RationalMadman

I wasn’t 100% convinced or anything, but it was the best chance at stopping the night kill.

I am also curious what the hell this is really about? Andrew Tate's stated reasons for converting to Islam are that they are scary, violent and intimidating in defense of their religion,

- So, to you anyone who isn't a complete slave to your destructive & oppressive West is violent & intimidating. I am not surprised, apparently misgendering someone nowadays in your countries is also an act of violence...

he literally refers to them as the only religion to still be warrior like in how they spread, he 'admires' and 'respects' that apparently...

- Stop lying. It is YOUR culture that has spread in the world with sheer violence of all forms & overbearing intimidation at global scale. 

- I just hear "I am chicken". You didn't accept on your request for debate. I doubt you will in an open challenge... I might do just that, why not.

 Secularism & Liberalism... no religion has ever been "blackmailed upon people" in Human History as these two have been

Muhammad's religious career spanned 23 years. He started as an oppressed preacher and ended up as a powerful ruler. During this time he was many things, played many roles, displayed many emotions, and performed many deeds, both good and bad.

But did he act as a terrorist? That is our focus and we have to review the historical record and examine its facts. I will cite incidents directly from the historical records mentioned above and present my case. I'll summarize 5 incidents for examination and I'll provide their specific references. There are more to choose from but these five should be sufficient.

1) Attacks on the caravans.

Muhammad began to commit and authorize acts of violence against non-Muslims after he arrived in Medina. This was in his 13th year as a religious preacher. Prior to this, while in Mecca, he and his followers were quite weak and unable to commit acts of violence. Had they attempted violence the Meccans would have killed Muhammad outright and possibly killed all of Muhammad’s followers.

Eventually the persecution became severe and Muhammad fled Mecca running for his life. After arriving in Medina he sent his men out to rob trading caravans. (At this time his Meccan enemies decided to leave him alone. Their perspective was that their problem had run away and they were done with him - good riddance! Tabari’s History states that it was Muhammad’s attacks on their caravans that started the war between Muhammad and the Meccans). As these raids continued caravan attendants were murdered by the Muslim thieves and Muhammad's attacks transgressed the cultural norms and Arab mores’ of warfare. To justify his crimes Muhammad claimed to have received a special message, a "revelation", from Allah. You can read about this in Tabari Vol. 7 pp10-22 and LoM pp281-289.

Put this in perspective. Muhammad's attacks against these caravans are akin to highwaymen's robberies. They hold up trucks carrying goods and in some cases murder the drivers. But unlike normal criminals, Muhammad claimed to get a special message from God allowing his actions.

Is this a moral standard to be followed?

2) Murder of an old man.

Muhammad was not received by all the inhabitants of Medina. Many people rejected his claim of prophethood. Some of these people were concerned for their fellow citizens and spoke out about the false prophet who had duped them. One of these was a 120-year-old man named Abu Afak. Abu Afak did nothing more then speak his heart and mind and chide those that followed Muhammad. He viewed Muhammad like people today view leaders of religious cults and encouraged his fellow citizens to doubt. Muhammad could not tolerate any criticism of his claim to prophethood and he asked his followers to murder Abu Afak. Abu Afak was murdered, under cover of night, while he slept. A Muslim plunged a sword through the old man’s chest. You can read more details about this murder here: http://answering-islam.org/Silas/abu-afak.htm

There is little difference between what Muhammad did to Abu Afak and what Saddam Hussein has done to his critics. Of course at that time Muhammad did not rule the country, so like an illegitimate criminal he acted furtively, and the end result was the same. In Medina if you challenged Muhammad's credibility you would most likely be murdered for it. You can read about this in LoM p675, and Tabaqat Vol 2 p32.

3) Murder of a mother of five children.

One lady, Asma bint Marwan, spoke out about Muhammad’s cold-blooded murder. She chided her tribesmen for allowing him to get away with it. Again Muhammad faced criticism. Again he could not brook it. Again he asked his followers to murder. Again a Muslim man, under cover of night, snuck up to the victim’s home and stabbed her to death. Her children slept nearby. You can read more details about this murder here: http://answering-islam.org/Silas/asma.htm

Do you believe that Muhammad was so threatened by this woman that he had to murder her?

4) Murder of a shopkeeper.

Muhammad was not able to get along with non-Muslims very well. His relationship with the Jewish tribes deteriorated quickly. Muhammad was very unhappy that the Jews rejected his claim of prophethood and he wanted to silence their criticisms. An incident follows:

"The apostle said, "Kill any Jew that falls into your power." Thereupon Muhayyisa b. Masud leapt upon Ibn Sunayna, a Jewish merchant with whom they had social and business relations, and killed him. Huwayyisa was not a Muslim at the time though he was the elder brother. When Muhayyisa killed him Huwayyisa began to beat him, saying, 'You enemy of God, did you kill him when much of the fat on your belly comes from his wealth?' Muhayyisa answered, 'Had the one who ordered me to kill him ordered me to kill you I would have cut your head off.'" (LoM page 369).

This story is also detailed in the Hadith collection of the Sunan of Abu Dawud, Book 19, Number 2996:

Narrated Muhayyisah: The Apostle of Allah said: If you gain a victory over the men of Jews, kill them. So Muhayyisah jumped over Shubaybah, a man of the Jewish merchants. He had close relations with them. He then killed him. At that time Huwayyisah (brother of Muhayyisah) had not embraced Islam. He was older than Muhayyisah. When he killed him, Huwayyisah beat him and said: O enemy of Allah, I swear by Allah, you have a good deal of fat in your belly from his property.

(The Sunan of Abu Dawud is a collection of "traditions" or anecdotes, mostly about Muhammad’s specific actions or teachings).

Muhammad’s command was bigoted, "Kill any Jew that falls into your power". Muhammad was not looking to mete out justice, instead he was looking to murder and terrorize those that rejected his prophethood. This is akin to the fundamentalist Muslims today who say, "Kill any American, or Britain, or Jew, ..." whoever is their enemy of the day. The Muslim terrorists of today are doing what Muhammad did earlier.

Is this low standard worth emulating? Hasn’t humanity done better?

4) Torture and murder of a man to obtain wealth.

Earlier I quoted Sina and his reference to Muhammad’s conquest of Kheibar. Here is one sordid detail from this conquest:

"Kinana al-Rabi, who had the custody of the treasure of Banu Nadir, was brought to the apostle who asked him about it. He denied that he knew where it was. A Jew came (Tabari says "was brought"), to the apostle and said that he had seen Kinana going round a certain ruin every morning early. When the apostle said to Kinana, "Do you know that if we find you have it I shall kill you?" He said "Yes". The apostle gave orders that the ruin was to be excavated and some of the treasure was found. When he asked him about the rest he refused to produce it, so the apostle gave orders to al-Zubayr Al-Awwam, "Torture him until you extract what he has." So he kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead. Then the apostle delivered him to Muhammad b. Maslama and he struck off his head, in revenge for his brother Mahmud." (LoM page 515).

Let’s review. Muhammad attacked and conquered Kheibar. It was rumored that there was buried wealth or treasure. Muhammad had one of the Jewish leaders, Kinana, brought to him and demanded the wealth. Kinana said he didn’t know of it. But Muhammad’s greed drove him and he ordered that Kinana be tortured. They built a fire on his chest hoping to cause him enough pain and suffering to make him talk. But Kinana never told them about any buried wealth. In the end Muhammad ordered that he be beheaded.

Is this a great example for humanity to trust in and follow?

You can read more in-depth about this event here: http://answering-islam.org/Silas/kinana.htm

CONCLUSION

Was Muhammad a terrorist? Of course he was. You’ve seen the information quoted exclusively from Islamic source materials. And there are many more crimes committed by Muhammad that could be detailed. To keep this article brief I only listed five. Yes Muhammad was a terrorist, and yes, terrorism is allowed in Islam. And yes, Fundamentalist Muslims are in a state of war with all those who reject Islam and terrorism is a legitimate weapon for their use.

If you want to do more in-depth study of violence and "jihad" in Islam, how it developed and changed over time, you can read this long, detailed article: http://answering-islam.org/Silas/jihad.htm

You are out of your league. You couldn’t even  fill your membership details and left all personal information marked ‘unknown’.

So the fact that they know your email, your payment info, and that you use a VPN is more than enough for the government to destroy your life and detain you indefinitely should VPNs be considered a "reasonable suspicion" for terrorism.

They can drain your bank account with "civil asset forfeiture" and then shut down your accounts. They can revoke your payment method completely, and they can also completely purge you from social media because they have your email and your full legal name. This all comes from just the sign up info and payment info.

There's so fucking many ways to hack a VPN that they are really useless.

NordVPN (your favorite) is under the jurisdiction of Panama. Panama has an agreement with the United States to hand over your data. 

Most VPN providers are legally required to hand over their data to the government anyways. They are also required to follow whatever laws their presiding government has about the internet.

Okay, what is the circularity within the conservative position on abortion, that makes use of more logical circularity when placed proportional to the left wing abortion position. 

So, let's even begin at the cases such as rape, mother-may-die and down's syndrome baby.

I think the down's syndrome scenario has the biggest argument to make on the pro-life case but I would like to say that the fact many struggle to even justify it in cases of rape and parent dying show that there is no real understanding of 'weighing' value going on, it's about an irrational absolute.

This absolute is indeed irrational because we all know that once you are born the right wing couldn't give the slightest shit about you. They won't help a poor family plagued with 10 kids because they couldn't abort and couldn't regularly afford contraception. They won't help out the parents if addicted to get off the drugs or out of the situation they're in if they own loan sharks etc while funding their addiction. The entire cycle is vicious and said parents or older siblings may have to become gangsters to fund their family as the shitty jobs don't pay enough for them to help their younger siblings get through university/college or even have a shot at thing. These gangsters will be shot without hesitation by conservative cops, especially if they aren't white.

What starts happening in a right-wing society is always a severe divide and alienation of the poor and needy. This makes more poor and more needy people until absolute poverty in slums/ghettos/favelas etc is achieved and is seen in any continent be it south america, africa, middle east (which is also in)... asia etc where capitalist shitholes form and it's 'every man for himself' vibes. These same selfish cunts will then go to church, mosque, temple, synagogue etc and pay that establishment to stay put and make it specially exempt from tax but to a beggar they'd give nothing and that's fine because there shouldn't need to be many beggars in an optimal left-wing society but there exists no optimal right-wing society.

So you see, if we really look into the right-wing mentality what they want is solely to blackmail mothers to produce the offspring and not give a damn about the offspring once it exists. They want barely any maternity leave if the corporation wants it (and no place want sto pay a minimum wage earner maternity leave). The entire right-wing society would be absolute apex hell for the born offspring, it is so ironic actually.

Their brain can't even process that; that by killing one fetus and saving it from a shit life, maybe that poor parent has enough to give their other offspring a semi-decent one and even one more will break the bank and ruin the equilibrium. Then the right-wing blame blame blame but they rarely ever can do two essential thing their religions always say to do; forgive and help.

It's all well and good saying 'omg it's a formed fetus SAVE IT' but these same nutjobs would ideally ban contraception, ban homosexuality and make us all think of sex as a thing for reproduction. Every single ejaculation from a wet dream or masturbation is a 'lost shot at a life' you barely ever will produce the same 2 sperm of DNA mixture and the egg of the woman you have sex with is almost never ever going to be that exact mix for the rest of her life. To truly not waste potential life away you'd have to have sex with women every moment you had a good cumshot in you or, as a woman, take dick every time after your deliveries have happened and the cycle after the next period commences (but towards 14 days into it, not immediately).

Clearly, this is stupid and even the right wing dont believe that. Nobody wants to force us to use all sperm and all eggs to make life, it's okay to waste potential life away if it's not the right time to have them for the parents, especially the mother who has to host the being for 9 months. That's also not caring for the being that will be born relatively unwanted and under-cared for.

What I'm typing isn't even half of the hypocrisy and stupidity involved with a wing that would happily send children to war and engage aggressively with everyone being armed and firing guns at will ready to shoot the other before they can shoot (in term sof America's right wing). 

The right-wing's logic for abortion is:

OMG IT'S ALIVE AHHHHHH OHHHH NOOOO IT'S ALIVE END OF DISCUSSIONS IT'S ALIVE AND IT'S HUMAN!!!

Then they eat their nice steak for dinner, or hell lamb or veal which is an infant of its species and maybe some nice eggs too and say 'hip hip hooray!'

The same stunted logic leads them to oppose euthanasia. The point is they couldn't give a shit about making life better, they just want to force the life to occur, which is clearly ridiculous logical reasoning.

the left wing rarely support abortion in the third trimester and if in the second maximum to the fourth month. They see a time gap to allow the mother to know she's ready to raise it as they know the foster care system is relatively crap and very few want to adopt. They also know that at present the right-wing have made life too shit for lower in come households to cope with too many offspring.

it's hard to understand you with Trump's dick in your mouth.