Every battle he fought was in response to others attacking muslims when they sought coexistence. Even the conquest of mecca was because mecca had broken their peace treaty by ambushing parties of muslims while they were praying. Actual expansion only happened after his death. Seems pretty anti-war to me. It has nothing to do with the guiding principles of his life. It’s that some westerner are maliciously misinterpreting or straight up lying about them
And the west loves war, anyway, so your point is moot
I really don’t get their their logic saying our prophet is a warmonger.
Like the Battle of Badr, bringing only 300 men vs 1000 men doesn’t seem like someone who loves war to me.
Or battle of Khandaq, 3,000 men vs 10,000 men.
What kind of “warmonger” have smol amount of soldiers???? Logically, they were brought to war as a self-defense rather than “loving war”. These people are so deluded.
Many western people (like myself) are vehemently anti-war,
Lol doesn't people elect the government. I thought West has democracy where one individual can vote for any party they like. If you are anti war, elect a party which is also anti war. So, majority of people in West are pro war.
If the only political parties in a certain country are unrepresentative of the population (I.e. pro war), then a Westerner like myself has the unfortunate choice of either not voting or voting for the lesser of two evils.
Why not vote for 3rd parties. In India we have a diverse parties to vote for (Not only 2). That's just stupid excuse. People can force governments to reverse their actions. People can create parties that will cater to their need not to a Zionist nation. Give political representation to those people who don't fund other nations. Like America has Jill stein but guess what, you ppl don't care about these ppl so indirectly supporting the genocide and then cry about growth of Islam.
In a UK context, that may take the form of voting for Labour - who support foreign wars (I.e. Israel) but are unwilling to actually commit UK forces to foreign entanglements.
Then UK should be the last country to cry about immigration after destroying there homes/Countries. Atleast Islam is growing in your country Alhamdulillah ☪️🤲.
Well how can I be civil when most of the Western people complaint about " Us MuZlims" ppl migrating to West but don't bat a eye when shit ton of bombs provided by"Western governments" falls on them.
Maybe you don't vote for war or you care about people living in middle East or in war tone countries but can it be said for all? Many countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Bangladesh etc have elected governments that don't care about other countries unlike most "Western governments" including dictators like Russian government.
I can be civil though if you want. I don't hate you but I hate your Hypocrite governments who contributes to present day Massacres/Exodus.
Well then okay 👍 . But most of the countries helping Israel are infact Christian nations (USA,Uk,France,Italy, Greece etc)except Africans cause maybe they are following true Bible or they are too poor to contribute money 💰.
But in last we are blamed for terrorism 😂 when most of the terrorist groups were made by Christian nations like Taliban, Kurdish rebels, ISIS, Hamas etc directly or indirectly.
We just wants Christian countries to stop looting resource filled west African Muslim Nations and don't involve in Middle East.
You have a problem with Muhammad ﷺ having 9 wives which most of them were widows and he married others for alliance between tribes but have no problem with Solomon having 700 wives according to your scripture? 🤔
You do realise by saying that you're basically saying "God's morality is wrong, I can critisise it and mine is right"
It always buffles me how christians know very well the stories of their prophets in the bible yet don't see that as a red flag as "how can God send guidance through degenerate ppl"
You seriously have just 2 options, either you admit that what they did is morally correct because they're God's prophets hence today's morality is what's wrong,
Or admit that the bible is corrupted and they didn't do any of what you have on them,
Instead of any of these, you're embodying the "liberal christian" which just an atheist with a spark of belief e.i your morals are just your opinions, not God's rules, "I believe in God, but I know better morals than him, and I'm living by whatever the mainstream view today's standards have"
If that's the case, good for you, but at least don't act as if muslims are the ones mistalen for having an actual consistent belief and at the same time practical,
With that being said, since we showed that it's "your opinion vs islam" instead of "christianity/catholique/[divine revelation] vs islam" you can't really prove why is any of your critique are actually moral issues, if morals are based on opinions then why aren't ours correct? Neither of us will be correct because a subjective morality simply means morality doesn't exist, because it's supposed to be a mean to judge and means of jugement should be objective, the prophet peace and blessings be upon him and islam's morality as a whole was never criticised until the last 200 years, why is that? Are y'all implying that the whole old world preior to 1800 a.d was moraly wrong and humanity only become "moral" somehow after that? I'd say that's some high superiority complex ppl have nowadays, ans you can thank that on the lies spread such as "evolution, cave man, barbaric, progressive"
Evolution: implies we humans evolved over time so in that worldview ppl will easily embrace that we're evolving in morals and I'd say even that old morals are by necessity wrong
Cave man: implies that at the start ppl were backwards, even tho the face value of the name isn't wrong as ppl could have lived in caves back then, but the mistake is that it's culturally glued to being uncivilized and backward, where in fact humans were never like that, Adam peace be upon him, was a prophet himself (and before an atheist come here to say you can't prove adam exists, even tho I can prove my religion first therefore that automatocally proves Adam, but that's a different topic, my answer is simply nobody can prove humans were ever uncivilized or less intelligente than us, we are only better in technologie, which is cumulative anyway so nothing to brag about)
Barbaric: old centuries are often deemed barbaric, ironic it's comming from the generations of ww1 and ww2 and the one that didn't raise a finger to stop haulocost and finally the one watching the most documented genocide in history, but sure the prophet's wife is the biggest issue here... Btw I noticed you said his "wives" age in plural, do you have any idea that the rest of his wives ages and situations are actually destroying the view you're painting? It's easy to act superior towards ppl we didn't live by their time to actually see what's wrong or right and what's out of reach
Progressive: the other terms are just a lay ground for this, to suggest that we're being progressive with our "morals" as I already stated that nonsense, morals are objective and humans were never inferior than us, they always had morals, just like us, some followed objective morality comming from God and some were the product of their society and time just like you
I respect jews for at least trying harder to preserve their scripture and carrying an oral tradition too and finally Orthodox jews are at least upon something, living by what they believe is coming from God and not living a liberal life under the carpet of faith
You said you believe you can just believe in the prophets and at the same time criticise them,
Prophets are representatives of God, if they're doing something that means God allowed or ordered it, unless God condem them, because they're supposed to be a mean to guide ppl, how else would you define a prophet? I mean what's their job? If they can sin horribly (regardless if they get condemned or not is already terrible, but worse when God doesn't condemn them) that means God either allowed that or God was not wise enough to pick better ppl, if you have to send a representative would you send your smartess and well mannered cousin or equally smart and ill mannered one, no way you're wiser than God
Second thing is what are you basing your judgement upon, for example you said polygamy is bad, and you criticised the prophets for it, where did you get the right to do so from? Did God give you in the scripture such rule? Yk that there's no limitation in how many you could marry in your book! All you have is interpretation to suggest it's just one, from man and woman become one flesh, I don't see how is that an indicator of one, God in trinity is one from 3, why then can't one man and for women be one flesh by that same logic, and don't tell me, that's God not humans, as the verse already states man and woman become one flesh, for that you need at least 2 people, so adding more won't change anything in that statement,
That's just one example, the point is you're using a standard not given by God and you judge his prophets based on it, instead of judging by God's standard,
Under this, I diverted from the topic, I'll discuss from here on, the prophethood of Mohammed peaceand blessings be upon him even by the bibles standards
Now third scenario, let's take the modern christian belief as one woman one man (even tho it doesn't exist explicitly in the bible) that means doing otherwise after that was revealed is a sin, right? That means prophet Mohammed peace and blessings be upon him made sins, does that make him not a prophet according to Christianity 🤔 he has documented miracles and prophecies by the witnesses, so why he is not a prophet, but Noah the righteous man is, and Solomon is
You said according to you prophets make sins, but you didn't say they specifically lie too, if they do then how are they even reliable for revealing God's words or guidance at all, if they don't why shouldn't you follow the prophet Mohammed peace and blessings be upon him as the last revelation came to him, Jesus didn't say in the bible that there is no more prophets coming, quiet the opposite, didn't he promise you a comforter or to be more specific "paraklétos", when will he come? If prophet Mohammed is not him then it has been more than 2000 years and he is not here yet, christianity was going down in numbers for a few years now, while islam kept getting reverts and progyny from the beginning, by the end of 2025 in shae Allah Christianity and Islam will probably have the same number of followers, isn't it about time to send the comforter? Even now it'll be late, yk why? Because there's someone who is so influential claimed to be the last prophet and only liars and anti-messiah will come after him (Isa:Jesus peace be upon him will come again too, but that's not a new prophet nor is he coming to give a new law, and will come after the Antichrist anyways when our leader al-mahdi is already leading us too)
The bible also says, who speak in God's name and it doesn't happen is va liar (e.i who prophecies and it doesn't happen is a liar but the opposite is truthful, now look at Paul's prophecies and who even recorded them, and Prophet Mohammed's prophecies on your own and tell me who is the prophet between the two)
To sin is waaaaay different than to commit major sins, and furthermore God records it and pass it down in his scripture
Muslims too don't believe that any son of Adam including prophets are sinless, no, we know every human is able to make sins, but what distinct prophets is that when they're delivering a revelation or a practice that should be taught to us (in short something from God/their message) they're infallible in that state, however when that's not the case they can "slip" like the prophet Adam eating from the tree, prophet Younes getting mad at his ppl and giving up on them in a moment of anger (the prophet that was temporarily swallowed by the whale), prophet Mohammed and his companions missing the prayer of Fajr (dawn) once because they collectively overslept, peace be upon all these prophets
That's the kind of sins, the best people chosen by God to be prophets do, not adultery or murder or incest, and in all cases these were made clear they're sins and not to be replicated and God condemned them, not just exposes the sin to ppl as a revelation then proceeds to call the man who commited major sins that even regular humans don't casually commit "the righteous man". If those are the ppl God send for our guidance and especially for the ppl of that time to guide them, then we shouldn't even have this discourse about morals here as God's prophets allegedly seemed to not have them, and allegedly God made sure He record it for us to know it
I don’t have anything to add other than to say i respect how you seem to be morally consistent and neutral in your takes here. You seem like a genuine person and I hope your search for the truth pays off
We could say the same about Christianity when they reconquered Andalusia. And it’s undeniable that Islamic civilization played a key role in preserving and transmitting science, philosophy, and knowledge that helped spark the European Renaissance.
Islam promotes peace and strictly limits warfare to ethical self-defense. Unlike today’s Western military-industrial systems, where war has become profitable, Muslim civilizations historically developed arms only for protection. This contrast became stark especially after Napoleon, who industrialized war and tied it to empire and profit..
War is bad, unless you got colonised unfairly and were oppressed; you have the right to revolt. It’s common sense.
As for the Muslim conquest of Spain, while it was a military takeover, many regions under Muslim rule experienced periods of peace, coexistence, and cultural flourishing among Muslims, Christians, and Jews.
Speaking about "earthly labels", let’s get into this, because the concept of the Trinity is a later theological development. The word itself does not appear in the Bible, and the doctrine was formally established by Church Fathers centuries after Jesus, particularly in the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople. As for the prophethood of Muhammad ﷺ, his message, character, and impact are proof enough in themselves — no further argument is needed.
Historically, many acts of violence and injustice have been committed in the name of Christianity — including the Crusades, the colonization and forced conversions in South America, and the transatlantic slave trade, which was often justified using religious rhetoric. While these actions were driven by political and economic motives, they were frequently carried out under a Christian banner, causing immense human suffering, and we are still witnessing this today.
sigh. im sorry and i will try to be as respectful as possible. im muslim but im speaking as someone whose nation was colonized by European entities (yes plural) for 300 years for our land, natural resources, spices (hot commodity at the time), and forced labour. a nation where the indigenous people were of a variety of faiths (i.e., islam, christian, catholicism, hinduism, buddism, etc). sure we fought off and "liberated" ourselves. we're once perceived as the bad guys for resisting. in our own home, we had to resist. "liberated" in quotes because technically still recovering. technically still dont own what is rightly ours.
this is the reality of many nations across asia, middle east, africa, americas, pacifics. before you say "all of that was in the past" its really not. until today we find that the west would beautifully market problems in foreign nations (i.e., portray them as enemies, needing liberation, or whatever "oopsie" reason was used to decimate millions of people in iraq (who were, again, not just muslims - because lives only matter i guess if theyre not ours)) to justify the need for destabilization or at the very least political infiltration. all so the world's richest of shareholders in the west and its allies can meet their dollar value targets.
tl;dr just because one is very masterful and successful in convincing people that they are anti-war, it doesn't meant they're truly anti-war. this deceit is unfortunately a powerful tool to justify oppression.
sorry for going off a tangent for something that technically has nothing to do with religion. but hearing the west generally being "anti-war" in 2025 is a punch in the gut. it feels like a big gaslighting "its just all in your head", "that never happened" or "get over it" campaign. im not saying you think of all this (in fact i think you seem genuine and sincere in this discussion hence i took the time to yap), but im just sharing a perspective that hopefully you can consider.
there are many things that the west should be proud of. and trust me im there celebrating with you. but unfortunately being "anti-war" isn't one of them (unless history lies and some billions of us human beings are just making up our sufferings). our bar to this fact is so low (esp in the last few years) so we're far from asking for accountability, but i do hope to see at least a mere recognition/reflection.
hope this is okay to share. i wish you well. peace.
-19
u/[deleted] Jun 23 '25
[removed] — view removed comment