Political Crossfire Forums

[pedagogue]

Ways to end cartoon furor debated wrote:

Copenhagen, Denmark — Muslim and Christian scholars and clerics agreed at a conference Friday that the West and Islam must use dialogue to repair ties frayed by the crisis over the Prophet Muhammad cartoons.

However, the Muslim panelists accused the Danish government of mishandling the crisis and said it must apologize to the Muslim world if wants an Arab boycott on Danish goods to be lifted.

"We request an official apology from your government to the Muslim nation and to the Muslims in Denmark," said Tariq al-Suweidan, an Islamic scholar from Kuwait.

He also demanded that the European Union enact a law that forbids insulting religious figures.

Despite massive Muslim protests and in some cases violent attacks on Danish Embassies, the center-right government in Copenhagen has refused to apologize, saying it cannot be held responsible for the actions of an independent newspaper.

The cartoons were published in a Danish paper in September, and have since been reprinted by other Western media.

"We cannot give you what you want," said Eyvind Vesselbo, a lawmaker belonging to Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen's Liberal Party, referring to al-Suweidan's demand for an apology. Instead, Vesselbo said he could offer friendship and dialogue.

Amr Khaled, a popular Egyptian preacher, said Danish people and their government should reach out to Muslim countries with initiatives to promote small businesses or health care, for example.
This, to a casual observer, would appear to be the same type of mindset that justified to Libyan (Muslim) pirates their right to practice piracy on the Mediterranean Sea until American naval forces put an end to it roughly two centuries ago. And just yesterday in Houston, Muslim protestors railed against the Danish caricatures saying that Muhammed was a 'peaceful man.' A 'peaceful man?' Let's look at what history has to say about this 'peaceful man.'

Let's look at Muhammed's historical record of "peace;" Muhammad was a common hoodlum and a highway robber
Iin Dec. A.D. 622 In Ramadhan, seven months after his arrival, the prophet dispatched his uncle Hamza, at the head of thirty Refugees, to surprise a Meccan caravan returning from Syria under the guidance of Abul Hakam (Abu Jahl). This caravan, was guarded by some 300 men. Hamza’s men had to retreat empty handed to Medina and Abul Hakam proceeded onwards to Mecca. This was the first confrontation started by Muhammad, which was aborted because of shortage of men and bad planning. The god who told Muhammad to raid and plunder the caravans, did not tell him how to do it. And the Prophet had to learn it by trial and error just like any greenhorn thief.

More than one year had past and despite several attempts and expeditions none of the holy Prophet's robberies were successful. The megalomaniac Messenger of Allah finally realized that he has to start with smaller targets. So when the news reached him of a small merchant caravan going from Mecca to Taif which was guarded by four men, he seized the opportunity and sent Abdallah ibn Jahsh, with seven other immigrants, to hijack that caravan, and in violation of a long-standing tradition of no hostility during the sacred months.

The group of bandits went to Nakhla a Valley between that Mecca and Taif known for its date orchards and waited there. In a short time a caravan laden with wine, raisins, and leather, came up. It was guarded by four ****, who, seeing the strangers, were alarmed, and halted. To disarm their apprehensions, one of Abdallah's party shaved his head, in token that they were returning from the lesser pilgrimage; for this was one of the months in which that ceremony was ordinarily performed. The men of the caravan were at once reassured, and turning their camels adrift to pasture, began to prepare food for themselves. Then one of Abdallah’s men advanced; and discharging an arrow, killed a man of the convoy, on the spot. All then rushed upon the caravan, and securing two, the rest of the guards as hostages let them along with the goods stolen to Medina. One man escaped.

Muhammad was a practitioner of extortion and murder
Before Abdallah reached Nakhla, two of his men, Sa’d and Otba, lost their camels that wandered in the desert. They went after their camels and missed the action in Nakhla. When Abdallah returned to Medina, these two men had not returned yet. Muhammad feared that they were captured by the Quraish and refused to ransom the captives till he was assured that no foul play had been used against them: - "if ye have killed my two men," he said, "verily, I will put yours also to death." But, soon after, they showed up, and the Prophet accepted the proffered ransom, - forty ounces of silver for each and released them.

Attacking merchant caravans, fighting during the holy months, deceiving and killing innocent people, stealing the goods unlawfully, taking human hostages, demanding ransom for their release, threatening to kill them, etc. are not acts that one would expect from a messenger of God. What the Prophet did was criminal.

It was only then that it became clear for the Quraish that their opponent respected no rules. It is interesting to note that the first blood spelt between the Muslims and the non-believers was spelt by a Muslim. In no time Muslims were victimized. They were always victimizers, the aggressors and provokers. However, the most horrendous act of the Prophet’s injustice is his massacre of all the men of Bani Quraiza in retaliation of one of them killing a Muslim who in turn had killed a Jew. And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

The basis for Muslim hatred for the Jew
This is the story of the tragic end of the Jews of Medina. A case of ethnic cleansing, betrayal and genocide carried out by the Messenger of Allah (PBUH). The prophet raided the 2000 year old Jewish communities of Medina, killed their men, confiscated their properties, enslaved their wives and children and banished the unwanted with no provocation on the part of he Jews. The holy Prophet's sole motive was greed for their wealth and lust for their women.

Jews had been living in Yathrib (Medina) since the time of Moses; about 1200 B.C. A second wave of Jews moved to Yathrib after Nebuchadnezzer, the king of Babylon, destroyed Jerusalem and dispersed the Jews throughout the world in 587 B.C. In A.D. 70 the Romans massacred the Jews in Palestine, and then in A.D. 132 expelled them from that land, many of the Jewish tribes fled to find an asylum in the Hejaz, a territory that was contiguous to Palestine in the south. There, they settled wherever they found water springs and greenery, and then by intrigue and through money lending business gradually occupied the fertile lands. Ailah, Maqna, Tabuk, Taima, Wadi al Qura, Fadak and Khaiber came under their control in that very period, and Bani Quraizah, Bani al-Nadir, Bani Bahdal, and Bani Qainuqa also came in the same period and occupied Yathrib.

In A. D. 450 or 451, a great flood in Yaman forced different tribes of the people of Saba (Arabs) to migrate to other parts of Arabia. Among them Aus and the Khazraj went to settle in Yathrib. These two were big tribes yet they were unskilled people. Unlike the Jews who practically were the master of all trades, and the owners of most businesses, Arabs in Yathrib made their living serving the Jews in their farms and households. They were looked down at, by their Jewish masters and this was the cause of resentment.

Arabs were always at war with each other. But among them, Meccans had an envious position. Ka’ba, the holy place of all the Arabs was in Mecca. It was a place for pilgrimage and that meant power and money for Meccans.

When Abu Talib, Muhammad’s uncle and Khadija, his wife died he lost two of his most powerful supporters and the people of Mecca increased their hostility towards him. He recalled the offer of few men from Thaif who had told him if he made their town the holy place of his new religion, thus making it the religious and the commercial hub of his followers, the Bani Thaqif, people of Taif, might support his cause. So he and his adoptive son Zaid ibn Harith secretly went to Taif in 620 C.E. (Common Era) seeking the alliance of its inhabitants and promising them to make their city the holy place for the Muslims. But instead the Bani Thaqif mocked him and even his plea to keep their visit a secret was not granted. The leaders of Taif may have envied Mecca’s religious prestige but they did not wish to jeopardise their comfortable life for a risky adventure with an obscure religious pretender.

When the Quraish learned of this they were enraged and they escalated their hostility to Muhammad until a couple of years later they decided to assassinate him.

Muhammad learned of the plot against his life and escaped to Yathrib. In Yathrib he had some followers. They belonged to both Khazraj and Aus. These two tribes were weary of constant fighting and especially of a recent Battle (Bu’ath) that occurred among them. They were looking for a way to end the hostilities. So the leaders of both parties accepted Muhammad to act as the mediator among them.

It was an Arab custom and it is also practiced everywhere else, even to this day, that two feuding parties agree on someone to act as the arbitrator. Muhammad who was at first considered to be an outsider and therefore impartial was called to act as an arbitrator in one of these conflicts. It is important to note that the conflict in Yathrib was not between Muslims and Jews; otherwise Muhammad could not have acted as the arbitrator. Also as we saw earlier there were no religious disagreements in Yathrib. However Jews were part of the treaty because of their alliances with the Arab tribes.

The treaty did not give Muslims a mandate to govern. Ibn Hisham reports part of that treaty. But as we shall see this treaty must have been forged. It states.

"The Jews must bear their expenses and the Muslims their expenses. Each must help the other against anyone who attacks the people of this document. They must seek mutual advice and consultation, and loyalty is a protection against treachery. They shall sincerely wish one another well. Their relations will be governed by piety and recognition of the rights of others, and not by sin and wrongdoing. The wronged must be helped. The Jews must pay with the believers so long as the war lasts. Yathrib shall be a sanctuary for the people of this document. If any dispute or controversy likely to cause trouble should arise, it must be referred to God and to Muhammad the Apostle of God; Quraish and their helpers shall not be given protection. The contracting parties are bound to help one another against any attack on Yathrib; Every one shall be responsible for the defence of the portion to which he belongs" (lbn Hisham, vol. ii, pp. 147 to 150).

There are several clues that make us realize that this treaty is forged. The most obvious is that the Jews could not have signed a document, which would have acknowledged Muhammad to be the Apostle of God. This would have meant acceptance of Muhammad’s claim by the Jews, which obviously never happened. But the most important point is how could Muhammad be the arbitrator if he is the beneficiary in this treaty? These are telltales that the treaty is not authentic. Yet, since Muhammad and his ready-to-assassin followers destroyed the real document, along with the Jews who were a part of that treaty, only Muhammad and his hench-men were left to revise and re-write history.

After the incident of Badr when Muhammad’s men ambushed a merchant caravan, and brought him the booty, his fortunes changed. He was enriched by the stolen booty, and his popularity grew. He promised wealth and slave girls to those how took part in his armed robberies and paradise with houries and rivers of wine to those who were killed. For an ignorant fanatic and at the same time greedy Arab this was a proposition hard to resist. If he survived he would have his share of booty including women and if he died he would go to paradise and have more of the same plus the pleasure of Allah. It is interesting that the Arabs had some kind of decency when they captured married women but the prophet of Allah did away with that decency and proclaimed that it is lawful for a man to have sexual intercourse with a women captured in war. (Q. 4: 24) Jews, having a religion of their own, could not accept Muhammad’s pretentious claim of prophethood. They probably derided at him and at his followers. This is perfectly understandable. How would Muslims react, if someone in their midst call himself a messenger of God and start a new religion? Does the persecution of the Baha'is give us a clue?

But this wasn't the only place; see:
The Invasion of Banu Qainuqa,
The Invasion of Bani Nadir, and
The Invasion of Banu Quraiza.

Muhammad did things that by today’s standard would be seen as acts of terrorism. He raided towns without any previous warning, killed unarmed men who had gone to the fields and markets after their daily business, captured their wives and children and distributed the younger women among his soldiers while always keeping the prettiest ones for himself and having sex with them in the same day he murdered their fathers, husbands and loved ones. These are not fables but historic facts recorded and preserved by Muslims themselves.

[Ameriman]

pedagogue wrote: Ways to end cartoon furor debated wrote:

Copenhagen, Denmark — Muslim and Christian scholars and clerics agreed at a conference Friday that the West and Islam must use dialogue to repair ties frayed by the crisis over the Prophet Muhammad cartoons.

However, the Muslim panelists accused the Danish government of mishandling the crisis and said it must apologize to the Muslim world if wants an Arab boycott on Danish goods to be lifted.

"We request an official apology from your government to the Muslim nation and to the Muslims in Denmark," said Tariq al-Suweidan, an Islamic scholar from Kuwait.

He also demanded that the European Union enact a law that forbids insulting religious figures.

Despite massive Muslim protests and in some cases violent attacks on Danish Embassies, the center-right government in Copenhagen has refused to apologize, saying it cannot be held responsible for the actions of an independent newspaper.

The cartoons were published in a Danish paper in September, and have since been reprinted by other Western media.

"We cannot give you what you want," said Eyvind Vesselbo, a lawmaker belonging to Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen's Liberal Party, referring to al-Suweidan's demand for an apology. Instead, Vesselbo said he could offer friendship and dialogue.

Amr Khaled, a popular Egyptian preacher, said Danish people and their government should reach out to Muslim countries with initiatives to promote small businesses or health care, for example.
This, to a casual observer, would appear to be the same type of mindset that justified to Libyan (Muslim) pirates their right to practice piracy on the Mediterranean Sea until American naval forces put an end to it roughly two centuries ago. And just yesterday in Houston, Muslim protestors railed against the Danish caricatures saying that Muhammed was a 'peaceful man.' A 'peaceful man?' Let's look at what history has to say about this 'peaceful man.'

Let's look at Muhammed's historical record of "peace;" Muhammad was a common hoodlum and a highway robber
Iin Dec. A.D. 622 In Ramadhan, seven months after his arrival, the prophet dispatched his uncle Hamza, at the head of thirty Refugees, to surprise a Meccan caravan returning from Syria under the guidance of Abul Hakam (Abu Jahl). This caravan, was guarded by some 300 men. Hamza’s men had to retreat empty handed to Medina and Abul Hakam proceeded onwards to Mecca. This was the first confrontation started by Muhammad, which was aborted because of shortage of men and bad planning. The god who told Muhammad to raid and plunder the caravans, did not tell him how to do it. And the Prophet had to learn it by trial and error just like any greenhorn thief.

More than one year had past and despite several attempts and expeditions none of the holy Prophet's robberies were successful. The megalomaniac Messenger of Allah finally realized that he has to start with smaller targets. So when the news reached him of a small merchant caravan going from Mecca to Taif which was guarded by four men, he seized the opportunity and sent Abdallah ibn Jahsh, with seven other immigrants, to hijack that caravan, and in violation of a long-standing tradition of no hostility during the sacred months.

The group of bandits went to Nakhla a Valley between that Mecca and Taif known for its date orchards and waited there. In a short time a caravan laden with wine, raisins, and leather, came up. It was guarded by four ****, who, seeing the strangers, were alarmed, and halted. To disarm their apprehensions, one of Abdallah's party shaved his head, in token that they were returning from the lesser pilgrimage; for this was one of the months in which that ceremony was ordinarily performed. The men of the caravan were at once reassured, and turning their camels adrift to pasture, began to prepare food for themselves. Then one of Abdallah’s men advanced; and discharging an arrow, killed a man of the convoy, on the spot. All then rushed upon the caravan, and securing two, the rest of the guards as hostages let them along with the goods stolen to Medina. One man escaped.

Muhammad was a practitioner of extortion and murder
Before Abdallah reached Nakhla, two of his men, Sa’d and Otba, lost their camels that wandered in the desert. They went after their camels and missed the action in Nakhla. When Abdallah returned to Medina, these two men had not returned yet. Muhammad feared that they were captured by the Quraish and refused to ransom the captives till he was assured that no foul play had been used against them: - "if ye have killed my two men," he said, "verily, I will put yours also to death." But, soon after, they showed up, and the Prophet accepted the proffered ransom, - forty ounces of silver for each and released them.

Attacking merchant caravans, fighting during the holy months, deceiving and killing innocent people, stealing the goods unlawfully, taking human hostages, demanding ransom for their release, threatening to kill them, etc. are not acts that one would expect from a messenger of God. What the Prophet did was criminal.

It was only then that it became clear for the Quraish that their opponent respected no rules. It is interesting to note that the first blood spelt between the Muslims and the non-believers was spelt by a Muslim. In no time Muslims were victimized. They were always victimizers, the aggressors and provokers. However, the most horrendous act of the Prophet’s injustice is his massacre of all the men of Bani Quraiza in retaliation of one of them killing a Muslim who in turn had killed a Jew. And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

The basis for Muslim hatred for the Jew
This is the story of the tragic end of the Jews of Medina. A case of ethnic cleansing, betrayal and genocide carried out by the Messenger of Allah (PBUH). The prophet raided the 2000 year old Jewish communities of Medina, killed their men, confiscated their properties, enslaved their wives and children and banished the unwanted with no provocation on the part of he Jews. The holy Prophet's sole motive was greed for their wealth and lust for their women.

Jews had been living in Yathrib (Medina) since the time of Moses; about 1200 B.C. A second wave of Jews moved to Yathrib after Nebuchadnezzer, the king of Babylon, destroyed Jerusalem and dispersed the Jews throughout the world in 587 B.C. In A.D. 70 the Romans massacred the Jews in Palestine, and then in A.D. 132 expelled them from that land, many of the Jewish tribes fled to find an asylum in the Hejaz, a territory that was contiguous to Palestine in the south. There, they settled wherever they found water springs and greenery, and then by intrigue and through money lending business gradually occupied the fertile lands. Ailah, Maqna, Tabuk, Taima, Wadi al Qura, Fadak and Khaiber came under their control in that very period, and Bani Quraizah, Bani al-Nadir, Bani Bahdal, and Bani Qainuqa also came in the same period and occupied Yathrib.

In A. D. 450 or 451, a great flood in Yaman forced different tribes of the people of Saba (Arabs) to migrate to other parts of Arabia. Among them Aus and the Khazraj went to settle in Yathrib. These two were big tribes yet they were unskilled people. Unlike the Jews who practically were the master of all trades, and the owners of most businesses, Arabs in Yathrib made their living serving the Jews in their farms and households. They were looked down at, by their Jewish masters and this was the cause of resentment.

Arabs were always at war with each other. But among them, Meccans had an envious position. Ka’ba, the holy place of all the Arabs was in Mecca. It was a place for pilgrimage and that meant power and money for Meccans.

When Abu Talib, Muhammad’s uncle and Khadija, his wife died he lost two of his most powerful supporters and the people of Mecca increased their hostility towards him. He recalled the offer of few men from Thaif who had told him if he made their town the holy place of his new religion, thus making it the religious and the commercial hub of his followers, the Bani Thaqif, people of Taif, might support his cause. So he and his adoptive son Zaid ibn Harith secretly went to Taif in 620 C.E. (Common Era) seeking the alliance of its inhabitants and promising them to make their city the holy place for the Muslims. But instead the Bani Thaqif mocked him and even his plea to keep their visit a secret was not granted. The leaders of Taif may have envied Mecca’s religious prestige but they did not wish to jeopardise their comfortable life for a risky adventure with an obscure religious pretender.

When the Quraish learned of this they were enraged and they escalated their hostility to Muhammad until a couple of years later they decided to assassinate him.

Muhammad learned of the plot against his life and escaped to Yathrib. In Yathrib he had some followers. They belonged to both Khazraj and Aus. These two tribes were weary of constant fighting and especially of a recent Battle (Bu’ath) that occurred among them. They were looking for a way to end the hostilities. So the leaders of both parties accepted Muhammad to act as the mediator among them.

It was an Arab custom and it is also practiced everywhere else, even to this day, that two feuding parties agree on someone to act as the arbitrator. Muhammad who was at first considered to be an outsider and therefore impartial was called to act as an arbitrator in one of these conflicts. It is important to note that the conflict in Yathrib was not between Muslims and Jews; otherwise Muhammad could not have acted as the arbitrator. Also as we saw earlier there were no religious disagreements in Yathrib. However Jews were part of the treaty because of their alliances with the Arab tribes.

The treaty did not give Muslims a mandate to govern. Ibn Hisham reports part of that treaty. But as we shall see this treaty must have been forged. It states.

"The Jews must bear their expenses and the Muslims their expenses. Each must help the other against anyone who attacks the people of this document. They must seek mutual advice and consultation, and loyalty is a protection against treachery. They shall sincerely wish one another well. Their relations will be governed by piety and recognition of the rights of others, and not by sin and wrongdoing. The wronged must be helped. The Jews must pay with the believers so long as the war lasts. Yathrib shall be a sanctuary for the people of this document. If any dispute or controversy likely to cause trouble should arise, it must be referred to God and to Muhammad the Apostle of God; Quraish and their helpers shall not be given protection. The contracting parties are bound to help one another against any attack on Yathrib; Every one shall be responsible for the defence of the portion to which he belongs" (lbn Hisham, vol. ii, pp. 147 to 150).

There are several clues that make us realize that this treaty is forged. The most obvious is that the Jews could not have signed a document, which would have acknowledged Muhammad to be the Apostle of God. This would have meant acceptance of Muhammad’s claim by the Jews, which obviously never happened. But the most important point is how could Muhammad be the arbitrator if he is the beneficiary in this treaty? These are telltales that the treaty is not authentic. Yet, since Muhammad and his ready-to-assassin followers destroyed the real document, along with the Jews who were a part of that treaty, only Muhammad and his hench-men were left to revise and re-write history.

After the incident of Badr when Muhammad’s men ambushed a merchant caravan, and brought him the booty, his fortunes changed. He was enriched by the stolen booty, and his popularity grew. He promised wealth and slave girls to those how took part in his armed robberies and paradise with houries and rivers of wine to those who were killed. For an ignorant fanatic and at the same time greedy Arab this was a proposition hard to resist. If he survived he would have his share of booty including women and if he died he would go to paradise and have more of the same plus the pleasure of Allah. It is interesting that the Arabs had some kind of decency when they captured married women but the prophet of Allah did away with that decency and proclaimed that it is lawful for a man to have sexual intercourse with a women captured in war. (Q. 4: 24) Jews, having a religion of their own, could not accept Muhammad’s pretentious claim of prophethood. They probably derided at him and at his followers. This is perfectly understandable. How would Muslims react, if someone in their midst call himself a messenger of God and start a new religion? Does the persecution of the Baha'is give us a clue?

But this wasn't the only place; see:
The Invasion of Banu Qainuqa,
The Invasion of Bani Nadir, and
The Invasion of Banu Quraiza.

Muhammad did things that by today’s standard would be seen as acts of terrorism. He raided towns without any previous warning, killed unarmed men who had gone to the fields and markets after their daily business, captured their wives and children and distributed the younger women among his soldiers while always keeping the prettiest ones for himself and having sex with them in the same day he murdered their fathers, husbands and loved ones. These are not fables but historic facts recorded and preserved by Muslims themselves.

This is why I think it is plausible that extremism is actually in the majority of the Muslim population. They obviously do not view what we consider to be exrtreme as "wrong".

[eXploiTeD]

No mainstream religious figure could be considered non-extreme by todays standards, and every religious text has elements of narcisstic violence.

In my opinion, these were just quick-witted men who preyed on the prejudice and superstitions of others.

[Chymical]

maybe it all comes down to whether G-d if he exists can sanction/inspire acts against the moral code he purports to establish.

If G-d tells you to get genocidal, get raping, get stealing, then it's all ok...

Ask Tony Blair, he knows the score

Yummy Wine...

[Saracen]

pedagogue wrote: The Invasion of Banu Qainuqa,
The Invasion of Bani Nadir, and
The Invasion of Banu Quraiza.

This tribes were not invaded, but expelled from Medina, and with good reason.

The prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was a lot like King David.

This belongs in the Islam section, though.

[Chymical]

Isn't historical revisionism fun kids?

Saracan, your a learned yaqi, was Mohammed a Thief? Did he violate the sacred laws he helped bring to the world? So many conflicting opinions, hard to tell the truth y'know?

[Saracen]

Chymical wrote: Isn't historical revisionism fun kids?

Saracan, your a learned yaqi, was Mohammed a Thief? Did he violate the sacred laws he helped bring to the world? So many conflicting opinions, hard to tell the truth y'know?

Most of the misconceptions I've seen were based on inconsideration for other factors. I'm not surprised at that, Chymical. What's annoying, though, is that many revisionist historians use bias and prejudice to base their arguments without considering the other facts of the matter.

[Chymical]

Indeed Saracen, when one begins an inquiry with any perspective pre-formed whatsoever,. it is only just and moral to declare that perspective and counteract any bias it may leave in one's inquiry...

anyway, could you confirm or deny the latter of my questions and reconcile it somewhat? Was the Prophet a thief? And how does that fit into the morality he espoused?

[Saracen]

Chymical wrote: Indeed Saracen, when one begins an inquiry with any perspective pre-formed whatsoever,. it is only just and moral to declare that perspective and counteract any bias it may leave in one's inquiry...

anyway, could you confirm or deny the latter of my questions and reconcile it somewhat? Was the Prophet a thief? And how does that fit into the morality he espoused?

He wasn't a thief or a camel-raider. Sure, he attacked caravans, but with good reason: the Qureysh were halting supplies themselves. He was not that simple. Yes, he may not have been THAT "peaceful", but he was like your average King David, but less in fact. Most of the wars he fought were in defense. He did not start wars, though. He fought against the Qureysh because they were about to invade Medina. When he "took over Mecca", not a single drop of blood fell to the ground from any one side of the conflict. As for the morality he espoused, he was above a lot of people. At his time, Arab tribes were indeed savage and war-like, and fought over vendettas and whatnot. He and his followers became much more civilized, and in the end, near the end of his life, he achieved the impossible: united all the warring Arab tribes under a single Islamic Empire.

[Chymical]

A considered and involved answer which I am grateful for, thank you Saracen...

please understand this is not a religious bashing session, I'm interested, let me declare my bias here, I'm buddhist...anyway, last question for you, seeing that you have the most practical cultural knowledge here, as opposed to wannabee google knowledge... :)

You say he wasn't a thief, but that did attack caravans and stole from them is something you concede, is this not a violation of G-d's law for us all? to my mind and without wishing to be blaspemous to your beliefs in teh strictest sense, is this not hypocracy? The forgiveness one gets from accepting one's sins before the lord is no Get-out of jail card, and yet, again correct me if I'm wrong, but all muslims if good should aspire to the prophets level of morality. However if indeede he was possible to consider 'as a terrorist' as the original poster pedagogue states, then that doesn't bode well for the huge mass of muslim populations in the world today.

Further blasphemy perhaps: in comparison to jesus and the buddah siddarta gutama...there seems to be a whole less amount of stealing, raping murdering and wars on the beheast and involvement of jesus and buddah then mohammed himself, does this ever concern you personally or cause you to question your faith to mohammed, though not Allah?

My thanks for what you already provided, but I'll hope you'll understand the irreconcilable aspects of these dillemas to my uninformed mind and be able to answer me with something to fill in the gaps, however no obligation, you are not you brothers keeper and if anyone else has any perspective or insight I'd be more then chuffed to read on.

Interesting topic, albeit probably to go in the religion forum.

[pedagogue]

Saracen wrote: pedagogue wrote: The Invasion of Banu Qainuqa,
The Invasion of Bani Nadir, and
The Invasion of Banu Quraiza.

This tribes were not invaded, but expelled from Medina, and with good reason.

The prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was a lot like King David.

This belongs in the Islam section, though.

Even Grand Ayatollah Montazeri of Iran admits that Muhammed carried out wars of aggression saying ...

Grand Ayatollah Montazeri of Iran wrote:
As for the raids at the merchant caravans of the Quraish this caravan comprehended several wealthy Meccan enemies of Islam and was accompanied by Abu Sofyan the renowned arch enemy of Islam and the Muslims. In that year the hostilities of the Quraish and their instigations against Islam and the Muslims had intensified. Medina had just become the political and governmental center for the Muslims and it was under the attack of its Quraish enemies from every directions.

Many Muslims were forced to abandon their homes due to the Quraish persecution and had emigrated to Medina These people wanted to retaliate and reclaim their properties from the Quraish. They had been informed that this caravan carried a lot of wealth. The leadership of the Muslims was also planning to render the highways that were purveying economically and militarily the enemy, unsafe. The main objective of this sudden attack was to render insecure the arteries so that the enemy is weakened in their war against the Muslims. These wars continued until Mecca was conquered.

Obviously when two countries or two forces are in war, and while there are no peace treaties between them, each side is justified to debilitate the economical and the military strength of the opposing party and threaten their security.

This was, and still is, an accepted practice in the world. Highway robbery however is something completely different. A highway robber is a thug and a hoodlum that endangers the lives and the safety of the people that live peacefully in their own city or country without showing enmity to others and steals their property.

And yes, Medina was invaded!

[Saracen]

pedagogue wrote: And yes, Medina was invaded!

Are you serious? Medina wasn't invaded. In fact, Muhammad (pbuh) was welcomed by the people of Medina.

Chymical, I'll answer your question as soon as I have time on my hands again.

[pedagogue]

Saracen wrote: pedagogue wrote: And yes, Medina was invaded!

Are you serious? Medina wasn't invaded. In fact, Muhammad (pbuh) was welcomed by the people of Medina.

Chymical, I'll answer your question as soon as I have time on my hands again.

Muhammed ethnically cleansed Yathrib (Medina) of Jews peaceably living there since 1200 B.C., killing their men, confiscating their properties, enslaving their wives and children and banishing the unwanted with no provocation on the part of the Jews. Muhammed's sole motive was greed for their wealth and lust for their women.

One could therefore liken Muhammed to Ghengis Khan — only Ghengis Khan was far more successful in his conquests and far more successful in his administration of his conquests. And Ghengis Khan didn't have the public relations Muhammed had.

[DMwsuguy]

pedagogue wrote: Ways to end cartoon furor debated wrote:

Copenhagen, Denmark — Muslim and Christian scholars and clerics agreed at a conference Friday that the West and Islam must use dialogue to repair ties frayed by the crisis over the Prophet Muhammad cartoons.

However, the Muslim panelists accused the Danish government of mishandling the crisis and said it must apologize to the Muslim world if wants an Arab boycott on Danish goods to be lifted.

"We request an official apology from your government to the Muslim nation and to the Muslims in Denmark," said Tariq al-Suweidan, an Islamic scholar from Kuwait.

He also demanded that the European Union enact a law that forbids insulting religious figures.

Despite massive Muslim protests and in some cases violent attacks on Danish Embassies, the center-right government in Copenhagen has refused to apologize, saying it cannot be held responsible for the actions of an independent newspaper.

The cartoons were published in a Danish paper in September, and have since been reprinted by other Western media.

"We cannot give you what you want," said Eyvind Vesselbo, a lawmaker belonging to Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen's Liberal Party, referring to al-Suweidan's demand for an apology. Instead, Vesselbo said he could offer friendship and dialogue.

Amr Khaled, a popular Egyptian preacher, said Danish people and their government should reach out to Muslim countries with initiatives to promote small businesses or health care, for example.
This, to a casual observer, would appear to be the same type of mindset that justified to Libyan (Muslim) pirates their right to practice piracy on the Mediterranean Sea until American naval forces put an end to it roughly two centuries ago. And just yesterday in Houston, Muslim protestors railed against the Danish caricatures saying that Muhammed was a 'peaceful man.' A 'peaceful man?' Let's look at what history has to say about this 'peaceful man.'

Let's look at Muhammed's historical record of "peace;" Muhammad was a common hoodlum and a highway robber
Iin Dec. A.D. 622 In Ramadhan, seven months after his arrival, the prophet dispatched his uncle Hamza, at the head of thirty Refugees, to surprise a Meccan caravan returning from Syria under the guidance of Abul Hakam (Abu Jahl). This caravan, was guarded by some 300 men. Hamza’s men had to retreat empty handed to Medina and Abul Hakam proceeded onwards to Mecca. This was the first confrontation started by Muhammad, which was aborted because of shortage of men and bad planning. The god who told Muhammad to raid and plunder the caravans, did not tell him how to do it. And the Prophet had to learn it by trial and error just like any greenhorn thief.

More than one year had past and despite several attempts and expeditions none of the holy Prophet's robberies were successful. The megalomaniac Messenger of Allah finally realized that he has to start with smaller targets. So when the news reached him of a small merchant caravan going from Mecca to Taif which was guarded by four men, he seized the opportunity and sent Abdallah ibn Jahsh, with seven other immigrants, to hijack that caravan, and in violation of a long-standing tradition of no hostility during the sacred months.

The group of bandits went to Nakhla a Valley between that Mecca and Taif known for its date orchards and waited there. In a short time a caravan laden with wine, raisins, and leather, came up. It was guarded by four ****, who, seeing the strangers, were alarmed, and halted. To disarm their apprehensions, one of Abdallah's party shaved his head, in token that they were returning from the lesser pilgrimage; for this was one of the months in which that ceremony was ordinarily performed. The men of the caravan were at once reassured, and turning their camels adrift to pasture, began to prepare food for themselves. Then one of Abdallah’s men advanced; and discharging an arrow, killed a man of the convoy, on the spot. All then rushed upon the caravan, and securing two, the rest of the guards as hostages let them along with the goods stolen to Medina. One man escaped.

Muhammad was a practitioner of extortion and murder
Before Abdallah reached Nakhla, two of his men, Sa’d and Otba, lost their camels that wandered in the desert. They went after their camels and missed the action in Nakhla. When Abdallah returned to Medina, these two men had not returned yet. Muhammad feared that they were captured by the Quraish and refused to ransom the captives till he was assured that no foul play had been used against them: - "if ye have killed my two men," he said, "verily, I will put yours also to death." But, soon after, they showed up, and the Prophet accepted the proffered ransom, - forty ounces of silver for each and released them.

Attacking merchant caravans, fighting during the holy months, deceiving and killing innocent people, stealing the goods unlawfully, taking human hostages, demanding ransom for their release, threatening to kill them, etc. are not acts that one would expect from a messenger of God. What the Prophet did was criminal.

It was only then that it became clear for the Quraish that their opponent respected no rules. It is interesting to note that the first blood spelt between the Muslims and the non-believers was spelt by a Muslim. In no time Muslims were victimized. They were always victimizers, the aggressors and provokers. However, the most horrendous act of the Prophet’s injustice is his massacre of all the men of Bani Quraiza in retaliation of one of them killing a Muslim who in turn had killed a Jew. And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

The basis for Muslim hatred for the Jew
This is the story of the tragic end of the Jews of Medina. A case of ethnic cleansing, betrayal and genocide carried out by the Messenger of Allah (PBUH). The prophet raided the 2000 year old Jewish communities of Medina, killed their men, confiscated their properties, enslaved their wives and children and banished the unwanted with no provocation on the part of he Jews. The holy Prophet's sole motive was greed for their wealth and lust for their women.

Jews had been living in Yathrib (Medina) since the time of Moses; about 1200 B.C. A second wave of Jews moved to Yathrib after Nebuchadnezzer, the king of Babylon, destroyed Jerusalem and dispersed the Jews throughout the world in 587 B.C. In A.D. 70 the Romans massacred the Jews in Palestine, and then in A.D. 132 expelled them from that land, many of the Jewish tribes fled to find an asylum in the Hejaz, a territory that was contiguous to Palestine in the south. There, they settled wherever they found water springs and greenery, and then by intrigue and through money lending business gradually occupied the fertile lands. Ailah, Maqna, Tabuk, Taima, Wadi al Qura, Fadak and Khaiber came under their control in that very period, and Bani Quraizah, Bani al-Nadir, Bani Bahdal, and Bani Qainuqa also came in the same period and occupied Yathrib.

In A. D. 450 or 451, a great flood in Yaman forced different tribes of the people of Saba (Arabs) to migrate to other parts of Arabia. Among them Aus and the Khazraj went to settle in Yathrib. These two were big tribes yet they were unskilled people. Unlike the Jews who practically were the master of all trades, and the owners of most businesses, Arabs in Yathrib made their living serving the Jews in their farms and households. They were looked down at, by their Jewish masters and this was the cause of resentment.

Arabs were always at war with each other. But among them, Meccans had an envious position. Ka’ba, the holy place of all the Arabs was in Mecca. It was a place for pilgrimage and that meant power and money for Meccans.

When Abu Talib, Muhammad’s uncle and Khadija, his wife died he lost two of his most powerful supporters and the people of Mecca increased their hostility towards him. He recalled the offer of few men from Thaif who had told him if he made their town the holy place of his new religion, thus making it the religious and the commercial hub of his followers, the Bani Thaqif, people of Taif, might support his cause. So he and his adoptive son Zaid ibn Harith secretly went to Taif in 620 C.E. (Common Era) seeking the alliance of its inhabitants and promising them to make their city the holy place for the Muslims. But instead the Bani Thaqif mocked him and even his plea to keep their visit a secret was not granted. The leaders of Taif may have envied Mecca’s religious prestige but they did not wish to jeopardise their comfortable life for a risky adventure with an obscure religious pretender.

When the Quraish learned of this they were enraged and they escalated their hostility to Muhammad until a couple of years later they decided to assassinate him.

Muhammad learned of the plot against his life and escaped to Yathrib. In Yathrib he had some followers. They belonged to both Khazraj and Aus. These two tribes were weary of constant fighting and especially of a recent Battle (Bu’ath) that occurred among them. They were looking for a way to end the hostilities. So the leaders of both parties accepted Muhammad to act as the mediator among them.

It was an Arab custom and it is also practiced everywhere else, even to this day, that two feuding parties agree on someone to act as the arbitrator. Muhammad who was at first considered to be an outsider and therefore impartial was called to act as an arbitrator in one of these conflicts. It is important to note that the conflict in Yathrib was not between Muslims and Jews; otherwise Muhammad could not have acted as the arbitrator. Also as we saw earlier there were no religious disagreements in Yathrib. However Jews were part of the treaty because of their alliances with the Arab tribes.

The treaty did not give Muslims a mandate to govern. Ibn Hisham reports part of that treaty. But as we shall see this treaty must have been forged. It states.

"The Jews must bear their expenses and the Muslims their expenses. Each must help the other against anyone who attacks the people of this document. They must seek mutual advice and consultation, and loyalty is a protection against treachery. They shall sincerely wish one another well. Their relations will be governed by piety and recognition of the rights of others, and not by sin and wrongdoing. The wronged must be helped. The Jews must pay with the believers so long as the war lasts. Yathrib shall be a sanctuary for the people of this document. If any dispute or controversy likely to cause trouble should arise, it must be referred to God and to Muhammad the Apostle of God; Quraish and their helpers shall not be given protection. The contracting parties are bound to help one another against any attack on Yathrib; Every one shall be responsible for the defence of the portion to which he belongs" (lbn Hisham, vol. ii, pp. 147 to 150).

There are several clues that make us realize that this treaty is forged. The most obvious is that the Jews could not have signed a document, which would have acknowledged Muhammad to be the Apostle of God. This would have meant acceptance of Muhammad’s claim by the Jews, which obviously never happened. But the most important point is how could Muhammad be the arbitrator if he is the beneficiary in this treaty? These are telltales that the treaty is not authentic. Yet, since Muhammad and his ready-to-assassin followers destroyed the real document, along with the Jews who were a part of that treaty, only Muhammad and his hench-men were left to revise and re-write history.

After the incident of Badr when Muhammad’s men ambushed a merchant caravan, and brought him the booty, his fortunes changed. He was enriched by the stolen booty, and his popularity grew. He promised wealth and slave girls to those how took part in his armed robberies and paradise with houries and rivers of wine to those who were killed. For an ignorant fanatic and at the same time greedy Arab this was a proposition hard to resist. If he survived he would have his share of booty including women and if he died he would go to paradise and have more of the same plus the pleasure of Allah. It is interesting that the Arabs had some kind of decency when they captured married women but the prophet of Allah did away with that decency and proclaimed that it is lawful for a man to have sexual intercourse with a women captured in war. (Q. 4: 24) Jews, having a religion of their own, could not accept Muhammad’s pretentious claim of prophethood. They probably derided at him and at his followers. This is perfectly understandable. How would Muslims react, if someone in their midst call himself a messenger of God and start a new religion? Does the persecution of the Baha'is give us a clue?

But this wasn't the only place; see:
The Invasion of Banu Qainuqa,
The Invasion of Bani Nadir, and
The Invasion of Banu Quraiza.

Muhammad did things that by today’s standard would be seen as acts of terrorism. He raided towns without any previous warning, killed unarmed men who had gone to the fields and markets after their daily business, captured their wives and children and distributed the younger women among his soldiers while always keeping the prettiest ones for himself and having sex with them in the same day he murdered their fathers, husbands and loved ones. These are not fables but historic facts recorded and preserved by Muslims themselves.

You, Ozzone and co. have a field day bashing Mulsims on this board. What is the point? What would you like to have done?

You simaltaneously bash "liberals" for only criticizing and never making useful suggestions or having a plan of action. This seems hypocritical to me.....I may be wrong though.

Just a thought.

[CVN-65]

Many people died at the hands of mohammed , since he was a great general and won many battles. However, keep in mind he lived in a time when you had fight and defend or you simply wouldn't stand a chance. He had to defend his people many times. If he didn't, he would of ended up like Jesus put on a cross or some other method of killling because that is what happend in that region at that time if you didn't have marbles. People would kill you.

[Saracen]

pedagogue wrote: Saracen wrote: pedagogue wrote: And yes, Medina was invaded!

Are you serious? Medina wasn't invaded. In fact, Muhammad (pbuh) was welcomed by the people of Medina.

Chymical, I'll answer your question as soon as I have time on my hands again.

Muhammed ethnically cleansed Yathrib (Medina) of Jews peaceably living there since 1200 B.C., killing their men, confiscating their properties, enslaving their wives and children and banishing the unwanted with no provocation on the part of the Jews. Muhammed's sole motive was greed for their wealth and lust for their women.

One could therefore liken Muhammed to Ghengis Khan — only Ghengis Khan was far more successful in his conquests and far more successful in his administration of his conquests. And Ghengis Khan didn't have the public relations Muhammed had.

Bullsh!t. Just because of what a Shi'ite sheik (Shiites don't believe in Muhammad as much as we do, so that should tell you something), you believe him? No, the Prophet did not do such a thing. When he arrived at Yathrib, he was welcomed by the people of Medina and was given the choice of being arbitrator. He did not ethnically cleanse Medina. You must be listening to a lot of myths and stuff.

And no, Muhammad is not even close to Genghis Khan. To the Arabs at the time, he was more like a Ghandhi in front of a whole lot of Genghis Khans. If you think that Muhammad (pbuh) did all those thing, then I suggest you go find a sheik or something in a mosque near you and ask him about it.

Maybe you should read the Constitution of Medina before rushing to conclusions:

The Constitution of Medina wrote: The most important points with respect to the geographically close Arab tribes, Muslim and Jewish, in the immediate area of Medina:

The Jews will profess their religion, and the Muslims theirs.

The Jews shall be responsible for their expenditure, and the Muslims for theirs.

If attacked by a third party, each shall come to the assistance of the other.

Each party shall hold counsel with the other. Mutual relation shall be founded on righteousness; sin is totally excluded.

Neither shall commit sins to the prejudice of the other.

The wronged party shall be aided.

The Jews shall contribute to the cost of war so long as they are fighting alongside the believers.

Medina shall remain sacred and inviolable for all that join this treaty.

Should any disagreement arise between the signatories to this treaty, then Muhammad shall settle the dispute.

The signatories to this treaty shall boycott Quraish commercially; they shall also abstain from extending any support to them.

Each shall contribute to defending Medina, in case of a foreign attack, in its respective area.

This treaty shall not hinder either party from seeking lawful revenge.

[Saracen]

CVN-65 wrote: Many people died at the hands of mohammed , since he was a great general and won many battles. However, keep in mind he lived in a time when you had fight and defend or you simply wouldn't stand a chance. He had to defend his people many times. If he didn't, he would of ended up like Jesus put on a cross or some other method of killling because that is what happend in that region at that time if you didn't have marbles. People would kill you.

He didn't personally kill people just like that. He was fighting a war for the survival of Islam. He wasn't fighting a war of aggression. The persecution that he and his people faced during these times were great and unbearable. You would fight back in his situation.

[pedagogue]

Saracen wrote: pedagogue wrote: Saracen wrote: pedagogue wrote: And yes, Medina was invaded!

Are you serious? Medina wasn't invaded. In fact, Muhammad (pbuh) was welcomed by the people of Medina.

Chymical, I'll answer your question as soon as I have time on my hands again.

Muhammed ethnically cleansed Yathrib (Medina) of Jews peaceably living there since 1200 B.C., killing their men, confiscating their properties, enslaving their wives and children and banishing the unwanted with no provocation on the part of the Jews. Muhammed's sole motive was greed for their wealth and lust for their women.

One could therefore liken Muhammed to Ghengis Khan — only Ghengis Khan was far more successful in his conquests and far more successful in his administration of his conquests. And Ghengis Khan didn't have the public relations Muhammed had.

Bullsh!t. Just because of what a Shi'ite sheik (Shiites don't believe in Muhammad as much as we do, so that should tell you something), you believe him? No, the Prophet did not do such a thing. When he arrived at Yathrib, he was welcomed by the people of Medina and was given the choice of being arbitrator. He did not ethnically cleanse Medina. You must be listening to a lot of myths and stuff.

And no, Muhammad is not even close to Genghis Khan. To the Arabs at the time, he was more like a Ghandhi in front of a whole lot of Genghis Khans. If you think that Muhammad (pbuh) did all those thing, then I suggest you go find a sheik or something in a mosque near you and ask him about it.

Maybe you should read the Constitution of Medina before rushing to conclusions:

The Constitution of Medina wrote: The most important points with respect to the geographically close Arab tribes, Muslim and Jewish, in the immediate area of Medina:

The Jews will profess their religion, and the Muslims theirs.

The Jews shall be responsible for their expenditure, and the Muslims for theirs.

If attacked by a third party, each shall come to the assistance of the other.

Each party shall hold counsel with the other. Mutual relation shall be founded on righteousness; sin is totally excluded.

Neither shall commit sins to the prejudice of the other.

The wronged party shall be aided.

The Jews shall contribute to the cost of war so long as they are fighting alongside the believers.

Medina shall remain sacred and inviolable for all that join this treaty.

Should any disagreement arise between the signatories to this treaty, then Muhammad shall settle the dispute.

The signatories to this treaty shall boycott Quraish commercially; they shall also abstain from extending any support to them.

Each shall contribute to defending Medina, in case of a foreign attack, in its respective area.

This treaty shall not hinder either party from seeking lawful revenge.

Saracen, I've already covered this ground ...

"The Jews must bear their expenses and the Muslims their expenses. Each must help the other against anyone who attacks the people of this document. They must seek mutual advice and consultation, and loyalty is a protection against treachery. They shall sincerely wish one another well. Their relations will be governed by piety and recognition of the rights of others, and not by sin and wrongdoing. The wronged must be helped. The Jews must pay with the believers so long as the war lasts. Yathrib shall be a sanctuary for the people of this document. If any dispute or controversy likely to cause trouble should arise, it must be referred to God and to Muhammad the Apostle of God; Quraish and their helpers shall not be given protection. The contracting parties are bound to help one another against any attack on Yathrib; Every one shall be responsible for the defence of the portion to which he belongs" (lbn Hisham, vol. ii, pp. 147 to 150).

There are several clues that make us realize that this treaty is forged. The most obvious is that the Jews could not have signed a document, which would have acknowledged Muhammad to be the Apostle of God. This would have meant acceptance of Muhammad’s claim by the Jews, which obviously never happened. But the most important point is how could Muhammad be the arbitrator if he is the beneficiary in this treaty? These are telltales that the treaty is not authentic. Yet, since Muhammad and his ready-to-assassin followers destroyed the real document, along with the Jews who were a part of that treaty, only Muhammad and his hench-men were left to revise and re-write history.

And the victor always rewrites the history.

[Saracen]

pedagogue wrote: There are several clues that make us realize that this treaty is forged. The most obvious is that the Jews could not have signed a document, which would have acknowledged Muhammad to be the Apostle of God. This would have meant acceptance of Muhammad’s claim by the Jews, which obviously never happened. But the most important point is how could Muhammad be the arbitrator if he is the beneficiary in this treaty? These are telltales that the treaty is not authentic. Yet, since Muhammad and his ready-to-assassin followers destroyed the real document, along with the Jews who were a part of that treaty, only Muhammad and his hench-men were left to revise and re-write history.

And the victor always rewrites the history.

No. The treaty was not forged. The Jews were not expelled/killed for no such reason. They had no obligation to accept Muhammad as an Apostle of God. I already addressed this in another thread. The only reason that many Jewish men were killed was because they betrayed the Muslims in the Battle of Badr. The Jews admitted to their treason and demanded to be punished by their own laws. According to the Torah, treason is punishable by death. The women, children and seniors of the Jewish tribes were kept safe, while the men who participated in the battle were executed by the Prophet's companions. The tribes of Medina were beseiged and expelled for the reasons of their members killing off Muslims and persecuting them. According to the Constitution of Medina, there is not one claim that the Jews had to accept the Prophet as the Apostle of God. Read this page to find out more.

I don't know why this thread is still here anyways. Do you want to talk more about Islam? Debate with me and my fellow Muslims on this board in the Islam section. It's there for a reason, you know.

[Rankor and Pissing]

Saracen wrote: CVN-65 wrote: Many people died at the hands of mohammed , since he was a great general and won many battles. However, keep in mind he lived in a time when you had fight and defend or you simply wouldn't stand a chance. He had to defend his people many times. If he didn't, he would of ended up like Jesus put on a cross or some other method of killling because that is what happend in that region at that time if you didn't have marbles. People would kill you.

He didn't personally kill people just like that. He was fighting a war for the survival of Islam. He wasn't fighting a war of aggression. The persecution that he and his people faced during these times were great and unbearable. You would fight back in his situation.

Although I would NOT argue this point as I don't believe in arguing FOR Hitler in any fashion, I'd like to point out: (yes that was a disclaimer)

I'm sure an arguement could be made of Hitler following WWI, when the German people were persecuted, and their "honor" was lost. Hitler also thought he was fighting for the survival and betterment of the German people. The persecution (it could be argued) between 1917 and 1933 was also unbearable to the Germans.

I'd also like to point out, wars are inherently "aggressive" - I've yet to learn about one (except maybe the Cold War) that wasn't a war of "aggression". Maybe one can be identified as the aggressor and the other, the defender?

Either way, it was a barbaric time... someone needs to do a date check and let them know it's now the year 2006 and not 206.