Australian Politics Forum - Muhammad as the anti-christ

freediver Gold Member Online www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 47358 At my desk.	Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ Reply #90 - Mar 1^st, 2018 at 10:01pm Muslims frequently use Muhammad's example to justify opposing a reasonable age of consent. In other words, little girls get raped because of Muhammad. We even have ISIS using sex slavery as a tool to build an Islamic state. Just like Muhammad. Queue the apologists.
Back to top	I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT! IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Reply #91 - Mar 1^st, 2018 at 10:08pm

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 9:54pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 8:32pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 5:15pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 3:56pm:

@Brian Ross.

First of all, I do condemn the virulent beliefs of bigots on this forum. In fact, earlier today I officially declared Valkie to be racist and bigoted in the thread Spot the Aboriginal.

Second, can you provide evidence where a European medieval king, count or other has married a nine-year old???

Charlemagne’s wife was 17 when they married.

Edit: Justinian’s wife Theodora was 27 when she married Justinian in the 500s, 100 years earlier than Muhammad.

Constantine’s wife Fausta was 18 when she married in the 300s

Shall I go on?

The so called prophet of god is instructed by God to marry and consummate the marriage with a nine year old girl.

Very spiritual, innit?

British Monarchs:

Quote:

The youngest monarch to marry was David II, who married Joan, daughter of Edward II when he was 4 years, 134 days old in 1328.

The youngest female monarch at the time of her marriage was Mary II, who was 15 years, 188 days old when she married William III in 1677.

The youngest queen consort was Isabella of Valois, who married Richard II when she was 6 years, 358 days old in 1396.

[Source]

list of child brides

Quote:

Margaret Beaufort, (age approximately 7) was married to John de la Pole (age 7) in 1450 by the arrangement John's father.[5] The marriage was annulled in 1453.[6]
Joan of France, Duchess of Berry, betrothed in a wedding contract at age 8 days old, she was officially married at age 12 in 1476.[7]
Anne de Mowbray, 8th Countess of Norfolk (age 6) was married to Richard of Shrewsbury, 1st Duke of York (age 4) in 1477. She died at age 10 and he, as one of the Princes in the Tower is believed to have been murdered at age 10.[8]
Rukhmabai was married in India to her husband when she was 11 and he was 19.[9] After a lengthy court battle, the marriage was dissolved by an order from Queen Victoria and the publicity helped influence the passage of the Age of Consent Act, 1891, which increased age of consent for girls in India, married or unmarried, from 10 to 12.[10]
Janakiammal Iyengar was married at the age of 10 years to the Indian mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan.[11]
Nujood Ali, an arranged marriage by her father to a 30-year-old man at age 10[12] in 2008.[13] Coverage of her self-presented application for divorce later that year led to the legal age of marriage in Yemen to be raised to 18.[14]

[Source]

Quote:

Henry The Young King, also called Henry Fitzhenry, (born February 28, 1155, London—died June 11, 1183, Martel, Quercy, France), second son of King Henry II of England by Eleanor of Aquitaine; he was regarded, after the death of his elder brother, William, in 1156, as his father’s successor in England, Normandy, and Anjou.

In 1158 Henry, only three years of age, was betrothed to Margaret, daughter of Louis VII of France and his second wife, on condition that Margaret’s dowry would be the Vexin, the border region between Normandy (then held by England) and France. Henry II took advantage of Pope Alexander III’s political difficulties to secure the Pope’s permission for the children to be married in 1160.

[Source]
He was five years old.

Guess you didn't look all that hard, hey, Augie? Roll Eyes

Wow! Are you serious? In each of those cases the groom was the same age as the bride. Louis was 14 and she was 12.

Your apologist is bordering on delusion.

Really?

Richard II was 39 when he married Isabella of Valois who was 6 years old.
Rukhmabai was married in India to her husband when she was 11 and he was 19.
Janakiammal Iyengar was married at the age of 10 years to the Indian mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan when he was 32.
Nujood Ali, an arranged marriage by her father to a 30-year-old man at age 10.

Guess your maths isn't all that good, hey, Augie? Roll Eyes

So I read the article and Richard II was 26 (he died when he was 33; got your maths wrong). He was ‘willing to wait’ for her. So presumably he didn’t consummate the marriage until later.

Regarding the other 2, they’re not Christian but Hindu. And yes, that’s unacceptable too.

So, all you’ve got isn’t one king who married a 7year old with the understanding the he would wait.

Now you’re clutching at straws.

Edit: Richard II might not have even had sex with her. No comparison.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Mar 1^st, 2018 at 10:15pm by Auggie »

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Auggie Gold Member Offline The Bull Moose Posts: 8571	Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ Reply #92 - Mar 1^st, 2018 at 10:10pm Mattyfisk wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 8:43pm: Cleopatra was married to her 6 year old brother. Does that count? Miam miam. Not Christian, Karnal.
Back to top	The Progressive President IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Online www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 47358 At my desk.	Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ Reply #93 - Mar 1^st, 2018 at 10:10pm Apparently Muhammad did the right thing by waiting until his child bride was 9. Gandalf can use his special Islamic maths to turn that into a 15. She was obviously lying about her age, your honour.
Back to top	I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT! IP Logged

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Offline

Representative of me

Posts: 39526

Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Reply #94 - Mar 1^st, 2018 at 10:29pm

Auggie wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 10:08pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 9:54pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 8:32pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 5:15pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 3:56pm:

@Brian Ross.

First of all, I do condemn the virulent beliefs of bigots on this forum. In fact, earlier today I officially declared Valkie to be racist and bigoted in the thread Spot the Aboriginal.

Second, can you provide evidence where a European medieval king, count or other has married a nine-year old???

Charlemagne’s wife was 17 when they married.

Edit: Justinian’s wife Theodora was 27 when she married Justinian in the 500s, 100 years earlier than Muhammad.

Constantine’s wife Fausta was 18 when she married in the 300s

Shall I go on?

The so called prophet of god is instructed by God to marry and consummate the marriage with a nine year old girl.

Very spiritual, innit?

British Monarchs:

Quote:

The youngest monarch to marry was David II, who married Joan, daughter of Edward II when he was 4 years, 134 days old in 1328.

The youngest female monarch at the time of her marriage was Mary II, who was 15 years, 188 days old when she married William III in 1677.

The youngest queen consort was Isabella of Valois, who married Richard II when she was 6 years, 358 days old in 1396.

[Source]

list of child brides

Quote:

Margaret Beaufort, (age approximately 7) was married to John de la Pole (age 7) in 1450 by the arrangement John's father.[5] The marriage was annulled in 1453.[6]
Joan of France, Duchess of Berry, betrothed in a wedding contract at age 8 days old, she was officially married at age 12 in 1476.[7]
Anne de Mowbray, 8th Countess of Norfolk (age 6) was married to Richard of Shrewsbury, 1st Duke of York (age 4) in 1477. She died at age 10 and he, as one of the Princes in the Tower is believed to have been murdered at age 10.[8]
Rukhmabai was married in India to her husband when she was 11 and he was 19.[9] After a lengthy court battle, the marriage was dissolved by an order from Queen Victoria and the publicity helped influence the passage of the Age of Consent Act, 1891, which increased age of consent for girls in India, married or unmarried, from 10 to 12.[10]
Janakiammal Iyengar was married at the age of 10 years to the Indian mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan.[11]
Nujood Ali, an arranged marriage by her father to a 30-year-old man at age 10[12] in 2008.[13] Coverage of her self-presented application for divorce later that year led to the legal age of marriage in Yemen to be raised to 18.[14]

[Source]

Quote:

Henry The Young King, also called Henry Fitzhenry, (born February 28, 1155, London—died June 11, 1183, Martel, Quercy, France), second son of King Henry II of England by Eleanor of Aquitaine; he was regarded, after the death of his elder brother, William, in 1156, as his father’s successor in England, Normandy, and Anjou.

In 1158 Henry, only three years of age, was betrothed to Margaret, daughter of Louis VII of France and his second wife, on condition that Margaret’s dowry would be the Vexin, the border region between Normandy (then held by England) and France. Henry II took advantage of Pope Alexander III’s political difficulties to secure the Pope’s permission for the children to be married in 1160.

[Source]
He was five years old.

Guess you didn't look all that hard, hey, Augie? Roll Eyes

Wow! Are you serious? In each of those cases the groom was the same age as the bride. Louis was 14 and she was 12.

Your apologist is bordering on delusion.

Really?

Richard II was 39 when he married Isabella of Valois who was 6 years old.
Rukhmabai was married in India to her husband when she was 11 and he was 19.
Janakiammal Iyengar was married at the age of 10 years to the Indian mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan when he was 32.
Nujood Ali, an arranged marriage by her father to a 30-year-old man at age 10.

Guess your maths isn't all that good, hey, Augie? Roll Eyes

So I read the article and Richard II was 26 (he died when he was 33; got your maths wrong). He was ‘willing to wait’ for her. So presumably he didn’t consummate the marriage until later.

Correct. My apologies, Augie. I am working on a difficult computer problem at the same time as talking to you.

Quote:

Regarding the other 2, they’re not Christian but Hindu. And yes, that’s unacceptable too.

So, all you’ve got isn’t one king who married a 7year old with the understanding the he would wait.

Now you’re clutching at straws.

Edit: Richard II might not have even had sex with her. No comparison.

Does it matter? He married her when she was young, quite a bit younger than himself.

As for clutching at straws, you asked for examples of "dynastic or arranged marriages". I provided one from the UK, several from the sub-continent. I believe that is sufficient.

They occurred but all we hear from FD is "Mohammad did this," "Mohammad did that." Why? Because he is an Islamophobe. As I keep pointing out, they did things differently then. Roll Eyes

Back to top

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour. Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe? Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Reply #95 - Mar 1^st, 2018 at 10:37pm

@Brian Ross.

The issue here is that Muhammad had sex with a nine year old girl. If he married her and then waited 10 years, that I would be able to swallow. But he essentially raped her.

Richard II most likely didn’t have sex with her. This is key issue here.

Second, the biggest point is that he was a so called prophet of god. There is no way in hell that god would command a person to marry let alone have sex with a nine year old.
—-
So back to you the issue: Jesus never had sex with any one nor was he in a relationship. This makes him a better person than Muhammad. Jesus was superior in every way.

That is a fact.

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Reply #96 - Mar 1^st, 2018 at 10:39pm

Auggie wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 2:52pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 2:40pm:

attribute whatever motivation you like Augy - my only point was that FD lied about who attacked first.

So, they drove him and the followers out of Mecca, and one year later, after being the leader of community in Medina, he then decides to take revenge on those who deported him???

So much for 'turning the other cheek'.

Jesus forgave his torturers and executioners as he was hanging from the cross. "Forgive them Father for they know not what they do." That there, my friend, is spirituality.

Not some petty revenge over being deported.

Gandalf, please respond to this post.

Hate to break it to you: you made a grave mistake, my friend, in choosing to worship Muhammad over Jesus. I suspect you’ll come to regret your decision later on in life.

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Offline

Representative of me

Posts: 39526

Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Reply #97 - Mar 1^st, 2018 at 10:56pm

Auggie wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 10:37pm:

@Brian Ross.

The issue here is that Muhammad had sex with a nine year old girl. If he married her and then waited 10 years, that I would be able to swallow. But he essentially raped her.

Richard II most likely didn’t have sex with her. This is key issue here.

Second, the biggest point is that he was a so called prophet of god. There is no way in hell that god would command a person to marry let alone have sex with a nine year old.

As I keep pointing out, "the past is a different country, they did things differently there." Mohammed was in Mecca, not modern Australia. Different places, times have different ideas about such matters. You cannot and should not apply 21st century morality to the 7th century C.E. No proper historian would.

Quote:

So back to you the issue: Jesus never had sex with any one nor was he in a relationship. This makes him a better person than Muhammad. Jesus was superior in every way.

That is a fact.

No, it is what the Church(es) tell you, Augie. There is Mary Magdalen - a "lady of negotiable virtue" who it is alluded had a relationship with Christ. Do not believe what you have been told is "fact" when there is no way of verifying it. It is IMHO, myth. Roll Eyes

Back to top

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour. Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe? Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Reply #98 - Mar 1^st, 2018 at 11:47pm

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 10:56pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 10:37pm:

@Brian Ross.

The issue here is that Muhammad had sex with a nine year old girl. If he married her and then waited 10 years, that I would be able to swallow. But he essentially raped her.

Richard II most likely didn’t have sex with her. This is key issue here.

Second, the biggest point is that he was a so called prophet of god. There is no way in hell that god would command a person to marry let alone have sex with a nine year old.

As I keep pointing out, "the past is a different country, they did things differently there." Mohammed was in Mecca, not modern Australia. Different places, times have different ideas about such matters. You cannot and should not apply 21st century morality to the 7th century C.E. No proper historian would.

As I keep pointing out, he was deemed a prophet of god and is considered an exemplar of human behaviour. I apply a higher standard to him because of his self-declared prophet status.

Quote:

So back to you the issue: Jesus never had sex with any one nor was he in a relationship. This makes him a better person than Muhammad. Jesus was superior in every way.

That is a fact.

No, it is what the Church(es) tell you, Augie. There is Mary Magdalen - a "lady of negotiable virtue" who it is alluded had a relationship with Christ. Do not believe what you have been told is "fact" when there is no way of verifying it. It is IMHO, myth. Roll Eyes

That is what the doctrine teaches. That is what the Christian faith is based on.

Even if he had a partner or wife in Mary Magdalene, this makes him less extraordinary than he is portrayed but hardly is it unacceptable: he was in a monogamous relationship. Much better than Muhammad.

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Reply #99 - Mar 2^nd, 2018 at 11:09am

Auggie wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 2:52pm:

So, they drove him and the followers out of Mecca, and one year later, after being the leader of community in Medina, he then decides to take revenge on those who deported him???

So much for 'turning the other cheek'.

Jesus forgave his torturers and executioners as he was hanging from the cross. "Forgive them Father for they know not what they do." That there, my friend, is spirituality.

Not some petty revenge over being deported.

As I have said repeatedly, Jesus was not leading any state, and had no responsibility for the running of an actual society. When you understand this point, you might understand the fact that Muhammad's actions were done with the welfare of his people in mind. The fact is, when his people were evicted from their homes - from a city and society which was really the only place that resembled a commercial centre in the entire peninsula - a state of war had been established. The muslim community in Medina was not only not safe from the power of Mecca, the non-agrarian community had no means of livelihood in the entirely agrarian city of Medina. Caravan raids were not merely a legitimate prosecution of an existing war that was not started by the muslims - it was actually a means of survival for a group that had almost no possessions, and had no experience or skills carving a life on a farm.

These are the things that Muhammad had to take into consideration when taking the action that he did. Things that frankly Jesus didn't have to worry about.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Reply #100 - Mar 2^nd, 2018 at 11:15am

freediver wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 7:56pm:

Muhammad had bugger all followers until he started robbing Meccan trade caravans and murdering innocent traders from his base in Medina.

Quote:

For most of the Muslims, it was the first attack. They only became followers of Muhammad to join in the looting.

Good point FD. Now if you wouldn't mind just furnishing me with some figures (with evidence preferably) for the pre and post first caravan raid muslim population. Just a ballpark figure will do.

thanks.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47358
At my desk.

Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Reply #101 - Mar 2^nd, 2018 at 12:25pm

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 10:56pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 10:37pm:

@Brian Ross.

The issue here is that Muhammad had sex with a nine year old girl. If he married her and then waited 10 years, that I would be able to swallow. But he essentially raped her.

Richard II most likely didn’t have sex with her. This is key issue here.

Second, the biggest point is that he was a so called prophet of god. There is no way in hell that god would command a person to marry let alone have sex with a nine year old.

As I keep pointing out, "the past is a different country, they did things differently there." Mohammed was in Mecca, not modern Australia. Different places, times have different ideas about such matters. You cannot and should not apply 21st century morality to the 7th century C.E. No proper historian would.

Quote:

So back to you the issue: Jesus never had sex with any one nor was he in a relationship. This makes him a better person than Muhammad. Jesus was superior in every way.

That is a fact.

No, it is what the Church(es) tell you, Augie. There is Mary Magdalen - a "lady of negotiable virtue" who it is alluded had a relationship with Christ. Do not believe what you have been told is "fact" when there is no way of verifying it. It is IMHO, myth. Roll Eyes

Muslims are still using rape and institutionalised sex slavery to build an Islamic state in the present. They do this because they believe that the example set by Muhammad and the nasty things he wrote in the Quran are eternal examples for man to follow. I am yet to hear the same thing about King Richard. They are still using Muhammad's example to oppose a reasonable age of consent. I am yet to hear the same thing about King Richard. Little girls are still getting raped today because of Muhammad, not because of King Richard, and all Brian can do is offer idiotic excuses.

I don't see how "alluding" to the existence of someone who might be a whore has the same implications either. Jesus also touched lepers and consorted with all sorts of nasty people.

If you could convince Muslims that Muhammad and the Quran belong in the past, you might have a point. Alas, you cannot do this and you do not have a point. All you have to offer us is rather disturbing support for the rape of little children.

Back to top

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47358
At my desk.

Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Reply #102 - Mar 2^nd, 2018 at 12:45pm

Quote:

As I have said repeatedly, Jesus was not leading any state, and had no responsibility for the running of an actual society.

Neither was Muhammad, until he decided to use rape and pillage to build a state from scratch - a state that institutionalised rape and pillage for the benefit of the state. In order to build this state to impose his religion on people, Muhammad chose to sacrifice everything that was good about his religion and turn it into a tool of evil for the benefit of his state.

Quote:

When you understand this point, you might understand the fact that Muhammad's actions were done with the welfare of his people in mind.

We do not fail to understand it. We criticse it as morally vacuous and self serving.

Quote:

The fact is, when his people were evicted from their homes - from a city and society which was really the only place that resembled a commercial centre in the entire peninsula - a state of war had been established.

Only if you have been indoctrinated by Islam into a culture of hysterical over-reaction and victimhood mongering. This is why that state of war has existed for 1400 years - because Islam teaches Muslims to seek excuse for war where any humane ideology would teach the pursuit of peace.

Quote:

The muslim community in Medina was not only not safe from the power of Mecca, the non-agrarian community had no means of livelihood in the entirely agrarian city of Medina.

Absolute BS. Muhammad got away with murdering Meccan traders and robbing their caravans, unchallenged for a long time (except for the traders themselves trying to avoid being murdered). Muhamamd's own fetish for murder is what created the danger, and lo and behold, his fetish for even more murder was the solution.

Quote:

Caravan raids were not merely a legitimate prosecution of an existing war that was not started by the muslims - it was actually a means of survival for a group that had almost no possessions, and had no experience or skills carving a life on a farm.

There was no war. There was no state to fight that war. None of this existed until Muhammad turned his religion to hsyterical over-reaction, victimhood mongering, violence and warfare. No wonder modern Muslims follow his lead and never let go of any percieved wrong, turning it instead into a convenient excuse to murder people who they see as being linked in even the most tenuous way. No wonder Muslim countries are such basket cases of never ending violence.

Muhammad went far beyond survival. He went from nothing to ruling everything in a short time. But thanks for thinking of yet another excuse.

Looks like my prediction is coming true. Let's list Gandalf's excuses so far:

Muhammad was only acting in self defence: lie

Muhammad only murdered people to stay alive: lie

Muhammad's 'people' only murdered Meccan traders because they were unfairly evicted: another lie, most only joined up after the rape and pillage started to gain the spoils of war

Jesus didn't really mean what he preached about forgiveness and turning the other cheek, rather it was a cunning plan to get his (apparently unknown) real message out: Muslims projecting the self indulgent cynicism of Islam onto other ideologies

Jesus only did what he did to stay alive: does not even make sense, given that he died

Back to top

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Reply #103 - Mar 2^nd, 2018 at 1:00pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2018 at 11:09am:

Auggie wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 2:52pm:

So, they drove him and the followers out of Mecca, and one year later, after being the leader of community in Medina, he then decides to take revenge on those who deported him???

So much for 'turning the other cheek'.

Jesus forgave his torturers and executioners as he was hanging from the cross. "Forgive them Father for they know not what they do." That there, my friend, is spirituality.

Not some petty revenge over being deported.

As I have said repeatedly, Jesus was not leading any state, and had no responsibility for the running of an actual society. When you understand this point, you might understand the fact that Muhammad's actions were done with the welfare of his people in mind. The fact is, when his people were evicted from their homes - from a city and society which was really the only place that resembled a commercial centre in the entire peninsula - a state of war had been established. The muslim community in Medina was not only not safe from the power of Mecca, the non-agrarian community had no means of livelihood in the entirely agrarian city of Medina. Caravan raids were not merely a legitimate prosecution of an existing war that was not started by the muslims - it was actually a means of survival for a group that had almost no possessions, and had no experience or skills carving a life on a farm.

These are the things that Muhammad had to take into consideration when taking the action that he did. Things that frankly Jesus didn't have to worry about.

Jesus didn’t lead a state because he chose not to. He could’ve migrated to another nation and establish his Christian state; he had ample opportunity to do so. The fact is that Jesus wasn’t willing to subject his followers to such a project because he had no desire to be a temporal leader. Hence, why Jesus kingdom is ‘not if this earth’.

Muhammad could’ve made the same choice as Jesus: rather than migrate to medina, he could’ve offered himself to the Meccan powers at be and give his life like Jesus did. Instead he was too selfish to do so.

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

issuevoter

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 9200
The Great State of Mind
Gender: male

Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Reply #104 - Mar 2^nd, 2018 at 1:37pm

Auggie wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2018 at 1:00pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2018 at 11:09am:

Auggie wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 2:52pm:

So, they drove him and the followers out of Mecca, and one year later, after being the leader of community in Medina, he then decides to take revenge on those who deported him???

So much for 'turning the other cheek'.

Jesus forgave his torturers and executioners as he was hanging from the cross. "Forgive them Father for they know not what they do." That there, my friend, is spirituality.

Not some petty revenge over being deported.

As I have said repeatedly, Jesus was not leading any state, and had no responsibility for the running of an actual society. When you understand this point, you might understand the fact that Muhammad's actions were done with the welfare of his people in mind. The fact is, when his people were evicted from their homes - from a city and society which was really the only place that resembled a commercial centre in the entire peninsula - a state of war had been established. The muslim community in Medina was not only not safe from the power of Mecca, the non-agrarian community had no means of livelihood in the entirely agrarian city of Medina. Caravan raids were not merely a legitimate prosecution of an existing war that was not started by the muslims - it was actually a means of survival for a group that had almost no possessions, and had no experience or skills carving a life on a farm.

These are the things that Muhammad had to take into consideration when taking the action that he did. Things that frankly Jesus didn't have to worry about.

Jesus didn’t lead a state because he chose not to. He could’ve migrated to another nation and establish his Christian state; he had ample opportunity to do so. The fact is that Jesus wasn’t willing to subject his followers to such a project because he had no desire to be a temporal leader. Hence, why Jesus kingdom is ‘not if this earth’.

Muhammad could’ve made the same choice as Jesus: rather than migrate to medina, he could’ve offered himself to the Meccan powers at be and give his life like Jesus did. Instead he was too selfish to do so.

Oh, here we go. Another religious ratbag joins the ranks of Gandalf, Light Boy, Bobby, Scoot, Ross, Taverner, JiSi, Capisonora, et al.

Back to top

No political allegiance. No philosophy. No religion.

IP Logged