Do Not Bash Muslims

[setst777]

I have done this many times, not only in this thread, but others you have started as well. I have tried explaining how the verses Bill Warner and Robert Spencer use to support their position have been taken out of textual and historical context. I have given you some background in Islamic history and how this related to why many of these verses and hadiths were written in they way they were. I have also provided sources from scholars in Islamic Studies and history both contemporary and classical that go into far greater detail than I have to show where Bill Warner and Robert Spencer are incorrect in what they are teaching, but it doesn't matter. Regardless of how clear and concise the explanation given by myself or the sources I provide is in refuting your "experts," they are rejected.


I didn't say anyone was praising a terrorist. I said:

"Praising an anonymous youtuber who simply quotes Islamic text in their videos and recognizing people like Shaykh al Uyayri (A common terrorist who didn't even graduate from high school) and Droit Musulman (Not even a human) as historians only goes to show the lack of knowledge either of you have in this subject."

He read the book in it's entirety and now he's doing a page by page analysis to point out Spencer's many errors. In well over an hour of video, he hasn't even made it to page 20 yet. I would say he's covering it thoroughly.

Yes, it's about Islamic history in which Spencer has got it all wrong.

Robert Spencer quoted from, and sourced, a book by ibn Ishaq to support that fabricated summary. The book makes it clear that it was after 13 years of Muslims being persecuted, violently tortured, murdered, and remaining passive despite of this that they finally resorted to defending themselves.

• It was after 13 years of persecution that Muhammad finally threatened the Qureshi.
• The Qureshi became increasingly and increasingly violent during the 13 years leading up to Muhammad's threats and eventual retaliatory attacks against them.
• It was only after the Qureshi had murdered people close to Muhammad and other Muslims including impaling women in their private parts that Muhammad went to war against the Qureshi.

The above accounts are also supported by many other ancient Islamic scholars with al Tabari and Ibn Kathir being two of the most notable. Robert Spencer's summary of how "jihad" started is inaccurate and misleading. He is intentionally deceiving his audience in making it appear that it was Muhammad that went on the offensive by threatening and eventually going to war with the Qureshi to spread Islam not only among them, but also other non-Muslim tribes. This is not how these events are recorded in history and Robert Spencer from the very beginning of his book (And also the video Setst linked to) is being very dishonest and deceptive.

“Robert Spencer has no academic training in Islamic studies whatsoever; his M.A. degree was in the field of early Christianity... The publications of Spencer belong to the class of Islamophobic extremism that is promoted and supported by right-wing organizations, who are perpetuating a type of bigotry similar to anti-Semitism and racial prejudice. They are to be viewed with great suspicion by anyone who wishes to find reliable and scholarly information on the subject of Islam.” – Carl Ernst, Islamic Scholar at the University of North Carolina

The first video of Ali accomplishes nothing. Robert Spencer never equated terror with terrorism.

In the second video, Ali is extremely dishonest in relaying the history of the Quraysh and the causes of their resistance to Muhammad.

Ali does not detail the fact the Muhammad preached about his new religion for 13 years, along with attacking the religion and customs of the Quraysh. It is one thing to preach about ones religion - which the Quraysh had no problem with - but quite another using that preaching to attack the beliefs of others.

For 13 years the Quraysh patiently endured Muhammad's continued attacks on their religion. That is a long time. And, over time, Muhammad's verbal attacks on their religion became increasingly abusive, pushing his religion in their faces, to the point that the Quraysh could no longer endure it. And Muhammad refused to stop attacking even when asked.

The Quraysh could no longer endure such language from Muhammad, as this was disturbing many people. That is why we start seeing aggression on the part of Quraysh against Muhammad and his followers.

Notice that Ali, in his 2nd video, never mentions this fact. How dishonest is that?

Robert Spencer is not hiding anything, and clearly describes this history between Muhammad and the Quraysh in the following links...

The Life of Muhammad

Myth: Muhammad was Persecuted for Preaching Islam

Myth: Muhammad only Waged War in Self-Defense (Khaybar)

Myth: The Meccans Drew First Blood against the Muslims

Myth: Muslims Fled Mecca under Persecution (the Hijra)

Here is an index of other likely errors promoted by Muslims that the historical records prove otherwise...

The Myths of Muhammad

I agree though that Robert Spencer could had gone into more detail on the origins of Jihad. Even so, this does not change the history of Jihad (defensive and offensive) originating with Muhammad (Qur'an and Hadith), and as clearly demonstrated throughout 1400+ years of Islam's history.

Ali ends by stating that Spencer neglects the few victims of Muhammad's members caused by religious intolerance. While that was bad, that does not excuse the mass murder of tens of millions, and enslavement of millions more, and subjugation of tens of millions of others that originated with the intolerant and sick religion of Muhammad and Jihad over a 1400+ year period of time.

 

[Joyousperson]

I have done this many times, not only in this thread, but others you have started as well. I have tried explaining how the verses Bill Warner and Robert Spencer use to support their position have been taken out of textual and historical context. I have given you some background in Islamic history and how this related to why many of these verses and hadiths were written in they way they were. I have also provided sources from scholars in Islamic Studies and history both contemporary and classical that go into far greater detail than I have to show where Bill Warner and Robert Spencer are incorrect in what they are teaching, but it doesn't matter. Regardless of how clear and concise the explanation given by myself or the sources I provide is in refuting your "experts," they are rejected.

Nope.
You have not given any serious counters to the points made by Robert Spencer [until you relied on Ali from Andalusia] in the above video.

As for Bill Warner, you disputed his claim 64% of the Quran is about the infidels.
I gave you the reference of 180 pages of supporting evidence and you pick one or two verses without the term infidel and claimed Bill Warner was wrong.
Your error is you did not read Bill Warner's notes as to how he arrived at his 64% which is based on stories [related the whole idea in paragraphs] not on single verse.

Therefore Bill Warner's claim is correct in relation to his qualification his findings and supporting references.

You have not given me any other counters re the writings of Robert Spencer, Bill Warner, David Wood, Christian Prince and the other serious critiques of Islam.

Note I have summarized all your counter points within;
B. The Muslim and Muslim Apologist’s counter the above with the following premises; in this thread;
The Critiques of Islam versus Muslim Apologists

What you have done now is merely to throw at me the video from Ali of Andulusia Project without listening to his videos thoroughly.
I have countered his arguments are amateurish.

He read the book in it's entirety and now he's doing a page by page analysis to point out Spencer's many errors. In well over an hour of video, he hasn't even made it to page 20 yet. I would say he's covering it thoroughly.

He stated he only read it once over 3 days.
I don't believe he could grasp and understand the book thoroughly from one reading.

Note Ali claimed his first one or two errors is sufficient to decimate Robert Spencer whole book! What a claim? when I had exposed his deception.

Yes, it's about Islamic history in which Spencer has got it all wrong.
Robert Spencer quoted from, and sourced, a book by ibn Ishaq to support that fabricated summary. The book makes it clear that it was after 13 years of Muslims being persecuted, violently tortured, murdered, and remaining passive despite of this that they finally resorted to defending themselves.

• It was after 13 years of persecution that Muhammad finally threatened the Qureshi.
• The Qureshi became increasingly and increasingly violent during the 13 years leading up to Muhammad's threats and eventual retaliatory attacks against them.
• It was only after the Qureshi had murdered people close to Muhammad and other Muslims including impaling women in their private parts that Muhammad went to war against the Qureshi.

The above accounts are also supported by many other ancient Islamic scholars with al Tabari and Ibn Kathir being two of the most notable. Robert Spencer's summary of how "jihad" started is inaccurate and misleading. He is intentionally deceiving his audience in making it appear that it was Muhammad that went on the offensive by threatening and eventually going to war with the Qureshi to spread Islam not only among them, but also other non-Muslim tribes. This is not how these events are recorded in history and Robert Spencer from the very beginning of his book (And also the video Setst linked to) is being very dishonest and deceptive.

Note I mentioned that book was focused on the History and timeline of Jihad activities and not on "what is jihad" thus he provided only a summary of jihad.

The summary by Robert Spencer is not fabricated at all as it represented the reality then, i.e.

Here [minute 4:28] Ali quoted Spencer relating how the impulse of 'jihad' started with;
1. threat of hellfire
2. Muhammad was rejected by the Qureshi within the Kaabar and threatened them
3. with harsher and harsher threats
4. then warfare against disbelievers​

the above are general facts. Robert Spencer did not mentioned 13 years did he?

The antagonism between the two parties manifested gradually but it was Muhammad who started the tit-for-tat initially.
Tell me which point is wrong?

It is very logical Muhammad would not have threatened the Qureshi due to his lack of numbers against the Qureshi. However the ideology he preached was definitely an insult and a threat to the religion of the Qureshi and evil laden which materialized evidently in history of the Qureshi and the world.

Note I argued it was Muhammad who started the tit-for-tat, after the Qureshi pleaded him then his requesting his uncle Abu Talib to stop insulting their religion.

You did not address this critical point I raised in my previous post;

Note min 13:12 of the second video.
The Qureshi requested Muhammad's uncle Abu Talib to stop him - the second time and pleaded;

"... By God, we cannot endure that our fathers should be reviled, our custom mocked, and our gods insulted ..."​

This is proof, Muhammad was the initiator and the Qureshi merely reacted. It is very human for anyone to feel VERY offended/ hurt when one's religion is insulted, so the Qureshi's subsequent violent reactions is understandable, given Muhammad's uncle did not take any preventive actions to stop him.

Note how Ali slyly avoided the above truth and stated;

'here we have .. the prophet {PBUH} was simply preaching .. about Allah .. [M] being a prophet .. and erh .. preaching Islam, that's it!​

That's it!?? Note how Ali convenient forgot what he read earlier [literally seconds ago] when the Qureshi pleaded;

"... By God, we [Qureshi] cannot endure that our fathers should be reviled, our custom mocked, andour gods insulted ..."​

Ali is so openly dishonest here with the evidence right in front of him and he twisted it to suit his confirmation bias and falsely claimed the Qureshi were the culprits and initial aggressors.
This is a very natural and typical disease suffered by Muslims who will never be able to see the 500 pound gorilla [of evil elements] within their own ideology of Islam.

Note if Muhammad has a positive religion, he should have heeded the Qureshi pleadings and warnings. Muhammad should then quietly gather followers and do good works to the community as an example to draw more followers.
But Muhammad was impatient and started the tit-for-tat, displayed arrogance as commanded by his Allah, insult the religions of the Qureshi, engaged in robbing caravans and subsequently spread his imperialism and terror in alignment with the inherent ethos of evil and violence of his ideology.

Note the critical point, Muhammad is responsible and unilaterally initiated the tit-for-tat.

Address the above critical point and don't beat around the bush.

 

[Joyousperson]

He read the book in it's entirety and now he's doing a page by page analysis to point out Spencer's many errors. In well over an hour of video, he hasn't even made it to page 20 yet. I would say he's covering it thoroughly.

What?? You are lying!

You only provided the link to video #2.
I took the initiative to find more and noted he only had 3 videos, so he did not critique the whole book thoroughly.
I listened to the 3 videos and provided my critique of his amateurish work.

See his Youtube Channel:
Andalusian Project

I suggest you listen to this video again at 2:48 where Spencer stated the purpose of the book is focused on the history of Islamic jihad event as distinct from the doctrine of jihad [holy war] which he, David Wood and others had discussed in detail elsewhere.
He stated the purpose of the book is to fill in the gap between theory in the scriptures with actual events.

So effectively, Ali is intellectually ineffective in his video by focusing on the concept of jihad.
He would be on target if he had disputed the historical timelines.

 

[Joyousperson]

Notice that Ali, in his 2nd video, never mentions this fact. How dishonest is that?

What is more dishonest he read it in the video but conveniently ignored the initial pleading from the Qureshi requesting Muhammad to stop insulting their religion, thus he deceptively stated;

'here we have .. the prophet {PBUH} was simply preaching .. about Allah .. [M] being a prophet .. and erh .. preaching Islam, that's it!​

I agree though that Robert Spencer could had gone into more detail on the origins of Jihad.

I believed his focus was on the timeline and history of the Islamic jihad events of terror, evil and violence, thus he did not give attention to 'what is jihad' with precision which he would have done elsewhere.

Spencer did not write any book solely on what is jihad. I am trying to find his articles detailing what is jihad for JosephZ to counter.
At the most JosephZ will insist some of the verses [e.g. 9:5, 9:29] quoted by Spencer are meant to be historical only but this is debunked within this;
The Critiques of Islam versus Muslim Apologists
see B note 7.

Even so, this does not change the history of Jihad (defensive and offensive) originating with Muhammad (Qur'an and Hadith), and as clearly demonstrated throughout 1400+ years of Islam's history.

Correct.

 

[ToBeLoved]

The Bible actually contains more violent imagery than the Quran, even in the New Testament. And far right Christian nationalist groups in the US are actually considered a significant domestic terrorist threat in the US by the FBI.

But the Bible is understood in a historical context.

Islam interprets what happened in 1600 AD as applicable to today.

 

[Joyousperson]

But the Bible is understood in a historical context.

Islam interprets what happened in 1600 AD as applicable to today.

To be more precise the central authority of Christianity is leveraged upon the principles within the gospels of Christ as supported by the Epistles and Acts plus relevant unabrogated verses from the OT.
The gospel of Jesus Christ has an overriding pacifist maxim, i.e. love all - even enemies which is an injunction to prevent evil and violence upon non-Christians.
Thus, Christians who committed violence cannot be doing them as commanded by Christianity but rather on their own free will and sinful human nature.

The central authority of Islam is the 6236 verses within the Quran [supported by the Ahadith] and within it contain exhortations and commands by Allah which permit Muslims to war against and kill non-Muslims under very vague conditions of threat [FSD: fasad] to the religion. Even drawing cartoons of Muhammad is a threat to the religion of Islam, thus the inevitable violence that follow;

This is the leading verse that support all other warring verses upon conditions of fasad;

Quran 5:33.
The only reward [punishment] of those [infidels] who

[1] make war [HRB: yuḥāribūna] upon Allah and His messenger and
[2] strive [S3Y: wayasʿawna ] after corruption [FSD: fasādan; mischiefs, wronged] in the land​

- will be that they [infidels] will be killed [QTL: yuqattalū] or crucified [SLB: yuṣallabū], or have their [infidels'] hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their [infidels] degradation [KhZY: khiz'yun] in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs [infidels] will be an awful doom;​

 

[Joyousperson]

Note this point from Robert Spencer on being accused to taking verses out of context;

In the video @12:28 Spencer stated;

A lot of people by the fact of my quoting them [verses] has said
"..you are quoting these [verses] out of context"
Spencer responded:
'I am not claiming to be giving you any kind of authoritative interpretation of it. The problem is, if I am quoting them out of context, so are millions of Muslims .. and the moderate would say

'they don't actually refer to something that you should kill people'​

but the moderates have yet to formulate an argument that can convince the extremists they are misusing the verses or taking them out of context.
​

This is the STALEMATE DILEMMA that the ideology of Islam has generated where no Muslim can judge another Muslim as right or wrong [note takfir]. Only Allah can make the final judgment on Muslims on Judgment Day.

Objectively the so-called extremists [directed by their clergy] comply with more of Allah's words and commands in the Quran than the moderates [as casual devotees and lay-Muslims] who do not focus on the verses in the Quran [or Ahadith]. In this case, objectively the so-called extremists or fundamentalists are the truer Muslims.

 

[ToBeLoved]

To be more precise the central authority of Christianity is leveraged upon the principles within the gospels of Christ as supported by the Epistles and Acts plus relevant unabrogated verses from the OT.
The gospel of Jesus Christ has an overriding pacifist maxim, i.e. love all - even enemies which is an injunction to prevent evil and violence upon non-Christians.
Thus, Christians who committed violence cannot be doing them as commanded by Christianity but rather on their own free will and sinful human nature.

The central authority of Islam is the 6236 verses within the Quran [supported by the Ahadith] and within it contain exhortations and commands by Allah which permit Muslims to war against and kill non-Muslims under very vague conditions of threat [FSD: fasad] to the religion. Even drawing cartoons of Muhammad is a threat to the religion of Islam, thus the inevitable violence that follow;

This is the leading verse that support all other warring verses upon conditions of fasad;

Quran 5:33.
The only reward [punishment] of those [infidels] who

[1] make war [HRB: yuḥāribūna] upon Allah and His messenger and
[2] strive [S3Y: wayasʿawna ] after corruption [FSD: fasādan; mischiefs, wronged] in the land​

- will be that they [infidels] will be killed [QTL: yuqattalū] or crucified [SLB: yuṣallabū], or have their [infidels'] hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their [infidels] degradation [KhZY: khiz'yun] in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs [infidels] will be an awful doom;​

The fact is that Islam is a combination of political ideology and religion which is against all non believers.

Christianity is not violent against non believers.

Violence is taught in the Quran against all non being that there should be violence against them.

Like the 400 Christian churches burned down in Europe

 

[Joyousperson]

JosephZ

Here is another video from Robert Spencer which is specific to jihad.
You have condemned Robert Spencer like a fraud, show me where he is wrong in quoting the Quran in the video below?

Robert Spencer: The Theological Aspects of Islam That Lead to Jihad

I believe Spencer could still dig deeper to justify his points on jihad [holy war] but I agree with most [not all] of what he said in the video.

 

[ToBeLoved]

To be more precise the central authority of Christianity is leveraged upon the principles within the gospels of Christ as supported by the Epistles and Acts plus relevant unabrogated verses from the OT.
The gospel of Jesus Christ has an overriding pacifist maxim, i.e. love all - even enemies which is an injunction to prevent evil and violence upon non-Christians.
Thus, Christians who committed violence cannot be doing them as commanded by Christianity but rather on their own free will and sinful human nature.

The central authority of Islam is the 6236 verses within the Quran [supported by the Ahadith] and within it contain exhortations and commands by Allah which permit Muslims to war against and kill non-Muslims under very vague conditions of threat [FSD: fasad] to the religion. Even drawing cartoons of Muhammad is a threat to the religion of Islam, thus the inevitable violence that follow;

This is the leading verse that support all other warring verses upon conditions of fasad;

Quran 5:33.
The only reward [punishment] of those [infidels] who

[1] make war [HRB: yuḥāribūna] upon Allah and His messenger and
[2] strive [S3Y: wayasʿawna ] after corruption [FSD: fasādan; mischiefs, wronged] in the land​

- will be that they [infidels] will be killed [QTL: yuqattalū] or crucified [SLB: yuṣallabū], or have their [infidels'] hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their [infidels] degradation [KhZY: khiz'yun] in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs [infidels] will be an awful doom;​

That description of Christianity sounds like it was taken out of an atheist textbook.

That’s not a definition or clarification of Christianity

 

[Joyousperson]

That description of Christianity sounds like it was taken out of an atheist textbook.

That’s not a definition or clarification of Christianity

Which atheist textbook?

Note my argument here;
Who is a Christian?

The above definition of 'who is Christian' will prevent Christianity from being accused as a violent religion in relation to the terrible violent elements in the OT and NT.

What are the disadvantages, negative or limitation to the above definition?

 

[FireDragon76]

But the Bible is understood in a historical context.

Islam interprets what happened in 1600 AD as applicable to today.

Most Christians on this forum do not in fact understand the Bible in its historical context, but literally. That's the legacy of fundamentalist Protestantism in American evangelicals.

Literal interpretations of the Bible no longer make much sense to me. I'm very familiar with the historical criticism of the Bible, for one thing.

 

[JosephZ]

It is one thing to preach about ones religion - which the Quraysh has not problem with - but quite another using that preaching to attack the beliefs of others.

The Quraysh could no longer endure such language from Muhammad, as this was disturbing many people. That is why we start seeing aggression on the part of Quraysh against Muhammad and his followers.

How was Muhammad's preaching any different than much of the preaching we hear today from Christian pastors. Do many Christian pastors today warn people of hell? Yes. Warn them against idolatry? Yes. Tell them that they are following false gods? Yes. Should the people these preachers are addressing start torturing Christians, impaling their private parts, and murdering them because the preaching they hear is offensive? Of course not, yet this is what the Quraysh did to the early followers of Islam for more than a decade before the Muslims decided to start defending themselves against the attacks from them.

For 13 years the Quraysh patiently endured Muhammad's continued attacks on their religion.

No they didn't, they started persecuting the Muslims shortly after Muhammad started preaching and yet the Muslims remained passive despite being tortured and killed for a decade before going on the defensive. All Muhammad was preaching was that he was an apostle of God and he was telling the people to Worship God alone, that God has no associate, destroy their idols, and make firm ties of kinship. Hardly preaching worth Muhammad's followers being violently attacked for.

Notice that Ali, in his 2nd video, never mentions this fact. How dishonest is that?

That's because Robert Spencer's version of Islamic history isn't factual.

Robert Spencer is not hiding anything, and clearly describes this history between Muhammad and the Quraysh in the following links...
The Life of Muhammad
Myth: Muhammad was Persecuted for Preaching Islam

At the following link scroll down to 166 where you will find the title "Muhammad's Public Speaking and the Response."
https://ia902602.us.archive.org/5/items/IbnIshaqMuhammad/Ibn Ishaq - Muhammad.pdf

You can continue reading in Ibn Kathir's "The Life of the Prophet Muhammad" pages 311-369 starting with the section titled "Concerning the first persons to accept Islam; also reference to those of the Companions and others who were early in becoming Muslims" in volume one found at the link below to read his version of history and how the Quraysh persecuted the Muslims.

https://ia801600.us.archive.org/4/i...ationOfIbnKathirsAlSiraAlNabawiyyaVolume1.pdf

And continue with Volume Two at the following link.

https://ia801600.us.archive.org/4/i...ationOfIbnKathirsAlSiraAlNabawiyyaVolume2.pdf

The above links lead to the same Islamic sources that Robert Spencer and Religionofpeace take quotes out of context from, but when you read those quotes with the surrounding context, they provide a completely different version of history than what Robert Spencer and Religionofpeace try to convey. Robert Spencer and the people behind anti-Islamic propaganda sites know that most people are either too ignorant of Islamic history or too lazy to check the original sources to see if what they publish is a true account of what the Islamic texts say. This is why so many legitimate historians and scholars of Islamic history criticize people like Robert Spencer so harshly. Spencer is either ignorant of what these Islamic texts actually say himself, or most likely, he is intentionally distorting them to deceive his audience and to sell his worthless books.

 

[JosephZ]

He read the book in it's entirety and now he's doing a page by page analysis to point out Spencer's many errors. In well over an hour of video, he hasn't even made it to page 20 yet. I would say he's covering it thoroughly.

What?? You are lying! You only provided the link to video #2.

Why are you accusing me of lying? My statement is true!

I took the initiative to find more and noted he only had 3 videos, so he did not critique the whole book thoroughly.
He stated he only read it once over 3 days.
I don't believe he could grasp and understand the book thoroughly from one reading.

Robert Spencer's book is written at a grade 8 reading level and is not that complex. Being able to read it and grasp its content in three days sounds reasonable for the average reader, much less for someone with Ali's level of education.

The summary by Robert Spencer is not fabricated at all as it represented the reality then, i.e.

Here [minute 4:28] Ali quoted Spencer relating how the impulse of 'jihad' started with;
1. threat of hellfire
2. Muhammad was rejected by the Qureshi within the Kaabar and threatened them
3. with harsher and harsher threats
4. then warfare against disbelievers
the above are general facts. Robert Spencer did not mentioned 13 years did he?

That's the whole point. Robert Spencer left out the first 13 years of Islamic history and started at a point in time when Muhammad finally decided to act in defense after more than a decade of persecution to make it appear that Muslims from day one used violence to spread their religion.

Note how Ali slyly avoided the above truth and stated;

'here we have .. the prophet {PBUH} was simply preaching .. about Allah .. [M] being a prophet .. and erh .. preaching Islam, that's it!

That's it!?? Note how Ali convenient forgot what he read earlier [literally seconds ago] when the Qureshi pleaded;

"... By God, we [Qureshi] cannot endure that our fathers should be reviled, our custom mocked, andour gods insulted ..."

All Muhammad was preaching was that he was an apostle of God, to Worship God alone, God has no associate, destroy the idols, and make firm ties of kinship.

I listened to the 3 videos and provided my critique of his amateurish work.

You consider everyone other than yourself to be amateurish including some of the world's most well known scholars and experts. Why is that?

Go back and read the links I provided in my last response to Setst777 and you will see just how bad Robert Spencer misrepresents the history of Islam and why his book is not worth reading.

 

[Joyousperson]

Robert Spencer's book is written at a grade 8 reading level and is not that complex. Being able to read it and grasp its content in three days sounds reasonable for the average reader, much less for someone with Ali's level of education.

Yet, Ali failed to understand the intended purpose of Spencer's book.
Note I gave you a youtube linked where he stated the main reason for the book, i.e. to describe the whole history jihad [holy war] of Islam's 1400 history.

That's the whole point. Robert Spencer left out the first 13 years of Islamic history and started at a point in time when Muhammad finally decided to act in defense after more than a decade of persecution to make it appear that Muslims from day one used violence to spread their religion.

Because the book is not about 'what is jihad' Spencer merely provided a general summary which is true.

If you want to focus on the beginning, then what is critical is not what happened within the 13 years but who started the tit-for-tat that culminated to the 13 years and thereafter. Btw, do you understand the meaning of 'tit-for-tat' and where in some cases has led to even genocides and terrible violence in general.

In his video above,
Robert Spencer: The Theological Aspects of Islam That Lead to Jihad
he argue with an extensive range of verses from the Quran with mentioned to the Ahadith.
Re the 'jihad' Ali and you should argue based on what Spencer stated in the above video, not based on his book focused on History.

All Muhammad was preaching was that he was an apostle of God, to Worship God alone, God has no associate, destroy the idols, and make firm ties of kinship.

You sound as if you were there with the Qureshi when Muhammad was preaching to them.
You are very blinded in this case, note the Qureshi pleaded with Abu Talib,

"... By God, we [Qureshi] cannot endure that our fathers should be reviled, our custom mocked, and our gods insulted ..."​

Ibn Kathir cannot be highly reliable, and we don't have an actual record [video, audio recordings] what Muhammad really said to the Qureshi about their religion.
But the evidence for the insult of the Qureshi is solidly supported in the Quran [memorized intact to present] which condemned the religions and dehumanized infidels with tons of derogatory terms.
Muhammad in speaking on behalf of Allah must have spoken to the Qureshi as with Allah's attitude to the infidels.

You consider everyone other than yourself to be amateurish including some of the world's most well known scholars and experts. Why is that?

Basically, when one talk of one's own interest, there is a natural tendency for confirmation bias in general.
But the confirmation bias is more intense when the subject is religious with salvation at stake.
I read about the very terrible 'cold turkey' ex-Muslims has to go through when trying to get out of the evil laden ideology of Islam.
As such, all Muslims scholars being Muslim [to whatever the degree] will naturally be influenced by confirmation bias at the subliminal level to be very subjective with their views on their own religion.
As such, their intellectual work are often amateurish relative to what should be an objective work.

I am a veteran in forums specializing in Philosophy, Spirituality and Religions and I have done my best to cover whatever shortcomings I have by reading up on the full range of necessary knowledge [incl, psychology, neurosciences, evolutionary psychology, anthropology, etc, etc.] to support my views.

That is the reason why I noted with evidence, all the Islamic Scholars no matter how expert they claim to be are relatively amateurish.

Note I'd challenged you to find a scholar on Islam [Muslim or non-Muslim] who did an analytical study of the term 'jihad' used in the Quran like I did above. I have done the same with other critical terms and a very extensive analysis of the Quran's 6236 verses in the context of humanity.

Go back and read the links I provided in my last response to Setst777 and you will see just how bad Robert Spencer misrepresents the history of Islam and why his book is not worth reading.

Note Robert Spencer in that book is not writing about the history of Islam from Muhammad in the cave hearing voices, but the glaringly evident warfare of Islam from his Medinian time to the present.

I agree this Robert Spencer's book on the History of Jihad is not actually highly recommended for reading unless one is very interested in the detailed events of jihad [holy war] from the day Muhammad started his warfare strategy [this is why the 13 years are not critical to this book] till the present time.

Note Ali's critique of Spencer's book is actually off point by focusing on Spencer's general summary of the first 13 years.
But as I had argued, if we want to focus on the first 13 years, then we must know who started the tit-for-tat that generated violence between Qureshi and Muslims during those 13 years.

Note if Muhammad has lasted for 13 years in Mecca, it meant the Qureshi as majority were not as bad and violent as you had exaggerated and portrayed them to be.
However in contrast, note what Allah and Muhammad did to the Jews in Medina and the subsequent terror, evil and violence on millions of infidels that were inspired by the ideology of Islam throughout the 1400 history of Islam?

 

[Joyousperson]

How was Muhammad's preaching any different than much of the preaching we hear today from Christian pastors.
Do many Christian pastors today warn people of hell? Yes. Warn them against idolatry? Yes. Tell them that they are following false gods? Yes.
Should the people these preachers are addressing start torturing Christians, impaling their private parts, and murdering them because the preaching they hear is offensive? Of course not, yet this is what the Quraysh did to the early followers of Islam for more than a decade before the Muslims decided to start defending themselves against the attacks from them.
..

How can you be so ignorant of human history including anthropology and psychology in this case.

Didn't you read the latest on what happened to the Christian missionary, John Chau, in North Sentinel Island of the Andaman group of islands;

The life and death of John Chau, the man who tried to convert his killers
The 26-year-old American adventure blogger was killed by an isolated tribe last year.
The life and death of John Chau, the man who tried to convert his killers​

Those islanders have had bad experiences with Christian Missionaries in the past who supposedly tried to change their beliefs and way of life.

Personally I believe those islanders would have been better off if they were to accept Christianity.
But the fact is any challenge to the existing belief of any human generate terrible negative psychological impulses that will NATURALLY lead to terrible evil and violence. More so if the religion is inherently evil and violent as in the case of the ideology of Islam.

This sort of human nature manifestations would have been natural with the Qureshi then especially when Muhammad insulted their religion, customs and culture.

You cannot be that ignorant of the numbers of Christian missionaries who had been killed since the time of Jesus Christ even when Christianity is inherently pacifist and most Christian missionaries are good people [like yourself].

JosephZ wrote;
Should the people these preachers are addressing start torturing Christians, impaling their private parts, and murdering them because the preaching they hear is offensive?
Of course not, yet this is what the Quraysh did to the early followers of Islam for more than a decade before the Muslims decided to start defending themselves against the attacks from them.​

Again you ignore, who started the tit-for-tat by insulting and mock the customs and religions of the Qureshi first.
Once the tit-for-tat has started we cannot blame one party only for what happened within the 13 years, but objectively, the root cause of the tit-for-tat must be identified, and Muhammad was the root cause.

Of course not?
Note this is still happening today where Christians missionaries are killed [note the Andaman Island case]. At present Muslims are killing Christian Missionaries and those who proselytize to Muslims.
I am sure many Indians/Hindus in India would want to kill Zakir Naik given the opportunity because Naik has insulted their religions and customs. That is why Zakir Naik is now a refugee [hijrah like Muhammad] in another country.
Psychology wise, this is a very natural defense mechanism where most religionists has yet to control and modulate.

I sincerely suggest you stop doing that in Mindanao [to avoid being one of those statistics] given the Muslims there belong to the Shafi'i schools which deemed disbelieving in Islam and worst, proselytizing as justification for being killed.

 

[setst777]

How was Muhammad's preaching any different than much of the preaching we hear today from Christian pastors. Do many Christian pastors today warn people of hell?

setst777 said: ↑
It is one thing to preach about ones religion - which the Quraysh has not problem with - but quite another using that preaching to attack the beliefs of others.

setst777 said: ↑
The Quraysh could no longer endure such language from Muhammad, as this was disturbing many people. That is why we start seeing aggression on the part of Quraysh against Muhammad and his followers.

How was Muhammad's preaching any different than much of the preaching we hear today from Christian pastors. Do many Christian pastors today warn people of hell? Yes. Warn them against idolatry? Yes. Tell them that they are following false gods? Yes. Should the people these preachers are addressing start torturing Christians, impaling their private parts, and murdering them because the preaching they hear is offensive? Of course not, yet this is what the Quraysh did to the early followers of Islam for more than a decade before the Muslims decided to start defending themselves against the attacks from them.

Setst RE: Good questions.

Regarding the first question: The answer as I understand is that, similar to what Muhammad did in Mecca, Christianity certainly does preach about Christianity and includes some preaching against idolatry and false gods, and about hell.

The difference is that Christian preaching does not force its message on anyone against their will. If a person does not want to hear the Christian preaching then they can walk away or turn the channel or station, or not go into a Church. However, Muhammad would preach in the Sacred Area of Mecca where all the other worshipers of their own religions traditionally gathered. So, the other worshipers could not escape Muhammad’s continued attacks upon their religions.

"Your nephew has cursed our gods, insulted our religion, mocked our way of life and accused our forefathers of error. Either you stop him or let us get to him. For you, like us, are in opposition to him. He gave them a conciliatory reply”. They returned a second time and said, “We have asked you to put a stop to your nephew's activities but you have not done so. By Allah, we cannot endure having our fathers reviled and our customs mocked.” (Ishaq, page 119)

As well, while Christians speak or preach with grace and love to those who are pagans, Muhammad did just the opposite.

If Mohammad had simply preached about his own religion in the Sacred Area without attacking and cursing the religion of the others, then all would have been well, since there were many people with many different religions that preached about their gods. However, Muhammad cursed the gods and the religions of the others. Muhammad should have taken the lesson from the Apostle Paul as he preached at the Areopagus in Athens. See: Acts 17:16-34

Abu Sufyan, with other sundry notables, went to Abu Talib and said: "You know the trouble that exists between us and your nephew, so call him and let us make an agreement that he will leave us alone and we will leave him alone; let him have his religion and we will have ours." (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 278)

Muhammad refused, and continued has verbal attacks on the Quraysh and their gods. So when Muhammad's uncle confronted Muhammad about his continued attacks, read what Muhammad's response was. . .

Abu Talib said to Muhammad, “Nephew, how is it that your tribe is complaining about you and claiming that you are reviling their gods and saying this, that, and the other.” The Allah’s Apostle said, “Uncle, I want them to utter one saying. (There is no ilah but Allah and Muhammad is his Prophet.) If they say it, the Arabs will submit to them and the non-Arabs will pay the Jizya tax.” (Tabari, Vol. VI, page 96)...

Your second point… Regarding impaling or torturing and murdering for preaching what was offensive, I respond as follows. Firstly, that is only one of several renditions about what happened. So, not sure that was even true. Even so, your idea that their was widespread attacks on the Muslims is false. There could have been no more than 40 Muslims at that time, according to the hightest count mentioned.

You must keep in mind that we are dealing with a time in history where people settled differences in more barbaric ways. They did not have the civil laws like we have today. Muhammad, and other Muslims, who kept cursing the religions of the Quraysh did so knowing full well they were upsetting the Quraysh, but kept doing so anyway, thus antagonizing and taunting the Quraysh for years.

Muhammad brought on the resentment of the local people not by preaching Islam, but by breaking with Meccan tradition and cursing other religions and the Quraysh themselves:

When the apostle openly displayed Islam as Allah ordered him, his people did not withdraw or turn against him, so far as I have heard, until he spoke disparagingly of their gods. When he did that, they took great offence and resolved unanimously to treat him as an enemy. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 167),

"[Muhammad] declared Islam publicly to his fellow tribesmen. When he did so, they did not withdraw from him or reject him in any way, as far as I have heard, until he spoke of their gods and denounced them." (al-Tabari Vol.VI, p.93)

setst777 said: ↑
For 13 years the Quraysh patiently endured Muhammad's continued attacks on their religion.

No they didn't, they started persecuting the Muslims shortly after Muhammad started preaching and yet the Muslims remained passive despite being tortured and killed for a decade before going on the defensive. All Muhammad was preaching was that he was an apostle of God and he was telling the people to Worship God alone, that God has no associate, destroy their idols, and make firm ties of kinship. Hardly preaching worth Muhammad's followers being violently attacked for.

Setst RE: Shortly after? Show me the evidence. If the persecution began shortly after, then how do you explain 13 years of this abuse without all the Muslims not having been killed and tortured? Only about 40 MAXIMUM followers of Muhammad existed at that time

Although asked to stop, Muhammad continued to stir up trouble by “condemning” the local religions, causing the Meccans great anxiety:

[The Meccans] said they had never known anything like the trouble they had endured from this fellow. He had declared their mode of life foolish, insulted their forefathers, reviled their religion, divided the community and cursed their gods (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 183).

"We [the Meccans] have never seen the like of what we have endured from this man [Muhammad]. He has derided our traditional values, abused our forefathers, reviled our religion, caused division among us, and insulted our gods. We have endured a great deal from him." (al-Tabari, Vol.VI p.101)

No Arab had ever treated his tribe as Muhammad had treated them, and they repeated the charges... If it was money he wanted, they would make him the richest of them all; if it was honor, he should be their prince; if it was sovereignty, they would make him king. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 188)

Actually the Muslims were not innocently preaching, they were rather rude and emboldened to act forcefully with the Meccans…

The Muslims were actually the first to resort to physical violence when Sa’d bin Abu Waqqas picked up a camel’s jawbone and struck a local polytheist who was “rudely interrupting” his group of praying Muslims. "This was the first blood to be shed in Islam" (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 166).

When he got to the mosque [Hamza] saw [Abu Jahl] sitting among the people, and went up to him until he stood over him, when he lifted up his bow and struck him a violent blow with it, saying, 'Will you insult him when I follow his religion, and say what he says? Hit me back if you can!' (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 185).

Although Abu Jahl did not retaliate against the more powerful man at the time, he later mistreated his Muslim slaves, almost certainly as a consequence of his public humiliation.

Muhammad, after antagonizing the Quraysh for so long was finally being aggressively resisted. So Muhammad then whines about being persecuted and oppressed. And that is why Muhammad justified raiding and killing the Quraysh - which begins the Jihad against unbelievers…

Qur’an 2:191 And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.

setst777 said: ↑
Notice that Ali, in his 2nd video, never mentions this fact. How dishonest is that?

That's because Robert Spencer's version of Islamic history isn't factual.

Setst RE: That is not a logical response. How does that prove that Robert Spencer’s version isn’t factual?

setst777 said: ↑
Robert Spencer is not hiding anything, and clearly describes this history between Muhammad and the Quraysh in the following links...
The Life of Muhammad
Myth: Muhammad was Persecuted for Preaching Islam

At the following link scroll down to 166 where you will find the title "Muhammad's Public Speaking and the Response."
https://ia902602.us.archive.org/5/items/IbnIshaqMuhammad/Ibn Ishaq - Muhammad.pdf

You can continue reading in Ibn Kathir's "The Life of the Prophet Muhammad" pages 311-369 starting with the section titled "Concerning the first persons to accept Islam; also reference to those of the Companions and others who were early in becoming Muslims" in volume one found at the link below to read his version of history and how the Quraysh persecuted the Muslims.
https://ia801600.us.archive.org/4/i...ationOfIbnKathirsAlSiraAlNabawiyyaVolume1.pdf

And continue with Volume Two at the following link.
https://ia801600.us.archive.org/4/i...ationOfIbnKathirsAlSiraAlNabawiyyaVolume2.pdf

Setst RE: I studied over the pages you listed from those sources. I don’t see how you say Robert Spencer or Religionofpeace misquoted them out of context. All of the context seems pretty straight forward to me as to the cause of the disagreements – and the disagreements and strife occurred because of Muhammad preaching against their religion and god’s of Mecca, and doing this at the sacred areas.

However, beyond all this, the main point of all this is how Muhammad handled persecution. Christians are ordered in their Sacred Scriptures to endure persecution, and consider it an honor to be mistreated for their Lord.

IN CONTRAST:

• Muhammad set the example of how Islam is to handle what they perceive as persecution: To take vengeance on those who you feel persecute you.
• Eventually, even attacking those who refuse to believe like you do, killing, raiding, raping, enslaving and subduing.

That is how Islam handles those who disagree with them - according to their Sacred Scriptures. That is the danger - because all Muslims for all time are to follow his example. That is why Jihad continues after him 1400 years + and counting.

Joyousperson said: ↑
The summary by Robert Spencer is not fabricated at all as it represented the reality then, i.e.

Here [minute 4:28] Ali quoted Spencer relating how the impulse of 'jihad' started with;
1. threat of hellfire
2. Muhammad was rejected by the Qureshi within the Kaabar and threatened them
3. with harsher and harsher threats
4. then warfare against disbelievers
the above are general facts. Robert Spencer did not mentioned 13 years did he?

That's the whole point. Robert Spencer left out the first 13 years of Islamic history and started at a point in time when Muhammad finally decided to act in defense after more than a decade of persecution to make it appear that Muslims from day one used violence to spread their religion.

Setst RE: Spencer covered enough to make the point that Muhammad was the cause of the trouble with the Quraysh, by which Muhammad began his raiding and killing spree under Jihad. And so Jihad begins.

Joyousperson said: ↑
Note how Ali slyly avoided the above truth and stated;

'here we have .. the prophet {PBUH} was simply preaching .. about Allah .. [M] being a prophet .. and erh .. preaching Islam, that's it!

That's it!?? Note how Ali convenient forgot what he read earlier [literally seconds ago] when the Qureshi pleaded;

"... By God, we [Qureshi] cannot endure that our fathers should be reviled, our custom mocked, andour gods insulted..."

All Muhammad was preaching was that he was an apostle of God, to Worship God alone, God has no associate, destroy the idols, and make firm ties of kinship.

Setst RE: That is not all. Muhammad was cursing their gods, and doing this openly in the sacred place for years. The Quraysh did what they could to solve the problem peaceably with Muhammad, but he refused. For instance:

Abu Sufyan, with other sundry notables, went to Abu Talib and said: "You know the trouble that exists between us and your nephew, so call him and let us make an agreement that he will leave us alone and we will leave him alone; let him have his religion and we will have ours." (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 278)

Joyousperson said: ↑
I listened to the 3 videos and provided my critique of his amateurish work.

setst RE: I would agree that the critique is biased and amateurish. He is opinionated and uses faulty logic, and is not being honest with the Islamic sources. He doesn't read the key parts at the very ends of the quotes that he actually shows as anyone can see.

 

[JosephZ]

Muhammad would preach in the Sacred Area of Mecca where all the other worshipers of their own religions traditionally gathered. So, the other worshipers could not escape Muhammad’s continued attacks upon their religions. As well, while Christians speak or preach with grace and love to those who are pagans, Muhammad did just the opposite. If Mohammad had simply preached about his own religion in the Sacred Area without attacking and cursing the religion of the others, then all would have been well, since there were many people with many different religions that preached about their gods. However, Muhammad cursed the gods and the religions of the others. Muhammad should have taken the lesson from the Apostle Paul as he preached at the Areopagus in Athens. See: Acts 17:16-34

You sound like you are describing many of the Christian apologist and street preachers that stand in front of mosques (Even enter them in some cases) and attend festivals where there are large numbers of Muslims in attendance condemning them to hell, calling them liars, mocking and insulting their prophet and even putting pig's heads on sticks on some occasions. They also create websites where they do the same (Ironically one of these websites is uses Acts 17 in it's URL and name). Seems they could take some lessons from Paul themselves.

Regarding impaling or torturing and murdering for preaching what was offensive, I respond as follows. You must keep in mind that we are dealing with a time in history where people settled differences in more barbaric ways. They did not have the civil laws like we have today.

Bingo! Muhammad and his companions were a warriors much the same as King David and Joshua in the Bible. They all committed atrocities and instructed their soldiers to commit them against their enemies. If we look at Muhammad and his actions through a historical lens, while they appear bad by our modern perspective, they were normal for the point in history that he lived. In other words, empires in the past whether they be Jew, Christian, Muslim, or Pagan were all guilty of committing atrocities during their expansions that we today would consider to be barbaric and evil.

Shortly after? Show me the evidence. If the persecution began shortly after, then how do you explain 13 years of this abuse without all the Muslims not having been killed and tortured?

These answers can be found at the links I provided. Muhammad for example wasn't killed because he fell under the protection of his uncle and tribal tradition. Not all Muslims were as fortunate as Muhammad.

The Muslims were actually the first to resort to physical violence when Sa’d bin Abu Waqqas picked up a camel’s jawbone and struck a local polytheist who was “rudely interrupting” his group of praying Muslims. "This was the first blood to be shed in Islam" (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 166).

This quote didn't come from the original source. It leaves out how Abu Waqqas was attacked first and the blow with the camel's jawbone was in self defense. Your quote above has been edited. The part about being attacked comes between the first and second sentence in the quote you gave in both Ibn Kathir's book as well as Ibn Ishaq's.

To take vengeance on those who you feel persecute you. Eventually, even attacking those who refuse to believe like you do, killing, raiding, raping, enslaving and subduing. That is how Islam handles those who disagree with them - according to their Sacred Scriptures. That is the danger.

You are describing how Islamic extremist behave.

It's true that Islam isn't a pacifist religion, but can you provide a historical account that shows where Muhammad or his companions ever attacked others simply for not believing in Islam?

I would agree that the critique is biased and amateurish. He is opinionated and uses faulty logic, and is not being honest with the Islamic sources. He only reads the parts of the quotes from Spencer’s books, but leaves out the key parts at the very ends of the quotes that he actually shows as anyone can see.

The below is an example of not being honest with the Islamic sources as intentionally leaves out key information that tells why Abu Waggas struck the polytheist (i.e that Abu Waggas was physically attacked and struck back in self defense):

The Muslims were actually the first to resort to physical violence when Sa’d bin Abu Waqqas picked up a camel’s jawbone and struck a local polytheist who was “rudely interrupting” his group of praying Muslims. "This was the first blood to be shed in Islam" (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 166).

If you had read the links I provided, you would see that Robert Spencer is the one who is guilty of misrepresenting the Islamic texts that he uses as sources in his book.

 

[setst777]

You sound like you are describing many of the Christian apologist and street preachers that stand in front of mosques

setst777 said: ↑
Muhammad would preach in the Sacred Area of Mecca where all the other worshipers of their own religions traditionally gathered. So, the other worshipers could not escape Muhammad’s continued attacks upon their religions. As well, while Christians speak or preach with grace and love to those who are pagans, Muhammad did just the opposite. If Mohammad had simply preached about his own religion in the Sacred Area without attacking and cursing the religion of the others, then all would have been well, since there were many people with many different religions that preached about their gods. However, Muhammad cursed the gods and the religions of the others. Muhammad should have taken the lesson from the Apostle Paul as he preached at the Areopagus in Athens. See: Acts 17:16-34

You sound like you are describing many of the Christian apologist and street preachers that stand in front of mosques (Even enter them in some cases) and attend festivals where there are large numbers of Muslims in attendance condemning them to hell, calling them liars, mocking and insulting their prophet and even putting pig's heads on sticks on some occasions. They also create websites where they do the same (Ironically one of these websites is uses Acts 17 in it's URL and name). Seems they could take some lessons from Paul themselves.

Setst RE: Christians standing in front of Mosques preaching hate against Muhammad and Allah? I sincerely doubt that is happening. Provide evidence that this is happening by actual mainline Christian organizations. Christians are very careful to preach only in authorized areas, and not to preach hate, and they do not curse Muhammad or Allah. Even David Wood, although using humor to get his points across clearly, does not viciously attack or curse Muhammad or Allah.

Are you saying that, what you described as Christian behavior, is how mainline Christians treat Muslims?

Muhammad was acting towards the Quraysh as an example to follow.

Are Christians taught to act similarly to Muslims?

setst777 said: ↑
Regarding impaling or torturing and murdering for preaching what was offensive, I respond as follows. You must keep in mind that we are dealing with a time in history where people settled differences in more barbaric ways. They did not have the civil laws like we have today.

Bingo! Muhammad and his companions were a warriors much the same as King David and Joshua in the Bible.

setst RE: Bingo is correct.

• While Christians do not follow the OT,
• Muslims do follow Muhammad.

His barbaric practices of Jihad are still valid today as a command from Allah and His messenger, and as carefully followed for 1400+ years.

They all committed atrocities and instructed their soldiers to commit them against their enemies. If we look at Muhammad and his actions through a historical lens, while they appear bad by our modern perspective, they were normal for the point in history that he lived. In other words, empires in the past whether they be Jew, Christian, Muslim, or Pagan were all guilty of committing atrocities during their expansions that we today would consider to be barbaric and evil.

Setst RE: Comparing Muhammad to King David and Joshua. What next?

So you acknowledge that Muhammad was Jihad extremist? That is all we needed to know. No need to discuss further with you, since you are now showing you agree that the extremists are the real Muslims following the example of their Prophet.

setst777 said: ↑
Shortly after? Show me the evidence. If the persecution began shortly after, then how do you explain 13 years of this abuse without all the Muslims not having been killed and tortured?

These answers can be found at the links I provided. Muhammad for example wasn't killed because he fell under the protection of his uncle and tribal tradition.

Setst RE: Your links do not prove what you hoped. Yes, Muhammad wasn’t killed because he was protected by his uncle.

setst777 said: ↑
The Muslims were actually the first to resort to physical violence when Sa’d bin Abu Waqqas picked up a camel’s jawbone and struck a local polytheist who was “rudely interrupting” his group of praying Muslims. "This was the first blood to be shed in Islam" (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 166).

This quote didn't come from the original source. It leaves out how Abu Waqqas was attacked first and the blow with the camel's jawbone was in self defense. Your quote above has been edited. The part about being attacked comes between the first and second sentence in the quote you gave in both Ibn Kathir's book as well as Ibn Ishaq's.

Setst RE: Nowhere does Ibn Ishaq 166 state that the Quraysh struck anyone, or even that they were the first to “blow” (whatever that actually means). Apparently both the Quraysh and Muslims started to throw punches, but doesn’t say anyone was hit or was wounded.

“They blamed them for what they were doing until they came to blows, and it was on that occasion that Sa’d smote a polytheist with the jawbone of a camel and wounded him. This was the first blood shed in Islam”

The only one said to be hit or wounded was a polytheist by a Muslim.

setst777 said: ↑
To take vengeance on those who you feel persecute you. Eventually, even attacking those who refuse to believe like you do, killing, raiding, raping, enslaving and subduing. That is how Islam handles those who disagree with them - according to their Sacred Scriptures. That is the danger.

You are describing how Islamic extremist behave.

It's true that Islam isn't a pacifist religion, but can you provide a historical account that shows where Muhammad or his companions ever attacked others simply for not believing in Islam?

Setst RE: Islamic extremists behave just like their prophet. 1400+ years of Jihad do not lie. 1400+ years of extremism. This is Islam.

Firstly, you have to read the Qur’an and Hadith to actually learn that Muhammad and his followers actually did take vengeance on others for refusing to submit to him – killing, raiding, raping, enslaving, subduing, pillaging all who opposed him. The Quraysh were killed in raids because they refused believe in Allah and that Muhammad was Allah’s Messenger and become Muslims.

Abu Talib said to Muhammad, “Nephew, how is it that your tribe is complaining about you and claiming that you are reviling their gods and saying this, that, and the other.” The Allah’s Apostle said, “Uncle, I want them to utter one saying. (There is no ilah but Allah and Muhammad is his Prophet.) If they say it, the Arabs will submit to them and the non-Arabs will pay the Jizya tax.” (Tabari, Vol. VI, page 96)...

The Quraysh refused to confess Muhammad as their Prophet or pay a Jizya tax to Muhammad, so Muhammad went on a rampage raiding, pillaging, killing and enslaving the Quraysh.

Qur’an 2:191 And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.

Every battle that Muhammad fought was because he was ordering them to submit to Islam confessing Muhammad as their prophet, or to submit to Muhammad as servants.

Truces were formed with more powerful tribes until Muhammad gained enough power to overthrow them.

There was no other way out. During Muhammad’s life as Prophet, 29 battles took place. Naturally many resisted, because Muhammad was a threat to them. So, Muhammad attacked, killed, raped, pillaged, destroyed, many peoples and their way of life. And that Jihad continues to be followed today.

setst777 said: ↑
I would agree that the critique is biased and amateurish. He is opinionated and uses faulty logic, and is not being honest with the Islamic sources. He only reads the parts of the quotes from Spencer’s books, but leaves out the key parts at the very ends of the quotes that he actually shows as anyone can see.

The below is an example of not being honest with the Islamic sources as intentionally leaves out key information that tells why Abu Waggas struck the polytheist:

setst777 said: ↑
The Muslims were actually the first to resort to physical violence when Sa’d bin Abu Waqqas picked up a camel’s jawbone and struck a local polytheist who was “rudely interrupting” his group of praying Muslims. "This was the first blood to be shed in Islam" (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 166).

If you had read the links I provided, you would see that Robert Spencer is the one who is guilty of misrepresenting the Islamic texts that he uses as sources in his book.

Setst RE: I don't see any error made in the context.

I would agree that the critique of "The History of JIHAD" is biased and amateurish. He is opinionated and uses faulty logic, and is not being honest with the Islamic sources. He only reads the parts of the quotes from Spencer’s books, but leaves out the key parts at the very ends of the quotes that he actually shows as anyone can see.

 

[Joyousperson]

This quote didn't come from the original source. It leaves out how Abu Waqqas was attacked first and the blow with the camel's jawbone was in self defense. Your quote above has been edited. The part about being attacked comes between the first and second sentence in the quote you gave in both Ibn Kathir's book as well as Ibn Ishaq's.

The below is an example of not being honest with the Islamic sources as intentionally leaves out key information that tells why Abu Waggas struck the polytheist (i.e that Abu Waggas was physically attacked and struck back in self defense):

What Setst stated in quoted "..." earlier is true and anyone can read the full passage in the Sira which Setst777 reproduced in total.

It is stated "until they came to blows" but no mentioned who started to be physical first.
But was is sure is, Sa'd drew the first blood to be shed in Islam.

However note the following statements in the Sira are critical.

When the apostle openly displayed Islam as God ordered him his people did not withdraw or turn against him, so far as I have heard, until he [Muhammad] spoke disparagingly of their gods. When he did that they took great offence and resolved unanimously to treat him as an enemy ...
Ibn Ishaq 166.​

It is only vary natural, in the beginning Muhammad has to speak nicely [Tagiyyah] but ultimately he has to express Islam's inherent insults, aggressiveness and threats against infidels as in the Quran.

Ibn Ishaq 704-767 wrote the Sira of Muhammad 100++ years after the death of Muhammad and there is no mentioned of it being memorized perfectly like the Quran.
As such Ibn Ishaq's biography of Muhammad is not solidly credible and cannot be taken as an authority on the life of Muhammad especially the detail events. It has to be taken with a pinch of salt.

In principle it is very clear, Muhammad started the tit-for-tat and as with the ethos of the Quran, insulted the Qureshi.
Ibn Ishaq [not 100% certain] give some clue to the point Muhammad disparaged and insulted the religion of the Qureshi and continued to do so despite the pleading to him and Muhammad uncle to stop him.

Therefore to attempt to justify the whole history of the terrible evil and violent acts in Islam's 1400 history down to a self-defense situation with the Qureshi is most dumb.

Fact is, the Quran 6236 verses comprised the complete guideline for all Muslims to adopt as commanded by God.