Actually, that's not really the point.
Since the claim that Muhammad attacked Jewish communities and ended up killing the men and enslaving the women is based on Muslim historical sources, that means that there are people who:
- believe this is how it happened,
- believe that the instigator of these events is God's Prophet, and are therefore unable to totally, utterly, and unreservedly condemn, abhor, and abominate such behavior, and
- are post-pubescent males.
The very existence of individuals satisfying those conditions is a deadly threat.
If, instead, the Islamic world was saying that Muhammad would never do such horrible things, and it is all fabricated Zionist propaganda, even if they were wrong, it wouldn't be a serious problem.
Thank you for your reply Quadibloc,
unlike Wellington, you're mature enough to respond to the content of my
posts, rather than resort to base-less name-calling.
While I disagree with the curt description of the historical events and
the notion that they were entirely based on Muslim accounts (as many
important details were extrapolated by descendants of the Jewish tribes),
I do nonetheless agree with the point you make.
Whether or not the history is accurate or even forged, many political
entities within the "Muslim world" use it for justifying heinous acts, even
despite the nonparallel context or nature of the recorded events.
The sad thing though is that there is not one culture one could cite that
is innocent of this malicious facet of human nature. Mankind is imprisoned
within the bias of the context to which it is raised.
"Peace" being used as a banner of war is an actively employed paradox.
The futility of this unavoidable truth makes blaming any particular religion
counter-productive, especially when it's the political bodies themselves that
are at fault.
