Meta deletes popular 1M follower account after Kuwaiti request

What does it say? And provide sources.

I know there are various sects of Islam, and some extremist groups that claim to align to Islam, but their actions go against the teachings of Islam. Just like there are extremist groups within Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Sikhism, etc. I don't claim that those minorities represent the whole.

Zionism, on the other hand, I have not seen any founding documents that go against my assertions that it is a violent ideology simply because achieving the aims of Zionism requires there to be ethnic cleansing and/or genocide to carry out its goals. The founding fathers also knew this to be the case (refer another comment of mine below).

I mean, here's a piece from Bari Weiss, a modern day Jewish journalist, justifying why killing children is a necessary 'burden' for Zionists to achieve its goal:

"The results of this mess, as always, are especially bad for the Palestinians who live under Hamas rule. Casualty reports are hard to verify because Hamas controls the media (even the international press) inside the Gaza Strip, but it appears that more than 50 Palestinians have been killed. Some of these people are entirely innocent non-combatants, including children. This is an unspeakable tragedy. It is also one of the unavoidable burdens of political power, of Zionism's dream turned into the reality of self-determination."

I have never seen (or heard of) a Zionist that doesn't think Jews should live on a piece of land in the Middle East.

Then say that the prophet was a horrible, disgusting, immoral bastard. Because everyone, especially muslims, know that is the case. Go ahead.

In case there is still anyone at all that doesn't know: the central figure in islam is the prophet. Right up to the point that when asking an imam about particular rules, you won't hear "Allah says ...", you'll hear references to what the prophet did and said. Nothing else. There won't be many references to allah in their explanation at all.

And the problem is the prophet was a warlord. He started war after war after war after war. Almost 100 wars in all. He regularly massacred groups he defeated. He used hostage taking, including of course massacring hostages as part of negotiations. He used peace treaties as weapons of deception. He massacred people because they were Jews. The list goes on and on.

He massacred his own people (e.g. the incident where he executed a group of muslims for not following his orders by burying them with their heads exposed and had horses run over them until they were dead). You are right that this is a part of islam that even the Taliban deny. Now go read the source material ...

He advocates for a Roman-style society, where there are clear classes in society that are not equal before the law, and there are clear classes. The government is above everyone, then muslim males, then dhimmi males, then slaves, then non-muslims.

For example, another part of islam that everyone denies is that "murdering down" (for example the Caliph having a muslim executed just for fun) is a civil case. Maybe money needs to be paid for consequences (e.g. because a murdered slave can no longer work, or a woman no longer has a breadwinner in the family). But courts are limited to demanding minimal restitution, and only for cause. Oh and the state can never be convicted, and is just allowed to kill anyone, no restitution. Just so we're clear: the murder itself, as long as you murder someone of lower class, is legal. It's effectively treated as property destruction. Murdering up is criminal, and punished by death (and yes, blood money exists).

This, by the way, is the argument Iranian mullahs are making for executing protestors. They can simply murder muslims, without giving reasons

Same with the famous sharia law for stealing. What is not well understood is that if a muslim steals from a slave, MAYBE he'll be asked (not forced) to pay something. Only if a slave steals "up" does cutting off the hand applies.

The prophet was a paedophile rapist (that's what we call a person who has sex with a minor against the will of said minor). And yes, the Eastern Roman Empire, the state in which he lived, had the concept of a minor and a prohibition on sex with minors, so no, this was not part of the times.

He was a thief. For example, he raided trade caravans, sometimes murdering or enslaving everyone.

He was a slave trader, what we call today a sex trafficker. He bought and sold human beings, including young girls with the express purpose to rent them out to be prostitutes (ie. get raped for money)

Note: islam's holy texts contain advice on how to rape small girls. Advice on how not to damage them. Advice on what to do with them for maximum pleasure.

He was a slaver. Which means he captured people, killed them, tortured them, and starved them until they accepted to be slaves. A practice that was widespread in muslim countries even in the 1960s.

So I ask you: Is there anything wrong with the prophet? Is what the prophet did not part of islam? Shall I go on listing his crimes according to muslim beliefs? Do you want sources?

https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/all/cr_list.html

Note the MANY exhortations to harm others in the primary source of islam. But the hadith are way worse.

https://nostr.com/

This just sounds like whether one believes, today, in the destruction of Israel as a state. In my view, I don’t; two Nakbas don’t make a right in the same way shipping America’s Black population back to Africa is a nonsense solution to slavery.