Are devoted muslims more inclined to violence?

This happens all the times with muslims when discussing unpleasant truths about muhammad. Deny everything negative about muhammad...

" Muhammad went to the market in Medina and dug trenches. Then the men of Quraiza were brought out in batches, and Muhammad and his followers cut off their heads. According to Ibn Ishaq (690), the number of dead ranged between 600 and 900. Afterwards Muhammad divided their property, their women, and their children among his followers.
A number of ahadith supply additional details. How did Muhammad distinguish the adult males, who would be executed, from the children, whose lives would be spared?

Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi: I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair. (Sunan Abu Dawud, 38:4390)
"Adult" males marked for death could be very young indeed.

The following hadith is one of the most widely quoted even today to justify anti-Semitic hatred:

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews. (Sahih Muslim, 41:6985; see also 41:6981-84 and Sahih Bukhari, 4:52:176,177 and 4:56:791)


Conclusion
How do we evaluate this material? Many have tried to justify Muhammad's actions: Seventh-century Arabia was a tough neighborhood. Tribal vengeance was common. Members of different tribes had no responsibilities towards each other. Had Muhammad allowed the Quraiza to live, they would have continued to be a threat to him.

Even Karen Armstrong, who takes great pains to justify everything Muhammad did, can hardly keep from showing her revulsion:

It is probably impossible for us to dissociate this story from Nazi atrocities and it will inevitably alienate people irrevocably from Muhammad. But Western scholars like Maxime Rodinson and W. Montgomery Watt argue that it is not correct to judge the incident by twentieth-century standards. This was a very primitive society - far more primitive than the Jewish society in which Jesus had lived and promulgated his gospel of mercy and love some 600 years earlier. At this stage the Arabs had no concept of a universal natural law, which is difficult - perhaps impossible - for people to attain unless there is a modicum of public order, such as that imposed by a great empire in the ancient world. (3)
This is quite astonishing. Muhammad, held up as a great spiritual leader and founder of a great religion, is to be judged by the standard of his time, as a member of "a very primitive society" which knew no "universal natural law" but only the law of the jungle. The great spiritual figures of other religious traditions were conciliators. Muhammad made no attempts at conciliation, except when it was politically expedient. In general he demanded that others convert to Islam and recognize him as a prophet; otherwise he fought them ruthlessly. Those who refused were not approached with peace and tolerance but preemptively eliminated. Muhammad was a man of extreme vengeance and cruelty, quite the antithesis of Jesus, whom Armstrong uses for comparison. To justify his actions is to defend religious values totally incompatible with those we cherish in the West.

Even though Armstrong mentions W. Montgomery Watt, his assessment is more balanced:

So much must be said in fairness to Muhammad when he is measured against the Arabs of his time. Muslims, however, claim that he is a model of conduct and character for all mankind. In so doing they present him for judgment according to the standards of enlightened world opinion. (4)
This is the real question. Muhammad undoubtedly was a gifted, even brilliant military leader and statesman. But do those qualities make him an outstanding spiritual leader, to be admired and imitated even today?

Muslim writers often fail to judge Muhammad by a uniform standard. They condemn the Quraiza for their "treachery," but this is unfair even by the standards of Muhammad's own time. The Quraiza had every reason to distrust and to oppose Muhammad. He had previously exiled Medina's other two Jewish tribes. Why should the Quraiza have expected to be treated any better? Why should they not have tried to resist him? By remaining faithful to their own religion, they stood in the way of Muhammad's vision of a unified Arabia under Islam. It is hypocritical to defend Muhammad's tribalism while blaming the Quraiza for theirs.

The fact is that the Quraiza inflicted no damage on Muhammad. He had effectively neutralized their opposition, and they refused to cooperate with the Meccans against Muhammad. One hadith from the respected collection of Imam Ahmad (d. 855) reports:

Abu Sufyan said, "O ye people of Quraysh, by Allah your [current] dwelling isn't a place to be dwelled in; the horses [and camels, mules, etc..] have died, Bani Quraytha has turned us down - we received from them what we don't like, and this wind is giving us what you see [a hard time]. By Allah, our cauldrons aren't standing, the fires aren't lasting, and the structures aren't holding. So retreat for I am retreating." (Musnad Ahmad, 22823 [parallel in Ibn Ishaq, 683])
The Bani Quraiza never did give active support to the Meccans at the Battle of the Trench. Nevertheless, they were punished severely. Instead of being exiled, as were the Bani Qaynuqa and Bani Nadir, they were executed, in a tribal conflict in which Muhammad cannot be said to have held any moral advantage. Yes, everybody did it, that is what Arabia was like in those days. Members of rival tribes attacked each other all the time, and no tribe was morally superior to another. While Arabian society had no legal system similar to what we have today, it did have a respected custom of blood-guilt. Those who drew blood from another tribe were responsible for making it up, either in blood or in kind. One did not respond to an offense by liquidating the whole tribe. Such collective punishment is even prohibited by the Qur'an: "Every soul draws the meed of its acts on none but itself: no bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another" (6:164).

In intent and in action, Muhammad was a mass murderer. He engaged in the practice of beheading his enemies, as do some of today's terrorists who claim to follow him. Today we have a name for forced large-scale exile. We call it ethnic cleansing. We have a name for the extermination of an entire tribe. We call it genocide.

In a weakly argued and logically flawed piece, W. N. Arafat tries to show that the massacre of the Quraiza never took place (5). Even if he is correct, the point is moot. The Muhammad whom Islam has venerated for centuries is the Muhammad who carried out this mass murder. And he is a man whom Muslims are asked to imitate, a model for humanity. What kind of a world would it be if the values that guided him, the values of seventh-century Arabia, were to prevail and become universal? If one defends Muhammad as both a great spiritual leader and a man of his time, then one makes his time normative for our time.

As Muhammad's power grew, so did his ambition. His mission became the unification of the Arab tribes under one faith, as a nation strong enough to challenge even the great empires. There was no room in this new nation for those who would not accept his prophecy. This meant in particular the Jews, since they were the major holdouts - even the Meccan tribes eventually adopted Islam. Any continuing organized Jewish presence in Arabia was a threat to Muhammad's vision, and so had to be eliminated.

Thus some time after his defeat of the Jewish tribes of Medina, shortly after the Treaty of Hudaybiyya, Muhammad marched against the rich Jewish settlement of Khaybar. In addition to his religious mission, Muhammad was motivated by desire for the Jews' wealth. He had one custodian of the treasury tortured and beheaded for not revealing where it was (Ibn Ishaq, 764). Muhammad besieged the forts of Khaybar, defeated the Jews, and took their property. He allowed the Jews to continue to cultivate the land, which the Muslims now owned, and demanded that half the produce be given to the Muslims - a severe application of the jizya tax.

Because of his talents and accomplishments, Muhammad deserves a place among the great influential figures of history. But one must search one's own conscience asking the question: Are these the same qualities one would revere in a great spiritual leader?
............"

 

funny shiit.

 

Imad, What Haaappened?
Are you hiding from the truth again?
Do you acknowladge the execution of 600 people indeed happened or you are still in denial mode?

 

Imad, are you OK?
I hope you didn't get the flu.

 

Only one comment to nitreb on the first page;
The only reason Islam is the fastest growing religion is because these people breed like vermin. You know how fast rats have babies? That is Islam.

 

Erm, why are you insulting rodents? I mean really... they're pretty closely related to humans. We're both Euarchontoglires after all...

 

That might be the funniest god damn thing I have ever read. Be prepared to be banned!

 

LOL
Please guys, we need to maintain a certain level of political correctness.
The level of political correctness has put over 100 million muslims in the west.
Could it be that the western culture, built in 2000 years of wars and great events, will be destroyed in the next 100 years by the ....other... kind of culture, and it will be only "political correctness" to blame?

 

Yeah...them bloody Muslims. I think we need a "final solution".

 

Yes, they are more desperate...

 

Uh, no. Could send the violent ones from every civilized nation to to Afghanistan though... I'm a big fan of creating the world's "Garbage Dump" in some crap hole nation. Put a fence around it, and empty out the prisons in every other civilized nation. I'd say Gaza, but they have a tunnel rat problem. It would have to be an island.

The lowered cost of detention would spur economic growth, with the added benefit of having the dregs of society removed from polite society. My guess is that the "Island prison" would quickly set up its own internal governance and one day become a civilized nation.

 

Great. I had something like this on my mind when i was growing up.

 

I would not say devoted, but bunch of people who do not agree with american policies of meddling in muslim countries matters, raiding their countries, stealing their resources, manipulating their policies; politics etc!

 

Fanatasim to ANY religeon can lead to violence. There will always be people out there that will twist a teacher's (Christ, Muhammad, Buddah) words to fit their own needs.

Imad - I do not confess to being a biblical scholar at all. But, I believe this is from the OLD testament, not the New (Christian) testament. And, if I am right - then it is as much a part of Muslim faith as it is Christian and Jewish. See....this is what really gets to me. We all believe in the same God - but some of use say he is purple, some say he is pink, some orange - but when you get right down to it, he is simply God.

 

And then some of us say "Gee... perhaps there isn't one" - then those that do believe attack us as being the crazies.

It is a fun cycle of bullshit.

We're more closely related to rats than we are horses. Very closely related.

 

I would not label you as crazy, just unfortunate not to have been touched by the divine.

 

I consider myself fortunate for not being touched.

 

I just bought a suit of armor on ebay and a gigantic wooden lower-case T.

Crusade '10
Be There Or Beware

C-A *clap clap* T-H *clap clap* O-L-I-C! GO Jesus!

Let's hope devoted Muslims are as violent, cause we taking the Muslim Quarter in Jerusalem back...AND we're going to trash their scoreboard! Jesuit Prep Forever!

In all honesty, there is nothing a Muslim can do to incite a Christian/Catholic to act demonic...We have already perfected that art and appall the Muslims by how WE act...Notice we don't even bat an eye to their transgressions.

It's just too unimpressive, I mean, we're the Great Satan damnit...Time to start acting like it to get these kids in Mecca to stop thinking they're some hot militant shit. They have no idea the power of crazy Catholics...

Cheers.

 

We all have our own path to walk, Jackuul. I would never presume to tell someone that theirs was wrong. But, that is just me. I know there are a lot of people who do not share my philosophy.

 

What you are saying is that as long as you do not piss off a Muslim, they are A OK!!! ???