If Muhammad has no relevance except as a typically barbaric figure from the barbaric past, fine. But it is sometimes claimed that his behavior has continued relevance as a model for present behavior.
Sorry Bob I missed this while trying to ignore the silly bun fight.
Isn't that like saying the barbaric methods used for dealing with treason in Henry VIII's England mean that the crime of treason has no place in our modern legal system because the punishment was barbaric to modern standards? I think we would soon come a cropper with that argument and have no legal system at all if historical context is to be ignored.
Though hundreds of years apart both Henry and Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) dealt with treason according to the times and facilities they lived in.
Yes as a Muslim I can look at this incident and see it as a model. Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) had created a peace treaty and he stuck to it. He put his life on the line to defend not only the Muslims of Medina but the Jewish tribes as well. When he was betrayed by the Jewish tribe in question he didn't just go round killing people out of anger ... he appointed a judge agreeable to the Jewish tribe and accepted/approved of his judgement. I think there are many good lessons there, for us today, if you care to look for them.
In an insane reaction the Young Turk government, decided to move Armenians from their homeland to Syria where they could starve to death. They were brutal, raping women and killing children in the long death march.
In other words the Muslim Turks killed more than half of its Armenian population.
It is true that Muslims through the ages have done some despicable things while shouting Allahu Akbar, including in Turkey, I will not deny that. However The Young Turks were a progressive political movement which included Muslims, Jews, Christians, Secularists, etc and on 1st November 1922 Turkey was declared a republic.
As you have used the argument that Hitler was born a Catholic and went to a Catholic church when he was young to prove his genocides were religiously based, I shall now prove that the Ottoman Sultan was not a Muslim (other than by accident of birth) and simply used the name of Islam as a political tool:
The Sultan used to wear silk robes just once and then throw them away ... it is forbidden for a Muslim man to wear silk.
Sultan Selim introduced the policy of fratricide, wherein to ensure his son would "inherit" the position of Sultan he killed his brothers and their sons and then killed his own sons when he was sure Suleiman would live to take over ... even if you don't accept the prohibition of killing non-Muslims you must surely be aware of the absolute prohibition of a Muslim killing another Muslim (unless it is a state execution for a crime).
So if they didn't even follow these basic laws of Islam can Islam be blamed for their actions?
Does this mean they were not Muslim by birth or religious practice? No, they were born Muslim and prayed as Muslims and they must face the guilt of their actions but I think before we start saying all Muslims must shoulder the blame for that incident we must decide if the guilty parties were indeed Muslims who were following Islam.
This is why I so strongly oppose admitting the Turks to the EU. They are not even Europeans, but Central Asians.
Do you believe Hitler was right to try to remove all Jews from Europe, as clearly they are not Europeans (as they claim their homeland is Israel) and perhaps you would say do not belong culturally, ethnically or religiously in the EU???
They do not belong culturally, ethnically, or religiously in the EU.
How strange that an "Atheistic Secular Humanist" would choose such an argument. So as a humanist are you saying people who are not culturally or ethnically (which I would read as white) European are not human?
Which religion belongs in Europe?
Please European Union, do not commit European suicide by admitting the Turkish savages to our federation.
Amergin you need to take a break, relax and read some of Hitlers very first speeches .... then have a long think about what you have said above .. because that is how Hitler sounded just a few years before he started killing millions of people.
How can every Atheist on Earth share the blame for Stalin's and Mao's genocides?
How come Code and all Muslims evade their share the blame for Osama bin Ladin, Omar Muhammad, Suleiman the Great, Orkan, Murad, Murad II, Alp Arslan the Seljuk Sultan, Timur e Lenk, Baybars the Mameluk, and the Moguls who all killed millions of innocent people.
Can you see the problem I have highlighted with your argument Amergin?
You can't have it both ways, you do not want to share the blame of the crazies without a religious label but you want me to share the blame for the crazies with a religious label ... that is called hypocrisy.
Code, you cannot use a double standard.
Why not, it is exactly what you just did above.
If Stalin and Mao stain all atheists, then Mu'awiya the Umayyad, Omar, Orkan, Murad, Suleiman the Great, Timur, and Osama bin Ladin stain all Muslims.
I happen to agree with you here, all Muslims are tainted by the acts of "their" crazies and you are tainted by Hitler and Mao .... shall we play the "who's got the biggest death toll under their belt" game? No, because that would be silly and disrespectful to the millions upon millions of victims.
Perhaps it would be better to accept that crazies exist both inside and outside of religion, therefore religion is itself is not to blame ... people are.
However, laudable as that approach may sound, over recent years the strains of religious fundamentalism have reportedly become an increasing part of national politics in Turkey.
Is that any surprise given their proximity to what we in the West are doing to their neighbors?
