“He advocated for the death of people who refused to convert.”
do not take anything from the hadith because hadith is a polluted doctrine derived from Imam Syafie and co.
Imam Syafie advocates death of people who refused to convert, he used Muhammad’s names (which is a lie) in order to influence Muslim to hate…
I followed the Quran and I do not encourage mass genocide. I still am a Muslim but I stray away from Imam Syafie’s stuff… it is smelly and reek of slander…
Military career of Mohammad:
So he went on crusades. So did the Christians.
“...I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Then smite the necks and smite of them each finger…”
There’s liberal Christians who don’t believe in everything their Bible says to do. There’s more liberal Muslims as well in the West (America - but Saudi Arabia is trying to educate the West-hating version of Islam in Europe & the UK - but there are admittedly some more liberal Muslims in the US).
In general human morality, and the changing and progressing moral zeitgeist, ends up dictating what people consider to be moral, rather than the exacting dictates of their books.
There’s bloodthirsty stuff in both the Bible & the Quoran. I’m not a fan of either.
and the highly absurd Book of Mormon and Books of Moses & Abraham - things I have a lot of experience with
Yes I agree that it’s nice that people are reinterpreting their books and now claiming as the “original meaning” the liberal meaning they are actually applying to it - a meaning that discounts the more violent stuff that the books say. That’s good. The more of that that happens the better.
On the Christian end of things the Anglicans tend to be nice & liberal. The Unitarian Universalist church has Christian roots, but many members are atheist/humanist/pagan/whatever. Islam has no strong equivalence to liberal Christianity yet. Here’s hoping there’ll be more in the future.