Scientists and ...!, page-1574

''Just looking for an answer to all the questions. And a fair comparison is not hard to do.''

There lies your trouble. You are confused. Your confusion stems from comparing two completely unrelated issues. One issue being self defense, the other offense.

Now the right to self defense/defense comes when either you or someone in your presence, related or not, is being attacked and you or they are in immediate danger. You then have the right to use reasonable force in order to stop the attack, even if that means killing the attacker.

The other issue is offense. Even when Mohammad was safe, even when his relatives were not in imminent danger, Mohammad decided to go on the offensive. He decided to attack Merchant Caravans, people who had done him no harm, steal their goods, build an army and attack the forces of Mecca, exact revenge upon those who insulted him, and impose his own faith.

That, Kam, is not self defense. He had every right to defend himself or his relatives and friends if or when they were attacked, but not to go on the offensive, raiding, robbing, killing, against people because did not agree with his beliefs and that he professed to be the spokesman of God, no less.

If you can't see the distinction here, there is no hope for you....even your one figurative eye of faith is closed.

''Just tell us all here what you would do if a woman was being killed in front of you in an unpoliced region?
Clearly if Mandela is your answer then it's sickening.''

It is your failure to distinguish between right to defense, using reasonable force, and planning an offensive against whole groups of people who do not share the same faith that, if not sickening, is quite astonishing.

I mean, this is just basic logic and reason. Not to mention codified in our laws.