mothra wrote on Sep 14
th, 2017 at 1:48pm:
#2. Western Cultures Are Far More Humane Than the Bloodthirsty Muslims
Even before the whole terrorism thing, Islam had a reputation in the West for violence. Part of it has to do with how abruptly Islam was all up in everyone's face. For instance, while Hinduism took about 1,000 years to spread through India, and Christianity took about 400 years to go from persecuted cult to the state religion of the Roman Empire, Islam went from one guy's epiphany to the dominant political and religious force in the Middle East and North Africa in about 100 years.
So a lot of people have reached the conclusion that the religion spread like holy wildfire for one reason: the sword. The next logical leap from this viewpoint is that as a people, Muslims must be violent and barbaric conquerors. Even before 9/11, you saw this portrayal in popular culture all the time.
But actually...
Muhammad laid out some pretty progressive rules of warfare, and medieval Muslims out-niced the Christians in battle by a landslide. Especially since Muhammad personally issued "a distinct code of conduct among Islamic warriors" that included:
No killing of women, children or innocents -- these might include hermits, monks or other religious leaders who were deemed noncombatants;
No wanton killing of livestock or other animals;
No burning or destruction of trees and orchards; and
No destruction of wells.
In short, Muhammad wanted his armies to fight like freaking hippies. During the smacking Dark Ages. And they did.
But the biggest territorial gains were made after Muhammad's death, right? Maybe that was when Islam earned its bloodthirsty reputation? Not exactly. His successor codified the existing rules and made them the standard for his army. Which probably explains why the Muslim army conquering Europe "exhibited a degree of toleration which puts many Christian nations to shame," in the words of one expert.
So while Christian crusaders were beheading enemies and tossing their heads like oversized hacky sacks, their Muslim counterparts had a whole honor code that led them to feed the armies of their defeated enemies.
They didn't kill the women and goats because they were vlauable commodities Mothra. Roughly 2/3 of the slaves captured by Muslims were women. Guess why? You'll appreciate this one.
Islam did literally spread by the sword. No other religion has it's spread as closely linked to military conquest as Islam. Capturing the women and goats was part of that end.
Muslims were violent and barbaric conquerers and slave traders right up until the west put and end to it. It was several wars by European powers and America that finally put an end to it by destroying the slave ports and then going in and interfering further to put an end to the slave trade. The "ridiculous things you probably believe" here is that this is a reflection of the intent of Islam or Muslims. It is not. We had to kill a lot of Muslims to stop them industrialising rape as a tool to spread their religion, and the job is not over.
Forum
Pages: 
