First of all, you're right in that I do not "believe in" your "prophet". Your prophet was, in reality, a murderous savage. That has been PROVEN - repeatedly - from history.

But, being Muslim, you're NOT willing to take an honest look at any material that is not "Muslim Propaganda", so you're never going to run across anything that's actually factual.

Once again, it is OVERWHELMINGLY OBVIOUS that YOU need to do some objective study and reading!

History is against your blind bias, my friend! I don't know how you can POSSIBLY be writing this things with a straight face!

I find it VERY ironic - and VERY self-serving - that these "updates from God" always "just happen" to be of benefit to Muslims. Or, in the case of Mohammed, they always "just happened" to be of benefit to him personally.

Good lord, I could just as well say that God told me to go have sex with your sister. After all, who are YOU to say that God didn't "reveal" that to me?

Yes.

I know I am very late on responding to this but I just read it. I honestly believe that every religion is dangerous in the hands of humans, it's up to us to represent our religion in a peaceful fashion. I speak out against the Christian right on many occasions, mainly because I don't believe God has a place in politics. (My personal belief is that the only real religious lead government would be by God himself, not by people 'speaking for him'). So I completely understand your argument here Hev.

However, it may be the media, I don't know, but I am yet to see an abundance of Muslims to speak out against the atrocities of their religion. When more Muslims like hkbajwa continue to speak against it, I would have no problem with Islam. But it's hard not to when they seem to be in favor of terrorism.

Like I said and you just confirmed, you don't believe in Jesus, you believe in the muslim version of Jesus.

The Quran has a book of end time prophecys too. It is obviously a rip off, of the Revelations revealed to John in the book of revelations.

Compare the book of Revelations with the end time prophecy of the Quran. Also, You cant beleive Jesus ever existed without beleiving in the new testement. Muslims disregard any bit of the old and new testement if it contradicts the quran or Muhammeds teachings.

Jesus taught to offer your other cheek and so on. General idiologys, of non-violence, loving other people, and acts of good will to others. It taught that the poor are to be looked after, Charity, etc.

Jesus didnt spread his faith through invasions, raids, raising armys and all that nonsense. His word alone spread the worlds biggest and fastest growing faith.

Muhammed, conquered. Killed, raped, and pillaged to spread Islam into Christian majority middle east, Egypt, Tripoli, Nubia, and so on.

You can practice whicever faith you like. You cant ignore history though. History shows Islam was spread by violence, even long after muhammed left.

Ok guys.. it seems that all history i have read is completely wrong and all that you have read is above reproach.

Jefferson:

It seems that our accounts do not differ terribly in terms of fact. The sequence of events is pretty much the same. However you assume that all events took place with mohammad having violent and evil intentions.

What evidence do you have that makes you think like so? I ask you not to prove it to me, but i would liek to know how you arrived at your conclusion. The reason i ask is because it seems to me that you ascribe motives to mohammad based purely on your belief that he was a violent warlord. I happen to NOT believe he was a violent warlord, so the same actions are perceived differently by me.. and indeed by all muslims.

YOu say that my historical facts are inaccurate. What makes you say that the history you know is above reproach.

Just as you say that the history i have learnt is muslim propoganda, does it not make sense that maybe that which you have learnt is also biased? Consider:

Through the ages, the only truly educated class in european society was the clergy. They were responsible for record-keeping and dispersion of information through the society.

Islam was a major threat to the christian clergy . I mean of course it was. If you spend your whole life in service of a religion and the religion becomes your bread and butter, the will you ever allow a different religion to prosper? Of course not.

Does it sound irrational to claim that the account of Muslim history by the christian clergy is most likely to be biased?

Personally i do not find any flaw in that assumption ( unless you believe the Roman Catholic Church to be infallible.. which it has proven that it is not )

The point is that what you have learnt of mohammad through western sources isn't beyond reproach. However you would be right in dismissing some of the muslim accounts of mohammad. Considering the way the Hadith have been adulterated the muslim account of his divinity is just as likely to be favorably biased. In fact i know it to be true. Even some Hadith make him come across as a violent and merciless man.

However let's re-examine the different items:

1) Slaughter of Mecca:

There was no slaughter. No historical account of the alleged atrocities. It is pure conjecture to assume that Mecca could only have been conquered with violence and bloodshed.

2) Mohammad's Exile from Mecca:

Mohammad was a poor uneducated shepherd. He was an orphan of the Quraysh tribe. He was persecuted for his refusal to pray to the meccan idols. Even after he received his first revelation, he stayed in Mecca gathering followers. Violence was perpetrated against him and his followers. He was not guilty of ANY VIOLENCE in Mecca. And you are right. The quraysh abused him because they thought he was a nut. But hey Christ was crucified for much the same reason.

3) MIgration to Medina:

Mohammad migrated to Medina in line with his movement of non-violence. He entered the city of medina under the patronage of the people there and was granted permission to stay there with his followers ( NOTE: he did not command or conquer. He requested and received permission to stay). I don't understand why this would be an item of criticism on your part.

4) The Nakhla Raid:

Exactly where were you present to witness that he was mad until he found out that the raids were profitable. Had mohammad been a greedy man, he would not have continued to defy his wealthy tribe.

Incidentally Mohammad became a wealthy man on his own through trade. before his first revelation he worked for Khadija ( his first wife ) and through his trade and subsequent marriage to her he was not a man without assets. Greed was not a part of the man. If it had been, he would have amassed a vast fortune and installed his heirs and family in positions of importance. As it is he never did so. Only Ali was related to him by blood. And even he was not given higher ranks than some common folk.

To assume that mohammad condemned the raid until greed overtook him is really nothing more than a slur. It has no historical evidence.

5) Battles of Badr, Uhud and Khandaq ( Trench )

The battle of Badr was not a raid. If it were, it would not have been against a heavily armed raiding party of the Quraysh. This raiding party was sent ,no doubt, as a result of the Nakhla raid. Nevertheless it still made the battle one of survival.. not one of greed.

The battle of Uhud was fought under much the same conditions. The Quraysh sent out a larger force than the muslims could muster. Once again every follower was involved int he battle. While the men fought, the women tended the wounded, collected arrows and in some cases even fought alongside the men. This does not happen in a raid for material gain. This happens when a community fights to survive.

The Battle of the Trench cannot in any way be construed as an aggressive war. A war fought from a siege position is invariably a defensive war.

You claim that the Quraysh were a peaceful tribe and the muslims attacked them indiscriminately. Do you have any reason to believe this other than your prejudice that mohammad was an evil man so he MUST have done so?

6) Emancipation of WOmen:

It is true that most muslim societies subjugate women. Most muslim societies are chauvinistic patriarchal testosterone fuelled societies. HOWEVER:

Mohammad started his professional life as a woman's employee. His marriage to Khadija was upon HER proposal.

He involved women in his administration. He condemned and forbade the killing of female offspring. He allowed women to lead prayers ( unthinkable even today).

Regarding his marriage to Aisha. Well there are a few things that need to be put in perspective.

a) you cannot judge it by today's standard. In the arabic peninsula, a child was considered a woman and eligible for marriage when her menstrual cycle started. While this is a disturbing thought in todays context, consider that at the time a 14 year old boy was considered a full grown man.

b) Considering how difficult it is to confirm ANY information from the time, is it unthinkable that maybe her age was not properly accounted for? I mean let's say her age was 14 at the time of marriage.. would it still be so distrubing?


Funny thing is that you will consider SOME information INCONTROVERTIBLE even if it is from a "muslim" source.. but only as long as it makes mohammad out to be a perverse nutjob.. Hardly a balanced method of deduction. It seems that the opinion is formed and then facts approved or discarded as per the needs of the opinion.

6) Mohammad as a bloodthirsty terrorist:

If you claim that christian history is more accurate then by all means you are right. However as far as i have learnt, there is no evidence of that. Deaths in armed conflict cannot be considered murder ( otherwise your dear bush would be a murderer 100,000 times over).

I can understand that claiming mohammad was a vile, violent terrorist makes complete sense to you since you consider his followers to be evil one-and-all. But it is hardly a historically proven fact. In fact i think it is quite silly of you to continue to harp on about "Muslim Propoganda". I am not a propogandist my friend and i think you should know this much. My opinions are not dependent on my religion.. they are the result of my own thinking and research.

I have chosen to believe that mohammad was a good man. A religion cannot spread as much as Islam through violence and evil. Had that been the case, then the religion would have been wiped off the map centuries ago. Only kindness and truth lasts eternal.

Do you really think that Mohammad could have COERCED the people of Mecca with violence. He gained his followers there through his actions of kindness. And they followed him inspite of persecution from the Quraysh. You can not instill that sort of loyalty through coercion.

Likewise the people of Medina became his followers through his actions.. Do you believe that a city would willingly incur the enmity of the trading hub of the region? Do you think that a minority consisting of religious refugees could coerce the Medinites by violence? Even the devil himself cannot destroy commerce with fear.

It is true that to christian nations, Islam comes across as a marauding gang of bandits. But why is that? Is it really so unthinkable that MAYBE just MAYBE the church was active in spreading falsehoods about the muslims? I mean again the church has been guilty of many a falsehood for the preservation of the church.

If you read up on history a bit, the Moors were responsible for the environment of scientific exploration and religious tolerance that laid the ground for the Renaissance. In fact the Jews of Spain experienced unheard of freedom during the moorish reign. Prior to the moors was the Inquisition and the jews were treated with the same inhumanity by the christians that the muslims are guilty of now.

You say that the Inquisition was just a short period of time. Yes you are right. That particular movement lasted a short time. But it takes centuries of imposition and exploitation before such an action can be carried out. The inquisition was just the climax of the systematic subjugation and persecution of all that were not Roman Catholics.

Yet you claim that the historical records based on such a biased organization as the church is MORE VALID than any other. WHy is that?

Look i am not trying to convert any of you.. I am also not throwing dirt upon your beliefs. I am suggesting to you that MAYBE just MAYBE Mohammad was not an evil man.

This is important to me because it is not nice to be considered a savage follower of a savage man. Because i am not. And i think that if you can perhaps make that admission to yourselves, it could be easier for you to:

1) put "muslim" culture in perspective
2) understand the influences that cause muslims to react as they do
3) Learn how to communicate across cultural and religious boundaries
4) create consensus ( extermination of muslims isn't an option.. you can't destroy 1.2 billion people summarily)
5) help you understand how bet to deal with the muslims.
6) Help the US create friends among the moderate muslims. Face it, how can a man ever side with a nation that calls his most revered figure a crook.

I consider the last bit the MOST IMPORTANT of all. As long as you continue to denigrate the muslim belief, you will continue to shove even the most moderate of muslims into the same camp as the crazy mullahs. You leave the moderate no choice. He can choose between one side that curses his prophet .. OR he can chose the side that reveres his religion, but takes it to extremes. That really is no choice.

If you curse my religion and my prophet, do you really think that i as a MAN would side with you? In fact would you respect me if i did? Or would you humiliate me further firstly for having the wrong faith and secondly for siding against it?

YOu are too hasty in condemning this man. It serves no purpose other than further alienating even those muslims whose moral code is the same as urs.

No actually i don't. Any mainstream muslim sect will agree with you on most aspects of jesus.

As per the muslim belief christ died on the cross and was ressurected. He was then borne up to the 4th heaven where he awaits his return to earth as the promised messiah. Which pretty much coincides with the christian belief of his ultimate return.

This is not my belief. I believe christ was a MAN. He lived and he died as a man of god.

This only makes sense to me. Messengers spread god's message through their actions. Their actions can only be considered fit to emulate if they are human. If they are divine, then mankind has no business emulating his actions ( it would be unfair to ask a human to do the work of a god or angel)

Well actually that also is not true. The latest update in the shape of Mirza Ghulam Ahmed was certainly not of benefit to the "muslims". As i have told you before ahmedis are persecuted in most muslim nations. We are not allowed to enter Mecca on account of being "infidels". We cannot vote in pakistan without signing an affidavit confirming our heretical status, and we can be arrested and sentenced to death for propogating our faith. So yeah the updates are definately not making our lives EASIER. In fact witht he updates come upheaval and trials and tribulations.

In fact it would have been easier and more profitable for MOhammad to have toed the Quraysh line. He was the son of a wealthy merchant and related to the most powerful and wealthy tribe in Mecca. His religion brought him difficulty.. not ease.

So you are wrong in saying that it benefits only the muslims. Mirza ghulam ahmed started alone and gained a following INDEPENDENT of any other muslim organization.

Regarding MOhammad's timely revelations, i don't really see what you are talking about. please elaborate.

Dude i would recommend that you leave my sister out of this.. i don't think talk like that is called for.

Still i get your point.. what's to say that i can't justify my actions by claiming it to be divine command.

But human beings have minds and opinions. I can pull something like that off for a limited time only. Eventually my actions will be scrutinised. And if it is apparent that i am talking shit then i will be caught out. How many false prophets have there been? How many have gained a following of 1.2 billion?

Does it not indicate that MAYBE mohammad's actions were NOT as hypocritical, violent and evil as you say they were. Do you think he could have gained the support he did if he was a liar? Do you think a band of followers would have accepted persecution if they did not BELIEVE? Do you think the medinites would have aligned thmeselves with him for ANY OTHER REASON THAN FAITH?
Did he have the muscle to intimidate ANYBODY?

Jefferson dude i understand your criticism. But you have to open your mind a little bit. If you beleive mohammad was evil then you must also believe that all his followers are evil. And i am not evil. Nor is my family, nor are my friends, nor is my country.

My opinion is not propoganda. Being ahmedi i have had to view ALL religious education in Pakistan with extreme scepticism ( since very often a lot of information is skewed to denigrate the ahmedi faith ). You have read my posts for several months now. Do you really believe that a man such as i should have to revert to propoganda to carry on a debate?

Well such is the case with updates. As per muslim belief Moses and Jesus were prophets of god carrying the laws of god. So is it a wonder that much in the Quran is the same. I mean as far as we are concerned the TOrah, Bible and Quran come fromt he same source.

And of course muslims will disregard those items contradicted by the Quran. It only makes sense to follow the latest update.
True as is befitting a prophet of god. Mohammad did the same. Equality for women, social welfare for the poor and sick, religious tolerance ( no forced conversions) and strict adherence to laws and treaties. He did not consider himself above the law.

But just as the church of christ has been guilty of cruelty, coercion, political connivance and exploitation, so too has the following of Mohammad been invaded. Which is why the latest update of Mirza was required. But in any case the wrong actions of the church did not make jesus evil.. likewise the wrong actions of MOhammad's followers does not prove that he was evil.
THe world's fastest growing faith at the moment is ahmedism. ROughly 100,000 people convert annually. Mohammad incidentally did not spread Islam through invasion. His battles at the time were for survival. The second the muslim nation was secure he set about improving infrastructure. It wasn't until the second caliph Omar after his death that the expansion started. And the subsequent expansion of the Ummayads and the Abbasids and the Moors were political move of those times. What do the actions of muslim regents have to do with the personality of MOhammad? Just like the Inquisition has NOTHING to do with the personality of Jesus.
Apart from prejudice against the man, do you have any other information corroborating this claim? It is not fair to attribute killing raping and pillaging to a man without some sort of evidence.
I can agree to an extent that AFTER mohammad Islam was spread through conquest to a great degree. But that is also not what i am talking about. We are tlking about Mohammad himself. He did not spread his word through violence. Just listing his track record of armed conflict does not suffice. Violence was INVARIABLY the last resort to achieve an objective.

Do not turn a man into something he was not.