious minorities" argument. While it was true that religious minorities had less rights, before they had NO rights. The concept of giving minorities rights to worship or build houses of worship or proselytize where revolutionary concepts at the time. However, they didn't have some rights, you're right. They were given such horrible burdens as "Not having to serve in the military" and so on. I feel so sorry for them. ='(

Muhammad did this because of the refuge his followers were given from the Christian king of modern-day Ethiopia and felt he should give religious minorities the same protections. And as I mentioned before, the "Jewish Golden Age" in Spain. The Dhimmi laws are very subjective too, at first it only included Jews and Christians, but then it expanded to include Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Zoroasterians, etc.

"Lewis states that verse "…there is no compulsion in religion…" [Qur'an 2:256], has usually been interpreted in the Islamic legal and theological traditions to mean that the followers of other religions should not be forced to adopt Islam. He also holds that verse "…To you your religion, to me my religion…"[Qur'an 109:6] has been used as a "proof-text for pluralism and coexistence" and that the verse [Qur'an 2:62] has served to justify the tolerated position accorded to the followers of Christianity, Judaism, and Sabianism under Muslim rule."

Let's also compare what the Catholics did to religious minorities when they took Jerusalem. They killed all the minorities! Whoa! And when Saladin took it back... hmm! He let them stay! That's so weird! >_>

Same with Muslim Spain. The Spanish Inquisition was *after* the Muslims were kicked out of Spain.

[NorthStarRepublicML]

Does that make me a racist?

i'm gonna go ahead and say yes you are a racist .... mostly because it has become apparent that you are both a hater of Islamic peoples and culture, a supporter of the false state of Israel, and hold views you describe as being "anti-German" as shown here: http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=69290&st=0


I forgot to mention your bullshit "second class citizen religious minorities" argument.

this is actually within my field of study, here is a essay that i wrote on the topic of ethnic and religious divisions in the Ottoman empire: http://northstarrepublicml.googlepages.com...heottomanemp ire (http://northstarrepublicml.googlepages.com/ethnicconflictintheottomanempire)

here is a quote from the essay:


Religion within the Ottoman Empire was tied in a significant way to identity; religion determined legally defined groups as religious communities. Christians, Jews, and other monotheists such as Zoarasters were identified, like Muslims, as “Peoples of the Book”. This designation signified that these peoples had received divine blessing and guidance through the reading of scriptures and the prophets, thus they were extended protection as religious communities within the Islamic state of the Ottoman Empire


The non-Muslim subjects of the Ottoman Empire were defined by a designation called dhimmi, meaning they were people that lived under the protection of an Islamic state or authority. According to Islamic law only Muslims enjoy full rights and duties of “citizenship” while the dhimmi’s rights are limited to protection from violence and depredation. The dhimmi are to be endured so long as they accept the superiority and authority of Muslims. Dhimmi were forbidden from conducting their religious practice in ways that would disturb Muslim religious practices, this included bans on the building of churches and the ringing of bells. Islamic law also forbade non-Muslims from riding a horse, owning a sword, and obligated them to step aside when Muslims passed them on the road.

however the fact is that by European standards this system of religious inclusion was out of the question, the reason that the near east contained such diverse religious groups is because they were not tolerated in Europe until the Reformation, in the 16th century.

additionally religious minorities picked their own leaders, maintained their own judicial system, and were not required to serve in the military ....

yes, until the ideals of the French Revolution became institutionalized in Europe the Islamic lands were more enlightened and progressive in terms of religious tolerance and ethnic relations ....



has usually been interpreted in the Islamic legal and theological traditions to mean that the followers of other religions should not be forced to adopt Islam.

correct ... contrary to some ignorant beliefs the Sharia forbids forcible conversion, and there were other reasons for Islamic leaders to allow defeated peoples to keep their religion .... the Dhimma came with a poll tax, which provided government revenue .... thus it was in the interests of the leader to maintain a taxable non-Muslim population within his kingdom ....


They killed all the minorities!

they killed the Arab Christians too .... wanted to start fresh or something ....

[RHIZOMES]

i'm gonna go ahead and say yes you are a racist .... mostly because it has become apparent that you are both a hater of Islamic peoples and culture, a supporter of the false state of Israel, and hold views you describe as being "anti-German" as shown here: http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=69290&st=0

I saw that. Why does he call himself an anti-German when the Germans haven't held Nazi views for something over 60 years and swastikas are banned there?

EDIT: I don't really know why I'm bothering with this idiot. From what I gather he:

*Supports Israel
*Supports the War in Iraq and think it'll bring "socialism" despite being occupied by America, the country least likely in the world to let that happen
*Thinks leftists are secret anti-semites for not supporting an apartheid regime?
*Leeches off the government and doesn't work
*Thinks insulting beloved religious figures is helping the socialist movement in a world that is 80% religious (More specifically, 1.3 billion Muslims too)

[Marko]

1. Again, cultural norms. I don't really see the need in elaborating on this anymore since if you've actually read the topic, most people agree with me here and have explained about everything in great depth on why you happen to be wrong.
That argument is founded on bourgeois cultural relativism which is ridiculous and must be rejected.


2. Muhammad was an Anti-Semite? Wow, that sure strikes me as a surprise! Ever heard of Muslim Spain, and how Jews fled there to escape persecution from Christian Europe? Jews had positions in government and a "Golden Age of Judaism" appeared there. How is Muhammad an anti-Semite? Are you going to back up your wildly outrageous statements?
Because he thought that Jewish people were infidels. They were 2nd-class citizens in Islamic societies, dhimmis. Jews were massacred in pogroms in Islamic Spain.

Muslims have a long history of anti-Semitism. Hitler's buddy, the Mufti of Jerusalem said in 1944:
"Arabs, rise as one man and fight for your sacred rights. Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion. This saves your honor. God is with you".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_antisemitism


When Abu Bakr converted, he brought as many slaves in Mecca and freed them. A lot of the early Muslims were in fact freed slaves. During Ramadan, you are encouraged to free a slave. Again, widely inaccurate statements brought about by American propaganda. Islam did not justify the slave system, people took Islamic verses out of context to justify slavery, much like Christians.
Bullshit. All major Islamic legal schools have traditionally accepted slavery.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/lewis1.html


Minor progress? I'm sure the the millions of Arab women at the time who were suddenly given the right to divorce and own property instead of being treated as property, the people in ghastly amounts of poverty who were suddenly cared for by the state and the female babies who suddenly weren't murdered anymore might have thought differently. Islam is not reactionary, Arab culture is. Muhammad tried to reform it and after he died they simply awkwardly merged their culture with Islamic ideals. And that isn't the debate, the debate is you're saying Muhammad was an asshole "unlike Buddha or Jesus" and that Islam is reactionary. Christianity can be reactionary too. So can Buddhism, ever heard of Sri Lanka? One person noted in this thread that Islam has been a very progressive religion, and it's only the past century or so that it's been hijacked by extremists and reactionaries.
You claim to be a socialist. It means that you must analyse progress with the method of dialectical materialism. Islam did not change the slave system prevalent in the Middle East and in fact succeeded only in expanding it.

European societies progressed to the feudal and capitalist systems while Islamic societies remained stagnant slave systems. Only European pressure in the colonial era brought progress to Muslim nations.


Muhammad did this because of the refuge his followers were given from the Christian king of modern-day Ethiopia and felt he should give religious minorities the same protections. And as I mentioned before, the "Jewish Golden Age" in Spain. The Dhimmi laws are very subjective too, at first it only included Jews and Christians, but then it expanded to include Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Zoroasterians, etc.

"Lewis states that verse "…there is no compulsion in religion…" [Qur'an 2:256], has usually been interpreted in the Islamic legal and theological traditions to mean that the followers of other religions should not be forced to adopt Islam. He also holds that verse "…To you your religion, to me my religion…"[Qur'an 109:6] has been used as a "proof-text for pluralism and coexistence" and that the verse [Qur'an 2:62] has served to justify the tolerated position accorded to the followers of Christianity, Judaism, and Sabianism under Muslim rule."
And does that tolerance extend to pagans? Black pagans were treated like shit by the Muslims. Your beloved Muslim theologians and natural scientists thought that they are like apes "except that apes are smarter" and suitable to be enslaved.
See: http://www.colorq.org/Articles/article.asp...002&x=arabviews (http://www.colorq.org/Articles/article.aspx?d=2002&x=arabviews)

[Hiero]

That argument is founded on bourgeois cultural relativism which is ridiculous and must be rejected.

It is bourgeois idealism to attack ideas before material conditions. Crypto nationalism must be rejected!


EDIT: I don't really know why I'm bothering with this idiot. From what I gather he:

Seriously don't. He is a racist troll promoting the excact propoganda that 1st world racist promote.

As Communist is it really important to be discussing the sexual and mariage practices of a religious figure? His aim is to divert attention away from the real problems, such as capitalism and imperialism for the sake of promoting liberal-democracy.

[RHIZOMES]

That argument is founded on bourgeois cultural relativism which is ridiculous and must be rejected.

...No.


Because he thought that Jewish people were infidels. They were 2nd-class citizens in Islamic societies, dhimmis. Jews were massacred in pogroms in Islamic Spain.

yeah that's why they were called "People of the Book" and that's why it says if you believe in God and you do good deeds, you'll have nothing to fear on judgement day. That's also why it says i the Qur'an "To your religion yours and my religion mine" right?

Pogroms in Islamic Spain? Again, total bullshit you have not backed up with any sources.

And as NorthStar mentioned, until the French Enlightenment in the 16th century, Islam was the ones with the more tolerant view on religious minorities.


Bullshit. All major Islamic legal schools have traditionally accepted slavery.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/lewis1.html

I fail to see how that makes Muhammad a bad person anymore then Jesus being a bad person because Christianity accepted slaves for a long time.


You claim to be a socialist. It means that you must analyse progress with the method of dialectical materialism. Islam did not change the slave system prevalent in the Middle East and in fact succeeded only in expanding it.

European societies progressed to the feudal and capitalist systems while Islamic societies remained stagnant slave systems. Only European pressure in the colonial era brought progress to Muslim nations.

No arguments there. This is about your thoughts on Prophet Muhammad, not the religion itself.


And does that tolerance extend to pagans? Black pagans were treated like shit by the Muslims. Your beloved Muslim theologians and natural scientists thought that they are like apes "except that apes are smarter" and suitable to be enslaved.
See: http://www.colorq.org/Articles/article.asp...002&x=arabviews

I am in fact aware of that. That's more to do with Muhammad's bad experiences with Meccan pagans more then anything else. Since he had not travelled to say... England where paganism was more accepting and he had only experienced Meccan paganism, which endorsed ginormous-gaps between the rich and the poor, female infanticide and the treatment of women as cattle, he had no reason to believe paganism was a positive thing. And since this is about Muhammad's character, and not the religion of Islam which persecuted non-Meccan pagans, I fail to see how that is relevant.

Also, I notice that you usually skip several large parts of my arguments and only focus on the bits that you think you can refute. I usually notice this when a troll comes this forum.


Seriously don't. He is a racist troll promoting the excact propoganda that 1st world racist promote.

As Communist is it really important to be discussing the sexual and mariage practices of a religious figure? His aim is to divert attention away from the real problems, such as capitalism and imperialism for the sake of promoting liberal-democracy.

Well, when I started arguing I just thought it would be like an enlightenment thing, to correct one more person's ignorant views on Muhammad. But it seems to me after this long boring discussion, he's just doing it to get a reaction. I won't rule out the possibility of replying to him again, but it's very unlikely.

[Marko]

As Communist is it really important to be discussing the sexual and mariage practices of a religious figure? His aim is to divert attention away from the real problems, such as capitalism and imperialism for the sake of promoting liberal-democracy.
Bullshit. I believe in authoritarian socialism. My argument against Islam is based on dialectical materialism. Islamic societies remained slave states until the 19th century although European societies developed to feudalism, capitalism and finally in Russia to socialism.

However, in the Soviet Union Muslim women wore the head scarf as a symbol of reactionary Islamic nationalism and were a threat to the secular state.

The barbaric Muslim men raped progressive women of Muslim background who refused to wear the veil despite the efforts of the Soviet state to protect them.

The Soviets had a good reason to begin the Hujum. Women have a right to be emancipated and live freely without having to wear stupid scarves.

[Marko]

Pogroms in Islamic Spain? Again, total bullshit you have not backed up with any sources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1066_Granada_massacre

More than 1,500 Jewish families, numbering 4,000 persons dead in the massacre.

If you know little you shouldn't be arrogant.


I fail to see how that makes Muhammad a bad person anymore then Jesus being a bad person because Christianity accepted slaves for a long time.
Because in the Quran he makes statements explicitly allowing the slavery.



No arguments there. This is about your thoughts on Prophet Muhammad, not the religion itself.
And Prophet Muhammad has nothing to do with the religion itself? Muhammad invented the religion and the person of Muhammad defines it.

Once again:

You claim to be a socialist. It means that you must analyse progress with the method of dialectical materialism. Islam did not change the slave system prevalent in the Middle East and in fact succeeded only in expanding it.

European societies progressed to the feudal and capitalist systems while Islamic societies remained stagnant slave systems. Only European pressure in the colonial era brought progress to Muslim nations.

Quoting from this article:

In contrast to socialism, Islam enshrines private property as a sacred trust.
http://www.minaret.org/acton.htm

You are either a Muslim or a Socialist. But you cannot be a "Muslim Socialist". It is a contradiction in terms.



I am in fact aware of that. That's more to do with Muhammad's bad experiences with Meccan pagans more then anything else. Since he had not travelled to say... England where paganism was more accepting and he had only experienced Meccan paganism, which endorsed ginormous-gaps between the rich and the poor, female infanticide and the treatment of women as cattle, he had no reason to believe paganism was a positive thing. And since this is about Muhammad's character, and not the religion of Islam which persecuted non-Meccan pagans, I fail to see how that is relevant.

Also, I notice that you usually skip several large parts of my arguments and only focus on the bits that you think you can refute. I usually notice this when a troll comes this forum.
So which of us is a troll? The Marxist-Leninist or the Muslim weirdo?

[RHIZOMES]

Man I am so tempted to completely debunk that post point by point, but as Hiero said


Seriously don't. He is a racist troll promoting the excact propoganda that 1st world racist promote.

As Communist is it really important to be discussing the sexual and mariage practices of a religious figure? His aim is to divert attention away from the real problems, such as capitalism and imperialism for the sake of promoting liberal-democracy.

I don't really see what arguing with a Zionist pro-Iraq War "Anti-German" "authoritarian socialist" welfare leech (Who give the ultra-right propaganda ammo against such a system) who's obviously never going to change his mind despite the several glaring inconsistencies and/or generalizations I've already spotted just by a quick glance at his newest post is going to do to benefit me, or the socialist cause in general.

[Marko]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 11:45 am
Man I am so tempted to completely debunk that post point by point, but as Hiero said

I don't really see what arguing with a Zionist pro-Iraq War "Anti-German" "authoritarian socialist" welfare leech (Who give the ultra-right propaganda ammo against such a system) who's obviously never going to change his mind despite the several glaring inconsistencies and/or generalizations I've already spotted just by a quick glance at his newest post is going to do to benefit me, or the socialist cause in general.
LOL. I don't think you even understand the concept of dialectical materialism.

As for your ad hominems the fact that I have academic credentials to work as a highly paid lawyer but choose not to do so speaks of my dedication to the cause.

You are a Muslim douchebag who uses classist epithets like "welfare leech" against genuine socialists.

[Devrim]

I don't think that you are a racist.

I do think, however, that you have fallen behind those in the West who are using the demonisation of Mohammed as part of a racist campaign.

It is not Mohammed who is being victimised in this campaign (he is actually dead, and therefore doesn't have to worry about these things), but workers from Muslim backgrounds in the West.

The details about Mohammed's personal life are completely irrelevant. I am sure that we could find lots of contempary Western figures who had sex with women who would now be considered children.

I haven't heard such denouncments of Leonardo da Vinci, or Michelangelo for example.

You point out that Islam has reactionary elements. Well...yes...it is a religion. If you care to notice it is a common feature of all religion, not just Islam.

The question that should be asked is not whether you are a racist, but whether the demonisation of people from Islamic backgrounds in the West is a racist campaign, and whether you are falling in behind it.

Devrim

[Spirit of Spartacus]

Look, just don't bother to respond to this nonsense.

Hiero is right: Marko is just trolling.

[Spirit of Spartacus]

You are a Muslim douchebag who uses classist epithets like "welfare leech" against genuine socialists.

NOW, Marko is being racist.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Spirit of [email protected] 31, 2007 01:06 pm
Look, just don't bother to respond to this nonsense.

Hiero is right: Marko is just trolling.
It doesn't matter if this individual is trolling or not. There are workers in the west who rightly feel that Islam is reactionary force. In this they are right. Some of these workers are then pulled behind what I would see as a right wing driven racist campaign aimed at dividing the working class.
The task of communists is to engage with thse workers, not to condem them as racists.
This is an argument that is worth having.
Devrim

[Revolution Until Victory]

don't even bother with this dipshit.

Islam rejects salvery and believes in abolishing it in stages, since it believed slavery can't be abolished instantly, after the Arabs have been having a slave trade BEFORE Islam.

just look at his "sources"

Prophet of Doom: this is about the most lunatic website you will find on the web. Almost everysingle thing there is a lie. This site is sooo lunatic, it claims the Palestinian marxist-leninst PFLP, founded and led by a Christian, is an "Islamic fundemantalist group"!!!!

Bernard Lewis: he used him as a source on Slavery. Ok, I don't think I even have to explain who's this neo-con, racist scum is.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Revolution Until Victory+July 31, 2007 01:55 pm--> (Revolution Until Victory @ July 31, 2007 01:55 pm) don't even bother with this dipshit.
[/b]
Don't argue against people who don't agree with you, and insult them. That is a good idea.
In case you have failed to notice lots of workers have nationalist ideas.


Revolution Until Victory
it claims the Palestinian marxist-leninst PFLP, founded and led by a Christian, is an "Islamic fundemantalist group"!!!!

Some of them even go as far as to state that 'left-nationalist' groups like the PLFP have something to do with socialism, and internationalism.

We are used to arguing against nationalist from supporters of the Turkish state to supporters of the PKK.

We are prepared to argue for clas based politics with workers who defend nationalism. It doesn't matter to us what sort of rhetoric they cloac their nationalism in.

Devrim

[Spirit of Spartacus]

The troll used the site "Prophet of Doom" as one of his sources.

Here's what the guy who runs the site says:


For those who are still reading, let me introduce myself. My name is Craig Winn. I work for Yahuweh. I am not like anyone you have ever encountered. I don’t have a human agenda, I don’t promote any organization, I have no national allegiance, I don’t support any political party, and I don’t belong to or participate in any religion. Despite what most Muslims believe, I’m neither Jewish nor am I in any way sponsored by Jews or Israel. I don’t accept money, and I have no interest in power, followers, or fame.

So why am I doing this, you ask. Why am I risking my life and enduring the constant harassment of Muslims to save you, someone I don’t even know, from your religion? In the fall of 2001, God asked me to expose you to the truth about Muhammad, Allah, Satan, Islam, the Qur'an, and the Hadith collections from the Companions of the Prophet. That is the purpose of this book and of this site.

Source: http://www.prophetofdoom.net/Open_Letter_Muslims.Islam


*sigh*

:lol:

[Revolution Until Victory]

Don't argue against people who don't agree with you, and insult them. That is a good idea.
In case you have failed to notice lots of workers have nationalist ideas.

I'm ready to argue with people who are in turn ready to argue. I'm not ready to argue with racists who come here to bash certian ethnic groups, ignore points, and spread thier hate.


Some of them even go as far as to state that 'left-nationalist' groups like the PLFP have something to do with socialism, and internationalism.

1. You mean the PFLP, or are you talking of another group? I suppose you are talking of the PFLP

2. It is not the point what the PFLP really is. That's not the issue. The issue here is what this biased website claims that the PFLP CALLS IT SELF. It's all about what the PFLP labels itself. This website claims it is "Islamic", while the PFLP clearly cliams to be marxist-leninist and was founded by a christian. My point here isn't to argue if the PFLP is really communist or not. In other words, I wouldn't have a problem if the site claimed the PFLP are not communist since their main goal is the liberation of Palestine and they are nationlaist.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Revolution Until Victory+--> (Revolution Until Victory)I'm ready to argue with people who are in turn ready to argue. I'm not ready to argue with racists who come here to bash certian ethnic groups, ignore points, and spread thier hate.[/b]
We just had an election in Turkey where Islamicists took 47%, and fascists 15%. Of course many of these people were workers. We are prepared to argue with all workers, not just those who agree with us.


Originally posted by Revolution Until [email protected]
1. You mean the PFLP, or are you talking of another group? I suppose you are talking of the PFLP

Yes.


Revolution Until Victory
2. It is not the point what the PFLP really is. That's not the issue. The issue here is what this biased website claims that the PFLP CALLS IT SELF. It's all about what the PFLP labels itself. This website claims it is "Islamic", while the PFLP clearly cliams to be marxist-leninist and was founded by a christian. My point here isn't to argue if the PFLP is really communist or not. In other words, I wouldn't have a problem if the site claimed the PFLP are not communist since their main goal is the liberation of Palestine and they are nationlaist.

Yes, of course the idea that the PLFP is Islmicist is absurd. Its roots lie in the Christian middle class.

Yes, he is coming out with a lot of bullshit, but do you argue, or give up, and just throw insults?

Devrim

[Hiero]

Don't argue against people who don't agree with you, and insult them. That is a good idea.
In case you have failed to notice lots of workers have nationalist ideas.

You can't argue with agiators. I have had these typs of conversations before on a student forum. It usually went like this.

agiator-"Muslims are violent idiots, look at the palestinians suicide bombers"

Me- "well you have to look at that situation in the colonial setting, the palestinians are oppressed and they channel their resistance and hate through suicide bombers in a david - goliath battle. Only through a a palestinian state can they work on equal terms with the Israels".

Now that that is a pretty basic response. However the agiator, such is the case with Marko never really replies to the point you make, it usually follows with another racist comment. Such as:

" well look at how Jews are treated when Arabs are in power, like in Saudi Arabia"

Now how can we argue with someone who doesn't want to give serious answers. Their method is very affective, when you give a reasonable response, when you move towards understanding the situation they throw back into your face a horrible fact of the world. It is true that this facts they throw back are horrible. It is horrible how Jews have been treated in the world. Suicide bombings ARE horrible. Through playing peoples emotions the agiator/troll draws people to his side, while you look like a terrorist sympathise when you try to explain the material conditions that produce these horrible events.

Marko does this. When I mention it is bourgeois to want to change ideas before changing material conditions, he throws back random events. That being the position of the Soviet Union, incidents that occured during the Soviet Union and other horrible things several Muslims have done. The thing is though he never adobts a solution. What does Marko want to do? We are not the Soviet state, we can't form positions similar to government in power, we can't invade Iran and fix all there problems. Avioding promoting a solution usually leads to support of imperialism, or turning a blind eye because American bourgeois liberal society is better then so called "Islamofascist" society.

We can't seriously argue with these people. When workers adobt their propaganda we have to expose where it comes from, rather then attempting to argue back. I look it at like trying to argue with Goebbels, he doesn't want to form a position which attempts to make sense of his politics. Goebbels goal is play with emotions to justify his parties position. This is similar to Marko, who just spouts reactionary propoganda which has no relevence to the proleteriat movement in an attempt to win over peoples emotions. Argueing back only feeds the agiators and trolls.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

NorthStar,

I checked SAB

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/lev/20.html

they say the same thing as Revolution Newspaper said so I don't know what bible you were looking at. people around the RCP around here use King James's for reference. When we were building the RCYB Youth Library, one of the first books we had a King James bible with notes on violent and disgusting passages

[counterblast]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 11:18 am
I fail to see how that makes Muhammad a bad person anymore then Jesus being a bad person because Christianity accepted slaves for a long time.
So you support the primitive, oppressive traditions of Muhammad; only because they are comparable to the primitive, oppressive traditions of Christ?

Couldn't you possibly refuse to pick neither of the two evils, rather than the lesser?

[RHIZOMES]

Originally posted by counterblast+August 06, 2007 10:10 am--> (counterblast @ August 06, 2007 10:10 am)
[email protected] 31, 2007 11:18 am
I fail to see how that makes Muhammad a bad person anymore then Jesus being a bad person because Christianity accepted slaves for a long time.
So you support the primitive, oppressive traditions of Muhammad; only because they are comparable to the primitive, oppressive traditions of Christ?

Couldn't you possibly refuse to pick neither of the two evils, rather than the lesser? [/b]
No. My point was that, Muhammad was against the slave trade, and encouraged the masters to free them, as is evident by Abu Bakr buying as many slaves as he could and then freeing them as soon as they converted. All because Muslims practiced the slave trade, which they had before Islam happened (Which also regulated it, while before it was unrestricted and you could do anything you wanted to your slave, comparable to how before the limit of 4 wives, you could have hundreds if you wanted to), does not make Muhammad a bad person anymore then it makes Jesus a bad person because Christians practiced the slave trade.

What Marko was trying to do was shift the attention towards the Muslims, rather then the good character of Muhammad himself, which is what my original purpose of arguing with him was.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Hiero
You can't argue with agiators...
Argueing back only feeds the agiators and trolls.

It is not only about the person that you are arguing with. Many people read these sort of forums, and do not post on them for example. I think that the points he is raising are issues that many workers raise. It doesn't matter if this individual is a troll, or not. In my opinion the argument is still worth having.

Devrim

[samsonite]

OP, I agree with you a lot. It is deplorable that certain religious founders who shall remain nameless owned slaves. It is one thing for certain religious people because they are normal humans living in a fallen world for which there is often no survival outside of social institutions we find reprehensible. It is an entirely different thing for someone ordained by God, supposedly delivering his message of morality to the world to own slaves because he ought to know the perfect way to live.


Also, Muhammad abhorred the practice of wife-beating, as is shown here:

Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great. -4:34


Muhammad was an Anti-Semite?

The attitude the Koran has toward Jews can only be described as anti-Semitic, and at best it certainly was not conducive to a better understanding, tolerance, or co-existence.


How is Muhammad an anti-Semite? Are you going to back up your wildly outrageous statements?

Gladly

"kill any Jew who falls into your power."

[hajduk]

Originally posted by (A)//(E)@July 31, 2007 02:58 am
I'm leaving out all the other stuff on this thread and answering only the orginal question. "Am I a RACIST?"

No. Perhaps Religiously Discriminative, but not Racist. Most Muslims would see you as Anti-Muslim because you criticise their prophet so harshly. But no, not a Racist. Racism pertains to RACE, not RELIGION.
YUP

[RedKnight]

Originally posted by The Red Ghost+August 07, 2007 10:05 am--> (The Red Ghost @ August 07, 2007 10:05 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 10:10 am

[email protected] 31, 2007 11:18 am
I fail to see how that makes Muhammad a bad person anymore then Jesus being a bad person because Christianity accepted slaves for a long time.
So you support the primitive, oppressive traditions of Muhammad; only because they are comparable to the primitive, oppressive traditions of Christ?

Couldn't you possibly refuse to pick neither of the two evils, rather than the lesser?
No. My point was that, Muhammad was against the slave trade, and encouraged the masters to free them, as is evident by Abu Bakr buying as many slaves as he could and then freeing them as soon as they converted. All because Muslims practiced the slave trade, which they had before Islam happened (Which also regulated it, while before it was unrestricted and you could do anything you wanted to your slave, comparable to how before the limit of 4 wives, you could have hundreds if you wanted to), does not make Muhammad a bad person anymore then it makes Jesus a bad person because Christians practiced the slave trade.

What Marko was trying to do was shift the attention towards the Muslims, rather then the good character of Muhammad himself, which is what my original purpose of arguing with him was. [/b]
Yes, but why are you a muslim? Granted compared to some other religions Islam is not quite as bad. However it is still reactionary in many respects. Like it sanctions capital punishment for non-violent crimes, like homosexuality, and apostacy. Stating that at least they behead, and or stone, people instead of burning them alive, like in chistian europe, is grasping at straws. Shariah law also penalises thieves by cutting off there hands. :o So couldn't you do better than Islam for a religion?

[Labor Shall Rule]

This is ridiculous. You can find progressive and reactionary aspects in any religion. It's how you interpret it that matters.

[RHIZOMES]

I have this vague feeling that samsonite is Marko. not quite sure though. Seems a bit of a coincidence the first post he makes is in support for something who can't argue anymore due to his restriction.


Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great. -4:34

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satelli...d=1119503549384 (http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503549384)
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satelli...d=1119503544256 (http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503544256)
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satelli...d=1119503546482 (http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503546482)
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satelli...d=1119503547578 (http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503547578)

I do not agree with Sharia law. it's an outdated system.

Plus, the Qur'an encourages you to forgive people if they do wrong unto you, even if the official punishment is something like cutting off hands.

[samsonite]

Muhammad a bad person anymore then it makes Jesus a bad person because Christians practiced the slave trade.

The difference is that Jesus didn't own slaves, Muhammad did. The Bible explains how to operate in a society in which slavery is condoned. It tells masters to be kind and slaves to be submissive. However, Paul in 1 Corinthians explicitly tells slaves if they have the opportunity for freedom to take it. It does not endorse slavery, it simply gives guidelines on how to exist in a society, as all were then, which had slavery.




About Muslim Spain, Andrew Bostom and Bat Ye’or write:



…Iberia (Spain) was conquered in 710-716 AD by Arab tribes…Most churches were converted into mosques…it proceeded as a classical jihad with massive pillages, enslavement, deportations and killings.

Toledo, which had first submitted to the Arabs in 711 or 712, revolted in 713. The town was punished by pillage and all the notables had their throats cut. In 730, the Cerdagne (in Septimania, near Barcelona) was ravaged and a bishop burned alive. In the regions under stable Islamic control, Jews and Christians were tolerated as dhimmis - like elsewhere in other Islamic lands - and could not build new churches or synagogues nor restore the old ones. Segregated in special quarters, they had to wear discriminatory clothing. Subjected to heavy taxes, the Christian peasantry formed a servile class attached to the Arab domains…

(…)

The humiliating status imposed on the dhimmis [Christians and Jews under Islamic law] and the confiscation of their land provoked many revolts, punished by massacres, as in Toledo (761, 784-86, 797). After another Toledan revolt in 806, seven hundred inhabitants were executed. Insurrections erupted in Saragossa from 781 to 881, Cordova (805), Merida (805-813, 828 and the following year, and later in 868), and yet again in Toledo (811-819); the insurgents were crucified, as prescribed in Qur’an 5:33*.

The revolt in Cordova of 818 was crushed by three days of massacres and pillage, with 300 notables crucified and 20 000 families expelled…

…Thousands of people were deported to slavery in Andalusia [Muslim Spain], where the caliph kept a militia of tens of thousands of Christian slaves brought from all parts of Christian Europe (the Saqaliba), and a harem filled with captured Christian women. Society was sharply divided along ethnic and religious lines, with the Arab tribes at the top of the hierarchy, followed by the Berbers who were never recognized as equals, despite their Islamization; lower in the scale came the mullawadun converts and, at the very bottom, the dhimmi Christians and Jews.

(…)

In Granada, the Jewish viziers Samuel Ibn Naghrela and his son Joseph, who protected the Jewish community, were both assassinated between 1056 to 1066, followed by the annihilation of the Jewish population by the local Muslims. It is estimated that up to five thousand Jews perished in the pogrom by Muslims that accompanied the 1066 assassination…

(…)

The Muslim Berber Almohads in Spain and North Africa (1130-1232) wreaked enormous destruction on both the Jewish and Christian populations. This devastation — massacre, captivity, and forced conversion — was described by the Jewish chronicler Abraham Ibn Daud, and the poet Abraham Ibn Ezra…

…although Maimonides is frequently referred to as a paragon of Jewish achievement facilitated by the enlightened rule of Andalusia [Muslim Spain], his own words debunk this utopian view of the Islamic treatment of Jews: “..the Arabs have persecuted us severely, and passed baneful and discriminatory legislation against us…Never did a nation molest, degrade, debase, and hate us as much as they..”

And I love people who argue that about the Crusades as if the Muslims didn't invade Europe first and as if there were no Muslim invasions during the Crusades.

[phasmid]

Originally posted by The Red [email protected] 07, 2007 10:05 am
My point was that, Muhammad was against the slave trade, and encouraged the masters to free them, as is evident by Abu Bakr buying as many slaves as he could and then freeing them as soon as they converted.
Freeing slaves only if they converted is wrong. Shouldn't he have freed them regardeless of what they believed in? Instead of forcing his beliefs on them?