The Savage Lands of IslamPeace means pacification to the Prophet's True Believers.
"The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia ruled that ten year old girls can be married off, because in his words, "Good upbringing makes a girl ready to perform all marital duties at that age."
The Mufti, who also called for destroying churches in the Arabian Peninsula, is descended from Mohammed Wahhab who gave birth to Wahhabism and whose descendants have controlled the Saudi religious establishment, and through it Islam around the world.
However for all his power and influence, the Mufti is blind and hasn't seen a thing in the last half century years; an apt metaphor for his entire religion.
Saudi Arabia, the heartland of Islam, still tries and executes witches. What sort of religion can come out of a place that marries off ten year old girls and murders old women on charges of witchcraft? The sort that flies planes into skyscrapers, murders teenage girls for using Facebook and bases its entire society on a ladder with Muslim men at the top, Muslim women a few rungs below and everyone else somewhere at the bottom.
The Saudis are not an aberration, they are Islam in its purest and truest form. That is why Al Qaeda was founded by a Saudi and why Saudis, the wealthy citizens of a wealthy kingdom, are its best recruits. It is not poverty or oppression that moves them to kill, but wealth and privilege.
This is where Islam originated, whose brutality and cunning spread it across the world, whose clans killed each other, then killed or enslaved minority groups, and then embarked on a wave of conquest that destroyed countless cultures and left behind the seeds of hate of the wars we are fighting today.
It is brutally telling that the two centers of Islam, Saudi Arabia for the Sunnis and Iran for the Shiites, are genuinely horrifying places. Neither can remotely be associated with tolerance or human rights. It is simple common sense that the spread of Islam will make Western countries more like Saudi Arabia and Iran, rather than less like them.
...
There are two Islams. The real Islam of the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia and an imaginary Islam that exists only in the mosques of air and card table Korans of academics apologists and political pundits who have decided that Islam cannot be bad, because no religion can be bad, not even one which kills and kills, it must just be misunderstood.
But then why not tell the Grand Mufti that he has misunderstood his own religion, the religion that he and his ancestors have dedicated themselves to purifying and reforming back to its roots? Telling him that would be a dangerous thing on his own turf, but it would also be foolish. The Grand Mufti's controversial statements contain nothing that Mohammed had not said.
Can the founder of a religion misunderstand his own teachings?
Islam is savage, intolerant, cruel and expansionistic, not due to a misunderstanding, but an understanding of the worst aspects of human nature. It is what it is and no amount of wishing will make it otherwise.
We have opened the door to the desert and a hot wind blows through into the northern climes. Either we shut the door or get used to living in the Saudi desert. "
Do go to the link and read the whole thing.
5 comments:
Where is the appeal to Aristotelian logic? All I see is emotional exaggeration and fear mongering using ipse dixit, in other words: fallacies.
You seem to have become a closet liberal. True freedom is a need, not an end (which leads to "my mind is supreme" and self-worship); true freedom is to reach a forbidden which you need, not a forbidden you don't need. Freedom isn't measure quantitatively, otherwise the best system would be one without laws or regulations. It is measured based on how beneficial they are, forbidding thievery or making bridges have railing are restrictions, but they are beneficial.
Does man think that he will be left neglected? (Quran 75:36)
Have you seen he who has taken as his god his [own] desire, and Allah has sent him astray due to knowledge and has set a seal upon his hearing and his heart and put over his vision a veil? So who will
guide him after Allah ? Then will you not be reminded? (Quran 45:23)
The reason liberalism survived is because it tries to pretend that there are no absolute truths and that humans live in some vacuum (as if the law of causality specifically doesn't apply to humans). A weak bottle can be preserved when hidden, but a brick will crumble once it clashes with something stronger.
And let there be [arising] from you a nation inviting to [all that is] good, enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong, and those will be the successful. (Quran 3:104)
You may find it beneficial to be ruled by men, but people in Muslim countries find it beneficial to be ruled by God. So what?
If you find an objection or wish to make a claim, then simply state it.
Dragon Fang,
Har. That’s the first time I’ve been accused of being a liberal, closet or otherwise. I actually was, before I grew up. But I did grow up. And being grown up, I questioned everything about those things which I previously believed. Then I learned the process of valid thinking, and applied the rules of rationality to various worldviews. What process did you use to arrive at Islam? You accuse me of dogmatic declarations without proof. What I actually do is to question the dogmatism inherent in the views brought to the blog, including Atheist dogmatism, Christian dogmatism, Islamic dogmatism, etc.
You said,
” Where is the appeal to Aristotelian logic? All I see is emotional exaggeration and fear mongering using ipse dixit, in other words: fallacies.
It is a fallacy to claim fallacies without details of what precisely in the text constitutes a fallacy, and what the fallacy type was. This fallacy is similar to the Fallacy Fallacy. It’s essence is making a charge without evidence. You seem to have this as a habit.
”You seem to have become a closet liberal. True freedom is a need, not an end (which leads to "my mind is supreme" and self-worship); true freedom is to reach a forbidden which you need, not a forbidden you don't need.”
This makes no sense. Freedom as an absolute is being without “forbiddens” (to use your noun created from an adjective). Whether it is a need or a want is irrelevant. Absolute Freedom is to be without restriction. I don't know what you are trying to say or to get at; I suspect that your definition comes from Uthman’s Qur’an, somewhere.
”Freedom isn't measure quantitatively, otherwise the best system would be one without laws or regulations. It is measured based on how beneficial they are, forbidding thievery or making bridges have railing are restrictions, but they are beneficial.”
Then you are discussing regulated civilization, not freedom. Freedom taken literally and absolutely does, in fact, become anarchy. No one is pursuing anarchy here, so your definitions, apart from being incomprehensible, are unnecessary.
”Does man think that he will be left neglected? (Quran 75:36)
Have you seen he who has taken as his god his [own] desire, and Allah has sent him astray due to knowledge and has set a seal upon his hearing and his heart and put over his vision a veil? So who will
guide him after Allah ? Then will you not be reminded? (Quran 45:23)”
It is odd that you accuse me of dogmatism, while you quote the dogma of Uthman’s Qur’an, which is without any proof of its actual relationship to Muhammad, yet it is considered truth, absolutely and unquestionably. This is the definition of dogma. It has no objective truth value, only the value given to it through its dogmatic acceptance.
Further, why would your god, Allah, give you a mind and insist that you not use it? In fact, would "send you astray" with knowledge? This passage from Uthman's Qur'an seems to dictate that rationality be quashed, in order that Islam can be accepted.
”The reason liberalism survived is because it tries to pretend that there are no absolute truths and that humans live in some vacuum (as if the law of causality specifically doesn't apply to humans). A weak bottle can be preserved when hidden, but a brick will crumble once it clashes with something stronger.”
Your concept of “liberalism” is odd and does not connect with any intellectual reality. If you mean liberalism as it was used in the Enlightenment, that movement did claim that there are no absolute truths, but it believed that human behavior was causal. This persists today in Materialist Theory.
However, if your concept of “liberalism” refers to modern Leftists who called themselves “Liberals” and then “Progressives”, then they, being emotionally disturbed, believe they are “messiahs” whose moral authority dictates the salvation of the Victim Class by the destruction of the Oppressor Class, with the Messiah Class in total control. There is no relevant thought regarding Truth or Causality, because those are not necessary to their agenda. So your comments regarding "liberals" are confusing and seemingly not relevant to any of the issues being discussed.
”And let there be [arising] from you a nation inviting to [all that is] good, enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong, and those will be the successful. (Quran 3:104)”
This is an example of the moral ambiguity of Uthman’s Qur’an: what, then, is “good”? Obviously it depends on the situation at hand, and whether there are words which threaten the supremacy of Muhammad. What is “Right”? What constitutes “Wrong”? Is it “Right” to kill Jews, because Muhammad so declared? Why? What makes that moral, if it is not dogmatic behavior?
”You may find it beneficial to be ruled by men, but people in Muslim countries find it beneficial to be ruled by God. So what?”
From an objective standpoint, Muslims are ruled by Uthman and their local cleric, not by God.
”If you find an objection or wish to make a claim, then simply state it.”
I have done so, and will continue to do so. Do you wish a syllogism for clarity? Then here:
IF [there is no objective evidence for Q], THEN [ Q is not a rational position to hold ].
Shall we let Q = Qur’an? Where are the original, objective, validating documents for the words of Muhammad? The answer is that there are none. There is no objective, rational check for the work of Uthman’s own personal compilation of disparate documents, because he destroyed all the evidence needed to corroborate his work.
If you wish to question this logic with your own analysis, then do so.
Here is another:
IF [Q is not a rational position to hold], THEN [it can be only dogmatic, not rational, to hold Q as Truth].
Finally, you have not responded to the post above, except in ambiguous charges and without substantive evidence; quoting dogma from Uthman's Qur'an does not constitute evidence because it is dogma, only.
@Dragon fang:
You may find it beneficial to be ruled by men, but people in Muslim countries find it beneficial to be ruled by God. So what?
Let's examine just one person living in a Muslim country who experienced the benefit of being ruled by God:
Mariam Yahia Ibrahim Ishag
Fortunately for her, the God that ruled her life delivered her from the benevolent clutches of the Muslims.
The only "people in Muslim countries [who] find it beneficial to be ruled by Allah" are Muslims. All others are either second-class dhimmi (with NO right to either speak against Islam and or to speak for or about their own religion under pain of death), slaves or dead (or soon to be dead, if Allah or one of his many interpreters wills it).
Post a Comment