3 ms·

For each of the points you mentioned I can make a solid case supported by examples that Mohammad was a proponent of peace, extraordinarily lenient towards his e

For each of the points you mentioned I can make a solid case supported by examples that Mohammad was a proponent of peace, extraordinarily lenient towards his enemies, protected Jews as well as Christians, spearheaded the liberation of slaves and the abolition of slavery, was extremely strict about the fair treatment of captives including women, and in general instituted protections for the weak parties in society, including children and widows. As a peaceful, tolerant and rational Muslim, the likes of which somehow manage to exist in spite of the purported bad example of the man we strive to follow, I just want to put this out there not to leave your comment undisputed, in case there are people who are not knowledgeable about the topic. I don't have time for a treatise but as I said, there are more sides to every story, so do your own research. (On an unrelated note I flagged this story, since sigh HN is one of the few places where this stuff doesn't get stuffed in your face all the time.)

bmmayer1 11y ago
I think the point is that like all religions, Islam contains in its holy books rationale and justification for many barbaric acts that most Muslims (such as yourself) don't follow. There is nothing special about Islam in this regard; however, in the modern world Islam happens to be 'It' right now in that it has a large armed and motivated radicalized branch of followers. This doesn't indict all Muslims in their crime, nor does it indict Islam any more than in indicts any other religion, for better or for worse. All it means is understanding that we're fighting a religious enemy bent on religiously motivated ends. In fact, fighting this enemy requires the vocal support of peaceful Muslims whose countries are being taken over by these theocrats, those whose livelihoods in Beirut and Baghdad and Karachi and Jakarta are much more at threat than livelihoods in Paris and Madrid and New York City. That said, I don't have a solution; I don't think anyone does. You can't fight a religion, only people, and you can't blame all followers of a religion for the actions of a subset of that religion (or, as some would have you believe, a non-subset of that religion). All you can do is name your enemy, and when they declare war on you (which they have--they've declared war on civilization, modernity, Muslims and non-Muslims alike), declare war back.
- ethbro 11y ago
  > You can't fight a religion, only people I feel like the Church of England and the Eastern Orthodox Church would disagree with you (and Batman). Ideas can be fought just the same as people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church#Great_Schism_.281054.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church#Great_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_England#Secession_from_Rome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_England#Secession_fr...
Amezarak 11y ago
> For each of the points you mentioned I can make a solid case supported by examples that Mohammad was a proponent of peace Prior to Mohammed, his people lived in a remote, mostly peaceful backwater. Afterwards, Mohammed terrorized some caravans, gained a few new converts, and conquered Mecca, and then Arabia. Then his friends, followers, and immediate successors, by 661, conquered the Persian empire and made rapid inroads into the Byzantine Empire. It is very difficult to see how anyone could look at a map in 622 and then a map in 661 and come to the conclusion that Mohammed was a proponent of peace.

bmmayer1 11y ago

I think the point is that like all religions, Islam contains in its holy books rationale and justification for many barbaric acts that most Muslims (such as yourself) don't follow. There is nothing special about Islam in this regard; however, in the modern world Islam happens to be 'It' right now in that it has a large armed and motivated radicalized branch of followers. This doesn't indict all Muslims in their crime, nor does it indict Islam any more than in indicts any other religion, for better or for worse. All it means is understanding that we're fighting a religious enemy bent on religiously motivated ends. In fact, fighting this enemy requires the vocal support of peaceful Muslims whose countries are being taken over by these theocrats, those whose livelihoods in Beirut and Baghdad and Karachi and Jakarta are much more at threat than livelihoods in Paris and Madrid and New York City. That said, I don't have a solution; I don't think anyone does. You can't fight a religion, only people, and you can't blame all followers of a religion for the actions of a subset of that religion (or, as some would have you believe, a non-subset of that religion). All you can do is name your enemy, and when they declare war on you (which they have--they've declared war on civilization, modernity, Muslims and non-Muslims alike), declare war back.

ethbro 11y ago
> You can't fight a religion, only people I feel like the Church of England and the Eastern Orthodox Church would disagree with you (and Batman). Ideas can be fought just the same as people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church#Great_Schism_.281054.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church#Great_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_England#Secession_from_Rome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_England#Secession_fr...

Amezarak 11y ago

> For each of the points you mentioned I can make a solid case supported by examples that Mohammad was a proponent of peace Prior to Mohammed, his people lived in a remote, mostly peaceful backwater. Afterwards, Mohammed terrorized some caravans, gained a few new converts, and conquered Mecca, and then Arabia. Then his friends, followers, and immediate successors, by 661, conquered the Persian empire and made rapid inroads into the Byzantine Empire. It is very difficult to see how anyone could look at a map in 622 and then a map in 661 and come to the conclusion that Mohammed was a proponent of peace.