Living In a Muslim Country

[Bill_Roberts]

On the hadith and the sirat being written after the time of Mohammed:

Well yes, it’s certainly arguable that specific murders and armed robberies that are written in the sunnah may not be accurate or may not have occurred at all.

However, on that I would say three things:

1. I am taking care to use only what are considered by Muslims to be the most highly reliable sources. Ishaq, whose work your link searches for, and Tabari are considered most highly authoritative.

2. Even if a specific armed robbery or murder written in the sunnah as being an act of Mohammed was not, these authors and the Muslims of the time, on which the religion of today is built, believed the account to be true to the character of Mohammed. And as there are numerous accounts of such acts all quite consistent with each other, I fully expect that they are indeed true to the character of Mohammed.

3. To see whether Islam is a “Religion of Peace” or not, being founded on books then what those books have to say is what the religion says. And Muslims who are highly knowledgeable of their religion, for example Osama bin Laden, understand the character of Mohammed and derive their concept of what is right to Allah from studying these recorded acts and sayings, rather than having any access to lost truth of what might possibly have been historically different in some aspect.

The person portrayed in the Koran and the sunnah is the Mohammed of relevance. If for example a given armed robbery or murder did not occur, but the source books of the religion teach such as having occurred, the religion is fairly evaluated by what it teaches took place. It is not my fault or a suitable excuse if the source books are in error in such a fact, if they are.

[Ryan_P_McCarter]

The intolerance in this forum is quite disheartening. It’s also confusing to me how many Christians suddenly forget all about the entire Old Testament when criticizing Islam.

[PRCalDude]

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
On the hadith and the sirat being written after the time of Mohammed:

Well yes, it’s certainly arguable that specific murders and armed robberies that are written in the sunnah may not be accurate or may not have occurred at all.

However, on that I would say three things:

1. I am taking care to use only what are considered by Muslims to be the most highly reliable sources. Ishaq, whose work your link searches for, and Tabari are considered most highly authoritative.

2. Even if a specific armed robbery or murder written in the sunnah as being an act of Mohammed was not, these authors and the Muslims of the time, on which the religion of today is built, believed the account to be true to the character of Mohammed. And as there are numerous accounts of such acts all quite consistent with each other, I fully expect that they are indeed true to the character of Mohammed.

3. To see whether Islam is a “Religion of Peace” or not, being founded on books then what those books have to say is what the religion says. And Muslims who are highly knowledgeable of their religion, for example Osama bin Laden, understand the character of Mohammed and derive their concept of what is right to Allah from studying these recorded acts and sayings, rather than having any access to lost truth of what might possibly have been historically different in some aspect.

The person portrayed in the Koran and the sunnah is the Mohammed of relevance. If for example a given armed robbery or murder did not occur, but the source books of the religion teach such as having occurred, the religion is fairly evaluated by what it teaches took place. It is not my fault or a suitable excuse if the source books are in error in such a fact, if they are.[/quote]

A credible case could be made that Muhammad never existed at all. But, as you say, that doesn’t matter. What matters is what Muslims themselves believed.

I did more searching on the author of the Book of Revenue:

Abu 'Ubayd al-Qasim ibn Sallam (ca. 154/770-224/838), the son of a Byzantine slave in Herat, forged a career for himself as a noted scholar and jurist, even making the acquaintance of the 'Abbasid caliph al-Ma’mun. Abu 'Ubayd also left behind several works on aspects of law and language, one of which, the Kitab al-amwal (hereinafter …

So he lived during the Abbasid period when the Hadith was still being compiled. At the same time, the Arabs were conquering ever-more Byzantine territory from the south (when they weren’t fighting one another as during the 1st and 2nd Fitnas):

Hadith

The history of the Hadith basically reveals what we’ve suspected: the early Muslims were illiterate Arab raiders.

The scholars of the Abbasid period were faced with a huge corpus of miscellaneous traditions, some of them flatly contradicting each other. Many of these traditions supported differing views on a variety of controversial matters. Scholars had to decide which hadith were to be trusted as authentic narrations and which had been invented for various political or theological purposes. For this purpose, they used a number of techniques which Muslims now call the science of hadith and hadith terminology[citation needed]. In 134 AH (751â??752), paper was introduced into the Muslim world [25]

This lends credibility to the idea that things in the Hadith were more-or-less being made up on the go by the Arabs in an attempt to figure out how to suppress the people they’d conquered. This is also why the Book of Revenue appeared at roughly the same time (conveniently) from the same territory that was being conquered.

Hadith

[Ryan_P_McCarter]

PRCalDude wrote:A credible case could be made that Muhammad never existed at all. But, as you say, that doesn’t matter. What matters is what Muslims themselves believed.

A credible case can also be made that Jesus never existed. But do go on.

[NDucedStrength98]

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Spelling flame.

And FYI, the Koran that I read was so labelled.

It was the common spelling in the 70s.

Feel proud of your spelling flame.

And feel proud of your ignorance of Muslim history and of the Koran.

Or, if it’s not ignorance and you are actually attempting to claim that Mohammed was not a caravan raider and killer of many people including in the situations I stated, feel proud of your lies. (Surely you cannot be offended by that wording, since you yourself introduced the “lie” word to the discussion.) Because it is fact.

Maybe it’s fact you don’t want to acknowledge – rather obviously that’s the case – but it is fact.

I don’t still own a Koran and at the moment don’t have the passage in question. But a moment’s effort turned this up from Tabari, certainly an authoritative source:

"Tabari IX:122 “Muhammad sent Uyaynah to raid The Banu Anbar. They killed some people and took others captive. Asma was one of the women taken prisoner.”

Asma was, by the way, murdered after that, as I recall. For having written remarks about Mohammed’s “peaceful” armed campaigns that he didn’t like, and with Mohammed praising her murder afterwards.

So please don’t try to pretend that the history of stealing from caravans, killing, and convert-or-die was not Mohammed’s way. It is exactly what he did.[/quote]

First of all, all you did is go to some Islamic-hate site, that took a quote out of a whole story, and took it out of its context to make it seem evil, and hateful. Secondly, this is not from The Quran, its from Tabari, which is only a book that tells some stories, not an authoritative source, do not get it twisted.

During Muhammad’s time, they had many battles. Battles with people of hate for Islam who wanted to kill Muslims. For every battle they had, they declared war. When he speaks of " The Disbelievers" hes referring to the oppressors in this world who did nothing but evil and bring hate, not Christians, or Jews, who chose freedom of religion. So all those ambushes you are talking about are lies bro.

You are twisting stuff. And, that quote that you got from Tabari, is obviously on EVERY MUSLIM HATE SITE out there on the Net. Which leads me to believe you were already a hater of Islam, because you knew this quote, or read it somewhere before we even had this discussion. That just shows your true colors. Which brings me to this.

It has been laid down in the Holy Quran: “If you apprehend breach of treaty from a people, then openly throw the treaty at their faces” (8:58). In this verse, Muslims have been prohibited from opening hostilities against their enemies without properly declaring war against them, unless, of course, the adversary has already started the aggression.

Present-day ‘international law’ has also laid down that hostilities should not be started without declaration of war, but since this is a man-made rule, it is often disregarded. Muslim laws, on the other hand, have been framed by Allah and may not be disregarded.

Go read the Islamic guidelines for POW’s and the Rules of War. You will see that all your hatred is foolish nonsense. POW’s must be fed, must be clothed, if they are injured, you are not even allowed to hurt them!

As far as Banu Anbar:

The captives of the Arab tribe of Hawazin, in the year 8H., were distributed among the troops, but later on all of them were set free in answer to the supplication of the Hawazinites after their conversion to Islam. This manumission was not decreed as a right, but the Muslim soldiers were prompted by the personal example of the Prophet; and those who would liberate their share were yet ordered to do that and were compensated by the State-treasury.

A little earlier, the Arabian tribe of Banu;l-Mustaliq had also incurred the same fate of losing females and children to the Muslim army. This time the Prophet married a girl from among the captives, who happened to be the daughter of the chieftain of the tribe, after liberating her.

And Muslim soldiery was persuaded to free all the enslaved persons who had now become near relatives of the Prophet. The prisoners of Banu’l-'Anbar were set free either gratuitously or on ransom.

Yes some woman and children were killed. This was not intentionally done during their war. What is intentionally done, is how over 90% of the casualties of war the United States have fought in, have all been woman, children, and non-combatants of war.

Pretty shitty statistics if you ask me considering we have the best of the best training methods, technology, and finances for anything we might need in times of “war.”

[NDucedStrength98]

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
On the hadith and the sirat being written after the time of Mohammed:

Well yes, it’s certainly arguable that specific murders and armed robberies that are written in the sunnah may not be accurate or may not have occurred at all.

[/quote]

Dude, judging by that statement alone, you clearly and obviously don’t know what the FUCKING Sunnah even is!! You are ignorant man. Stop trying to sound smart and intelligent about things you don’t know! The Sunnah is only an arabic word that refers to the common practices or regular everyday habits of The Prophet. What the hell are you talking about bro?!!? You are up in here using words you dont even know!!! Your outta here man.

All you are going to keep doing is posting your completely out-of-context quotes from Muslim hate sites, and keep trying to justify your ignorant, and false accusations concerning Islam. If you want to go quote for quote on things and take the words literally how they are said, I could take a million and one things out of the Bible that would make you look completely stupid.

I’m not in here to insult your religion though, i’m not as hateful nor ignorant as you. Its pointless. Muslims are supposed to have respect for everyones religion. It doesn’t matter what you are. Christians, Jews, Catholics, Buddhists, w/e the case may be.

[PRCalDude]

During Muhammad’s time, they had many battles. Battles with people of hate for Islam who wanted to kill Muslims. For every battle they had, they declared war. When he speaks of " The Disbelievers" hes referring to the oppressors in this world who did nothing but evil and bring hate, not Christians, or Jews, who chose freedom of religion. So all those ambushes you are talking about are lies bro.

Why is “hate for Islam” a justifiable reason to start a war with non-Muslims? If Christians and Jews had “freedom of religion,” why were the subject to jizyah and dhimma and all of the other conditions of the Pact of Umar?

There are numerous verses in teh Qur’an condemning especially Jews, but also Christians. Christians are guilty of shirk because we believe God begot a Son.

“If you apprehend breach of treaty from a people, then openly throw the treaty at their faces” (8:58). In this verse, Muslims have been prohibited from opening hostilities against their enemies without properly declaring war against them, unless, of course, the adversary has already started the aggression.

Great. What are the grounds for starting a war in the first place in Islam?

[quote]The captives of the Arab tribe of Hawazin, in the year 8H., were distributed among the troops, but later on all of them were set free in answer to the supplication of the Hawazinites after their conversion to Islam. This manumission was not decreed as a right, but the Muslim soldiers were prompted by the personal example of the Prophet; and those who would liberate their share were yet ordered to do that and were compensated by the State-treasury.

A little earlier, the Arabian tribe of Banu;l-Mustaliq had also incurred the same fate of losing females and children to the Muslim army. This time the Prophet married a girl from among the captives, who happened to be the daughter of the chieftain of the tribe, after liberating her.

And Muslim soldiery was persuaded to free all the enslaved persons who had now become near relatives of the Prophet. The prisoners of Banu’l-'Anbar were set free either gratuitously or on ransom.[/quote]

I don’t see how this is making a great case for you here. It sounds like Muhammad was involved in yet another war (after all the other ones he fought). Yet again, he ends up with a lot of captives, the daughter of his enemy (per Surah 4:24), and a bunch of slaves, some of whom were released on ransom. What did the Banu al-Anbar and the Hawazin do to deserve war in the first place?

Also, why don’t you tell us what befell the Banu Qurayzah and the Jews of Khaybar?

You have explained quite adequately how Islam spreads, though. A non-Muslim people is fought and, when conquered, they all convert to Islam.

Most of what you write reads exactly like OBL’s letter to the United States before 9/11.

Your point about Tabari is squid ink: it’s considered a respected Qur’anic commentary and is used by Ibn Kathir. Please tell me you use Qur’anic commentaries?

[Bill_Roberts]

As for the idiot above: the quotes are from the books in question.

As for the idiot claim that I don’t know what sunnah means, I provide this from an Islamic site:

"However, the definition of Sunnah differs depending on the area of Shari`ah. For example, a scholar in the area of Usool Al-Fiqh (Arabic for: fundamental principles of Islamic jurisprudence) will define Sunnah as “whatever was reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, did, or permitted to do.”

“As an example of what he said are the hadiths that deal with the different Ahkam (rulings) in different contexts, such as his (peace and blessings be upon him) saying, “The reward of deeds depends on intentions” (Al-Bukhari and Muslim).”

And:

"Sunnah
Since pre-Islamic times, the Arabic word sunnah has referred to a body of established customs and beliefs that make up a tradition. In Muslim legal and religious thought, the term became associated more specifically with the actions and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad. Inspired by God to act wisely and in accordance with his will, Muhammad provided an example that complements God’s revelation as expressed in the Qur’an. His actions and sayings became a model for Muslim conduct as well as a primary source of Islamic law.

"Because early Muslim teachings were transmitted orally, some disagreement arose about the basis of the sunnah. Scholars studied the various hadith, reports of the words and deeds of Muhammad, to develop a comprehensive, authentic source.

“The expansion of Muslim territory and the existence of local tradition in the new lands created a need for a framework to deal with emerging legal and administrative conflicts. In this environment, Muslim scholars worked to put together the various interpretations of the sunnah. In the 800s, Sunni jurist Muhammad al-Shafi’i ( 767-820 ) sought to establish a strict definition of the term. He believed that the sunnah complemented the Qur’an by illustrating the principles of the sacred text, and he wanted to use it as an additional basis for Islamic law. He insisted that scholars study the hadith very closely to document the authoritative sunnah.”

Although not an Islamic site, Wikipedia has a good writeup, with Muslims contributing in the editing process:

“Sunnah is an Arabic word that means habit or usual practice. The Muslim usage of this term refers to the sayings and living habits of Muhammad, the prophet of Islam. Recording sunnah was an Arabic tradition, and once people converted to Islam, they brought the tradition to the religion. The Sunnah of Muhammad includes his specific words, actions, and practices”

Are the quotes I gave above authentic sunnah? Yes. Sorry, ignoramus. That attempted flame was even stupider than your previous spelling flame (Koran vs Qu’ran.)

As for the claim that warfare was common in the day: Calling attacks on merchants to steal their goods “warfare” doesn’t make it any less armed robbery.

You want to know who Mohammed was? Then you need to include acts and statements of his such as below and also in the previous post, as well as many similar events. Don’t go just by what you’ve been spoon-fed. Go deeper. Though frankly one can find that Mohammed is this type of person simply from reading the Koran. Still, there is more available, so avail oneself of it.

You want to know why so many – over 100,000, certainly – who insist they are devout Muslims are very murderous people? Namely, members of terrorist organizations? You wonder just how it is these “religious people” place utterly no value on the lives of the people they kill? What, has that been a puzzler for you, Bunky? It’s no mystery if you learn more about the man they are following.

No context changes the below. Mohammed was a man who taught people to do as below, was in charge of them as they did it, approved of it, and had the opinion of it as below. Muslim apologists can twist, contort, attack and lie but there is no changing it:

Ishaq: 676 “(To Muhammed’s companions) ‘You obey a stranger who encourages you to murder for booty. You are greedy men. Is there no honor among you?’ Upon hearing those lines Muhammad said, ‘Will no one rid me of this woman?’ Umayr, a zealous Muslim, decided to execute the Prophet’s wishes. That very night he crept into the writer’s home while she lay sleeping surrounded by her young children. There was one at her breast. Umayr removed the suckling babe and then plunged his sword into the poet. The next morning in the mosque, Muhammad, who was aware of the assassination, said, ‘You have helped Allah and His Apostle.’ Umayr said. ‘She had five sons; should I feel guilty?’ ‘No,’ the Prophet answered. ‘Killing her was as meaningless as two goats butting heads.’”

[jglickfield]

Returning this thread to it’s original purpose, what appeals to you about living in a Muslim country, headhunter? If you want a liberal country with lots of Muslims around try England of Israel. Would you want to live in this place or just visit?

[DixiesFinest]

[quote]HynesKetchup wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]erik-the-red wrote:
I’ve never been to a majority-Muslim country, but what about Turkey? The separation of church and state is very strong there, much stronger than it is in the U.S.[/quote]

I was thinking of Turkey also. They are a little more moderate.[/quote]

That’s true. Just don’t be Armenian.
[/quote]

Definitely don’t be an Armenian Christian.[/quote]

After all, who still talks nowadays of the extermination of the Armenians?
-A. Hitler

[DixiesFinest]

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
The intolerance in this forum is quite disheartening. It’s also confusing to me how many Christians suddenly forget all about the entire Old Testament when criticizing Islam.[/quote]

Disagreement is intolerance?

[jglickfield]

Again, what interests you in living in a Muslim country?

[jglickfield]

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
The intolerance in this forum is quite disheartening. It’s also confusing to me how many Christians suddenly forget all about the entire Old Testament when criticizing Islam.[/quote]

Which parts of the old testament would these be? The parts about corporal punishment?

Besides, Christianity rejects most of the legal aspects of the OT.

I think that people here are just saying that Islam is not a peaceful religion which is obvious from its religious texts and history. Also, how is analyzing the historical validity of Islam based on who authored its texts any different from what goes on in universities dissecting the bible? There are a lot of questions anyone should have when reading the Koran. Perhaps there are good answers, perhaps not, but what’s wrong with asking?

But this is all a digression, what is the appeal of relocating to a Muslim country?

[orion]

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:

"(To Muhammed’s companions) ‘You obey a stranger who encourages you to murder for booty. You are greedy men. Is there no honor among you?’ Upon hearing those lines Muhammad said, ‘Will no one rid me of this woman?’

Well, this is just like today. Whenever some infidel states the obvious about Islam, someone like lixy comes along calling for the death of the infidel making the statement, just as Muhammad did. So much of the behavior we see from Muslims is actually the behavior of Muhammad himself. But liberals refuse to believe this.[/quote]

Sure, I can remember several occasions where Lixy called for the death of…

Wait, no, I cant.

I can however remember several members of this board arguing for wiping all the Muslism/Arabs/peoplewithfunnysoundingnames off the pages of time to paraphrase my most favored Persian lunatic.

Some even argue for the deportation of a whole group of people based on their religion and make outrageous claims about other people!

Imagine that!

[Bill_Roberts]

The above was an unfair statement: I have never seen Lixy do such a thing.

But as for whether Mohammed many times ordered the deaths of those whom he thought had insulted him, as well as many other killings, or as to whether there are modern-day Muslims who call for or actually cause the deaths of whomever they think has insulted Mohammed, for example by drawing his picture, as well as many other killings, those are absolute yes’s.

To speak accurately, call it the religion that calls for killing “infidels” and which in practice also kills many Muslims who are thought to be doing wrongly, not “the Religion of Peace,” and then we will have accurate communication. I don’t see why this is too much to ask when the facts of these killings are right there in the Islamic source books, and the facts of the modern day killings are in the news every day.

Further, aren’t the liberals always saying we need to understaaaaaand the Muslims so we can see why we needed to be attacked?

Buying into the spoon-fed story of Mohammed being a peaceful figure and Islam being “the Religion of Peace” does not accomplish that. We certainly don’t understand the terrorists at all if we believe that.

On the other hand, learning of Mohammed’s actual actions and statements, or at least as reported in the source books of the religion, does indeed let us understand the murderousness of the terrorists and how they place absolutely zero value on the lives of those they kill.

Why would you object to gaining or communicating this understanding, if you do?

[lixy]

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
The insanity is on the end of those who do so.

Or – more commonly and as appears to be the case in your instance – lack of knowledge of the books of your own religion. [/quote]

That was a tough one to track down.

I apologize for calling you a liar. Turns out that you are right and Tabari wrote the statement to him. The only online copies of the book are in Persian. For some reason, Tabari isn’t popular in the Arab-speaking world (although the original is certainly not Persian). So I had to order the 9th volume of Attabari in Arabic, and the quote is not made up. Taken out of context to make a point, yes. But not made up.

At the end of the day, I wasted $30 on a book that the author himself prefaces by saying that a lot of it is unverified/unverifiable.

The book of Islam is the Quran. Not Tarikh Atabari. Not Hanbal’s Kitab al-Iman. Not some al-Saud-approved essay. Not what comes out of some Ayatollah’s mouth. So please don’t misrepresent the religion and try to pass a history book on prophets and kings for more than it is.

I will not excuse whatever Mohammed did. His actions are his own to answer for. But to me, the Quran doesn’t condone killing people unless in self-defense.

Again, sorry for calling you a liar.

[Bill_Roberts]

No problem, Lixy.

Getting back to the subject matter, you can’t have it both ways. A while back I was saying that the Koran did not show Mohammed in some given light anywhere in it. You replied with one or more examples from the hadith even though there was just nothing in the Koran that was similar at all. So at least at that time, you were not operating from a Koran-only perspective. Nor would that be normative for Islam. I doubt a single notable scholar could be found that argued for that.

As for saying the Koran doesn’t condone killing people except in self-defense: there are a lot killed by Mohammed (his associates doing so while under his command and with his approval counts as him doing it) in the Koran as well that was not self-defense and there is no condemnation of his such actions to be found anywhere.

Please, the merchant caravans, for example, were not threatening Mohammed’s life or the lives of the Muslims. And calling it “warfare” doesn’t actually make it anything other than armed robbery. Mohammed wanted to take their goods, and did, and as for those killed in the process, the Koran records no regret by him about it. Not self-defense. This is just fact.

His mass beheading of Jews was not self-defense, and is not criticized anywhere in the Koran as being wrong. “Religion of Peace???”

It isn’t the case that the Muslim world throws out everything except the Koran to understand the life of Mohammed.

And how can you account for there being so much written by Muslims – and in particular ones considered to be great scholars so much closer to his time than we are – that portray him presiding over all these murders and having these comments that he had about them? Are you really arguing (and what would be your proof) that this was not Mohammed’s character yet they wrote it anyway?

Is my statement unreasonable that the murderous nature of the terrorists and the utter lack of value they place on human life is quite explainable by these actions and words of Mohammed written in these Muslim books?

Why have the slightest guilt or even hesitation about killing a human being when Mohammed’s attitude and statement about Umayr’s murder of the poet Asma, for which Umayr was wondering whether he should feel some guilt, was that no, he should feel no guilt because her death, leaving behind 5 children for having stating something Mohammed did not like, was according to Mohammed utterly meaningless.

How does my position not make sense that the mindset and morals of the terrorists fit right in with these things in the Muslim literature, thus explaining how they can be highly “religious” and very murderous at the same time?

[Ryan_P_McCarter]

[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
The intolerance in this forum is quite disheartening. It’s also confusing to me how many Christians suddenly forget all about the entire Old Testament when criticizing Islam.[/quote]

Disagreement is intolerance?[/quote]

No, it’s more the fact that you characterize it as a violent religion, implying that Christianity is not. Giving the Old Testament even a cursory glance will be enough to rid you of this error.

[DixiesFinest]

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
The intolerance in this forum is quite disheartening. It’s also confusing to me how many Christians suddenly forget all about the entire Old Testament when criticizing Islam.[/quote]

Disagreement is intolerance?[/quote]

No, it’s more the fact that you characterize it as a violent religion, implying that Christianity is not. Giving the Old Testament even a cursory glance will be enough to rid you of this error.[/quote]

I never said Christianity didnt have a violent history. What I was questioning was whether it is intolerance for simply disagreeing. I dont know the personal views of hardly any of these people, but should it matter? They are not arguing Christianity vs Islam, they are simply arguing against Islam. They are simply disagreeing with it and expressing that. Has that become intolerance now?

[Ryan_P_McCarter]

[quote]jglickfield wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
The intolerance in this forum is quite disheartening. It’s also confusing to me how many Christians suddenly forget all about the entire Old Testament when criticizing Islam.[/quote]

Which parts of the old testament would these be? The parts about corporal punishment?[/quote]

Nope, all those parts where God commands his followers to slaughter (in many cases) innocent people, or does so himself.

I think that people here are just saying that Islam is not a peaceful religion which is obvious from its religious texts and history.

gasp! OMG! My advice: don’t actually read the Old Testament, or read about the Crusades, or the Inquisition, or the actions in Latin America of certain pious Spanish explorers (actions which were fully endorsed by the Catholic church), or American slavery, which was defended on religious grounds, among others. That is, if you want to maintain your delightfully incongruous opinions of Islam.