---

Why would I use a purely theological perspective when it's blatantly obvious that the primary reason for violent religious extremism stems from a combination of religious and political motives.

---

I wouldn't refer to it as extremism, given that the only difference between the young man in this passage and one who blows up a bus in the name of Islam is the amount of time it takes for people to die. And given that a) the Koran calls upon believers to defend Islam and b) Islam isn't isolated to the Middle East and is leaking out towards the rest of the world, a strictly theological line needs to be drawn determining what qualifies as self defense and what does not.

---

WOW GUYS STFU HOW DID YOU EVEN GET TO THIS ARGUMENT FROM THIS FUCKING ASININE POST

---

your op has been converted from DTRMism via R&Pology

---

Between Islam being a divine revelation or a weak plagiarism off of Christianity and Judaism, I'm going to opt for the latter since it is more likely.

---

---

 And there's nothing in your post to suggest that this kind of reactionary behavior is ethically justified,  

---

---

given there is no reason to believe that any of the claims the Koran makes about the nature of the universe are true.

---

---

This doesn't justify the transgressions of the pagans either, my point is that there's no way any of these passages are morally acceptable short of Allah literally tumbling out of the clouds and endorsing this violence.

---

---

And given that we're progressing towards a more global community in terms of communication and cultures leaking into one another, where does Islam determine what is and is not self defense/self preservation? Your history is solid but it isn't making any appeals to Islamic theology.

---

This passage, in fact, the entire surah was revealed to Muhammad during the last years of his life. Muhammad had by this time defeated the Meccans and was waging holy war against the Byzantine empire and Christian tribes to the north and south of the Hijaz. The passage (about fighting Christians), therefore, was most likely revealed to provide a scriptural loophole for Muhammad and the early Muslims to launch wars of aggression against the Jewish and Christian tribes that were not under the "security" alliance of the expanding Muslims state.

As for your claim that the Muslims were fighting in self defense, could you explain why Muhammad declared war against the Meccans and launched caravan raids against them? In fact, can you name me more than two battles in which the early Muslims actually fought in self defense? Secondly, the Muslims never faced annihilation. There were several incidents which clearly show that the Meccans were hesitant and sometimes outright refused to fight against the Muslims because some of the Muslims were their former relatives and tribesmen. However, if you insist that the Muslims were facing extinction, could you explain why after the battle of Uhud, the victorious Meccans did not wantonly kill every Muslim they could including Muhammad?

Lastly, I find your claim that the Muslims gave Christians religious protection a dubious one. Christian denominations in Arabia along with all other religions already had religious freedom long before the advent of Islam. Arabia was somewhat unique in that heretical Christian denominations could live side-by-side with their Jewish and Pagan neighbors without so much as any type of religious persecution coming from any side.

Post edited at 7:45 pm on Nov. 24, 2008 by lsd

---

 This passage, in fact, the entire surah was revealed to Muhammad during the last years of his life. Muhammad had by this time defeated the Meccans and was waging holy war against the Byzantine empire and Christian tribes to the north and south of the Hijaz. The passage (about fighting Christians), therefore, was most likely revealed to provide a scriptural loophole for Muhammad and the early Muslims to launch wars of aggression against the Jewish and Christian tribes that were not under the "security" alliance of the expanding Muslims state.  

---

---

As for your claim that the Muslims were fighting in self defense, could you explain why Muhammad declared war against the Meccans and launched caravan raids against them?  

---

---

In fact, can you name me more than two battles in which the early Muslims actually fought in self defense?  

---

---

 Secondly, the Muslims never faced annihilation. There were several incidents which clearly show that the Meccans were hesitant and sometimes outright refused to fight against the Muslims because some of the Muslims were their former relatives and tribesmen.  

---

---

However, if you insist that the Muslims were facing extinction, could you explain why after the battle of Uhud, the victorious Meccans did not wantonly kill every Muslim they could including Muhammad?

---

---

 Lastly, I find your claim that the Muslims gave Christians religious protection a dubious one. Christian denominations in Arabia along with all other religions already had religious freedom long before the advent of Islam. Arabia was somewhat unique in that heretical Christian denominations could live side-by-side with their Jewish and Pagan neighbors without so much as any type of religious persecution coming from any side.

---

Post edited at 11:52 pm on Nov. 24, 2008 by Raza say

Post edited at 11:47 pm on Nov. 24, 2008 by Raza say

---

I don't think it specifically says fight "christians"

---

Here's what the Quran says:

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

It then goes on a long polemic against Christians and Jews in the next several verses.

---

Also, the Mushrikeen broke a treaty that they themselves humiliatingly imposed on Muslims.

---

Which treaty?  The treaty of Hudaybiyah?  Muhammad broke that treaty when he allowed women and men to emigrate to Medina without returning them back to the Meccans when he was requested to.

---

I think you are reffering to the battle of Badr, well it was in self defence, perhaps you should dig a bit deep before drawing conclusions/

---

The battle of badr was started when the Muslims attempted to raid a Meccan caravan carrying supplies for the desert community to survive on.  So... how was this a defensive battle for the Muslims again?

---

First Muslims tried to sort out the conflicts peacefully, then migrated to Madina, and then finally according to devine revelations started fighting in self defence.

---

That's one version of events.  In actuality, Muhammad was driven out of Mecca after he declared war against the people of Mecca.  Within months of moving to Medina, Muhammad launched caravan raids to aimed at crippling the Meccan economy.

---

Name me a single battle in the history of Islam that wasn't fought in self-defence.

---

The battle of Muta, the battle of Tabuk. If you want more battles, I would encourage you to read Muhammad at Medina where the author lists all of the battles, raids, and skirmishes Muhammad was involved in or ordered.  The vast majority were offensive.

---

Approximately seventy of the 700 Muslims were killed and Muhammad

---

They were killed during the battle.  It might be unbelievable to some, but battles usually involve deaths.  What I'm referring to is what happened after the battle, where Muhammad and Abu Sufyan actually shouted to each other after the Meccans had broken off the attack and retreated back to their camp.  The Meccans could have easily wiped out the Muslims during the battle, moreover, Muhammad's position was exposed to the Meccans but the Pagans decided not to pursue Muhammad who was only a short distance away.

Here's an extract from Richard Gabriel's biography of Muhammad:

Inexplicably, Muhammad ordered Umar to get up and answer Abu Sufyan's boast, risking revealing his hiding place. Umar shouted back, "We are not equal. Our dead are in paradise, your dead in hell." Abu Sufyan must have spotted Umar for he called to him to approach. When Umar cam near, Abu Sufyan asked, "By God, Umar, have we killed Muhammad?" Umar replied, "By God, you have not, he is listening to what you are saying now." Abu Sufyan must have known that Muhammad was nearby.  He could easily have ordered the cavalrymen with him to seek him out and kill him, putting an end to the entire nasty business. But in Abu Sufyan's view war was sport and honor was central to its practice. To kill Muhammad now that the battle was over and he had already been beaten was not the valiant thing to do. And so Muhammad survived. p. 122

It is examples like this, among many others, which show that the Meccans had no intention of wiping out the Muslims.

---

The bodies of some of the dead were mutilated.

---

If you actually read the accounts, Abu Sufyan played no part in the mutilation and actually denounced the actions of his wife.

---

You were anticipating something worse? I think it can't get anymore ruthless.

---

Like the execution of two of Muhammad's critics after the battle of Badr:  Al Nadr Harith and Uqbah who were beheaded for their sharp tongue of Muhammad?

---

The condition of the whole of Arabia before the advent of Islam was barbaric, savagely and inhumane.

---

Which, of course, isn't what I said.  Every historian that i have read says that the religious communities in Arabia were living in harmony with each other.  This includes Gnostics, Jews, Monophysites, Nestorians, and Pagans.  Provide one historian who says differently and I'll consider what you wrote.

---

Islam basically united the people, ending all petty conflicts.

---

Islam changed the dynamics of the conflict by forbidding raids, enslavement and battles between Muslims and now only allowing it against non-Muslims.  Before Muhammad, wars were largely bloodless in which women and children would often attend.  They were more similar to jousting tournaments in Europe before Muhammad changed the nature in the way wars were fought.

---

Which treaty?  The treaty of Hudaybiyah?  Muhammad broke that treaty when he allowed women and men to emigrate to Medina without returning them back to the Meccans when he was requested to.

---

Prophet didn't break the treaty. Quraysh never expilicitly explained what they mean by "men", which was the word used in the treaty.

---

The battle of badr was started when the Muslims attempted to raid a Meccan caravan carrying supplies for the desert community to survive on.  So... how was this a defensive battle for the Muslims again?

---

---

That's one version of events.  In actuality, Muhammad was driven out of Mecca after he declared war against the people of Mecca.  Within months of moving to Medina, Muhammad launched caravan raids to aimed at crippling the Meccan economy.

---

---

The battle of Muta, the battle of Tabuk. If you want more battles, I would encourage you to read Muhammad at Medina where the author lists all of the battles, raids, and skirmishes Muhammad was involved in or ordered.  The vast majority were offensive.

---

Post edited at 11:15 pm on Nov. 25, 2008 by Raza say

---

They were killed during the battle. It might be unbelievable to some, but battles usually involve deaths. What I'm referring to is what happened after the battle, where Muhammad and Abu Sufyan actually shouted to each other after the Meccans had broken off the attack and retreated back to their camp. The Meccans could have easily wiped out the Muslims during the battle, moreover, Muhammad's position was exposed to the Meccans but the Pagans decided not to pursue Muhammad who was only a short distance away.

---

No, i don't think battles involve chewing up livers? That's what the Quraiysh did to Hamza and many other companions of Prophet who died in the battle. And after the battle when Muslims were going back, Abu Sufyan followed them. When Muslims saw him, they directed their attention to Abu Sufyan. Prophet Muhammad said: "These men must not get to a higher position than ours! Oh God, if this band of people is killed, you will have no worshippers!" And then his companions bestirred themselves and threw stones at the enemy which forced them to retreat downhill.  

---

If you actually read the accounts, Abu Sufyan played no part in the mutilation and actually denounced the actions of his wife.

---

This is what Abu Safyan said: "A day for the day of Badr. War has its ups and downs. You will find that some of your dead have been mutilated. I did not command it, nor did it displease me."  

---

Which, of course, isn't what I said. Every historian that i have read says that the religious communities in Arabia were living in harmony with each other. This includes Gnostics, Jews, Monophysites, Nestorians, and Pagans. Provide one historian who says differently and I'll consider what you wrote.

---

Post edited at 11:48 pm on Nov. 25, 2008 by Raza say

---

Inexplicably, Muhammad ordered Umar to get up and answer Abu Sufyan's boast, risking revealing his hiding place. Umar shouted back, "We are not equal. Our dead are in paradise, your dead in hell." Abu Sufyan must have spotted Umar for he called to him to approach. When Umar cam near, Abu Sufyan asked, "By God, Umar, have we killed Muhammad?" Umar replied, "By God, you have not, he is listening to what you are saying now." Abu Sufyan must have known that Muhammad was nearby. He could easily have ordered the cavalrymen with him to seek him out and kill him, putting an end to the entire nasty business. But in Abu Sufyan's view war was sport and honor was central to its practice. To kill Muhammad now that the battle was over and he had already been beaten was not the valiant thing to do. And so Muhammad survived. p. 122  

It is examples like this, among many others, which show that the Meccans had no intention of wiping out the Muslims.

---

Exactly what i'd expect from a non-muslim writer.

Post edited at 11:51 pm on Nov. 25, 2008 by Raza say

Do you even know what the Ka'bah is, or did you just look up random Islamic words and then form them into insults?