The Crusades where many and some are forgotten. The initial use of the Christain Zeal weapon, was used by the pope to squash Arianism. With all the kings and rulers of Catholic Europe basically at the beck and call of the Papacy.

The Holy Roman Empires, invasion of Livonia, Prussia, Pomerania, Lithuania. The Polish King's annexation Silesia. Denmarks Invasion of Sweden, Norway.

The Muslim factor didnt come into the fray till the Almohad Caliphs invaded the Iberian Penninsula. Vicious wars of attrition for centurys in, Castille, Leon, Valencia, Portugal, till they where driven out eventually. Even before that Charles Martell Stopped an Invasion of Southern France from the Berbers.

The most notable Crusade is when Saladin came to power. He wanted an Empire and used Islamic Zeal to convince hundreds of thousands of people to fight for him in the promise that he would deliver Jerusalem to Muslim hands.

Palestine was a Frankish Kingdom of mostly Arabs and Jews, with a small army of Knights of French Ancestory. We all know what happened next. The German King died in route through Byzantine Territory, and Henry the Lion with a small force slayed Saladin's forces routinely.


Eventually a peace was made.


Years later the turks sacked Constantinople and invaded Greece, Serbia, Croatia, Bulgaria, Armenia, Trezibond, Anatolia, Georgia, Parts of Hungary, and tried to take Venice, throughout the years.


Europe fought them back. Retaking Eastern Europe, Driving the Muslims out of Spain, and Cyprus, Crete, and other Islands.

Europe was at war with Islamic nations because Islam Started it. Not till the Russian Empire was founded did Europeans begin to push them back and seriously challenge them.


Islam started it when they sacked the Eastern Roman Empire. Enough of that story.

Thank you satv365 for understanding.

In fact muslim forces had been expanding the muslim empire MORE than 350 years prior to the crusades. But these were forces that happened to be muslim. A distinction has to be made between those actions as a direct result of divine direction AND those made by independent leaders and communities that just HAPPEN to have been muslim.


Please give an excuse for such Muslim atrocities as...
No "excuse" is required for anything. Proper facts and understanding may be in order though.

- The slaughter of Mecca.

There was no such thing as the slaughter of Mecca. The takeover was a peaceful one with no blood spilled. If you have information that claims differently please be kind enough to share your source. Otherwise i would consider that "slaughter of mecca" as nothing more than hearsay. As per all history learnt by muslims, the takeover of Mecca was peaceful and with the consent of the inhabitants. Incidentally, there was no forcible conversions to Islam at the time either.

- The Nakhla raid.

The Nakhla raid was a raid condemned by Mohammad for violating the month of truce. MOhammad's followers were not programmed robots. They were independent people with independent thought. Some chose to go on a raid. And they were reprimanded for such action.



- The Battle of Badr.

The battle of Badr was a defensive battle against a raiding party sent out by the Quresh tribe. 313 followers of mohammad repelled a raiding party of over 1000 armed men. This was not an offensive action, but one of a survival.

- The slaughter of the Qaynuqa Jews.

Banu Qaynuqa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Confirm your sources. As far as i understand the Qaynuqa jews violated a treaty with the muslims. As a result they were beseiged and expelled.. This is hardly the same as indiscriminate slaughter don't you think?

- The Battle of the Trench.

Before the battle of the Trench came the battle of Uhud. This was the first partial defeat suffered by the muslims. As per the history i have read, the two parties met at a place called Uhud. One of mohammad's tactics was to place archers behind a rock outcrop to hold back the tide of Quresh. After the first wave, the muslim archers thought the battle was won and left their positions to gather loot. As a result the Quresh were able to regroup and inflict severe damage to the muslim troops. This event is mostly related to explain the negative consequences of greed. Mohammad reprimanded his troops for their negligence and for their greed.

The THIRD battle fought was the battle of the Trench. I don't understand why this battle is considered an atrocity. The battle is called so because the inhabitants of Medina ( muslim as well as non-muslim) dug a trench around the city of medina to keep out the troops deployed by the Quresh. This was a siege style battle with the muslims being besieged. This was NOT an offensive war. How can one carry on an aggressive action from behind a trench?

- The women of Banu Mustaliq.

Banu Mustaliq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Once again it's time to check your sources. Marrying Jawarriya was an act of peace and friendship. Mohammad subdued an enemy tribe ( as was the social norm of the time ) and then reinstated their status by marrying the daughter of the leader of that tribe. Note this is not a case of pillaging, but one of peacemaking. A tyrant does not marry his captives.. he abuses them. Mohammad gave respect to the defeated party by marrying into the family. You may not understand this, but the obligations of being an in-law to his conquest both protected the losing party AND created a lasting bond of peace.

- The raid of Khaybar.

The raid of Khaybar came AFTER the treaty of Hudaybiyah, but i shal deal with this in the order that you have noted it.

The jews of Khaybar were in alliance with the Quresh. This was a secret alliance of which the prophet got to know AFTER the treaty of Hudaybiyah. As a result he went with a party of people ( ONLY THOSE who had been present at hudaybiyah) to subdue the jews of Khaybar. Here also the conquest was bloodless. Mohammad permitted all the inhabitant to live as they did AND work on their land. However the only additional condition was that the jews of khaybar paid a portion of their assets a year to the muslims. This is not a human rights violation. It was an extremely tolerant and merciful action in the context of the time. Please note there was NO SLAUGHTER OF JEWS.

- The "treaty" of Hudaybiyya.

The "treaty" as you called it was also an example of peacemaking. As it happened after the first number of battles between the quresh on the people of medina, the Prophet decided that it would be appropriate to go for Hajj to the Kabah ( one of the pillars of Islam). So he set off with a large number of followers ( not just armed men, but whole families ). These people got to Hudaybiyah outside Mecca. Here a contingent of Quresh awaited them who refused them access to Mecca. Mohammad stated that he and his followers must make a journey to the Kabah. As the dicussions wore on it was established that the muslims would be permitted to enter Mecca once a year on the 10th of Zilhaj ( muslim calendar ) to complete their journey to the Kabah.

A condition was also placed that THIS year the muslims would NOT be allowed to enter Mecca, but the permission would be granted from the following year. Upon this mohammad and his followers quietly acquiesced and left for home ( conquering khaybar PEACEFULLY on the way).

The following year when mohammad arrived with his followers, the Quresh broke the treaty and refused the muslims access. It was not until then that any talk of a conquest of Mecca was brought up. Even then Mohammad entered Mecca without bloodshed and laid claim to the city without use of violence.

- The Tabuk raid.

The Tabuk raid was a tactical move to secure the borders of the muslim nation. Opposing a byzantine force coming from the north east, Mohammad laid claim to the Tabuk fortification and directed his moves against the invaders from there.

This is simple military tactics which you claim to call a human rights violation. Remember that mohammad lived not in our time, but 1400 years ago. An action like the Tabuk raid was in no way considered an evil move because it was perfectly acceptable by all standards of the time. Even today all military forces work first to secure any tactical positions before they engage the enemy. This was what the Tabuk raid was.

- The Battle of Uhud.

You got your timeline wrong here again. The battle of Uhud was the second battle fought and it was over and done with years before the treaty of hudaybiyah.

- The be-heading of the Qurayzah Tribe.

Sounds massively cruel. But look at it this way. If a state within the US federation was to abstain from defending the country and indeed covertly support an outside invading force, then what would be the reaction of the remaining 49 states?

You are as aware as anybody of the seriousness of treason. While beheading an entire tribe is quite excessive by today's standards, the time of mohammad was rife with actions of like sort. The social structure of the time IN ANY SOCIETY of the time permitted the eradication of a treasonous tribe.

You wish to judge a man by today's standard for actions 1400 years old. Ok no problem.. let's have a look at what it teaches us. Firstly not a finger was laid to harm the women and children ( a pubescent boy of 13 was considered a man in those times). Secondly while the women were prisoners, there is no mention of them actaully being sold into slavery. Note: While the society of that time permitted this action, there is no mention that this is indeed what happened.

Thirdle, Rehana was taken into the household of Mohammad was not forced to convert. Mohammad gave her the right to choose her own religion. But why should he not feel pleasure if she converted of her own accord. Note: NO MENTION OF FORCIBLE CONVERSION.

Fourthly, judgement was given NOT BY MOHAMMAD. Whether he had influence or not, the STANDARD that has been set is that the tribe with the CLOSEST relations ( i.e. the one MOST LIKELY to be LENIENT) was chosen to pass judgement ( Ibne Aws ). Now you may think that the beheadings were the direct order of mohammad. But consider this. YOu are in a battle for your life ( no doubt the quresh would have massacred the Aws tribe along with the muslims had they won) and then a brother tribe first refuses to aid you in your battle and THEN covertly supports the enemy at the gates. How many independent leaders of that time would have passed judgement any differently?

Or how about you explain away...
- The "Rightly Guided Caliphs" and their atrocities.
- The Umayyad Dynasty.
- The Abbbasid State

Care to deal with any of those "completely un-related" issues? Or do you just want to quietly admit to yourself that you're in WAY over your head? .

Well i can not answer nor defend the righteousness of the actions of all people who claim to be muslim. I don't understand why it is so hard for people to discern between the actions of a prophet, and those who claim to be his followers.

But i will shed some meagre light upon these issues also:

The "rightly guided caliphs" were one of the first manifestations of democracy within a religion. The first caliph Abu Bakr was elected to office on account of his close relations with the prophet AND his reputation as a just and generous man. During his time, the muslim community was not actively expanding it's realm.

After the death of Abu Bakr came Omar. Omar was the most prolific conqueror of the time. He established large forces and conquered vast areas. Omar successfully implemented a taxation system for conquered peoples WITHOUT demands for conversion. Please note that while non-muslims had SEPARATE taxes, they were taxed the same amount as muslims.

Omar was responsible for the first wave of muslim conquest.

After Omar came Osman. Osman was an academic who established schools and refined the administrative infrastructure of muslim empire.

The last of the "rightly guided caliphs" was Ali, the nephew and son-in-law of mohammad. It was during his time that the fabric of the muslim community bagan to disintegrate.

After his death, the muslim community split into two major factions which wound up going to war with each other.

One VERY IMPORTANT thing to note is the fact that nobody claims that these caliphs were acting by divine command. They were democratically elected individuals that implemented the laws of islam according to their own understanding and according to their own minds. Hence actions committed by these people can be attributed to THEM as PEOPLE.. not as divine scripture.

Of the subsequent muslim dynasties and empires that have existed since then, i can say only the following. Being born a muslim does not automatically put your actions in line with the teachings and principles of Islam the religion. In fact it is most possible that the leaders of the these muslim empires exploited the religion in much the same way the vatican has been exploited by royalty in europe for MILLENIA.

NOTE: Defending the principles of Islam is not tantamount to defending the atrocities committed in the name of Islam.

I have tried as best as i can to put the actions of Mohammad in context. I am sure you can find a multitude of "islamic" websites that will use the same information to justify suicide bombings and indiscriminate massacre of non-muslims. But if you look at those sites you will find the same self-contradictions that i do.

I believe that the way i view it, there should be no contradictions to anything other than the information you base your condemnation of Islam on.

Think about it.

Muhammad was a false prophet. That makes him a liar besides being a murderer and a pedophile.

Muhammad

You know, hkbajwa, if you want to be blindly ignorant about FACTS - and justs follow what you're spoon-fed, that's fine.

But why not join the Jehovah's Witnesses - or some other cult? Why pick such a violent cult to be part of?


Denial is a great thing, isn't it?

Oh you silly man.. You know what is ACTAULLY important? TO realize that how YOU construe mohammad's actions to be is not really relevant.

What matters is what the MUSLIMS believe ( since it is them who lead their lives believing this man to be sent by god).

I am a muslim and i have given ayou a relatively detailed account of those things that you claim prove YOUR stance that Islam is an evil religion.

ON the other hand i tell you that as a muslim i perceive those very same events in a different light. To me these events each taught a variety of lessons from patience, non-violence, the evil of greed, the prohibition of forcible conversions, adherence to treaties/promises/your word, reconcilliation with respect to both parties.

The way i see it how I perceive these actions is far more important than how you ASSUME these actions are perceived.

If yoiu still insist i am in denial, then please enlighten me. But i don't know why you would do that, since my "unenlightened" perception is more tolerant. WHy would you want to paint me as intolerant when i show that i am not?

yeah yeah fine... now go bug somebody else with your irrelevance.

You are believing a lie. You are blinded to the truth. You have been brainwashed. Read the book "The Truth About Muhammed". Do you dare?