Tao_Equus
Interfaith Forums
I have just received my 3rd infraction notice, (yeh yeh, "only 3"" thats an outrage" I hear some of you shout). I accepted the first two, I was pushing on Thomas a bit hard. This third one however I do object to.
In my 'conversation' with the muslim apologists that would have Islams history rewritten as entirely peaceable I have sought to state historical truths in the context of removing the question of religion and focussing on the actual events regardless of religious motivation. Thus a battle becomes a battle and not a holy war. In this vein I replied to a post that one method to get wives to sustain a polygamous society was the murder of neighbouring tribes and the capture of the women. This is an historical fact. This is how it was. Yet to suggest the warlord Muhammad was doing the same, though he himself is said to have had several wives by this method, is deemed unnaceptable. I object to this and see it only as a censorship that gives carte blanche to muslim apologists to go unchallanged in promoting their false history.
It seems it is ok for muslims here to openly support and act as apologists for suicide bombers yet to make a comment on the historical truths of Muhammads rise to power is unnaceptable. This is censorship.
I realise I can be agressive, controversial and blunt but this is a valid method of stimulating debate and I have over my time here stimulated a lot of debate. And it is not like I do not get it returned by muslim gang here. I feel let down that I am being told to censor the historical truth.
I will be gone in a few days, so it does not matter much to me except as a matter of respect. To allow muslim apologists to attempt to pervert history, as part of an ongoing political campaign, on this site is shameful.
tao
In my 'conversation' with the muslim apologists that would have Islams history rewritten as entirely peaceable I have sought to state historical truths in the context of removing the question of religion and focussing on the actual events regardless of religious motivation. Thus a battle becomes a battle and not a holy war. In this vein I replied to a post that one method to get wives to sustain a polygamous society was the murder of neighbouring tribes and the capture of the women. This is an historical fact. This is how it was. Yet to suggest the warlord Muhammad was doing the same, though he himself is said to have had several wives by this method, is deemed unnaceptable. I object to this and see it only as a censorship that gives carte blanche to muslim apologists to go unchallanged in promoting their false history.
It seems it is ok for muslims here to openly support and act as apologists for suicide bombers yet to make a comment on the historical truths of Muhammads rise to power is unnaceptable. This is censorship.
I realise I can be agressive, controversial and blunt but this is a valid method of stimulating debate and I have over my time here stimulated a lot of debate. And it is not like I do not get it returned by muslim gang here. I feel let down that I am being told to censor the historical truth.
I will be gone in a few days, so it does not matter much to me except as a matter of respect. To allow muslim apologists to attempt to pervert history, as part of an ongoing political campaign, on this site is shameful.
tao