Was the Middle East in Muhammad's time really so barbaric?

Prove Islam is from God, why it is the 'One True Religion'.
Nosuperstition
Posts: 3812
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 6:45 am

Re: Was the Middle East in Muhammad's time really so barbari

Post by Nosuperstition »

manfred wrote:Well, personally prefer to eat lizards that I have caught over stolen things... And you forgot to mention that people in Arabia kept herds of animals, and they traded.So this caveman idyll does not fit reality.
They were not stolen things but things that are acquired by right of conquest that was very much acceptable according to those times.It is only after the U.N etc are formed that it is considered immoral to occupy another country.

Well according to someother definition,anyone who amasses wealth more than what is needed for his basic needs is a thief.Term basic needs is a bit tricky as it differs from person to person.Surely the Byzantine and Persians who amassed huge wealth are also thieves aren't they? :heh: :heh: :heh: Of course this is a tu quo que.
palli or halli in Dravidian languages means a village just like gaav in Aryan languages means a village.palli or halli in Aryan Mauryan Imperial era around 200 B.C designates a tribal hamlet.So many of those in South India are indeed descendants of tribals and are still keeping up that heritage.

sum
Posts: 6532
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:11 pm

Re: Was the Middle East in Muhammad's time really so barbari

Post by sum »

Hello Nosuperstition

Your quote -
They were not stolen things but things that are acquired by right of conquest that was very much acceptable according to those times.

Right of Conquest is even worse than theft. Theft is just taking - usually with stealth - goods of other people and violence is not involved.

Right of Conquest involves fighting and killing to take your possessions and even your land. It is much worse than theft. This is where Muhammad showed that he was not a prophet. He raided, fought, robbed and enslaved unsuspecting people. What sort of example is this for mankind to follow for all time?

sum

User avatar
uncung
Posts: 2783
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 4:21 pm

Re: Was the Middle East in Muhammad's time really so barbari

Post by uncung »

sum wrote:Hello Nosuperstition

Your quote -
They were not stolen things but things that are acquired by right of conquest that was very much acceptable according to those times.

Right of Conquest is even worse than theft. Theft is just taking - usually with stealth - goods of other people and violence is not involved.

Right of Conquest involves fighting and killing to take your possessions and even your land. It is much worse than theft. This is where Muhammad showed that he was not a prophet. He raided, fought, robbed and enslaved unsuspecting people. What sort of example is this for mankind to follow for all time?

sum
because they didnt submit to muslims. it was their fault.

sum
Posts: 6532
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:11 pm

Re: Was the Middle East in Muhammad's time really so barbari

Post by sum »

Hello uncung

Your quote -
He raided, fought, robbed and enslaved unsuspecting people. What sort of example is this for mankind to follow for all time?
sum

because they didnt submit to muslims. it was their fault.
uncung


Amazing and frightening. You still have not told me if most muslims believe as you do or whether you are an exception. Please tell me.

sum

User avatar
Fernando
Posts: 4949
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2012 1:27 pm

Re: Was the Middle East in Muhammad's time really so barbari

Post by Fernando »

sum wrote:Hello uncung

Your quote -
He raided, fought, robbed and enslaved unsuspecting people. What sort of example is this for mankind to follow for all time?
sum

because they didnt submit to muslims. it was their fault.
uncung


Amazing and frightening. You still have not told me if most muslims believe as you do or whether you are an exception. Please tell me.

sum
Frightening and revolting. Uncung, if you believe that then you are indeed a zombie. Unless, rather than having been indoctrinated, you've thought about it and still believe it: in which case you are a fiend. In all our exchanges, I never before felt that bad about you. I weep for you.
‘Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs and literary traditions. They neither intermarry nor eat together, and indeed they belong to two different civilisations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions.’ Muhammad Ali Jinnah

User avatar
pert
Posts: 468
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Was the Middle East in Muhammad's time really so barbari

Post by pert »

If the pre-Islamic Middle east was so barbaric how come Khadija was able to pursue a successsfull business career?
"You can insult the Christians, the Buddhists, the Hindus, the Jews. You can slander the Catholics, you can spit on the Madonna and Jesus Christ. But, woe betide the citizen who pronounces a word against the Islamic religion. " Orianna Fallaci

Nosuperstition
Posts: 3812
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 6:45 am

Re: Was the Middle East in Muhammad's time really so barbari

Post by Nosuperstition »

manfred wrote:Well, personally prefer to eat lizards that I have caught over stolen things..
http://forum09.faithfreedom.org/viewtop ... ne#p205257" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I think word robbed suits more than word stolen in the above context.Well each race on the planet robbed at one time or the other.

And stealing and robbing are quite lucrative even though one might not admit it openly.For example corruption which can be considered illegal robbing is punishable by death in China.Still it is prevalent.

As they say 'dorikite donga , lekapotey dora'(if you are caught,you are thief,if not you are a lord (who also robs and steals people's money without their consent and passes them on to his descendants for many generations)).Off course , these are all tu quo ques.Personally I am also not against putting the thiefs to death by euthanasia.
Last edited by Nosuperstition on Tue Oct 28, 2014 1:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
palli or halli in Dravidian languages means a village just like gaav in Aryan languages means a village.palli or halli in Aryan Mauryan Imperial era around 200 B.C designates a tribal hamlet.So many of those in South India are indeed descendants of tribals and are still keeping up that heritage.

Nosuperstition
Posts: 3812
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 6:45 am

Re: Was the Middle East in Muhammad's time really so barbari

Post by Nosuperstition »

pert wrote:If the pre-Islamic Middle east was so barbaric how come Khadija was able to pursue a successsfull business career?
According to muslim sources,in pre-Islamic Arabia , fighting was rampant and one man/one rich man/one tribal chief had many wives and concubines in his harem as many men got killed off in wars.More women and less men due to wars would inevitably lead to existence of harems and illicit liasons. Bhagavad Gita of Hindus says the same and so does Bhagavatam of Krishna of Hinduism.

Now someone said that before oil was discovered in Middle East, people there were once again reduced to tribal warfare for resources in accordance with Darwin's theory even though everyone was a muslim and as further spread of Islam was restricted resulting in zero spoils of war.Only to the winner go the spoils of war according to a English saying.Now did people once again take right hand possession of surplus women in M.E during conflicts after they embraced Islam? The answer to the above topic depends a lot / hinges a lot on the answer to my above question.
palli or halli in Dravidian languages means a village just like gaav in Aryan languages means a village.palli or halli in Aryan Mauryan Imperial era around 200 B.C designates a tribal hamlet.So many of those in South India are indeed descendants of tribals and are still keeping up that heritage.

Nosuperstition
Posts: 3812
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 6:45 am

Re: Was the Middle East in Muhammad's time really so barbari

Post by Nosuperstition »

"If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed;
http://biblehub.com/exodus/22-2.htm
but if it happens after sunrise, the defender is guilty of bloodshed. "Anyone who steals must certainly make restitution, but if they have nothing, they must be sold to pay for their theft.
http://biblehub.com/exodus/22-3.htm

Muslims who robbed Jews and Christians of their lands in broad daylight are not guilty of murder.However it follows from the above verse that if they cannot pay back anything for what their ancestors did,they must be sold into slavery or rather their ancestors must have been sold into slavery.

I came to know of the above verse from Ron and Janice Hembre's program on the God T.V long back.

The old man in that program has facial features remarkably similiar to Pat Condell.
palli or halli in Dravidian languages means a village just like gaav in Aryan languages means a village.palli or halli in Aryan Mauryan Imperial era around 200 B.C designates a tribal hamlet.So many of those in South India are indeed descendants of tribals and are still keeping up that heritage.

Post Reply