Allah says to tax and destroy the Jews and Christians

[rpp]

So, if a Christian is bad, he can’t be a Christian, but if a Muslim is bad, he is still a Muslim? I am not liking your sense of fairness here.

I am awake, if I wasn’t I wouldn’t be talking with you.

This topic is not about Christians. It is against forum rules to make off-topic posts or hijack a thread.

 

[adstrinity]

…Three pages in and the original question has yet to even remotely be addressed.

 

[BareKnuckler]

This topic is not about Christians. It is against forum rules to make off-topic posts or hijack a thread.

I do not like being accused of breaking a rule, but if you think I have, then I encourage you to report the post.

 

[Agabriel]

…Three pages in and the original question has yet to even remotely be addressed.

On this page alone #38 and #39 answered the question again. What do you feel you are missing? Why, maybe?

By the time Muhammed went to Medina, he was broke. He was married to a rich woman, but over the years their wealth was spent. He needed money. he was known to spend his time in caves and not be what we would call a ‘good supporter’ of his family. For that he depended on his wife’s money. And when he fought his wars, he realized that it takes money to lead an army, and I would suppose greed and lust (for slaves) was a part of it too. He raided over 75 caravans that were known to not be heavily armed and had women and children along with them. He raided cities known for trade and not for standing armies.

Before he realized that he could get tax money from subjugating the people, he would just kill the men and boys ‘with hair’ and take the rest as slaves. He would take the loot, and the slaves and loot were divvied up and he got 1/5 of it, even if he didn’t partake in the raid.

There came a time when he realized that it was advantageous for him to subjugate people and let them continue working at their trades and farming, etc. So, he started collecting the jizya. But, he didn’t particularly care for them because they didn’t accept Islam and he as the ‘great one’ (so to say) . So, part of being subjugated was to be humiliated and feel it.

dhimmitude

sources for Muhammed’s life: The Life and Religion of Muhammed
A Psychobiography of Muhammed
and here is a free book: The Truth about Muhammed

 

[adstrinity]

Agabriel, allow me to clarify; no Muslim directly answered the question/defended the passages…somebody who would have a first hand/living knowledge of the statements in question.

 

[Agabriel]

Agabriel, allow me to clarify; no Muslim directly answered the question/defended the passages…somebody who would have a first hand/living knowledge of the statements in question.

Sorry about that. Many don’t/won’t tell you things if it puts Muhammed in a ‘bad light’.

taqiyya/kithman

It has been quite an effort to prevent Infidels from getting the wrong (that is to say, the right) impression of Islam, at least until such time as Muslims in the West currently singing the praises of “pluralism” no longer have need for Infidel good will and tolerance. To date, the twin techniques of “Taqiyya” and Tu-Quoque have been relied on. “Taqiyya” is the religiously-sanctioned doctrine, with its origins in Shi’a Islam but now practiced by non-Shi’a as well, of deliberate dissimulation about religious matters that may be undertaken to protect Islam, and the Believers. A related term, of broader application, is “kitman,” which is defined as “mental reservation.” An example of “Taqiyya” would be the insistence of a Muslim apologist that “of course” there is freedom of conscience in Islam, and then quoting that Qur’anic verse – “There shall be no compulsion in religion.” But the impression given will be false, for there has been no mention of the Muslim doctrine of abrogation, or naskh, whereby such an early verse as that about “no compulsion in religion” has been cancelled out by later, far more intolerant and malevolent verses. In any case, history shows that within Islam there is, and always has been, “compulsion in religion” for Muslims, and for non-Muslims. The “compulsion” for Muslims comes from the treatment of apostasy as an act punishable by death. And though “dhimmis” are allowed to practice their religion, they do so under conditions of such burdens and restrictions that many, not as an act of conscience but rather as a response to inexorable Muslim pressure, have converted (or “reverted”) to Islam.

“Kitman” is close to “taqiyya,” but rather than outright dissimulation, it consists in telling only a part of the truth, with “mental reservation” justifying the omission of the rest. One example may suffice. When a Muslim maintains that “jihad” really means “a spiritual struggle,” and fails to add that this definition is a recent one in Islam (little more than a century old), he misleads by holding back, and is practicing “kitman.” When he adduces, in support of this doubtful proposition, the hadith in which Muhammad, returning home from one of his many battles, is reported to have said (as known from a chain of transmitters, or isnad), that he had returned from “the Lesser Jihad to the Greater Jihad” and does not add what he also knows to be true, that this is a “weak” hadith, regarded by the most-respected muhaddithin as of doubtful authenticity, he is further practicing “kitman.”

Anyway, good luck.