S
sedonaman
Guest
Muslims claim that “Mohammad fought only in self-defense.” This is absurd to any rational person since Mohammad’s aggression is well-documented, even in Islamic texts. The key to their claim is the word “defense”. Consider that to the Muslim, the world is divided into two: the House of Islam and the House of War. That which is not Islamic, by definition, is the House of War … it is the House of War – again, by definition – that wages war. Since Muslims are under a command from Allah to subject the whole world to Islamic rule, the very existence of the House of War and the simple existence of an unbeliever are acts of aggression against Islam: how dare anyone defy the will of Allah? Since even passive “passive” by our definition] resistance by unbelievers must be overcome to fulfill the will of Allah, they are “forced” to take up arms and fight the House of War. Ergo, Muslims fight only “defensive” wars.
Which brings us to planten’s false analogy,
I say “false” because, not only does it not represent a typical rejection of Christian preaching, it does not even represent a typical Muslim reaction to a rejection of his “preaching”. Typical Muslim “preaching” is a Muslim army showing up at your border and saying, “Convert to Islam or die!” The mere rejection of such an “offer” constitutes “taking up arms” against Islam because, again, unbelievers/kafirs cannot be allowed to exist because it is an act of war against Islam.
“The precept of the Koran is perpetual war against all who deny that Mahomet [sic] is the prophet of Allah. … Such is the spirit which governs the hearts of men to whom treachery and violence are taught as principles of religion.” – John Adams on jihad, dhimmitude, and the Muslim view of non-Muslims.
)
. in my thread is another link to another thread that had a poll going where muslims answered your question, but then it was taken down. also, sister amy does give comments in my thread so that may be of help.