By nature it is the isolationists, disgruntled and annoyed atheists who venture to create the conflicts.
The peaceful followers of the Revealed Religion don’t do it; they only give the Message of peace.
Out of his free will and understanding Muhammad believed in the ONE-CREATOR-GOD and declared as such, the non-believers opposed him and persecuted those who followed him; the non-believers were responsible for the conflict, fight, battles and wars that ensued.
So basically you're saying that anyone who doesn't believe what you believe; i.e. 6 billion people globally, is responsible for all conflict? Have I got that right?
One has to see the things from the roots; Muhammad had the right to believe whatever he believed out of his free will; he had the right of conversion to adopt any religion he wanted; he got converted to Islam; and declared as such.
What right the others had to persecute him and those who followed him out of their free will?
Those who opposed him- the non-believers, were responsible for the conflict.
So - if I start coming to your town and telling you your religion is garbage and I know wot god sed - if you resist - you are the one causing the conflict?
Interesting - this is why your religion causes so many conflicts.
When a Sunni kills a Shi'ite - who is causing the conflict?
A sunni or a shia if he does not follow the truthful teachings of Quran/Islam/Muhammad, he or his sect is repsonsible for it not Quran/Islam/Muhammad.
They may do it in the name of religion but religion did not give them any rationale to fight; so it is the non-believing part of the sunni or shia that does it, to be very clear.
Angry Atheists Skeptics Non-believers create the conflicts, always.
And I have the right to believe whatever I want, precisely because we don't follow a particular religion to the letter. Where you from Paar? Are you actually from Surrey, UK? Do you think we'd be better off living under an islamic rule of law or a secular one?
What's happening with these church bombings in Pakistan then? Or the horrendous violence in northern Nigeria? Or the sunni-shia conflict which is claiming thousands in the middle east each year? That's not the actions of muslims?
Grow up a bit and have a think.
I have to disagree on this slightly,
You are correct that Muhammad believed in one god Allah, but those around him were believers as well. The Arabic Pagans believed in multiple gods. So they were both believers, just the view of the god or gods was different.
I have a question for you though. Why did Muhammad attack the city of Mecca?
Peace unto you
Yes, that's why they called them the, "Islamic Conquests" because it was the non-believers who were conquering the Muslims...
Wait a minute, if that were the case, they would be known as the "Non-Believer Conquests"
the not-"I" at work...accusing the external something that actually describes him. typical
just like beel calling me a troll.
No, you actually admitted to being a troll.
I could admit being Justin Beiber right now too. But my dear, it does not necessarily make it so.
you are so always in the forums. I could press this button and there you are...ready to just waste everybody's productive hours with your almost logical mildly dim arguments. It's just the perfect tang for a long futile almost intelligent conversation.
And, you very well may be Justin Beiber.
Oops, there's that trolling again. Just can't stop, can you.
what can I say, you bring it out in me. it's almost a romantic attraction but in reverse, like I'm drawn to be repelled by you.
Nice, now you're blaming me for you being a troll. Hilarious. Believers just can't take responsibility for their actions.
You know, I don't think it is necessarily one particular group's fault over another......... I think the real conflicts are caused by all the whiners out there, playing the "victim."
Take this forum. HubPages religious forum is notorious for this. People are always claiming that (all) Christians do bad things to Atheists, or vice versa. When in truth, it's really just an excuse for that person(s) to play a victim in order to act poorly to another human being. It's an excuse for somebody to behave badly, and in truth some people just need to be like that sometimes. But to blame a psychological defect on religion is just plain ridiculous.
People have choices. People make the choice to slam other people for what they believe or don't believe. People; and not just one particular group over another, cause BS! Religion isn't BS, anymore than the Darwin Theory is. The real BS comes from real people, who are often found plaguing forums like these with their hypocritical proclamations, and boosting stereotyping adjectives everywhere. That is where the real BS is........
And, another thing I like what Beezie said when they wrote that Christianity has many different sects. Not ALL Christians badger non-believers. No more than do ALL Atheists hate Christians. Just some food for thought.
I find it ironic that you are attacking atheists prior to the following statement.
Tell that to the 9/11 victims. Either you are totally ignorant of any conflict caused by religion or you are a liar.
"The peaceful followers of the Revealed Religion don’t do it; they only give the Message of peace."
2 This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”
Let us all reflect on this message of peace, brought to us by religion and clearly wrongfully maligned by those damn dirty atheists.
Would these be the same peaceful followers who are bouncing all over the Middle East at the moment brandishing AK 45's and Rocket Launchers.
The same peaceful followers who happily hijack aeroplanes and fly them into buildings or strap packs of explosives to their body and indiscriminately blow up innocent bystanders and even their own kind.
What are you saying... This is a breed of Muslimist Atheist ?
I don’t know about you but I have noticed that there is no large, or small, groups of organised atheists wandering around threatening anyone, blowing up anything or preaching at anyone.
By its very nature atheism is more of an individual thing, most of us arrive at our conclusions through independent thought not by brow beaten religious dogma.
As far as I know there is no organised atheist group out there recruiting the next generation of suicide bombers or trying to brainwash anyone into a belief in what we believe.
In fact if you really, really wanted to follow a peaceful way of thinking I can thoroughly recommend Atheism !
The number of disasters, tragedies and wars created by the religious is higher than those created by atheists and agnostics, I'm sorry to tell you.
Not a single war had been started by the Revealed Religion; non-believers of the Truthful Religion had/have always been doing it in the name of religion, in the name of peace, in the name of humanity and in the name of democracy.
Oh right, are we just saying nice stuff about our own groups even if it's not true? Neat!
Atheists can fly.
Parr, I like you. And most times you debate with pretty good thoughts. But, claiming that Islam has not started any wars is just not true. Every religion and every culture has been guilty of starting a war or conflict at one time or another. It is just how humans are.
This is from Wiki, not the best site, But I am sure I could verify this with other sources.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Date 656 – 661
Location Arabian peninsula
The First Islamic Civil War (656–661), also called the First Fitna (Arabic: فتنة مقتل عثمان; Transliteration: Fitnat Maqtal Uthmān "The Fitna of the killing of Uthman"), was the first major civil war within the Islamic Caliphate. It arose as a struggle over who had the legitimate right to become the ruling Caliph. The dispute shattered the unity of the Muslim ummah and set into motion long-term trends that ended in the division of Islam into Shi'a and Sunni sects.
The Fitna began as a series of revolts fought against first Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib, and the fourth and final of the Sunni Rightly Guided Caliphs, caused by the controversial assassination of his predecessor, Uthman Ibn Affan. It lasted for the entirety of Ali's reign, and its end is marked by Muawiyah's assumption of the caliphate (founding the Umayyad dynasty), and the subsequent recorded peace treaty between him and Hassan ibn Ali.
One has to see the things from the roots to ascertain the Truth.
The roots are Quran and Muhammad; if one cannot prove a thing Muhammad did or gave a teaching to do; then one does not understand the phenomenon correctly; it could frustrate the issue.
Now, see Jesus he only proclaimed being a prophet messenger; but the non-believing Jews tortured him on the Cross. Who was responsible for the conflict?
Non-believers did it.
Jewish people are not non-believers. The word "non-believer" refers to atheist peoples, not people who believe in some sort of higher power, as Jewish people do.
But really, it doesn't matter, because this "X is evil! X is responsible for everything bad!" thing is so childish.
The Jews of the time of Jesus were not following the teachings of Moses; that is why Jesus was sent to this adulterous generation to bring them on the true teachings of Moses, to reform them.They were Jews by race not by faith on Moses' teachings.
Actually the Believers (Jewish beliefs) of the time did it, Jesus believed differently was all. That is the point you are failing to see. Believers are believers regardless if they agree or not.
Muslim = believer of a divine
Buddhist = believer of a divine
Satanist = believer of a divine
Christian = believer of a divine
Atheists = DO NOT believe in a divine.
And those who started the first Islamic war were in fact believers. If they are not following the original teachings of Muhammad, that I don't know. But they were following the Qu'ran, at least their interpretation of it.
That is purely your misunderstanding; if the act or beliefs of a person are according to the Word revealed by the Creator-God, only then he is a believer, if he does something not according to the Revelation; then to that extent he is non-believing and such a person is responsible for the wrong-doing.
Religion is not racial.
It is for this that a prophet messenger has to believe in the Word Revealed on him first and then the others follow him.
Sigh. So basically anyone who agrees with your view is a believer and thus angelic, and anyone who disagrees is a non-believer and an evil person who starts wars. How convenient for you.
I think you just get it wrong; if I do something against the rational teachings of the Truthful Religion; I am responsible for that much wrong; not Quran/Islam/Muhammad.
I understand completely. I agree that anyone who does claims to follow a truth, but does not follow it correctly is wrong. But that does not take from the fact that each person has the right to believe as they wish. If someone who claimed that they did not believe in a divine power, committed all of these offenses or at least a majority of them, I would agree with you. But the fact is, the ones causing these conflicts are claiming the knowledge and belief of a divine power.
Non-believers of the Truthful Religion are doing it in the name of religion, in the name of peace, in the name of humanity and in the name of democracy; under different pretexts.
....more spiritual beliefs that have been around for a loooooonnnnng time.....guess the truth wasn't revealed in N.A.
Why can't everybody just get on? It doesn't matter a damn whether people believe in one god over another or whether they believe in a god at all.
Regardless of my point of view of these posts, it just depresses me that people make this ridiculous distinction between one religion and another. We're all the same - if I'd been born in Pakistan I'd probably be muslim, if I was born in the Congo I'd probably be Christian and if I'd have been born in Vanuatu I might even believe in John Frum.
Who the hell cares?!
How could one start a conflict if religion is never on their mind?
There are religious people who go out of their way to fight with Atheists and vise-versa.
Religion is not required to start a conflict. A disagreement or greed is required. And oddly enough...Religion is crammed full of both of those ingredients.
Ha, well I'm not going to fight about it! I've got better and happy things on my mind.
Yeah, islam is such a peaceful religion, you know with the honor killings and the stonings and hangings and the punishment by amputation and the beheadings and degradation of women and the jihads and the fatwas and the killing of anyone that disagrees like the dutch cartoonists and death contract on Salmon Rushdie.
Give me a break. Christianity is the most tolerant religion. I can make fun of it and nobody comes to kill me.
You don't live in South America. Go down there and make fun of their religion see what happens. I was even assaulted in the US for saying what I thought of their religion.
Oh Mark, see, that is the exception not the rule.
I find that Islam gets really dark in areas where poverty and US military intervention is rampant. But generally, they just like to eat with their hands and buy prada bags.
Really? Now - perhaps - unless you are in numerous non-westernized countries. It was the norm until recently and there are still a lot of holdouts in the USA and other places.
I lost two teeth and picked up an interesting knife scar for suggesting Jesus was not a real person and the bible was misunderstood nonsense in Kansas city so I will take you opinion for what it is.
You didn't see the crazed eyes before you opened your mouth? I'm sorry to hear about your experience in Kansas but there is such a thing as a place for contrary opinions.
Would you say though that the man in Kansas was particularly educated in any way. I'm not talking Harvard...did he seem like he's read anything other than the bible?
You have no need to be sorry. I had not expected the reaction I got. I am English was traveling the US and this was my first encounter with this type of people.
There were three of them and I am going with not very well educated. I didn't ask for credentials.
OMG...I am really really sorry to hear that. That's not cool at all. But, well. A little research on foreign lands would have prevented that.
I have lived in various parts of the world and I find that you can navigate safely if you are SENSITIVE to the sensitivities of people and not just lay it on like everywhere is home.
Not to accuse you being at fault but maybe the violence was more due to lack of prudence than the Christians of Kansas being indoctrinated to be violent.
No - the violence was down to me not knowing it was not OK to have a negative opinion about their loving religion and their willingness to defend Jesus by violence.
My mistake admittedly, but I am quite capable and willing to take care of myself. I usually avoid confrontations but it had simply not occurred to me that this would be an issue. Lesson learned and opinion of religion reinforced.
people have killed over football teams and singing Frank Sinatra songs, Mark.
it is ignorance that causes this. now if you're saying that religion is causing the ignorance...that is a good topic that I will discuss with you on another thread. Because that is potentially very very interesting.
I know. See - I knew about the football teams because I haven't been to a football match since I watched people killing each other over Ajax beating Tottenham Hotspur when I was 14. I did not know people beat people up for not agreeing with their religious beliefs still - now I know and did not make the same mistake again. At least - not to a bar full of bible thumpers in Kansas City. I was just the wrong side of the river apparently.
Ignorance causes religion - not the other way around.
I have to say that blaming someone for voicing their thoughts instead of the ones that threw their fists is a hard position to defend. You can say that it was a cultural difference, but there is no American standard that will defend the beat down of someone who disagrees with you. They could have walked away. Somehow they thought their fists could justify their faith, and that would be a bitter pill for Jesus to swallow.
The people voicing their thoughts, do so regardless of what other think. That's called, being insensitive to others. Or did you miss that? The action is what causes the conflict.
Of course not, Laws were created so accountability can be placed on the shoulders of the individual, who would beat down someone else.
Yes, they could and the person who voiced their opinion or thoughts, could have kept their mouth shut too.
Jesus wouldn't care. He is dead.
True...now...that wasn't always the case though. The only reason it is "tolerant" now is because we have laws preventing actions used by other governments (like those in the Middle east) But those who do not believe the same as some christian have to deal with mental abuse. Take the Westboro Church, they might not be physically harming anyone, but those actions are definately psychologically harming people. And (in my opinion) if they could legally get away with it, they would, in fact, kill those they deem as evil.
If they don't harm anybody physically; then why one should be against them. Why one should deny them freedom of will and choice.
You do realize Mental Abuse is just as bad if not worse than physical abuse.
The fact is, the only reason they are not physically hurting people is because, they do not want to be punished.
Praising someone for or allowing someone to harm another is the same as doing it yourself.
People do have the right to Do, Speak, Write or belief as they wish. But, that does not include infringing on the rights of others
How would you feel, if a crowd of people came to your father's or son's funeral with signs claiming that your Father or Son was the Devil, or that Allah hated them, or that they pleasured themselves sexually while looking at pictures of little boys, and at the same time was yelling these same things for all to hear, during the funeral services as well as the burial ceremony, and then posted items saying these things as well on the graves of your loved ones?
Would this not effect you emotionally?
How are you so sure of that when they have not harmed anybody?They only differ with other people; that is their right.
Read thier websites...Well after they get them back up and running...They have stated that certain people should be killed. Killed because god hates them and thier actions.
So it is my belief, based on thier comments and current actions, that if they would not be punished, they would in fact kill people they felt god hated. (this includes people like you and me)
Ah well, there are certain epigenetic conditions that breed very very reptillian traits in human beings.
try budgeting your drinking water and fighting everybody everyday to keep your wife and children from being stolen and sold and lets see if you don't go crazy.
I understand it is the person at fault. And that can vary based off of the conditions around you. The Westboro folks are abit out there though, considering they aren't starving or fending off slavers and live in the good ol US of A.
There is no teaching in Quran/Islam/Muhammad to do any such act; they do it on their own unauthorized.
I totally agree...sometimes people mistake the political climate as a religious problem.
religiousity however increases as life gets harder. but it is not because of religion that these killings are happening. it is caused by social injustice and extreme poverty. Educated muslims are very peaceful. Now go to any catholic country (say the philippines, and mexico) you'll find equally disturbing circumstances as well. But it is not the religion, it's the poverty and the social inequity.
I agree with you.
It is wrong of the atheists to blame religion being a cause of conflict in the society; the atheists non-believers are much suited for this irresponsible behaviour.
it is wrong to blame anyone for that matter, even atheists for these conflicts...do you see? I mean I can't stand THE GOD DELUSION for its petty housewife bitching about einsteinian religion too... but let's face it dawkins is an inspired biologist. He is not exactly going around killing religionists, he's just hating them because they hate him.
Obviously, you didn't read the book if that's your opinion of it and Dawkins.
The person is being blamed...The person is the one who is claiming the religion.
eh well, people are involved that's why
yes, the adversary within, the reptilian brain concerned with self-preservation and who cannot see relatives or friends and who is a bundle of reflexes...the reptile can rise up to serve the godhead in kundalini awakening.
just give us time, it will all fall where it should.
When we know so little about our own inner space, our planet, it is sheer hubris to conceive that all available data has been faithfully collected to make an honest, forthright, and correct statement on the subject on either side. Basically, bottomline, both groups are as irritating as diaper rash. On the one hand, you've got your ultra religionists, happy to be led down the primrose path by a church originally founded by a murderer, and his partner "clueless" Pete, in complete defference to the teachings of the very one they have risen to Godhead, something, I might add, it is clear their messiah was attempting to avoid. On the other hand, you've got your godless browbeaters rushing headlong into the Orwellian nightmare of the technocratic police state, with Big Bro and the thought police, doublespeaking forked tongued egotistical "Burn the Witches" group so convinced that science has all the solutions, when it is science which has gotten us pushed to the brink of ultimate extinction. All the christians ever did was thin the herd so the rest of us had some elbow room. Cold, but true. So many on both sides believe they have the moral mandate to dictate how others should think, when morality isn't a one size fits all in this world, and it may never be. All a non-godfearing atheist can do is sit back and...excuse the phrase...pray that someone invents an anti ignorance pill! (Or that the religionists wipe each other out in a huge holy war)
The law doesn't ask the man to keep his ideas to himself. It does ask the guys to keep their fists to themselves. I see a fundamental difference there.
As for Christ, I am saying that believers would have a hard time justifying the fist solution.
Really? Freedom of Speech is limited, if you don't like that, then I suggest you read up on it. Besides, what you believe in, with regards to a god is for you. If you cannot see that your actions cause the conflict and actually intrudes on other people's rights, then I'm saddened.
Actually, you would be wrong again. It doesn't "ask" anything. It states that any physical harm to another and you will be held accountable.
The action of believers still causes conflict. There isn't any doubt about that. Most of which are so convinced(doing it to themselves), that they feel compelled to thrust their beliefs on other people's life. They and You, should be a shamed of yourself.
I know and understand Jesus' teachings and I'm not even religious, and I'm sure Jesus would take a different tactic than war/battle or such. However, Jesus is dead, as I said. And, actually makes no difference to him now.
Hey Cags! Don't you think some of the actions of non-believers causes conflict too? I mean seriously. If we are going to point fingers at one another, well then let's at least be honest about a few things. Like for one, conflicts are caused by both sides (equally) and thus shame should be equally shared. Secondly, those conflicts often lead to people (like you and I here)judging strangers and stereotyping. Which we all know leads to more conflicts and in retrospect only causes more shameful behavior.
We all do it. You do it, they do it and I do it. Nobody is perfect, not all of us can be the same. Not everyone can be as great as you, or me, or they, or them for that matter. But to sit there in front of monitor, and type such a scathing proclamation, as if you were above the said actions, was pretty comical even if I did agree with what you were saying. But still it is what you were saying that was a bit confrontational, and in some aspects "shameful." But most "BS" is....... don't you agree?
I'll agree that religion is BS. No doubt there.
But, I will not agree that the level of conflict is equal from both side, because it's truly not, simply because of population demographics alone.
When you have 4 Billion people claiming some god, when in actuality, there is no god, is where the conflict begins with.
There are plenty of people who are barely conscious to begin with. Their individual level of awareness is so low, it is almost a loss of words to describe.
Too many one-dimensional thinking and not enough critical thinking. Never mind, you would be lucky if one out every 100 Million were of integrated thinking. Too many are stuck in first gear and every time they try to switch to the next gear, their foot slips off the clutch.
You would have a hard time making the case that saying that Christ is a myth while sitting in a Kansas City bar is an actionable offense. There are very few restrictions to the free speech rights defined in the first amendment, and this is certainly not one of them.
Your offense over the word "asks" is needlessly contentious. It was clearly used rhetorically. Lighten up. Why are you so defensive?
You seem to be making assumptions about where I am in the religious debate. You might want to read my hubs before you continue to make unfounded accusations.
You have cited nothing that I have any shame for. Where is this anger coming from? It seems very odd to me.
My point regarding the teachings of Christ was to point out the hyprocrisy of Christians advocating violent beat downs of their adversaries. What is your problem with that concern?
I don't think we are on different sides on this. I think you have had a knee jerk reaction that is misguided.
Just my take.
Unfortunately - they have been doing so since the beginning of this religion. It is a violent, divisive, "if you are not with me you are against me," religion. As is the Muslim's religion.
Has been for 2,000 years. Always will be. Always will cause division and - in less educated circles - violence. This belief can do nothing else. It teaches the direct opposite of what we really need.
The language in the book speaks of armor and battles and retribution and defending the faith and biblical "love" is so conditional it is actually an oxymoron. It was written to divide and conquer. Nothing "divine," about it.
We need to educate people out of this nonsense.
It is wrong of the atheists to blame religion being a cause of conflict in the society; the atheists non-believers are much suited for this irresponsible behaviour.
Rubbish. Since when has not believing in a god been a reason to start a war? Religion IS the cause of many conflicts and your denial of that shows how willfully ignorant you are.
Its not my fault if you find that insulting. Often the truth is.
That is plain crazy! non-believers make up about 8% of the worlds population, the rest share ridiculous conflicting belief in a few thousand gods. Makes no sense at all.
Tell you what, I will accept that non believers cause 10% of the problems in the world, you are responsible for the other 92%
If the acts or beliefs of a person are according to the Word revealed by the Creator-God, only then he is a believer, if he does something not according to the Revelation; then to that extent he is non-believing and such a person is responsible for the wrong-doing.
Believers by default are always peaceful; never venture to fight.
Never fight? Half the world is being terrorized by muslims even as we speak!
If the believers are peaceful; why should the non-believers oppose them and attack them agressively.
The non-believers start the conflicts always.
Hey paar. I get what you're doing with all these threads. You are trying to create conflict. I think that's grand. You get the chance to see how easy it is, in a peaceful society, to disagree. Sometimes vehemently, but always without the need to invoke some archaic idea of god's law and start beating those who don't hold your particular opinion, or start lobbing off body parts.
This is great. I hope some people in the radically religious nations are reading and taking notes.
All these worthless atheists!
Why they had to start all these wars to spread their religion?
Why they started all these crusades?
Why they did all the inquisitions?
Why they conquered Mecca?
Why they became sunni and shia and fought over each other?
Why they invented cast system and suppressed half of their brethren?
OH! The list of atrocities done by atheists are endless.....
I wonder when they start to cut the head of all these peaceful true religious people to make them "believe" in atheism, or are they already doing it?
yes I agree with you, these old communists are really really bad. it's a good thing china is creating a hybrid.
you know it really has nothing to do with beliefs.
if your truths have limited scope, your ignorance is bound to get you in some kind of trouble.
Haha. In 200 years, jesus will be down in history as a chinese man.
That's the thing about history, if you are running the deal, you get to write the history.
Yup. They have been printing books by "experts," proving there was no holocaust for years now. A lot of Muslimists and Christianists get behind the idea that it was a flu infection and only hit a few hundred Jews who were in a hospital camp.
In 200 years time - which will be the accepted version of events?
And - videos of building WTC 7 collapsing are vanishing as fast as the Nazis in charge can get rid of them.
And these religionists keep helping to muddy the water.
Where the communist trying to spread communism or atheism?
this is rhetorical? DO i have to tell you the most basic tenet of MARX?
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
"History is not like some individual person, which uses men to achieve its ends. History is nothing but the actions of men in pursuit of their ends."
DO YOU WANT ME TO ELABORATE WHAT THIS IMPLIES?
"We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror. But the royal terrorists, the terrorists by the grace of God and the law, are in practice brutal, disdainful, and mean, in theory cowardly, secretive, and deceitful, and in both respects disreputable."
We shall not make excuses for the terror...I don't know, need I explain?
The Atheists non-believers of Mecca invaded several time Medina agressivily, out numbered and well-equipped Meccans were; they attacked agressively; yet they were defeated. In these skirmishes a lot of people were killed from both sides.
It was therefore necessary to finish this source of attacks; that is why the conquest of Mecca was done:
Conquest of Mecca
Part of the Muslim-Quraysh Wars
Date 11 January, 630 CE
Result Muslim victory and Quraish surrender
Muslims from Medina.
Quraysh from the atheists non-believers
Commanders and leaders
Muhammad from Muslims
Abu Sufyan ibn Harb from the non-believers side
10,000 of Muslims
Unknown; inhabitants of Mecca
Casualties and losses
"behaviour on the part of Quraish was clearly a breach of the treaty of Al-Hudaibiyah and was obviously an act of hostility against the allies of the Muslims, i.e. Banu Khuza'a"
So the source of attacks was finished by Muhammad without any casuality from both sides.
So, it was a peaceful act of Muhammad ; it also proves that throughout non-believers started the conflict and Muhammaed finished it peacefully, for good.
Wasn't it rational?
From the link you provided:
Abu Sufyan ibn Harb, the leader of the Quraysh in Mecca, sensing that the balance was now tilted in Muhammad's favour and that the Quraish were not strong enough to stop the Muslims from conquering the city, travelled to Medina, trying to restore the treaty. During his stay, he was repulsed by Ali and by his own daughter Ramlah, who now was one of Muhammad's wives. Though Muhammad refused to reach an agreement and Abu Sufyan returned to Mecca empty handed, these efforts ultimately ensured that the conquest occurred without battle.
Muhammad assembled an army of approximately 10,000 men and marched towards Mecca.
Again Abu Sufyan travelled back and forth between Mecca and Muhammad, still trying to reach a settlement.
So, it would appear that the leader of the Quraish wanted to restore the treaty for peace but Muhammad refused and instead assembled an army and conquered Mecca.
As well, from the same page, here is a list of conquests Muhammad either was involved or ordered:
Expeditions of Muhammad
Ghazwah (expeditions where he took part)
Caravan Raids – Waddan – Buwat – Safwan – Dul Ashir – Badr – Kudr – Sawiq – Banu Qaynuqa – Ghatafan – Bahran – Uhud – Al-Asad – Banu Nadir – Invasion of Nejd – Invasion of Badr – 1st Jandal – Trench – Banu Qurayza – 2nd Banu Lahyan – Banu Mustaliq – Thi Qerd – Hudaybiyyah – Khaybar – Conquest of Fidak – 3rd Qura – Dhat al-Riqa – Mu'tah – Banu Baqra – Mecca – Hunayn – Autas – Ta'if – Hawazan – Tabouk
Sariyyah (expeditions which he ordered)
Nakhla – Nejd – 1st Banu Asad – 1st Banu Lahyan – Al Raji – Bir Maona – Assassination of Abu Rafi – Maslamah – 2nd Banu Asad – 1st Banu Thalabah – 2nd Banu Thalabah – Dhu Qarad – Jumum – Al-Is – 3rd Banu Thalabah – 1st Qura – 2nd Jandal – Fidak – 2nd Qura – Uraynah – Turbah – Hisma
Muslims did not do the holocaust; it was the Christians who did it or the ignorant atheists.
Muslims are killing non believers right now.
If it is ignorance you are talking about, no one can surpass you!
I think the holocaust is specific for genocide of Jews at hands of the Christians. Muslims were not anyway involved in it:
The Holocaust (from the Greek ὁλόκαυστος holókaustos: hólos, "whole" and kaustós, "burnt"), also known as The Shoah (Hebrew: השואה, HaShoah, "calamity"; Yiddish: חורבן, Churben or Hurban, from the Hebrew for "destruction"), was the genocide of approximately six million European Jews during World War II, a programme of systematic state-sponsored extermination by Nazi Germany throughout Nazi-occupied territory. Approximately two-thirds of the population of nine million Jews who had resided in Europe before the Holocaust perished.
It was Christians or 'ignorant atheists' who flown the plane to WTO, placed bomb in London suburban, placed bombs in various parts of India, who were 'Hashishins'.
Nadir Shah, timur, Ghori, Aurangzeb, all are 'ignorant atheists'.
There are no teachings to attack innocent people in Quran/Islam/Muhammad. Quran/Islam/Muhammad condemn those who do such things. It is a sin to attack innocent human beings; even those who attacked agressively were forbidden to be transgressed by the defending Muslims:
[2:191] And fight in the cause of Allah against those who fight against you, but do not transgress. Surely, Allah loves not the transgressors.
[2:192] And kill them wherever you meet them and drive them out from where they have driven you out; for persecution is worse than killing. And fight them not in, and near, the Sacred Mosque until they fight you therein. But if they fight you, then fight them: such is the requital for the disbelievers.
[2:193] But if they desist, then surely Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful.
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/sh … ;verse=190
It is a very rational, reasonable and peaceful teachings of Qiran/Islam/Muhammad.
Atheists non-believer don't want to understand though
So, you actually admit Islam is not entirely a religion of peace if it condemns people.
Unfortunately, what you and your religion fail to understand is that attacking humans, innocent or otherwise, is not peaceful.
Hilarious, I bolded that in your post which showed emphatically that your religion is not peaceful, rational or reasonable. It is sheer violence over violence.
The only peace that can be obtained from those words is when every single person on the battlefield is dead.
Humans deveoped and evolved many kowledges, philosphy, maths and science but at that time no "atheists" worth the name were there.
When the scientific method was evolved; the eulogizers of science; non-believers in the name of "Atheism" sprung up and started confontration with the believers.
Conflict and confrontation started with the atheists; they believe in chaos and disorder; not in a system.
Conflict and confrontation started with the atheists; they believe in chaos and disorder; not in a system.
Never in the human history the atheists got united on a united platform; they have denominations equal to their numbers.
They are mostly happy well adjusted family people who love their kids and work hard.
What you see as a lack of platform, they see as individual freedom, without some invisible entity terrifying them all day long.
Muslims are not united on a united platform, either. They are broken up into many sects in which the members kill each other.
At least, we see no atheists killing each other over their atheism, do we?
All Muslims whatever the faith are united on Quran being the first and the foremost source of guidance to the human beings.
The "guidance" is working well in Afghanistan!
That is not a united platform as we can see from various political parties that are not united yet may use the same sources of guidance.
Islam is as broken up into sects a religion as any other. And, we can see you are killing each other over your so-called "guidance to the human beings."
For your enlightenment the Quran maybe for the guidance of Muslims it is not the source of guidance for all human beings.
I appreciate that there are one or two Muslims out there that hope one day that might be true but not yet !
However that aside, according to your theory Fundamentalist Muslim interpretation of the Quran is correct and God will forgive them for killing all non Muslims...
and those who are less fundamental who just want to live in peace and not kill anyone, unless of course they are a woman transgressor, then their interpretation is also correct. Is that what you are trying to say ?
Agreed; yet the reasons and argument given by Quran/Islam/Muhammad are valid; unless one refutes them rationally.
How does one refute a myth that was copied from another myth.
Myths are myths.
Perhaps I can help. The part that applies to you, in what I've gleaned from his posts, is that there was no divine interaction with Mohamed. Mohamed was probably just a guy. With an idea he got from a book, or someone else's religion. Nothing more.
You have no comment on the second part of my Post ?
Two different interpretations by two groups from the same book they can't both be right ?
Islam is a totalitarian ideology in my opinion.
Isn't all religion ?
I have always maintained that the creation of organised religion was a manmade weapon of power using the fear of an all seeing God and eternal damnation for any transgression.
"Do as I say Or Else !"
As an amateur historian I once researched the connection of the Crown and God and it is easy to see why it caught on. If the King could be seen as having been selected by God it gave him automatic power that none would dare challenge. By playing up to this vanity the Church gained huge power, not to mention great wealth by the acquisition of property. No matter what heinous crime the King committed as long as he confessed his sins and built the Church another monastery he was forgiven.
Look around, irrespective of what religion the pattern is the same with the religious leaders sucking up to the main power source offering to speak on their behalf to God and make sure they will get their just rewards in Heaven.... Yeah Right!
I disagree with you.
Muhammad never wanted to found any religion or to rule on any body. He was a humble and meek person who never desired for any post, office or authority.
Please don't be dim....
Read what is written; I'm talking about a time long, long before Mohamed ever existed.
However if you insist we go there answer me this, what is so different about the method used by Mohamed ?
He claimed he was speaking the word of God.... Do you suppose for one minute if he just stood up one day and said "Hey Guys I've got this really, really great idea..." anyone would have listened to him ?
Back then you use the word GOD you got peoples attention, it was that simple, look around you... they are still doing it and if you are dumb enough to go along with it they not God control you and what you think, say and do !
If you think I'm wrong put it to the test and buck the system see how long you retain your body parts....
Now you are lying. You are telling us what Muhammad wanted and what he thought, despite the fact that he did founded a religion and he did take authority over all and that he was far from humble or meek.
Terrible behavior, but status quo for an Islamic propagandist.
When the Creator-God Allah YHWH selected Muhammad for His Message, Muhammad only conveyed that message to the people very politely and peacefully, that is why he is called a messenger prophet:
[2:119] And those who have no knowledge say, ‘Why does not Allah speak to us, or a Sign come to us?’ Likewise said those before them similar to their saying. Their hearts are alike. We have certainly made the Signs plain for a people who firmly believe.
[2:120] We have sent thee with the Truth, as a bearer of glad tidings and a warner. And thou wilt not be questioned about the inmates of Hell.
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/sh … ;verse=119
He's right, having sex with little girls used to be ok until you non believers and christians made it look all bad.
by paarsurrey 11 years ago
Do you agree? Please provide the reasons.
by Gabriel Wilson 2 years ago
Why can't atheists and believers leave each other alone to not believe or believe?Why is it that atheists (not all, some) continuously question believers about their belief and vice versa; why do believers (not all, some) feel they have to justify their belief? Surely if you don't believe in God...
by paarsurrey 11 years ago
Mick Menous wrote:Personally, I really don't see what gives non-believers the right to criticize and verbally hurt innocent religions who want to do nothing but help spread peace, love, and do charity work for the poor.Paarsurrey says: It makes sense; the atheists should...
by Stclairjack 10 years ago
just wondering,... do the skeptics have a problem wih a christian who adhears to a particular religion as a "belief system" knowing full well that the basis for christianity is bunk,.. but the history and beauty and even the romance of it are appealing enough to draw.if i'm intelectualy...
by Stephen Meadows 4 years ago
Are atheists generally happier people than believers?Many believers can't understand that a person can be happier without religion in their life. What are your thoughts?
by TheBlondie 11 years ago
I'm an atheist, and even though I'm a generally good person (volunteer at an animal shelter, nice to people, generous, etc.), I've been told I'm going to hell simply because I don't take part in any religion. I'm really not trying to start a fight or argument, I'm really just curious- why are...
Copyright © 2022 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|