Mohammed was not the murderous, raping, greedy, women-hating warmonger you irrational islamophobes depict him as,
but he was a for his time quite modern ethically above average 7th century leader in peace and war and therefore his ethical conduct as a 7th century leader in peace and war being at least theologically an example to be followed by every Muslim is realy nothing to worry about, because
...
Is there anybody to fill the ... with any semi-reasonable intelligeble text?
Cause the above is in a sense a summary of some discussions i had; some "islam apologists" tries at length to convince me that Mohammed was not that blood thirsty monster, but just one a bit above average run-of-the-mill 7th century ruler.
Somehow the "islam apologists" think they have gained some ground by arguing for this; but they never come around to fill the ...
And frankly, if one point something billion people would seriously take even the ethically most flawless military and political ruler the 7th century has to offer as an ethical example to be followed, i would be scared to death.
For example in some frankish war between brothers there might have been some rival offspring being killed by smashing him against a rock; the war between east rome and persia sounds like a real bloodfeast with guerilla wars and cities plundered. And in china some dynasty replaced another with the former ruler being strangled to death and in the following rebellious years a lot of heads being cut off.
No, to everybody, please do not take any 7th century ruler and warleader as a ethical example, neither the "good" ones nor the "bad" ones.
So i am realy at loss, how an "islam apologist" could fill the above dots; realy, totally no clue whatsoever.
but he was a for his time quite modern ethically above average 7th century leader in peace and war and therefore his ethical conduct as a 7th century leader in peace and war being at least theologically an example to be followed by every Muslim is realy nothing to worry about, because
...
Is there anybody to fill the ... with any semi-reasonable intelligeble text?
Cause the above is in a sense a summary of some discussions i had; some "islam apologists" tries at length to convince me that Mohammed was not that blood thirsty monster, but just one a bit above average run-of-the-mill 7th century ruler.
Somehow the "islam apologists" think they have gained some ground by arguing for this; but they never come around to fill the ...
And frankly, if one point something billion people would seriously take even the ethically most flawless military and political ruler the 7th century has to offer as an ethical example to be followed, i would be scared to death.
For example in some frankish war between brothers there might have been some rival offspring being killed by smashing him against a rock; the war between east rome and persia sounds like a real bloodfeast with guerilla wars and cities plundered. And in china some dynasty replaced another with the former ruler being strangled to death and in the following rebellious years a lot of heads being cut off.
No, to everybody, please do not take any 7th century ruler and warleader as a ethical example, neither the "good" ones nor the "bad" ones.
So i am realy at loss, how an "islam apologist" could fill the above dots; realy, totally no clue whatsoever.
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/2CGQ5LU
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire