Nope, because those were people in the same community. ie Mohammed was preaching not to some foreign occupied people on the demerits of female infanticide, but to his own people, his uncle his cousins his collegues and his neighbors.
Firstly, there were many non-relatives non-colleagues living in Arabia. There were lots of Xians and Jews not related to Mohammad that didn't share his beleifs. I wonder if they also cut off the heads of all their female children? Because they were killed and converted along with the polytheistic Arabs.
Again, you are making the assumption that Arab people did these grotesque things and then you post hoc assume that Mohammad's preaching (and murdering them) made them a better people. (lets not forget the Arab who ran the Roman Empire as the Emperor and all the millions of successful Arabs who lived from England to Egypt).
Firstly, there is no evidence that most people in Arabia routinely killed their female children - this is more than likely a
lie made up by apologists like yourself after the fact.
Secondly, there's a difference in preaching a new way or thinking (which is fine) and murdering people for not thinking the way you do. You seem to suggest that because Mohammad was from a neighboring tribe that this then make murdering these people justifiable. What kind of bullshit is this? You're just making up
anything to justify
anything. I suppose it's fine for the Americans to murder Iraqis? I mean, they do things we consider immoral. Honor Killings comes to mind. They're human, we're human. Or, They're Arab, we have millions of American Arabs. So according to SAM's logic it's fine. Or I know, it's fine to murder your children - I mean, you're related to them after all (Bizarro logic in Bizzaro world)
Murdering other people is wrong, why justify it SAM? I suspect soon you'll tell us the British colonization of India was justifiable. The only leg you're standing on now is: Mo was Arab so he can murder other Arabs, destroy their homes, including the Jews and anyone else around the neighborhood, wreck their temples, smash their heritage, ...
Like I said long ago, with you and DH here's the rule: What ever a Muslim does is fine.
Muslims invade Persia - that's fine, they were threatened. Muslims invade Constantinople - oh, that's fine too, they were "threatened". Muslims invade Spain - oh, that's fine, they were "helping" some people. Mohammad ordered a singing slave girls head to be cut off - oh, that's OK the bitch deserved it -or- it never "really" happened (as if this matters, the story is Islamic). Mohammad refused to enter a city until his thugs pillaged the local temples - oh, that's OK, he's Arab and they had it coming. Mohammad murders Jews - oh, that's ok, they were going to turn on him. Muslims build a temple right atop the most sacred Jewish site - oh, that's ok, the Xians weren't taking care of it :bugeye: and on and on it goes.
Two predictions:
1) "Islamic" countrys continue to stand as shinning testaments for the entire world to see as examples of why theocracy suck.
2) The east become intolerant monotheists, more than likely Xian, and then you can look back on these threads and maybe "get it".
Lastly and back to the opening thread topic.
I'll change this a bit:
We may sum up the social situation in Islamic countries by saying that the Muslims are groping about in the dark and ignorance, entangled in a mesh of superstitions paralyzing their mind and driving them to lead an animal- like life. The women are a marketable commodity and regarded as a piece of inanimate property.
Therefor the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are justified. The elimination of Islam or it's fundamental change by war is warranted. etc.. etc.. etc...
Now how does it sound? Sounding like propaganda yet? I mean Xist, talk about looking in the mirror, I could have never guessed brainwashing by a meme could be so thorough.
Michael
Ahhh yeah, sure DH. And Mohammad rode a winged fairy creature up to a magical sky daddy.. keep smoking what you're smoking.