Is ISIS's Islamic state a real Islamic state?

[DSM0305]

There was no "golden age". A regurgitation and archiving of greek references and thought by Arabs and the overwhelming amount of work contributed by Persians does not constitute for a golden age. They were riding on the coattails of the romans and sassanids - sure a few good things came from it but it had little to do with Islam being the state religion. Shariah law was not even enforced in places like Al-Andalus given that you had even caliphs drinking wines and alcohol, in fact it was a lot more decadent then than it is now in a lot of muslim countries.

You have clearly no knowledge regarding Islam or history for that matter.

[25tajik75pashtun]

ok mister prophet, I didn't knew you were a representative of the Islamic faith...

Sorry for my sarcastic remarks, but I simply do not respect people who mislead or invent facts, out of hatred for something.

Think for yourself for ones. I just commented that there is no such thing as 'perfect' Islamic state, and even stated that ISIS does not represent a good Islamic state, or as you put it ''perfect'' state. Yet, you quote me and state that ISIS is perfect Islamic stat and present it as fact, without presenting any sources/prove.

Now without me or anyone else saying anything, don't you think yourself, what you just did was plain stupid? I don't know why you hate Islam, but stop being unreasonable and even more importantly, stop commenting with stupid and nonfactual statements.

Can you tell me why you think it's not an islamic state with shariah exactly like what the prophet preached and like what is found in the quran and the hadiths?

I don't exactly hate islam, I just think that like all abrahamic religions it's very easy to use it to manipulate people and use it to create mischief.

I have not once lied here - if you believe I have, show me where you believe I have lied and I will show you the proper sources from well respected islamic scholars, the quran and the hadiths to help prove the points I've made.

Can you tell me why you believe ISIS is not representative of what a proper islamic state is supposed to be like?

[DSM0305]

Can you tell me why you think it's not an islamic state with shariah exactly like what the prophet preached and like what is found in the quran and the hadiths?

I don't exactly hate islam, I just think that like all abrahamic religions it's very easy to use it to manipulate people and use it to create mischief.

I have not once lied here - if you believe I have, show me where you believe I have lied and I will show you the proper sources from well respected islamic scholars, the quran and the hadiths to help prove the points I've made.

Can you tell me why you believe ISIS is not representative of what a proper islamic state is supposed to be like?

Al-Queda claims that their follow the 'true Islam' exactly like prophet preached. The exact same claim is made by Taliban and by ISIS. Now with a straight face you come here tell me that ISIS is representing the 'true Islam' and even state it as fact. What I find even more sickening that you claim to be rational...

So you don't exactly hate Islam, you simply don't want it to exist. Ahhh now I see how peaceful and rational you're... at least be truthful to yourself...

You just lied right now and in your previous post, by claiming that ISIS is true and perfect Islamic state.

This will be my last post/comment for you. I kinda had enough of irrational people whose argument is based upon hate for a particular thing, instead of logic and facts. I am tired of dealing with peoples irrational behavior regarding race, ethnicity, nationality and in your case religion or rather irrational Islam bashing.

Good luck with your hate speeches. I want no part of it, so from now on please refrain yourself from commenting/quoting me.

[25tajik75pashtun]

Al-Queda claims that their follow the 'true Islam' exactly like prophet preached. The exact same claim is made by Taliban and by ISIS. Now with a straight face you come here tell me that ISIS is representing the 'true Islam' and even state it as fact. What I find even more sickening that you claim to be rational...

So you don't exactly hate Islam, you simply don't want it to exist. Ahhh now I see how peaceful and rational you're... at least be truthful to yourself...

You just lied right now and in your previous post, by claiming that ISIS is true and perfect Islamic state.

This will be my last post/comment for you. I kinda had enough of irrational people whose argument is based upon hate for a particular thing, instead of logic and facts. I am tired of dealing with peoples irrational behavior regarding race, ethnicity, nationality and in your case religion or rather irrational Islam bashing.

Good luck with your hate speeches. I want no part of it, so from now on please refrain yourself from commenting/quoting me.

Yep, just keep your mind shut from any arguments that are in any way against your current train of thought and set of beliefs.

Al-Qaeda is confirmed to have at one point been a western proxy, bin laden was heavily involved in relations with the bush family - you can't exactly trust their word when it comes to establishing an islamic state.

The taliban also don't want a worldwide caliphate, they would appreciate one but they definitely would not go out of their way to try and obtain one. The taliban instead want an islamic state encompassing pashtun majority land in pakistan and all of afghanistan.

The ISIS are pretty much independent, aside from some conspiracy theories such as mossad or cia being behind al-baghdadi's training the ISIS is self-sufficient, generate their own income and only receive 5% of their budget from private donors mostly from Saudi Arabia and the gulf arab states.

You still haven't addressed as to why you believe the ISIS is, from a theological standpoint not representative of an Islamic State. If the Islamic Allah is smiling on anybody today - he is smiling upon ISIS and their fighters as they are exactly the sort of people Muhammad and his companions were.

[25tajik75pashtun]

You have clearly no knowledge regarding Islam or history for that matter.

What have I said that's wrong or historically incorrect? There was no Islamic golden age - you simply cannot attribute the contributions of some persians or natives of al-andalus to the entirety of islam, these contributions would have been made even if islam was not the state religion at some point or another, these inventions were made even despite of Islam.

Islam, whether you like it or not is a rather xenophobic religion when it comes to accepting other schools of thought not native to Islam.

As I said before, the golden age is a farce - most of the contributors from the golden age were even critical of islam or at the very least were hardly practicing muslims.

[Karachi]

I think ISIS is a perfect Salafi/Wahabhi Islamic state. Since most muslims are not Salafis/Wahabis, they wont support a state like this(I think at least).

[Badlun]

by killing and murdering innocent civilians just because they are christians or other religions? is this what Islam teaches?

Most muslims would leave Islam if that was true, because that would make Islam nothing more then a brutal religion

We must have differentiate between Islam as a religion and Islamism. Similalrly we have to differentiate the role of Muhamamd as a prophet of religion and a political Arab leader. This is the crux of the matter.

IS is copying Muhamamd and the early caliphs exactly. Prophet offered the same three options to people of Mecca and other Arab lands. Islam or Jizya or Jihad. This was politics not religion.

Why prophet fought the battles of Badar, Uhad, Ahzab, Hunein and Yarmok. Were these for religion or politics? If for religion then Islam was spread by sword and IS is doing exactly the same.

Other prophets did not fight but just spread their message peacefully. As Muhamamd was both prophet and leader, here lies the confusion. The real Islam is that of Sufis while Salafis mix politics of Muhamamd with his religion.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

We must have differentiate between Islam as a religion and Islamism. Similalrly we have to differentiate the role of Muhamamd as a prophet of religion and a political Arab leader. This is the crux of the matter.

IS is copying Muhamamd and the early caliphs exactly. Prophet offered the same three options to people of Mecca and other Arab lands. Islam or Jizya or Jihad. This was politics not religion.

Why prophet fought the battles of Badar, Uhad, Ahzab, Hunein and Yarmok. Were these for religion or politics? If for religion then Islam was spread by sword and IS is doing exactly the same.

Other prophets did not fight but just spread their message peacefully. As Muhamamd was both prophet and leader, here lies the confusion. The real Islam is that of Sufis while Salafis mix politics of Muhamamd with his religion.

Wrong again. E.g. Joshua, Moses ordering the Israelites to take the land once they arrived, there are hundreds of such stories of God asking his Prophets to smite, decimate, and annihilate in the Old Testament. Additionally, Christ's mission was but 2 to 3 years and hardly comparable for instance to the decades long ministry of either Moses or Muhammad. He himself had said that he had not come to abrogate the prior Old Testament teachings, but to fulfill it. This was the very basis of reasoning amongst other things that Constantine and others used to spread Christianity within the Roman realm.
Additionally, the interpretation of how to collect the jizya goes back to jurists like the chief jurist for Haroon AlRashid who advocated a lenient model for its collection. Bernard Lewis argues in his book on the Jews under Islam that the jizya policy replaced one form of taxation that was previously hoisted on the people by the Persians and Romans with another and in fact it often was a tax incentive in so many instances.

Also, when Peter Bergen analyzed the current activity between the groups he notes that AQ core and Nusra actually are not on the same page and disagree with ISIS... indicating that modern salafi militant interpretationalists are not even on the same page.

[Karachi]

Wrong again. E.g. Joshua, Moses ordering the Israelites to take the land once they arrived, there are hundreds of such stories of God asking his Prophets to smite, decimate, and annihilate in the Old Testament. Additionally, Christ's mission was but 2 to 3 years and hardly comparable for instance to the decades long ministry of either Moses or Muhammad. He himself had said that he had not come to abrogate the prior Old Testament teachings, but to fulfill it. This was the very basis of reasoning amongst other things that Constantine and others used to spread Christianity within the Roman realm.
Additionally, the interpretation of how to collect the jizya goes back to jurists like the chief jurist for Haroon AlRashid who advocated a lenient model for its collection. Bernard Lewis argues in his book on the Jews under Islam that the jizya policy replaced one form of taxation that was previously hoisted on the people by the Persians and Romans with another and in fact it often was a tax incentive in so many instances.

Also, when Peter Bergen analyzed the current activity between the groups he notes that AQ core and Nusra actually are not on the same page and disagree with ISIS... indicating that modern salafi militant interpretationalists are not even on the same page.

Then doesn't this mean all Abrahamic religions are violent and brutal at the core? Basically it's all about getting power thru violent ways. At least it seems like that for sure

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Then doesn't this mean all Abrahamic religions are violent and brutal at the core? Basically it's all about getting power thru violent ways. At least it seems like that for sure

Good question, and a huge subject. In some ways mixing the divine and man is bound to lead to a spectrum of interpretations. I am reaching back but I recall from my college days that the visiting Buddhists discussed Prince Pasinadi and their own concept of just war making (i.e. St. Augustine, various Islamic scholars, various Jewish faction leaders like Bar Kochba, the Zoroastrian Persian empire, and the list is endless).

This article gives a nice example of the history, for instance of militant buddhism and the role it plays in the Tamil conflict.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137812/william-mcgowan/buddhists-behaving-badly

And then of course the Greek and Roman Pantheons had the gods of war Mars and Ares.

I have thought about this long and hard Karachi. My personal view is that biological determinism and design governs much of the animal kingdom. Then along out of the recesses and what not emerges man... whether one calls him the result of the Divine will or the climactic predator of biological design I think all would agree that man has the ability to alter his environment in dramatic and devastating ways.

For instance, with just a few megaton fission and fusion reactions he can end life on a whole continent if he so wishes. He can alter the sea and the river routes and reach the ocean depths. He can drive whole species into extinction and even salvage and potentially resurrect others.

In my estimation the innate animal/nature of man, aka the nafs guides man to do what animals do... compete, mate, eat, drink, garner resources, live in communities etc. Think of the things rabbits and apes do and know that we have an innate drive to do the same. Yet if we flex that animal muscle to its extreme and act with reckless abandon I think we could agree that man has the ability to wreak havoc in a way never before seen.

For this reason, the ideal religion harnesses man's biology but does not try to run up clear against it. It is for this reason that Islam eschews pure monasticism. Thus far, the isms of all shapes and sizes that I have studied from Judaism Buddhism, Christianity, and even secular humanism are all not in keeping with that exact "sweet spot" between excess that would render our species completely destructive and monasticism that is not in keeping with our innate design. This is what convinced me if Islam.

Why all of this in regards to answering your question? It is because I think that these religious leaders operated in the real world, not the world as we want it to be... but the world as it is.

In that world, as I described, it was conquer or be conquered. The world I see around me still has not changed that precept. Maybe we operate in the era of nation states and different manners of war making - but we can still see that either you are under the wing of a super power or at least influenced by one in such a way that you are dependent upon it. The colonial design more than ever affirms this in that nation states of the conquered, as you and I know, are drawn so as to never permit them to rise in competition to the statuses of the super powers.

So then there is that character, that beautiful human being known as Muhammad, what of him? Was his character war like? Or was he the leader that was needed to ensure the religion revealed to him had a running start in tough terrain?

I noted before that it was pure circumstance that kept Alexander for instance, from taking on his Arabia Felix expedition as the Romans would call it. Khosrau Parvez of Persia called Arabians his slaves and subjects and Heracles also claimed ownership over it. In his own life time the Prophet's troops would brush up against one of those powers and after him his disciple Omar would encounter the other in the battlefield. Thank God they saw the world as it was and dealt those empires devastating blows from the get go otherwise the conquer or be conquered paradigm would have overtaken them as well and the early Muslims would have been as miserable as we are now if not more.

What clinched it for me really, where Muhammad won my heart was his Meccan revolution. I have studied many great men in our life time that I still think have admirable traits. Take Che Guevara for instance, a man that recognized Pan Latin American independence was paramount. Yet his ism that he adhered to, not so dissimilar from what would go on to plague our Afghanistan, was an ism that went up against biology and common sense. Bourgeoisie were a class on which war was to be made and then a new order was to emerge under that particular ism. In Cuba he ended the lives of any and all that stood in the way of his revolution. This of course is understandable in some sort of common sensical way... but there are a number of issues that emerge with the outcomes of such measures. In some ways the Islamic world has its own version of that in what we are witnessing today.

On the other hand, the Meccan revolution as I call it was unique. When he took the city he did not do what he could have done and gathered the bourgeoisie and separate their heads from their bodies. No instead he incorporated that group into his new order so that their dignity was preserved and the dignity of the common man that had toiled under them was now elevated.

I guess Karachi, the monastic or the extremist sufi is as out of touch with reality with the extremist salafi. Perhaps you and I both want to live in a world where doors need not be locked... where no child is ever left behind, where people all sit at tables to resolve their disputes... but there is the world we want and the world we actually live in.

At the end of it all, we Pashtuns have a saying I heard again and again in my youth: "zama haqq." In any jirga I sat in that was a dispute matter this phraseology which means "my rights" or "justice for me" was oft-repeated. The balance or the criterion seems simple, coming from simple village people, but it is actually profound. The question is not whether the Abrahamic faiths are violent or not. A great many things in this world are violent and it has been a violent world for all of its history. And I explained above why that is historically. Rather, the criterion is whether this violence was to establish justice, or to repel injustice. When I study the life of the great personage of Muhammad, God Bless Him, I felt that each and every instance of his actions lent themselves to satisfying the criterion of "zama haqq" or the weight of justice. I could not say the same for the other Abrahamic faiths or isms. All these other Abrahamic faiths or isms also fail to strike the balances I spoke about above.

Regarding the criticism I expect that any balanced ism or ideology can be imbalanced and Islam is not unique to this, I would say this is an absurd comment since it is merely a description of the human experience then. The Quran never promises heaven on earth, rather it makes it clear that if it had done so that the "matter would be solved" and the cosmic hanging demand of finding God and serving him would be moot. The perfect example of how even the product of secular humanism such as the constitution of America can be twist in a militant fashion to deprive others of rights is enough to show that such a discussion is irrelevant.

Think deep Karachi. I may be wrong but generally in my pursuit of justice I try to understand who commits an original wrong and understand a problem from every angle. I also try my best to get all the facts before commenting. Take for instance the fact that each day more and more info emerges from the war zone in Iraq indicating that the rest of us best stay out of it and let Iraqis solve this issue between themselves:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/17/world/middleeast/iraq-alissa-j-rubin-a-times-correspondent-recounts-fatal-helicopter-crash-in-kurdistan.html?_r=0

The pilot really made a big impression. You know, the Yazidis feel so betrayed by the Arab neighbors they had lived among for so many years; they all turned on the Yazidis when ISIS came. Many of the atrocities were carried out not by the militants but by their own neighbors.

And there is even more history behind this that led to this which was what happens in any way (read about Benedict Arnold and about what the American public wants to do with Bowe Bergdahl):

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119014/us-should-bomb-isis-yazidi-need-our-help-right-now

But, a few miles outside of the town of Sinjar by the Syrian border, the Blackhawks slow to a leisurely speed: Yezidi live below. These ancient people, who number in the thousands and consider themselves neither Christian nor Muslim, cherish their occupiers. Yezidi party leader Waad Hamed Modo greets me in a Sinjar courtyard with his own testimonial. "I met recently with Sunnis in Baghdad," he says. "They told me, 'You Yezidi are collaborators.' I said to them, 'That's right--we are collaborators.'"

So Karachi, if in the rest of the world, if in America they hunted Benedict Arnold to hang him for treason, if all of the Afghan parties hunted Abdur Rashid Dostum for being a traitor many times over, if Snowden is hunted across the Earth for imprisonment and possible death via the espionage act, etc did you expect those that have borne nearly a decade in the throes of war to somehow suddenly act with faux British etiquette and have tea and crumpets with these people who they view as collaborators and oppressors?

Look at the other side of the world to see how the educated see the glaring hypocrasy:

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/8/islamic-state-caliphateiraqiranusobama.html

A Yale professor writes:

The third is Russia. As I write this, the Kiev government is resisting the entry of Russian trucks that the Russians say is a humanitarian mission to aid the trapped and suffering inhabitants of Lugansk, which is surrounded by Ukrainian troops seeking to starve them into surrender. Is this truly different from the efforts of the caliphate to starve the Yazidis on their mountain top into submission? If the United States and western Europe are in favor of humanitarian aid in one place, can they sustain the position of being against it in the other?

So I would say that rather, all of these parties are adhering to human nature with respect to war making.

Yet the Meccan revolution of the Prophet showed that a great personage like that would have taken Waad Hamed Modo aside and forgiven them the way he did Abu Sufyan... but then again he was the one that heard the divine word in his own ear.

All I am saying is that distribute your disdain with justice and understanding otherwise we get nowhere

[Badlun]

Wrong again. E.g. Joshua, Moses ordering the Israelites to take the land once they arrived, there are hundreds of such stories of God asking his Prophets to smite, decimate, and annihilate in the Old Testament. Additionally, Christ's mission was but 2 to 3 years and hardly comparable for instance to the decades long ministry of either Moses or Muhammad. He himself had said that he had not come to abrogate the prior Old Testament teachings, but to fulfill it. This was the very basis of reasoning amongst other things that Constantine and others used to spread Christianity within the Roman realm.
Additionally, the interpretation of how to collect the jizya goes back to jurists like the chief jurist for Haroon AlRashid who advocated a lenient model for its collection. Bernard Lewis argues in his book on the Jews under Islam that the jizya policy replaced one form of taxation that was previously hoisted on the people by the Persians and Romans with another and in fact it often was a tax incentive in so many instances.

Also, when Peter Bergen analyzed the current activity between the groups he notes that AQ core and Nusra actually are not on the same page and disagree with ISIS... indicating that modern salafi militant interpretationalists are not even on the same page.

In the supposed number of Hundred and 24 thousands of prophets we do have names like Suleiman, Dawood and others who mixed religion with politics but rest are Jesus Christ like who was a simple carpenter and propagated his message with words not with swords.

Buddha had to abandon his status of being a prince and dedicate his life to enlightenment and Nirvana. Majority religion is Christianity and then Islam(Sufi) and then Buddhism or Hinduism and nowhere state is mixed with pulpit. After the initial days of Islam, always Qadi and Sheikh were different from Sultan and Caliph.

You are talking about Hraoon Rashid but he was an enlightened Abbasid Caliph with non Arab and non Salafi influences. Jizya or Islam or Qital are irrevocable stipulation for non Muslims in a pure Islamist state like that of IS or earlier Islamic Calipahte or Muhamamd times. Abbasids were more tolerant than today's IS because there was more secularism.

The solution is separation of state from Church otherwise we will have many states like IS in Muslim world.

[Badlun]

[MENTION=1772]BarakzaiAbdali[/MENTION]

It means your these words and biological determinism are also applied on the prophet Muhamamd

In my estimation the innate animal/nature of man, aka the nafs guides man to do what animals do... compete, mate, eat, drink, garner resources, live in communities etc. Think of the things rabbits and apes do and know that we have an innate drive to do the same. Yet if we flex that animal muscle to its extreme and act with reckless abandon I think we could agree that man has the ability to wreak havoc in a way never before seen.

If not then he was only a prophet for humanity with his religious message of peace, worship, morality and beliefs and not wars and destruction. His wars were only in his capacity of a leader not a prophet.

You are impressed by Meccan revolution but this revolution fulfilled one of three pre-requisites , Islam as all the Meccans accepted Islam under fear and did not opt for Jizya and Qital as at that time Muhamamd was a powerful man. Meccans tried to fight before but they were defeated and did not have other option. After Mecca the same Muhamamd continued wars with all those who did not submit to Jizya and Islam initially.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

In the supposed number of Hundred and 24 thousands of prophets

This is an Islamic theological concept derived from hadith and a verse of the Quran that does not specify this number. Because you do not have the stories and names of the overwhelming number of those we cannot comment further on whether they were pacifists or warriors or in between. For example, if Marduk is surmised to be a Prophet as is Zul Qarnain, we find mention of some sort of divine guidance to the latter but the former is just a guess by some Muslims (Harut and Marut).

we do have names like Suleiman, Dawood and others who mixed religion with politics but rest are Jesus Christ like who was a simple carpenter and propagated his message with words not with swords.

Once again, an inapt comparison since they challenges and successes of each of these as well as the tenure of their mission was vastly different. One can hardly compare the 2 to 3 year active mission of The Messiah on particulars with say that of Moses. Also, it is Christian theology he is called a Carpenter but there is no mention of this in Islamic theology. The only Carpenter close to being mentioned is in lore, such as Habib the Carpenter.

Buddha had to abandon his status of being a prince and dedicate his life to enlightenment and Nirvana. Majority religion is Christianity and then Islam(Sufi) and then Buddhism or Hinduism and nowhere state is mixed with pulpit. After the initial days of Islam, always Qadi and Sheikh were different from Sultan and Caliph.

Well this is not a surprise as in sunni Islamdom the concept of the Caliph being a spiritual guide after the Prophet stands separate from simply his role is a wise leader. It is not so different from the concept of an executive branch endowed with the power to enact and enforce the law.

You are talking about Hraoon Rashid but he was an enlightened Abbasid Caliph with non Arab and non Salafi influences.

This is incorrect and a revisionist brand of history ala militant secularism. Rather the true history of the matter is that the disciple of Abu Hanifa, Abu Yusuf was the one, not Haroon Rashid, that pronounced this view of jizyah. Abu Yusuf was Haroon's chief Islamic law jurist. Any of us who has studied or pondered over this concept of jizyah has read important excerpts from his Kitab-e-Kharaj.

This militant secularist argument really gained traction when a theologian named Jokisch proposed that jurists took Roman secular law and put a sharia veneer over the top of it. A wonderful critique by Rudolph Peters rebutted Jokisch point by point, minutia by minutia:

Just after the Abbasid rise to power,

Ibn al-Muqaffa (d. 758) proposed that the Sharia be unified and imposed as a binding code on all Muslims (p. 276). (3) This project was not adopted during his lifetime, but initiated four decades later during the reign of Harun al-Rashid.

Jizya or Islam or Qital are irrevocable stipulation for non Muslims in a pure Islamist state like that of IS or earlier Islamic Calipahte or Muhamamd times.

Just as taxation is codified by the 16th amendment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteen...s_Constitution

Bernard Lewis, despite his criticisms of Islam rubbishes this argument as absurd and notes that jizyah was equitable to most existing empire taxation codes if not more lenient. I think it was actually a very fair concept and should be applauded since it maintained economic stability during the golden era.

Here is a famous example of a by force execution of the tax code in the US on the famous Brown couple:

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-...t06-story.html

Abbasids were more tolerant than today's IS because there was more secularism.

There are a host of other differences between IS and Abbasids, not the least of which are because they are entirely different subjects to tackle. The former is a the product of a decade and a half of war hoisted onto the Iraqi people and a half of a decade of war hoisted on Syria... it is a reactionary force and I fear that the re-interventionalism being pushed will spawn something even more radical as it did this time around. War radicalizes and divides populations and creates the ripe environs for such movements to flourish.

The solution is separation of state from Church otherwise we will have many states like IS in Muslim world.

That may be or it may not be. But whatever it will be should be for the people themselves to come to conclusions about without outside force radicalizing them further.

x

[BarakzaiAbdali]

@BarakzaiAbdali

It means your these words and biological determinism are also applied on the prophet Muhamamd

In my estimation the innate animal/nature of man, aka the nafs guides man to do what animals do... compete, mate, eat, drink, garner resources, live in communities etc. Think of the things rabbits and apes do and know that we have an innate drive to do the same. Yet if we flex that animal muscle to its extreme and act with reckless abandon I think we could agree that man has the ability to wreak havoc in a way never before seen.


No you misunderstood what I wrote. The Prophet Muhammad bought something divine that appropriately channeled and placed reasonable limitations upon it in diametric opposition to monasticism. That was the gist of what I was imparting. Additionally, the Prophet was divinely guided and the Quranic ayaahs make it clear that God guided his actions and corrected them when need be.

If not then he was only a prophet for humanity with his religious message of peace, worship, morality and beliefs and not wars and destruction. His wars were only in his capacity of a leader not a prophet.

Incorrect since he was re-establishing the house of Abraham and doing much more then simply "conquering" Mecca. Rather, he was sanctifying it as the geographic center of the faith- a process that began with the qiblah change.

You are impressed by Meccan revolution but this revolution fulfilled one of three pre-requisites , Islam as all the Meccans accepted Islam under fear and did not opt for Jizya and Qital as at that time Muhamamd was a powerful man.

I disagree - he could have done what militant secularists did in the last century where they cleansed the prior regimes and murdered bourgeoisie (e.g. the communists murdered Daud Khan and his family).

I think Abu Sufyan, the chief antagonist would actually be the first and foremost today if he were resurrected to say Muhammad followed by (Swalillahi alaahi wasallam) since his prestige was maintained and his lineage would go on to take their place in Islamic history as the leader of a large land mass empire. Neither his baikh nor his boonyaad were erased like the other kings erased eachother and like even the ambassadorial and genteel Alexander "erased" Darius.

Meccans tried to fight before but they were defeated and did not have other option.

Incorrect they tried to oppress and erase God's divine message before but failed to do so and now were faced with God's own divine plan for them.

After Mecca the same Muhamamd continued wars with all those who did not submit to Jizya and Islam initially.

Thank God, he secured the realm for Islam and ensured neither of the super powers would ever dare to lay claim again to their supposed Arabia Felix. God's will manifested itself in his actions and ensured that what would follow would be the hitherto never before seen preservation and codification of divine law as he promised.

x

[کیش]

[MENTION=2329]Karachi[/MENTION]

What is a "real Islamic state" Europe, America? or should the lord continue the light up the skies with miracles?
[MENTION=17960]Herat[/MENTION]

any comments about your Kurdish/Yezidi beghairots crying wolf to Americans to help them? because you, me, and the world knows Irbil would have fell last week.