How was life like when you were a muslim?

[frankie]

eSHaHeEN :

"First of all one has to remark that Jesus is not a historical personality."

Historical facts would disagree.

Take a look at these web sites and re consider.

http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG ... ources.htm

You may also like to ask yourself these questions:

Where did the word Christian originate?

And who, and why did the Romans persecute a new sect a peoples called Christians for their faith?

Why does the Quran mention a man named Jesus to be the Messiah, if he wasn't an "historical personality?"

[manfred]

From that, Tacitus and Josephus are good sources, the Talmud less so, because of the date, it earliest part is about 200 AD. However, there is also no reason to exclude the authors of the biblical texts as HISTORICAL sources. Would Peter write what he wrote if he never really had met Jesus? Why would we assume that someone like Mark or Luke simply made all that up? To class them as fiction writers is I think to profoundly misunderstand them.True, they all wrote with an agenda, with a point to make, but that does not make them automatically liars?

For example, if we read in Lenin about the exploitation of the working class, can we simply dismiss all he says because he was a communist. Were the peasants of Russia in the early 20th century all really well off and totally free? So even people with an agenda can point out something true. It does not mean you have to agree with everything Lenin says, but you should try to work out which parts fit in with other sources.

And you can do the same with the gospels, as they too are a historical source, before they become scripture.

[eSHaHeEN]

Look I didnt want to go to war over historicity.

It seems to me though that normally we get to know about dead people from the past because they left something to us which can be objectively evaluated.

This "something" can be architecture like the great wall or the cheops pyramid. It can be art like the Mona Lisa. It can be the physical laws described by Newton.
It can be a poem, or religious scripture which the person itself has produced like Herodots works. Or he was simply a leader who built up a nation that became known in the region and was noticed by various
historians, leaders, traders or other people of that time.
Now none of this can be said about Jesus. He didnt build a nation. Nor did he produce anything which we find in the bible by himself (the reports are from a close circle of people who lived AFTER the death of Jesus, some of them never even met Jesus). There is nothing left from his time. No artwork, no literature, no remains whatsoever.
All we have are reports by a very close group of people. The real Jesus - if he ever existed - might have been completely different from what we know.
Lets compare that to Mohammed and Islam. Part of the Quran was already written down during the time of Mohammed. Apart from that they asked thousands of people when they collected the Quran. Furthermore there are Roman reports on Mohammed. Mohammed did not only leave Quran to us but built a nation which immediatly continued his conquests after his death. Another factor is that there are remains from that time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sana%27a_m ... on_project

A few decades ago his house and the houses of his companions were still present in Mecca until the Saudi government decided to raze them. There are relics in a museum in Istanbul as far as I remember.

I dont believe that one can say a person mentioned in literature from the past is either historical or not. A lot of time "legends" contain a certain amount of truth. But I think that there is a spectrum of historicity with a higher and lower end. Nobody will ever question the existence of Hitler or Churchill or even Julius Caesar. Jesus historicity however might be more in the area of Buddha maybe.
I dont say this in a condescending manner. Its just my approach to history. From a comparative point of view I actually really like the idea of the immortal god who likes to know what its like to die.

[manfred]

The real Jesus - if he ever existed - might have been completely different from what we know.

Sure. Our actual knowledge of the "historical" Jesus is sketchy, and many things Christians say about him are matters of belief, something they are not ashamed to say.

[Chiclets]

I agree with shaheen, but the same is also true about the Mo.

There is a site dedicated to prove that Jesus never existed, quite an interesting read

[Ariel]

Good to see you eSHaHeEN , and thank you for your post. If it is of any help to you, I feel/felt the same as you about my religion. ( Christianity) But the longer I left it, the more easy I became about God and his wrath and revenge. I guess the same will happen to you.

Good luck eSHaHeEN , and don't stay away for such a long time.

[frankie]

eSHaHeEN:

Mohammed did not only leave Quran to us but built a nation which immediately continued his conquests after his death. Another factor is that there are remains from that time.

You could say the same for Christianity, although this faith was propagated by word of mouth, without bloodshed at the beginning, following the words and actions of its originator. Tangible remains are ancient churches, as well as Christian inscriptions and drawings depicting Christian events and art.

Unlike Islam which was spread by the sword from its inception, with bloodshed as its hallmark, following the words and actions of its originator. Tangible remains are the Black Stone and the pre Islamic pagan custom of Ramadan, a reminder of the true origins of Islam which is paganism.

BTW You have not given an answer to any of my questions asked, would you like to do so now?


Where did the word Christian originate?

And who, and why did the Romans persecute a new sect a peoples called Christians for their faith?

Why does the Quran mention a man named Jesus to be the Messiah, if he wasn't an "historical personality?"

[eSHaHeEN]

Hey man,
I dont know where the word Christian originates or why the Romans persecuted the Christians. Please tell me your point of view.
To the last question: I guess that Mohammed wanted to link the new religion to the older tradition of Christianity and
Judaism. I guess thats the reason why Jesus and the other prophet were mentioned in the Quran.

With regard to the question of how Islam spread Ive got to object to your assumption that it was spread by the sword.
I know this is a really widespread opinion but historically its simply not completely true.
Large areas of what we regard as the "muslim world" today have never been actually conquered by Muslims. For example Indonesia which houses 300 million muslims.
Islam was brought there by traders not by conquerors.
Also parts of central asia became muslim after central asian hordes CONQUERED islamic countries and THEN turned to Islam. it seems odd that the conquered people
force the conquerors to their religion.
More recently a lot of black people in America have turned to Islam. Although Im rather a very introverted person who doesnt approach people I have already been
approached several times by native Germans who wanted to know how to become Muslim. I didnt even tell anybody I was a Muslim nor have I ever taken part in Dawa,
which means missionizing people. what I want to say is that to state that people only became and become Muslim because they have been pressured and forced to become
so is simply a half-truth.
Of course I dont want to deny that there have been a lot of gruesome acts of violence and force conducted by muslims to force other people to Islam. Especially in India, because
people there follow a religion that is not explictly counted as a protected religion in Islam. in other areas muslims might have not forced people with violence to Islam but
put financial pressure on them i.e. in the areas where Christians and Jews lived.
However, one cannot say that Christians were much better throughout history. The moment Christianity became the state religion of the Roman empire non-christian Europeans started to
face financial and juridicial disadvantages. Christianity has also a history of "the sword" in medieval spain and the americas. I dont think that Islam or Christianity were much better
than each other in that area.
These days of course Christian violence has more or less ceased to exist whereas Muslims still continue to put pressure on people.

[Hombre]

Dear eSHaHeEN
I read your earlier reply about Jesus, which picked my interest. But first, please let me correct you. 2014 population of Indonesia is not 300M, rather 250M. Big difference.

Second. Though I am not a Christian, As a Jew,Jesus guidance was not from a vacuum, which you were trying to allude. He had the entire 5 books of Torah, and other Jewish religious tradition, going back (then) some 1700 years to guide him
.
Third: from What I have been reading about Jesus. He never bragged he was "messenger of god", nor demanded his followers to obey him, or they will go to hell - Mohammad did just that, as means to keep his followers corralled behind him. Jesus believed in self scarifies for betterment of mankind. Freedom of choice, and as you said, since he did not intend to start the new religion of Christianity - he preached respect to each person to believe in his / her own heart and conscience. He was fighting the corruption among Jewish leaders and warned people of "Judgment Day" (sounds familiar?) to sinners.

Mohammad did none of that. All we know about this man is this: He comes down from a cave. Tells others he hears voices. Then declares himself as "messenger of of God". What we end up with before he died?. Those who refused to believes him (Jews), ended up dead. Those who did believe, and followed him, became rich, from the booties taken by force from those whom he killed.

forth: Nowhere in Roman literature, or other writing, the name close to "Mohammad" or "Islam" is even mentioned. The same it true In Hebrew Bible and News Testament. Muslims just plucked name-sounding close to "Mohammad" or "Islam", to claim Mo was indeed mentioned in those book - That is simply not rue - period.

fifth. Christians never hid the fact, Jesus was a Jew, and from what I have been learning from Christians, they consider Christianity is continuation of Judaism. Mohammad believed his Islam was created to REPLACE Judea & Christianity - not live side by side on same religious platform. Since most of Islams tenets were derived from other 2 book, it easy to understand why, he wanted to erase any trace of Judaism. No witness - no crime committed. After 2 or 3 generations, no one will remember Jewish religion - only Islam.

sixth: Quran does mention most of Jews and Christians religious leaders BY NAME, and tells the same (more or less) Biblical stories told in both books (HB & NT). Which means, the Quran, copied most of its stories from Judea & Christians, and Mohammad simply adapted many Jews and Christians religious practices, and repacked them in "Islam".

Ever wondered why many Islamic practices are so similar to Jews & Christians. (Circumcision, 7th day rest, pray facing to one's holy sites. Ashora, and yes Ramada (fast as mean to repent on one's sins". Finally Haj to holy places, derived from ancient Jews annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem to celebrate Passover, and renew their vow to God.

[eSHaHeEN]

Look hombre,
I dont want to get drawn into a discussion wether Islam is better or Christianity or Judaism. Wether Jesus was a Jew or Jesus was better than Mohamed or Mohamed was better than Jesus. Or...

There are various reasons why muslims or ex-muslims get on this forum. Some get on this forum because they had bad experiences with Islam. And although I dont belong to this group of people and I didnt have any bad experiences with Islam I do believe the people who report on bad experiences. Then there are people who question supernatural beings and events in general. Personally, I couldnt get along with traditional Islam because I read a lot about history and anthropology and I came to the conclusion that there have always been religions in every corner of this planet. And that these religions were the basis of civilization and that a lot of features repeat themselves in religions like the concept of prayer, sacrifice and salvation. If you compare these features you will find out a pattern that repeats itself. There are reasons behind these features and the pattern of course has a certain function and makes sense. Of course religions are not all the same, they are always a mirror of the culture they were developed in, but the pattern is always very similar. This is why recently I started to wonder wether psychology is a modern type of religion as in my opinion it shares a lot of features of religion. But this is offtopic.
Now I read thorugh your comment and to me the summary of what you wanted to tell me is: "Muhammad was a robber and killer and he had a problem with Jews. Im not a Christian, Im a Jew. I dont have a problem with christianity and I think Jesus was a good man but lets be clear: Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian"

First of all what you said about Mohammed is a one-sided view just like what a lot of people these days utter in the media about Islam appears one-sided to me. Sometimes I get the impression that these people think Islam and Muslims are all about killing and robbing, when Islam is of course also about helping poor people and orphans i.e.. Of course Mohamed did a lot of things which would be considered inappropriate in our times. However one has to consider the time and culture he lived in. And judging by the time and culture he lived in I cannot say he was an exceptionally immoral arab leader. Indeed in some areas he was more progressive than others. It appears a little bit absurd to me when people judge a person from 7th century A.D. on present day morals. However one has to admit that on the other hand you cant just apply everything a person from 7th century A.D. did on todays life without thinking. This is just as absurd.

Now just as there are various reasons why muslims and ex-muslims get on this forum there are various reasons why non-muslims get here. Some people for example hate Islam because they regard it as part of the representation of the political enemy. People like that do not criticice Islam because they have any personal connection to Islam and Muslims whatsoever and because they wish these people a better life. No this type of people constructs an image of enemy and does not hold back from using anything useful to demonize Islam and Muslims to justify certain political agendas. Maybe this is the reason why their view eventually appears one-sided to others?

When I read through your comment I got the impression that you were an Israeli Jew who demonizes Islam to justify the current Israeli politics against Palestinians. Now I looked up a couple of your comments and not suprisingly I found out that you and your friend Ariel above were obivously cheering the current Israeli operation in Gaza which has already killed 50 children. Just today I saw a video of palestinian children who were playing on the beach when an Israeli rocket annhilated them.
To make that clear: wether there are criticicable points on the theory of Islam or the life of Mohammed, wether Jesus "sacrificed himself" for humanity, wether Jews were persecuted in history doesnt have anything to do and does not at all change the original injustice that one group of people (zionists) expelled and murdered another group of people (palestinians) to establish a zionist state. There is no moral code whatsoever neither christian nor jewish nor muslim on this earth that justifies this procedure nor is there any moral code that justifies what Israel has been doing to palestinians for decades.
And if the intention behind your comments and your presence here is to construct some sort of justification of the horrendous crimes Israel is doing to Palestinians by drawing gullible misfits from muslim society into your boat I would suggest that you and your friend Ariel just go ahead and f0000ck youselves. shove the finger up your a55 that you are trying to point at muslims. You dare to criticize a guy from 1400 years ago for an alleged crime and talk about Jesus pacifism when you two have no problem cheering the massacre of more than 50 children? only a degenerate twisted zionist mind can possibly develop this abomination. lets be clear Im not and we three will never be in the same boat. I dont sit in a boat with the scum of earth.
Shalom!

[frankie]

eSHaHeEN:

Thanks for your reply.

My point of view is based on common sense, which tells me there must have been a man named Jesus at one point in history, as all the evidence proves this to be the case.

I do not have a problem with Christianity however, as it is a benign faith, whether you wish to believe in Jesus or not. Its interests are not political but spiritual, teaching its adherents the way to eternal life through spiritual warfare against evil forces, as opposed to( political) physical warfare, as in the case of the Islamic faith.

This is where I and countless others have a problem with Islam, this is not a benign faith as it seeks world domination through the action of eternal physical warfare against anyone not believing in its teachings, as well as being a counterfeit product of a deluded pagan Arabian, who used deception to make his invented faith appear a continuation from the same divine source as the Bible, which it most certainly is not.

Whether you want to believe that a man named Jesus existed is immaterial, it does not impact on humanity as a whole, for example, you cannot be put do death for leaving the Christian faith, but in the case of Islam you can, this is only one of many instances, which highlights how dangerous and harmful this ideology is to humanity, it is not beneficial to mankind to live in fear of his life, just because of what he believes.

Just because Mohammed was an illiterate Bedouin does not make Islam a true religion, Mohammed was by all accounts, a charismatic figure, in the same vein as Hitler or Napoleon, who could speak eloquently enough to hold an audience. He was a man drawn to wealth, power and control as all political deviants are, and have been in the past, his words and actions prove him to be a "false prophet "whose legacy can be felt today by the actions of his followers, the death, destruction and misery of which is experienced daily throughout the world.

its just blowing my mind what influence one single person can have on humanity.

Here, I would have to agree. But look closely what impact the "fruits" of this influence have on humanity as a whole, it will tell you precisely if this particular person speaks truthfully or is a deceiver, as in the case of Mohammed, a false prophet.

[frankie]

eSHaHeEN:

It appears a little bit absurd to me when people judge a person from 7th century A.D. on present day morals. However one has to admit that on the other hand you cant just apply everything a person from 7th century A.D. did on todays life without thinking. This is just as absurd.

I would agree it is absurd, BUT if you are a Muslim this is exactly what you are obliged to believe, as Mohammed is your, and humanities role model for ALL time, not just for 7th century Arabia.

If you are a Muslim you cannot have this both ways, you HAVE to accept Mohammed as your role model figure, this means whatever Mohammed did is as acceptable now, as when he lived.

Mohammed fought "unbelievers in Allahs cause" until Islam is "proclaimed over all religion", therefore Muslims must do the same.

Mohammed "married" and had sexual intercourse with a child of nine, Muslims are therefore permitted to do the same.

Mohammed pronounced those who leave the Islamic faith should be killed.Apostasy from Islam attracts the death sentence, forever.

ETC, ETC you catch my drift?

[skynightblaze]

First of all what you said about Mohammed is a one-sided view just like what a lot of people these days utter in the media about Islam appears one-sided to me. Sometimes I get the impression that these people think Islam and Muslims are all about killing and robbing, when Islam is of course also about helping poor people and orphans i.e.. Of course Mohamed did a lot of things which would be considered inappropriate in our times. However one has to consider the time and culture he lived in. And judging by the time and culture he lived in I cannot say he was an exceptionally immoral arab leader. Indeed in some areas he was more progressive than others. It appears a little bit absurd to me when people judge a person from 7th century A.D. on present day morals. However one has to admit that on the other hand you cant just apply everything a person from 7th century A.D. did on todays life without thinking. This is just as absurd.

Can you show me when Muhammad helped the disbelievers who were poor and orphans? He may have helped the poor and orphans amongst believers but as far as disbelievers are concerned, I doubt. IF Muhammad helped only the believers then again there is a hidden motive behind it. So nothing great to praise about!

Secondly, Muhammad is supposed to be an example for entire mankind and hence it is appropriate if someone judges him standards of today. Further he also makes talls claims like being prophet of God. A prophet of God should know better. If muslims tell us he was a man of his times, then that is like telling us that he was not an extra ordinary man. What distinguishes him from an ordinary man of that time? The tag of prophet hood requires you to display extra ordinary conduct. It does not come free of cost.

Thirdly, no person on earth is completely evil. Every single evil person that we term today has done some or the other good deeds in their life but we do not appreciate him/her. Do we praise Hitler or Osama Bin Laden? We trash these people and do not bother on picking on their few good things. So why should Muhammad be an exception here? Infact Muhammad was even more worse than all these men. In case of muhammad he has done all sorts of crimes like rape, looting, extortion, mass murder (not just 1 murder) , spreading hate, torture, terrorism etc.

Fourthly, we judge someone as a whole and not based on one or two deeds of kindness. As a whole Muhammad is certainly evil. The evil things outshine the good ones. In Muhammad's case, he has not left any crime untouched and has acted evil in all possible ways.

[eSHaHeEN]

Hey Frankie,
I think its still possible to have some kind of attachment to Islam and Mohamed if you start to recognize that Mohamed was primarily a leader of his time and that the Quran was a book of its time and that you cant just apply everything said in there on today. However its possible to say for example he was progressive towards women within his time, lets be progressive towards women today - I mean to see his deeds in the historical context of his time, to stop glorification of his personality, to begin to see him as what Quran actually says: a human being like you and me and to start seeing everything with more distance and difference.
Part of that is i.e. that people agree that one cannot just marry a 6year old girl today or that hudud punishments are obsolete even though it might have been normal in ancient times.

In my eyes hes more a historical personality - the leader of the Arabs and the founder of our current civilization than the holy prophet whose words were the direct commandment of god. A person from 7th century a.d.. But I believe that its more constructive to offer more religious people the approach above in order to move on in a constructive way with their religion and belief. Which is maybe the most realistic and constructive way how to reconcile past and present and to move on.

Ps: I just realized the answer above was over-the-top but I wrote it out of a really angry mood after seeing some videos on the Israeli attack early that morning. I apologize on my behalf for the harshness of the answer, but I dont want to be drawn into a boat of supporters of certain politcal agendas wether its Israeli or American agenda. This is none of my buisness.

[frankie]

Hey Frankie,
I think its still possible to have some kind of attachment to Islam and Mohamed if you start to recognize that Mohamed was primarily a leader of his time and that the Quran was a book of its time and that you cant just apply everything said in there on today. However its possible to say for example he was progressive towards women within his time, lets be progressive towards women today - I mean to see his deeds in the historical context of his time, to stop glorification of his personality, to begin to see him as what Quran actually says: a human being like you and me and to start seeing everything with more distance and difference.
Part of that is i.e. that people agree that one cannot just marry a 6year old girl today or that hudud punishments are obsolete even though it might have been normal in ancient times.

In my eyes hes more a historical personality - the leader of the Arabs and the founder of our current civilization than the holy prophet whose words were the direct commandment of god. A person from 7th century a.d.. But I believe that its more constructive to offer more religious people the approach above in order to move on in a constructive way with their religion and belief. Which is maybe the most realistic and constructive way how to reconcile past and present and to move on.

Ps: I just realized the answer above was over-the-top but I wrote it out of a really angry mood after seeing some videos on the Israeli attack early that morning. I apologize on my behalf for the harshness of the answer, but I dont want to be drawn into a boat of supporters of certain politcal agendas wether its Israeli or American agenda. This is none of my buisness.

If you want to call yourself a Muslim, you have to believe the Quran is the clear, literal eternal words of Allah, given for the benefit and guidance of mankind, with Mohammed as his prophet, given to be mankind's role model for all time.

According to your post, you want to distance the Quran and Sunnah from 21st century living, but as both skynightblaze and myself have pointed out, you cannot do this if you want to remain a Muslim, as both these are fundamental to the Islamic faith.

You either do not understand what it means to be a Muslim, or you are pretending otherwise, either way the facts remain. You cannot do what you propose, as to do so would make you an apostate of Islam incurring the death penalty.

It matters not a jot what you think, or how you want Islam to be, Islam is allegedly Allahs final, literal word to mankind, and cannot be tampered with in any way shape or form, neither can his "prophets" words and actions, they are set in stone for Muslims to see how to put their faith into practice correctly, for all time.

To say Mohammed was "progressive towards women within his time" is not at all factual, even though this is put to Muslims to make them believe their prophet to be a good man.

Nothing could be further from the truth,the Sunnah shows Mohammed to be a man who in reality hated women, but would happily use them for his own sexual gratification, and control over them, and taught other men to do the same.

Because Mohammed is allegedly mankind's role model, Muslims today can act with impunity to rape,murder,take sexual captives, use extortion as a means of political control, loot,"marry"children,beat women into submission, lie,and torture. These are not the qualities of a good man, they are not the qualities of a role model for humanity, and yet countless millions accept him as being so.

If you are sincere in what you are saying, you owe it to yourself to do some in-depth research into what Islam is in truth, and not the sanitised version spoon fed to most Muslims.

if on the other hand you are trying to defend this faith by saying it is benign, with honourable intent, then those who know otherwise on this Forum will happily put you right.

[manfred]

Hi eSHaHeEN,

you are making a point similar to Ali Sina... sure, "leaving" Islam is not a one step action. In fact it takes different routes for everyone. However, what is always the case, that this dis-attachment from Islam takes a very long time, and sometimes people even return to it. I hope it is not a too personal question, but for most people the last thing people leave behind are the dietary rules. Do you still eat broadly halal? I have an ex-Muslim Turkish friend, and he has not ever touched a pork sausage in his life, but, strangely he is rather fond of wine, much more so than me...

And you are making the point that we should look as Mohammed as simply a man of his time and at the Qur'an as a product of its time. Well, I do my best to do exactly that, and most Muslims find that very offensive. But if we do, what will we have in the QUr'an other than a historical source document?

Would you say that we actually need "guidances" from a "prophet"? Or can we work out our own answers to religious questions? I find that in discussing them simply, with as many people as possible is a very good way to explore, question, and establish you own secure position.

So, what are things you cling to from Islam? Which are the things you are sure are good and true, things to be kept safe? Of is this clinging more an emotional thing? Both is perfectly fine, as long as you have understood it within yourself.

If I am asking too personal questions, just tell me to shut up.

[skynightblaze]

To say Mohammed was "progressive towards women within his time" is not at all factual, even though this is put to Muslims to make them believe their prophet to be a good man.

Islam tells us the following with regards to women:

1) They are deficient in intelligence.
2) You can beat your woman
3) Woman's testimony is half that of a man
4)Your wives are as a tilth unto you
5)Women are unclean because of their periods and thereby they are termed as hurt
6) Islam tells us that women cannot be leaders.
7) Islam allows men to marry 4 women but the reverse is not allowed.
8) Islam allows to rape women prisoners of war.
9) Islam suppressed women's progress. An example is : Khadija could run a business in pre islamic times however after islam came in, we hardly hear about any woman doing what Khadija managed to do.

How in the world can any sane person claim that islam was progressive towards women? I must say eSHaHeEN is really insulting all the women in the world!.

[Fernando]

It's claimed that Mo stopped a (I think unproven) pagan practice of female infanticide. Could it be any coincidence that he coincidentally allocated his followers four women each? The supply had to come from somewhere. And of course, those baby girls only had to be supported for six years before they became useable sex objects. Cheap at half the price worth of a boy.

[Hombre]

Look hombre,
I dont want to get drawn into a discussion wether Islam is better or Christianity or Judaism. Wether Jesus was a Jew or Jesus was better than Mohamed or Mohamed was better than Jesus. Or...

Look eshaheen:
It is Muslims like you, who proclaim Mohamad the "true & last prophet", not me nor other non-Muslims.
you also impress me as an Iranian shi'ite, with ideology not far from those Mullahs in Tehran. Knowing this blog is about Islam, what then are you doing here?. Trying to defend a man, who's so-called marriage to a 6 year old child 1400 years ago, have condemned hundred of millions innocent girls of that age, robbed of their childhood, going on even to date. Mosley in Iran, Sudan, Somalia and other Islamic states. The only reason this barbaric act can not stop, is Mohamad did it - so other Muslims are allowed the same.

You will be surprised how much tangible experience I have with Islam. That is the very reason I am here. As for Israel. Yes, myself and other Israelis are very familiar with the Palestinians tactics of defeating their enemies - taken directly from Mohammad own tactics. (use Hudna, and deception as means to an end).

I have lived among Israelis & Muslims alike - you did not live among Israelis (yeah yeah, I know "your best friend is Jewish" and you don't hate Jews, nor Israelis -only the "zionists"), so spare the lecture about morality. You can not teach your children to hate Jews as matter or religious obligations (Jews are apes and pigs), and expect these kids to be productive members of society. This is exactly what PLO & Hamas do to their children.

even coming from seemingly "unbiased" observer like you, one can detect your inner disdain and outright hatred of Jews whom euphemistically you dub "zionists". The fact is, Muslims don't hate Jews since Israel was founded. They hate them since Islam was founded. Therefore, the roots and kernel of this conflict can be traced directly to Mohamad own teaching - de-legitimize Judea & Christianity, to which his Islam was intended to replace. Hamas, PLO, Hizbollah & the regime in Iran, simply follow Mohamad teaching of hatred of Jews and their inferior place among Muslim. Unfortunately, innocent Palestinians woman & children are the direct casualties of this hatred. (Read Hamas's own 1988 Charter).

All these atrocities will stop when rational Muslims, will get up and challenge the blind obedience to Mohamad. Condon him for what he did for Muslims, and condemn him for what he did to those non-Muslims who refused to follow this mad man, and paid for it with their lives.

[eSHaHeEN]

you also impress me as an Iranian shi'ite, with ideology not far from those Mullahs in Tehran

Im neither Shiite nor from Teheran. If you had read the topic of the thread, it says "muslims and ex-muslims only". now what the hell are YOU doing here?

rying to defend a man, who's so-called marriage to a 6 year old child

I defend rationality. However the criticism towards Islam and Muslims in Western media and public opinion obviously trespasses the border of rationality on a regular basis and I believe this can only be explained with current political climate.

As I said you cant judge a person from 7th century AD by todays morals. There is no natural law that says the age of marriage has to be 18 or 16. These numbers are completely arbitrary. Biologically the age for having sex and getting children is when a human hits puberty. All other mammals do it this way. And all over the world throughout history this has been the case. The age of marriage in the Roman empire was 12. The byzantine emperor Hadrian had a wife whose age was 13 when they married. In China, in India everywhere people were marrying at that age. Judaism itself allowed people to marry at the age of 12 too. Recently western culture has elevated the age of marriage to 16 or 18. Im not sure why this happened, maybe because of education and maybe because humans in general are awarded full citizen rights at that age. But this wasnt always the same. If somebody said in todays time its inappropriate to marry at such a young age I would not object. But to say it was exceptionally wrong for a man from 7th century AD to do that is just over the top.
Right now I dont even see the problem since in nearly all Muslim countries the legal age of marriage is around 16 to 18.

"your best friend is Jewish"

Actually I only know 3 jews, but not very closely. I got to know them while I studied. However I have a lot of palestinian friends from Gaza, West Bank and 1948 who faced a lot of problems when they were at home.

Wether Muslim or not there is no moral codex in this world by which this

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBdRFWAYkBk#t=57[/youtube]

can be right. Might be that some arabs have an issue with religious radicalism. But you guys defintely have an issue with racism, militarism and nationalism.

Its not possible to discuss with you about Islam in a pragmatic, constructive and neutral way. You are too much influenced by Israeli nationalism to conduct such a discussion.