They don't though, the Prophet rapped a women over the blood of her beheaded husband, these terrorists are tame by comparison.
assuming you mean raped... as him rapping at a woman seems mean and all, but rap wasn't around for another 1350 some odd years... I would love to see your source. I am pretty sure I know where you got it from, but let's see if you can actually find it anywhere legit. 2 sources that are quite good you can try are Quran.com and Sunnah.com . other than that you will have to give detailed information so as to pinpoint where you found it. I have access to an Islamic Library, so if you really do have something, I'll be sure to look it up.
I think you prove that all views should be questioned, not that a particular view should be defended...
Partially correct, C for effort on that one... It proves that the views themselves aren't the fault but rather mankind and our inability to be perfect is often if not always at fault.
I do not think for a second that 1.6 billion people are inhumane... I think most of these people would drop Islam in a second if given an alternative... unfortunately, in Muslim states, dropping the religion is punishable by death... lo, most people would rather live.
Bold claim there, and what do you base this claim on? Most you say, so what are you thinking 60%, 70%, 80%. I hope you realize a Majority of Muslims live in countries where Apostacy isn't punishable. And to find a state sponsored law you really can only look at 2-3 countries. Unless you can show any proof to such a claim I'll chalk this up to your personal probably non-substantiated claim.
I have already given an example of Muhammad's actual actions, I find this ignorant, honestly.
you did so in this post, hardly a point of contention to already refute. Even that one is likely baseless. Mind you I am a revert, I went through all these claims before I chose this path. I know where most of them come from, so Please if you have better sources, state them. Mind you I don't put a lot of weight on modern authors without referencing actual documentation of events.
Look, the simple fact of the matter is before Muhammad became a war monger,
He didn't, with maybe 1 exception every war he was involved in was based defensively.
the religion was a failure... he had less than 100 followers before they started becoming barbaric.
ooh tough one to prove also. See the only time he had that low numbers is when he left Mecca into Medina. Medinese were much more willing to speak with him and many joined there. There wasn't a war to gain people.
he eventually took over the entire Arabian peninsular, but to pretend it was on any valid premise is simply delusional...
most of the Peninsula joined willingly, with a few issues here and there. But there was no major campaigns. Most battles began when an area rejected his prophethood and then attacked him to prove they were correct. Would you like some examples or has this basic knowledge already been taught to you?
people in general like being alive, this is the only basis for the spread of Islam... there simply is no other.
So equality of man, a perfect scripture (linguistically, scientifically (what it describes has never been proven wrong, not that it teaches new ideas about science), etc), a social/political structure that if followed correctly leaves no man/woman/child without food, clothing, or other basic necessities, common manners we still use today... none of these attracted people?
The founder was an idiot, and offers nothing to human consciousness at all...
The founder being? In our view the Founder is ALLAH, as Mouhammed (PBUH) was merely a messenger and slave of Allah. You can argue that since you don't believe in the concept of a God, Mouhammed (PBUH) made this religion himself, but that's hardly offering nothing since it has stood for 1400+ years without being abandoned.
If this is true great, but given your comments, I have to doubt it. Either that or whoever your teacher was did a craptastic job of explaining it.
All of it? That's quite a feat, Sahih Buhkari has what 7,200 (some repeated) Hadiths. Sahih Muslim 2,200. And 4 other books that are generally considered semi-reliable. not to mention the Dozens of smaller volumes. You might be one of the utmost authorities to not only read them but remember them well enough to know their strengths to make claims no scholar has ever done before. [sarcasm]
I have read many Muslim sources...
so, poems, history documents, etc?
I wanted to love Muhammad because of his Sufi's,
Mouhammed (PBUH) didn't have Sufis. The Sufi movement came much later and in many ways contradicts many of the teachings Mouhammed (PBUH) taught. Their reliance on magic and mysticism kindof defeats the purpose of the Islamic life structure. They are by all means free to believe as they want, and although the major difference exists the Ummah is not completely separated from them.
but the entire religion is simply disgusting...
Come on the entire religion? surely you are smart enough not to make such baseless claims.
if I am banned for telling the truth then I shouldn't be here...
If you are to be banned, it won't be from you telling the truth, It will be from essentially flame warring. making baseless claims in a direct attack on a particular religion. There are sites where that is acceptable, but we prefer a more scholarly approach here. Claims must be substantiated with references and cites and at least an attempt be made to be civil.
What is sad is you probably are fully aware of the atrocities of Muhammad, you just want them ignored.
Wrong again. in the couple years I studied Islam before accepting it, I never found 1 warranted claim of atrocities nor even a single act of questionable rudeness. The closest thing I found was his wife's age, but upon delving into it more, found that not only is her age questioned, it wasn't uncommon anywhere in the world for a pubescent girl to be married. up until the early 1900s a 15 year old girl who was un married in the US would be considered old and undesirable or thought to have been doing "evil" acts.
