[ebbi]

> * what does islam say muslims should do to the world?*

What does it say? And provide sources.

I know there are various sects of Islam, and some extremist groups that claim to align to Islam, but their actions go against the teachings of Islam. Just like there are extremist groups within Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Sikhism, etc. I don't claim that those minorities represent the whole.

Zionism, on the other hand, I have not seen any founding documents that go against my assertions that it is a violent ideology simply because achieving the aims of Zionism requires there to be ethnic cleansing and/or genocide to carry out its goals. The founding fathers also knew this to be the case (refer another comment of mine below).

I mean, here's a piece from Bari Weiss, a modern day Jewish journalist, justifying why killing children is a necessary 'burden' for Zionists to achieve its goal:

"The results of this mess, as always, are especially bad for the Palestinians who live under Hamas rule. Casualty reports are hard to verify because Hamas controls the media (even the international press) inside the Gaza Strip, but it appears that more than 50 Palestinians have been killed. Some of these people are entirely innocent non-combatants, including children. This is an unspeakable tragedy. It is also one of the unavoidable burdens of political power, of Zionism's dream turned into the reality of self-determination."

I have never seen (or heard of) a Zionist that doesn't think Jews should live on a piece of land in the Middle East.

[JumpCrisscross]

> never seen (or heard of) a Zionist that doesn't think Jews should live on a piece of land in the Middle East

This just sounds like whether one believes, today, in the destruction of Israel as a state. In my view, I don’t; two Nakbas don’t make a right in the same way shipping America’s Black population back to Africa is a nonsense solution to slavery.

[ebbi]

I'm specifically talking about Zionism's origins. It's founding principle is a Jewish State for Jews in the Promised Lands.

How they did that was violent: fact.

How they maintain this is violent and illegal: fact.

Therefore to be a Zionist today, means that you agree with the apartheid, ethnic cleansing, and the Jewish ethno-supremacist state to stay the course for Zionists to continue to have their own land. Therefore, you support war crimes and mass killings of Palestinians.

Now do let me know if there are Zionists that have a different view on things. But from my research and discussions with Zionists, I've never met a Zionist that does not believe that Jews should not have, and should not continue to, have their own state in the Middle East where Palestinians previously lived.

[spwa4]

> I know there are various sects of Islam, and some extremist groups that claim to align to Islam, but their actions go against the teachings of Islam.

Then say that the prophet was a horrible, disgusting, immoral bastard. Because everyone, especially muslims, know that is the case. Go ahead.

In case there is still anyone at all that doesn't know: the central figure in islam is the prophet. Right up to the point that when asking an imam about particular rules, you won't hear "Allah says ...", you'll hear references to what the prophet did and said. Nothing else. There won't be many references to allah in their explanation at all.

And the problem is the prophet was a warlord. He started war after war after war after war. Almost 100 wars in all. He regularly massacred groups he defeated. He used hostage taking, including of course massacring hostages as part of negotiations. He used peace treaties as weapons of deception. He massacred people because they were Jews. The list goes on and on.

He massacred his own people (e.g. the incident where he executed a group of muslims for not following his orders by burying them with their heads exposed and had horses run over them until they were dead). You are right that this is a part of islam that even the Taliban deny. Now go read the source material ...

He advocates for a Roman-style society, where there are clear classes in society that are not equal before the law, and there are clear classes. The government is above everyone, then muslim males, then dhimmi males, then slaves, then non-muslims.

For example, another part of islam that everyone denies is that "murdering down" (for example the Caliph having a muslim executed just for fun) is a civil case. Maybe money needs to be paid for consequences (e.g. because a murdered slave can no longer work, or a woman no longer has a breadwinner in the family). But courts are limited to demanding minimal restitution, and only for cause. Oh and the state can never be convicted, and is just allowed to kill anyone, no restitution. Just so we're clear: the murder itself, as long as you murder someone of lower class, is legal. It's effectively treated as property destruction. Murdering up is criminal, and punished by death (and yes, blood money exists).

This, by the way, is the argument Iranian mullahs are making for executing protestors. They can simply murder muslims, without giving reasons

Same with the famous sharia law for stealing. What is not well understood is that if a muslim steals from a slave, MAYBE he'll be asked (not forced) to pay something. Only if a slave steals "up" does cutting off the hand applies.

The prophet was a paedophile rapist (that's what we call a person who has sex with a minor against the will of said minor). And yes, the Eastern Roman Empire, the state in which he lived, had the concept of a minor and a prohibition on sex with minors, so no, this was not part of the times.

He was a thief. For example, he raided trade caravans, sometimes murdering or enslaving everyone.

He was a slave trader, what we call today a sex trafficker. He bought and sold human beings, including young girls with the express purpose to rent them out to be prostitutes (ie. get raped for money)

Note: islam's holy texts contain advice on how to rape small girls. Advice on how not to damage them. Advice on what to do with them for maximum pleasure.

He was a slaver. Which means he captured people, killed them, tortured them, and starved them until they accepted to be slaves. A practice that was widespread in muslim countries even in the 1960s.

So I ask you: Is there anything wrong with the prophet? Is what the prophet did not part of islam? Shall I go on listing his crimes according to muslim beliefs? Do you want sources?

https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/all/cr_list.html

Note the MANY exhortations to harm others in the primary source of islam. But the hadith are way worse.

[ebbi]

Not a single direct source, well done.

You may have issues with Prophet Muhammad marrying someone at the age of 9. I think the historical context and reasoning has been covered multiple times in other platforms so I won't repeat myself here.

In the same breath, will you acknowledge the rape of children that occurs by Israelis to Palestinian children? Israel is now known as a pedo haven.

Israeli prison guards rape Palestinian hostages, sometimes even getting dogs to rape them.

Will you denounce these?

[Gud]

I don’t know if any of the above is true, but Mohammed married a young girl, which is totally fucked up and not at all what I expect from my spiritual leader.

Mohammed sucked.

[spwa4]

It's much worse. He raped her her before they were married (fingered her in bath) "but allah said it's ok" according to the prophet. He did not marry her (there was no ceremony because she was so young, the prophet simply claimed allah said they were married). He bought her (he offered her father islam, as in the empire as payment. islam, for the prophet, was a country, his personal possession, not a religion). It was against the girls' will (she reguarly ran back to her mother, for years)

Oh, and if you believe in Shi'a islam, the prophet stole Aisha. That's the word we use for buying something and not paying up. You see, the prophet bought this bride at the price of the leadership of islam when he died ... and then he sold that leadership of islam to his cousin and son in law, Ali, for other stuff.

The texts say he denied ever having promised it to Abu Bakr, which is the source of the schism with Shi'a islam.

[ebbi]

Sources?

[spwa4]

This is a good source, with 2 remarks:

1) this site is obviously not meant to discredit or even critique islam, merely to spread information in a readable form (which is technically forbidden in islam, the rules say it must be arabic only, but that was changed through "islamic jurisprudence". Oh and before you ask, yes, the rules say that the rules aren't allowed to be changed and don't mention jurisprudence ... and yes, it's sharia, so of course the rules say that anyone trying to change the rules should be killed. You will not find an explanation how that applies to islamic scholars who disagree (they all disagree, of course), and they are not willing to discuss that the prophet killed people for disagreeing on almost anything with him.

2) start reading here, keep reading. Remember/look up the story of how the quran and hadith were collected. These were reordered and indexed by content. Neither the quran or the hadith or the other sources are books. So think of them like a library of little sheets of paper and not like a book. The order means nothing other than that 2 entries next to eachother have a similar subject matter (or length, in cases). So you combine many of them together to get what you want.

This is what people who are laughably called "islamic scholars" do.

https://sunnah.com/bukhari/6#h103002

https://sunnah.com/bukhari/67#htc143380

[ebbi]

What sucks even more is in this day and age, we have Israeli's that rape Palestinian kids, then kill them.

They get dogs to rape palestinian hostages.

Then Israeli citizens PROTEST because they want the soldiers to have the right to rape.

A sick society.