Sam Harris is wrong about Islam
"Even though at one time the religion associated with Jesus had become violent and intolerant, there is nothing violent and intolerant in his teachings. The Crusades were the response of Christendom to jihad, and the Inquisition was the copycat of mihnah, a practice started by Caliph Ma’mun, which means “inquisition.” They have no basis in the teaching of Christ.
The Christian Reformation aimed to get rid of un-Christian practices. They suggested that the Bible should be read literally and its allegorical interpretations should be rejected.
An analogous reformation also took place in Islam. It is called Salafism.
The Prophet Muhammad reiterated repeatedly that he is the best salaf, the best example to follow and after him, his companions are the best model for Muslims to emulate.
He raided villages and towns, massacred unarmed men, beheaded his captives, raped their women and sold them as slaves. His successors, the so-called “rightly guided Caliphs” and their successors did the same. These are the very things the Wahhabis advocate and Islamic State is doing.
Islamic State is the true embodiment of the Islamic Reformation.
Is this what Sam Harris has in mind? No, he is talking about people like Maajid Nawaaz, Irshad Manji and Zuhdi Yasser.
These people are not suggesting that Muslims should go back to the original teachings of Muhammad, as the Christian reformers did. They want to get rid of them while somehow acknowledge the legitimacy of Muhammad as a prophet of God.
How is that possible? How can we tell people Muhammad was a true prophet, but don’t believe him – that his message was from God, but don’t follow it? Furthermore, isn’t it what the majority of Muslims already doing? Most Muslims don’t practice the violent parts of the Koran. As long as Islam is accepted as a true religion there will always be a minority who will want to practice it fully and honestly.
Yusra Hussein, a 15-year-old British Muslim of Somali origin, suddenly disappeared – and it transpires that she has gone to join Islamic State to become a “jihadi bride.” Her family is distraught.
“If it can happen to Yusra it can happen to anyone,” her aunt said. “She was just a normal, young girl. She was a home girl. There was no anger, no frustration. We had no idea,” she opined.
One does not have to be a neuroscientist to figure that out. Yusra’s family call themselves Muslim. At the same time they lived a comfortable westernized life, which is contrary to Islam. The young Yusra felt the cognitive dissonance and saw the hypocrisy of her family. If Islam is from God, why should she dilute it with the decadent ungodly ways of the unbelievers? Thousands of young Muslims join Islamic State. The great majority come from moderate Muslim families. It is easy to radicalize them. You ask them whether they believe in the Koran and they respond “yes.” Then you read it to them and show them that God enjoins jihad, that their parents who prefer this world to the next are hypocrites, and the Koran orders true believers to neither associate with the hypocrites nor take them as friends and guardians, even if they are fathers and brothers."
I just received "The Life of Muhammad; A Transation of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah" by A. Guillaume. This 800 page work purportedly "presents in English practically all that is known of the life of the Prophet". In randomly opened pages, the book proves to be loaded with killing, beheading and violence against non-right thinkers. An example: The Prophet, aka the Apostle, on page 367 hears that Ka'b B. Al-Ashraf has mourned The Prophet's killing of "the nobles of the Arabs and kingly men; by God, if Muhammad has killed these people, 'twere better to be dead than alive." He makes a poem of mourning and disaffection with The Prophet.
When The Prophet hears of this, he asks,
"who will rid me of Ibnu'l-Ashraf?.
Muhammad b Maslama, brother of the B 'Abdu'l-Ashal, said, "I will deal with him for you, O apostle of God, I will kill him".
Soon, Maslama says,
"'O apostle of God, we shall have to tell lies.' He [the apostle of god] answered, 'Say what you like, for you are free in the matter."After the killing, they wrote a commemorative poem, as was customary:
"Of them Ka'b was left prostrate there
(after his fall al-Nadir were brought low).
Sword in hand we cut him down
By Muhammad's order when he sent secretly in the night
Ka'b's brother to go to Ka'b.
He beguiled him and brought him down with guile
Mahmud was trustworthy and bold.
18 comments:
I've been a regular visitor of Ali Sina's site for years.When I'm not here,I'm usually over there.
Ali Sina's an ex-muslim and now an ex-atheist too.Of course,he has lost many support from other atheists for believing in God now.Yet he had support from christians and hindus even when he was an ardent atheist.Atheists reek of hypocrisy.
=======
just received "The Life of Muhammad; A Transation of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah" by A. Guillaume. This 800 page work purportedly "presents in English practically all that is known of the life of the Prophet"
That is the original Sirat Rasul (Biography of the prophet) but it's a very long and tedious read.I have the abridged version but kudos to you for taking it on.
Ali Sina still has credibility?
Ibnu'l-Ashraf openly broke the treaty:
http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/treaty22.html
"Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf was the most resentful Jew at Islam and the Muslims, the keenest on inflicting harm on the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) and the most zealous advocate of waging war against him..."
"On hearing the news of Badr, he got terribly exasperated and swore that he would prefer death to life if the news was true. When this was confirmed he wrote poems satirizing Muhammad (PBUH), elugizing Quraish and enticing them against the Prophet (PBUH). He then rode to Makkah where he started to trigger the fire of war, and kindle rancour against the Muslims in Madinah..."
"He then returned to Madinah to start a fresh campaign of slanderous propaganda that took the form of obscene songs and amatory sonnets with a view to defaming the Muslim women..."
http://www.kalamullah.com/Books/the-sealed-nectar.pdf
p.241
By that logic, a crime accomplice shouldn't be punished, neither should someone plotting a mass-murder conspiracy. If he arbitrarily gives himself the right to take someone else's life, then he has given the others the same right in self-defense.
It's interesting that the offense of Ibnu'l-Ashraf is that of speaking against the murders of arab leaders by Muhammad and Co. at Badr. For that, Muhammad authorized the murder of Ibnu'l-Ashraf by the use of lying and deceit to gain access, and cold blooded assassination to silence him.
Regardless of the issues at Badr, this demonstrates the elasticity and malleability of the "morals" of the prophet, who casually had opponents murdered to protect himself and his movement from negative speech.
Ali Sina still has credibility?
Why wouldn't he?
"Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf was the most resentful Jew at Islam and the Muslims, the keenest on inflicting harm on the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) and the most zealous advocate of waging war against him..."
His only crime was to satirize Muhammad in his songs and poems.To muslims,this constitutes as waging war against Allah and his apostle.
By that logic, a crime accomplice shouldn't be punished, neither should someone plotting a mass-murder conspiracy.
You have neither logic nor evidence from your scriptures that Kab bin Al-Ashraf was capable of mass murdering muslims,unless mass murder has been redefined to mean continuous ridicule.
But nevertheless here's the smoking gun.Muhammad also had a mother of five killed bint Marwan and just like Kab bin Al Ashraf her only crime was to mock Muhammad.According to your logic,she was also waging war against Muslims and plotting genocide.
Here's the link to the original Sirat and page numbers 675-676
https://archive.org/stream/TheLifeOfMohammedGuillaume/The_Life_Of_Mohammed_Guillaume#page/n361/mode/2up
Dragon Fang says,
"Ali Sina still has credibility?"
This is just the form of a slur, an implied condemnation without the need for facts for its support.
I fail to see how the actions of Muhammad differ from those of Satan, which are actually more subtle and less bloody. Causing people to feign belief out of fear seems to be related more to the psychology of tyrannical cowards needing protection from dissent than to a deity and his actual earthly contacts.
Actual prophets usually paid with their lives rather than becoming cold of heart and killers of those who form the tiniest of threats against them.
At any rate, the behavior of the prophet is mimicked perfectly by the warriors of ISIS. That is why the converts from the western world stream in to join: they have read and studied the prophet, and they know what the true Islam is. It is the religion of conquest, not of peace except for the conquered.
And btw, the "treaty" was a declaration by a conqueror onto the conquered. Not the same as an agreement between peers which acknowledges each other as partners. Muhammad reserved the right to kill whoever displeased him.
This is much as it is today. One may believe in an ethic, but one may not insist publicly that any behavior, from man on man sex to killing one's progeny, is wrong or improper or anything but good, else a serious legal counterattack will be incurred with serious penalties. This is paganism in charge, which is the goal of Satan, according to Abrahamic scriptures.
Muhammad seems to operate outside the Abrahamic model. This results, of course, in denying the validity of the texts relating the Abrahamic model. But of course, the burning of the original Qur'an texts which were modified by Uthman, leads to questioning the reliability of the Qur'an itself: why did Uthman fear the contents of the documents he burned? Surely not because they supported his own version. And the idea that some documents had contents not supported in other documents is no reason to burn them. Destroying evidence is done to hide some sort of misbehavior... always.
Continued,
Try to think of a situation where the proponent of a truth statement destroys all the relevant evidence relating to support for that statement.
Think of a syllogism which has no premises because the premises were burnt by the creator of the syllogism.
Why would this not be a formula for irrationality? In this case, irrationality forced by sword?
It's interesting that the offense of Ibnu'l-Ashraf is that of speaking against the murders of arab leaders by Muhammad and Co. at Badr. For that, Muhammad authorized the murder of Ibnu'l-Ashraf by the use of lying and deceit to gain access, and cold blooded assassination to silence him.
Don't forget openly violating the treaty multiple times and inciting war against the community (aka. treason). So you believe that is not ought to be punished for? If so, may you elaborate on such belief?
Don't the point in your last statement. Every martial art and war tactic I know of rely on deceit to increase the chance of victory.
Regardless of the issues at Badr, this demonstrates the elasticity and malleability of the "morals" of the prophet, who casually had opponents murdered to protect himself and his movement from negative speech.
Can you explain how this displays a change or elasticity of morals? So the motive have nothing to do with protecting the community from war?
This is just the form of a slur, an implied condemnation without the need for facts for its support.
Yes.. Very credible indeed!
http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina50913.htm
I fail to see how the actions of Muhammad differ from those of Satan, which are actually more subtle and less bloody. Causing people to feign belief out of fear seems to be related more to the psychology of tyrannical cowards needing protection from dissent than to a deity and his actual earthly contacts.
Actual prophets usually paid with their lives rather than becoming cold of heart and killers of those who form the tiniest of threats against them.
Satan threatens you with poverty and orders you to immorality, while Allah promises you forgiveness from Him and bounty. And Allah is all-Encompassing and Knowing. (Quran 2:268)
O you who have believed, do not follow the footsteps of Satan. And whoever follows the footsteps of Satan - indeed, he enjoins immorality and wrongdoing. And if not for the favor of Allah upon you and His mercy, not one of you would have been pure, ever, but Allah purifies whom He wills, and Allah is Hearing and Knowing. (Quran 24:21)
May you state your criteria of "Actual prophethood" and it's basis? The prophet was sent to the whole of humanity, not to a single tribe, therefore it would make no sense for his message and teachings to not be completed.
I also assume from your tone that your oppose treason and traffic laws and consider obligating them tyranny?
At any rate, the behavior of the prophet is mimicked perfectly by the warriors of ISIS. That is why the converts from the western world stream in to join: they have read and studied the prophet, and they know what the true Islam is. It is the religion of conquest, not of peace except for the conquered.
And that is why so many scholars support them? It is quite amusing for a so-called advocate of logic to dismiss logical possibilities when convenient in order to avoid providing support for his claims.
And btw, the "treaty" was a declaration by a conqueror onto the conquered. Not the same as an agreement between peers which acknowledges each other as partners. Muhammad reserved the right to kill whoever displeased him.
Oh, please provide historical sources of how Medina was conquered and the "treaty" wasn't actually a treaty-treaty.
It is weird that Mohammed (PBUH) let go (which includes: didn't kill) the people of Mecca who engaged in torture, mockery, verbal abuse, killing, starvation, etc. for years. It seems that you are quite alright with people who are displeased with Mohammed (PBUH) or the message to reserve the right to kill him, but not alright with defending self.
Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) as saying:
The strong-man is not one who wrestles well but the strong man is one who controls himself when he is in a fit of rage. -Sahih Muslim, Book 32, Hadith 6313
This is much as it is today. One may believe in an ethic, but one may not insist publicly that any behavior, from man on man sex to killing one's progeny, is wrong or improper or anything but good, else a serious legal counterattack will be incurred with serious penalties. This is paganism in charge, which is the goal of Satan, according to Abrahamic scriptures.
Don't see your point. Morality of a community has a basis, if a person tries to spread contradicting morality outside such basis, then his morality won't be accepted. It is a logical contradiction for a system to be ruled by two contradicting ethics.
Kinda like every single citizen in a secular society is obligated to publicly display secular laws, and the law must not contradict the constitution which is based on secular means (consequentialism or nihilism)?
Say, "Is it other than Allah I should take as a protector, Creator of the heavens and the earth, while it is He who feeds and is not fed?" Say, [O Muhammad], "Indeed, I have been commanded to be the first [among you] who submit [to Allah ] and [was commanded], 'Do not ever be of the polytheists.' " (Quran 6:14)
Paganism? I mean we don't worship a God who rests and gets refreshed (Genesis 2, Exodus 31:17), sleeps (Psalm 44:23 Psalm 78:65), walks around unwarily (Genesis 3), was ignorant and is shocked of how humans turned out to be, gets sad, and feels regret (Genesis 6), possesses weakness and foolishness (1 Corinthians 1), regularly eats and attends meals (Genesis 18), have wrestling matches (Genesis 32), worshiped as a lamb with seven horns and eyes (Revelation 7:9, Revelation 5, Revelation 17, I wonder if we can symbolize him as a dog for his trustworthiness, or an ox for his strength, or a donkey for his patience).
Muhammad seems to operate outside the Abrahamic model. This results, of course, in denying the validity of the texts relating the Abrahamic model. But of course, the burning of the original Qur'an texts which were modified by Uthman...
Say, [O believers], "We have believed in Allah and what has been revealed to us and what has been revealed to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the Descendants and what was given to Moses and Jesus and what was given to the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and we are Muslims [in submission] to Him." (Quran 2:136)
So you believe in the preservation of text originally written by an unknown number of people (prophets can't write their own obituary), by unknown people, at unknown times (earliest OT manuscript around 1200 years after Moses?), at unknown places? The most famous of NT later insertions are: 1 John 5:7, Mark 16:9-20 and John 7 53-8:11.
http://sunnah.com/bukhari/66/9
If burning the manuscripts was to hide something, shouldn't he have done that before people who memorized the Quran scattered where this would be much smoother? How could Uthman change the text that had been used for more than twelve years before him in the presence of hundreds of companions of the Prophet who memorized the Quran by heart and could easily detect any change to the original text and were obligated by religious principles to prevent any attempt at alteration? Why would he want to change it, is there anything in the text that favors him? Did anyone accuse him of altering the words of God?
Uthman simply prevented the existence of any future problems by making a standardized master copy. Although the main method of preservation was recitation leading back to the prophet, if one was to copy from a text at a different region which has any errors or personal side notes or Hadiths added in the errors would multiply. Uthman simply prevented the problem before a cure needed to be found. The fact that the copies sent by Uthman were accepted throughout the Muslim world even though some people disagreed with Uthman in different matters, and no text has ever been put forward as an alternative proves that the text sent by Uthman was authentic.
Impeccable Dragon fang logic:
(1) Uthman destroys all versions except his version.
(2) . . .no text has ever been put forward as an alternative [since the point in time that Uthman destroyed all versions except his own]
(3) [therefore] proves that the text sent by Uthman was authentic.
What possible explanation could there be for not accepting the obviously circular conclusion that Uthman's text was the one and only "true" version?!?
Please pass me another glass of that Islamophobia kool-aid; my "humor" cup is running dry.
Dragon Fang,
Quoting a document written by Uthman is utterly unconvincing. You do not deny that the essence of Islam is the killing of those who threaten it with words. And you defend the use of lying. It’s an adequate tactic for killing those who threaten Islam with words. So this is a tenet of Islam that you call “logical”, even though no syllogism for it could possibly be justified except through invoking Islamic writings by Uthman.
Further quoting the bible has no bearing on the morals of Muhammad, given the advent of Jesus; but further, claiming that the bible is errant means that there can be no justification for the morals of Muhammad by quoting the “errant” biblical scripture. This logical failure allows one to skip quotations from both the Qur’an by Uthman, and the errant bible, both as understood in Islam. The Qur'an can't be known to be reliable; the bible is errant.
“ ‘And btw, the "treaty" was a declaration by a conqueror onto the conquered. Not the same as an agreement between peers which acknowledges each other as partners. Muhammad reserved the right to kill whoever displeased him.’
Oh, please provide historical sources of how Medina was conquered and the "treaty" wasn't actually a treaty-treaty.”
Read the Treaty: written by Muhammad, for Muhammad’a control and disposition. Muhammad allows this and that so long as Muhammad is not offended, or Islamic “law”, whatever that means, is not violated. That means that Muhammad is specifically in charge. In the same sense that the Romans were in charge of every culture which they conquered, and when those cultures offended the Roman Emperor (e.g., by not calling him “God”), the subservient cultures suffered the consequences as “dangers to the state”. No difference there from Muhammad killing "treasonous" speakers against his dictatorship.
”Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) as saying:
The strong-man is not one who wrestles well but the strong man is one who controls himself when he is in a fit of rage. -Sahih Muslim, Book 32, Hadith 6313”
The most dangerous of men is not he who is in a rage, but it is he who is a cold calculator who kills those who disagree with himself. The second most dangerous of men is he who is enabled by religious dictates to kill other men who disagree with him and his religious enabler.
”Morality of a community has a basis, if a person tries to spread contradicting morality outside such basis, then his morality won't be accepted. It is a logical contradiction for a system to be ruled by two contradicting ethics.”
A perfect statement of the theory of Islamic takeover. Islam does not allow the “logical contradiction” of not being the controlling ethic, worldview, religious notion, and religio-political law of the land. ”'Do not ever be of the polytheists.' " (Quran 6:14)” The notion of tolerance of the Other is, for Islam, a notion of the acceptance of sin in the midst of Islamic perfection. Can sin be accepted in the midst of Islam?
Well, the ways of sin can be accepted if the prophet orders them to be visited upon others, obviously.
”If burning the manuscripts was to hide something, shouldn't he have done that before people who memorized the Quran scattered where this would be much smoother? How could Uthman change the text that had been used for more than twelve years before him in the presence of hundreds of companions of the Prophet who memorized the Quran by heart and could easily detect any change to the original text and were obligated by religious principles to prevent any attempt at alteration? Why would he want to change it, is there anything in the text that favors him? Did anyone accuse him of altering the words of God?”
Sorry, this makes no sense. If the Quran was memorized and scattered, yet perfect textually, then why did Uthman have to rewrite it and then burn the sources? Surely you can summon some skepticism for this suspicious action.
Really, Uthman compiled various sources in the presence of “hundreds of companions of the prophet”, from sources that were identical in their perfection? The hundreds of companions of the prophet all knew the entire Quran precisely as Uthman compiled it, before he compiled it?
”if one was to copy from a text at a different region which has any errors or personal side notes or Hadiths added in the errors would multiply.”
So he compiled it from texts from differing regions which had errors or personal side notes or Hadiths. In other words, documents with differences. Then he burned the documents which he and the hundreds of companions didn’t agree with. Right? But not just those. He burned all the documents. Every one of the documents. No exceptions.
Yes that would avoid confusion about what is in the document. But it does not resolve who wrote what. There appears to be no rational reason to believe that Uthman was not lying in defense of Islam, just as Muhammad b. Maslama was lying in defense of Islam with the express permission and blessing of Muhammad. How are you to know any different? You may believe what you wish, but you cannot KNOW without facts which are objective and beyond your reach. And you cannot know what was in the documents which were destroyed.
I love this:
”The fact that the copies sent by Uthman were accepted throughout the Muslim world even though some people disagreed with Uthman in different matters, and no text has ever been put forward as an alternative proves that the text sent by Uthman was authentic.”
It does not “prove” anything of the sort. It can be said that there was no choice but to accept the abridged version, because all other versions were burned up; Uthman’s version was all that remained. And of course no alternative text has been put forth; Uthman burned them all to prevent just that.
So. Have you nothing to say about the post today, where Muhammad orders all Jews to be killed?
Dragon Fang,
I can see why this post offended you:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina50913.htm
It was expressed with a passion derived from being relieved of Islam's control of the mind. While somewhat over the top, passion-wise, it contains many points which are factual in nature. Do you deny the factuality of those parts of the post?
Sorry, this makes no sense. If the Quran was memorized and scattered, yet perfect textually, then why did Uthman have to rewrite it and then burn the sources? Surely you can summon some skepticism for this suspicious action.
Really, Uthman compiled various sources in the presence of “hundreds of companions of the prophet”, from sources that were identical in their perfection? The hundreds of companions of the prophet all knew the entire Quran precisely as Uthman compiled it, before he compiled it?
As the previous hadith I posted says, it was mainly a problem of dialect. Also, he didn't rewrite it, a committee gathered it.
Narrated Ibn `Abbas:
Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "Gabriel read the Qur'an to me in one way (i.e. dialect) and I continued asking him to read it in different ways till he read it in seven different ways." -Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 4, Book 54, Hadith 442
Different tribes found it extremely difficult to pronounce, understand, and memorize the Quran due to the difference in dialect, thus to make it easier for them the Quran was revealed in seven dialects. To prevent rivalry between tribes believing a dialect is superior than the other and prevent new Muslims ignorant in Arabic from mixing the dialects up, the standardized and official master copy of the Quran was made in the original Quraish dialect. Till this day, the dialects survive (large amount of people transmitting and agreeing with large amount of people), and people who memorize the Quran in the past and today often memorize it in all dialects.
For more information:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Qiraat/
So he compiled it from texts from differing regions which had errors or personal side notes or Hadiths. In other words, documents with differences. Then he burned the documents which he and the hundreds of companions didn’t agree with. Right? But not just those. He burned all the documents. Every one of the documents. No exceptions.
Yes that would avoid confusion about what is in the document. But it does not resolve who wrote what. There appears to be no rational reason to believe that Uthman was not lying in defense of Islam...
When the Quran was written it was personal as memorization from teacher-student was the main source of preservation, especially that many Arabs were illiterate. Incorrect, documents that aren't the official standardized mastercopy were burned. If there was a potential point of disagreement within a small community and then went to a reference, would you risk them using a potentially faulty manuscript? Would you risk a random person deliberately changing the Quran and asking others to copy it?
He didn't gather an army and march over every single village, city, and household, there was simply agreement and consensus. He didn't conjure a Quran in secret, the mastercopies were under the supervision of a committee and there was zero rebellion or complain.
So you acknowledge that you have no evidence or reasons to believe that the Quran was corrupted by appealing to ignorance, thank you.
It was expressed with a passion derived from being relieved of Islam's control of the mind. While somewhat over the top, passion-wise, it contains many points which are factual in nature. Do you deny the factuality of those parts of the post?
I actually found the post rather amusing and funny. Oh yeah, he sounds really relieved and poetically passionate...
I am really confused by your joining of the words "many points" with "factual" and "the post". It implies that the post is supporting his point that his site isn't/wasn't a hate site, and that a large amount of the post contains coherent and factual arguments.
Dragon Fang,
I inadvertently removed your first comment, my error with a sensitive mouse too early in the morning. I apologize and invite you to reproduce it. All I saw was the charge of Straw Man Fallacies, for what, I'm not sure.
Dragon Fang says,
"As the previous hadith I posted says, it was mainly a problem of dialect. Also, he didn't rewrite it, a committee gathered it."
Ah. That's not how I've seen the history written, but OK. Then it is Uthman's Committee's Qur'an, gathered, compiled, with all evidence then destroyed by fire.
" Till this day, the dialects survive (large amount of people transmitting and agreeing with large amount of people), and people who memorize the Quran in the past and today often memorize it in all dialects."
Then there are seven Qur'ans, and when it is said that all previous copies were destroyed, then all previous copies of all dialects were destroyed.
So far, am I to understand that Uthman's committee edited the Qur'an into seven dialects and then destroyed all the evidence?
There is no change to the problem here. This merely adds a slight complexity. The premise, however, does not change.
"Would you risk a random person deliberately changing the Quran and asking others to copy it?"
And yet, for all I know, that is what happened. These people don't even claim to be prophets as far as I know, nor do they claim perfection as humans. The resulting work is a human compilation, apparently by committee. And Islam considers the work to be infallible.
If this were the work of the bible under the Jews, would you consider it to be valid to have a committee of Jews compile a document which they say is the word of God? After they burn the source documents, for whatever excuses for doing so?
To make such a claim, based on not just a lack of evidence but on the knowledge of the destruction of evidence, is dogmatic, not logical.
"He didn't gather an army and march over every single village, city, and household, there was simply agreement and consensus. He didn't conjure a Quran in secret, the mastercopies were under the supervision of a committee and there was zero rebellion or complain."
Yet there is evidence that many accepted Islam out of fear for their lives, pretending to "go along to get along". To demur was and is to forfeit one's life. Islam was spread by the sword, not by consensus, and that is hardly arguable. Some joined Islam specifically in order to be enabled to kill as a moral value. (I gave one example of that to which you have not commented, except to claim that anything not congruent with your personal thoughts are fallacies.) This is true today as well. Whatever you or any individual might say of Islam or the Muhammad, there are hordes who say otherwise, and base that on the Qur'an and on the life lived by Muhammad. ISIS is probably the fastest growing human entity in contemporary existence, not because it is an enterprise of peace, but because it promises conquest by violence in the manner of Muhammad.
"It implies that the post is supporting his point that his site isn't/wasn't a hate site, and that a large amount of the post contains coherent and factual arguments. "
If his points are false, then address them one by one and prove them false. Blanket denial without proof is not rational. Yes he is angry, and that is the passion contained in his post, not poetry (good grief! Your sarcasm is unenlightening). But he makes points, even summarizes a solid position against Islam. If the fact of that is "hate", then you confirm the suspicion that Islam considers all dissent to be hate, with the usual penalties, one supposes.
Yet rational disproof would be the proper response, if there is, in fact, such disproof possible. I suspect not, because Islamic precepts are dogmatic in nature and without proper evidence, as far as I can see. And your response tends to confirm that suspicion.
Sigh. He is a reproduction:
Quoting a document written by Uthman is utterly unconvincing. You do not deny that the essence of Islam is the killing of those who threaten it with words. And you defend the use of lying. It’s an adequate tactic for killing those who threaten Islam with words. So this is a tenet of Islam that you call “logical”, even though no syllogism for it could possibly be justified except through invoking Islamic writings by Uthman.
Hey, you are the guy who mentioned Satan. Question begging regarding the Quran.
Does the freedom of speech in any human society (please give examples) allow the right to rebel against the society, openly violate it's laws, declare war against it's citizens? The right to treason or spy for the societie's enemies? The right to cause chaos and conspire to murder?
Are there punishment for these? If so then what is the typical punishment?
Read the Treaty: written by Muhammad, for Muhammad’a control and disposition. Muhammad allows this and that so long as Muhammad is not offended, or Islamic “law”, whatever that means, is not violated. That means that Muhammad is specifically in charge. In the same sense that the Romans were in charge of every culture which they conquered, and when those cultures offended the Roman Emperor (e.g., by not calling him “God”), the subservient cultures suffered the consequences as “dangers to the state”. No difference there from Muhammad killing "treasonous" speakers against his dictatorship.
You claimed that Medina was conquered and I asked for historical evidence. You referenced the treaty.
http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/treaty22.html
The treaty doesn't support your claims.
A perfect statement of the theory of Islamic takeover. Islam does not allow the “logical contradiction” of not being the controlling ethic, worldview, religious notion, and religio-political law of the land. ”'Do not ever be of the polytheists.' " (Quran 6:14)” The notion of tolerance of the Other is, for Islam, a notion of the acceptance of sin in the midst of Islamic perfection. Can sin be accepted in the midst of Islam?
Well, the ways of sin can be accepted if the prophet orders them to be visited upon others, obviously.
Actually that is how every signle society works. Bring one example of a society that have two contradicting constitutions or moralities at the same time and place.
...He could not have taken his brother within the religion of the king except that Allah willed...(Quran 12:76)
In it's wide Arabic meaning, it is possible for the word "religion" to be synonym with "law" or "method of life". In that understanding, it is possible to consider secularism a religion.
System A: Rule is for Allah. A man can marry up to four wives. Inheritance take their inheritance regardless of will. Alcohol is forbidden. Sexual intercourse is only between married couples. Usury is forbidden.
System B: Rule is for elected people. You can marry one spouse. Those who the will states inherit, if there is no will the government deals with distributing the inheritance. Alcohol is allowed. Sexual intercourse is between consenting adults regardless of gender. Usury is allowed.
If the majority wants system A, then system A is implemented and everyone is obligated to follow it. As simple as that. Would you call someone who wants communism in the US oppressed because the system he wants is contrary to what is established and what the majority wants?
So... tolerance to you is being a member of multiple contradicting religions?
How do you define sin, and how do you determine it?
Dragon Fang,
It is apparent that you do not use western-style, Aristotelian logic; the following is an example:
”Hey, you are the guy who mentioned Satan. Question begging regarding the Quran.”
This was regarding a preceding paragraph with absolutely no reference to Satan, and only references to logic:
” Quoting a document written by Uthman is utterly unconvincing. You do not deny that the essence of Islam is the killing of those who threaten it with words. And you defend the use of lying. It’s an adequate tactic for killing those who threaten Islam with words. So this is a tenet of Islam that you call “logical”, even though no syllogism for it could possibly be justified except through invoking Islamic writings by Uthman.”
Now assuming that by Begging the Question you mean circular reasoning, you have not demonstrated either that previous references to Satan are circular, nor that they impact this paragraph in any manner, nor that the paragraph itself is circular. Further, you still have not answered the issues in the paragraph, other than with that – apparently unrelated and thus false – pair of sentences.
Your next statement on the freedom of speech and treason etc. does not seem to fit either, because as far as I know, the party used only discontented speech without actual actions of treason; that was enough to get him killed. This means that your talk of treason, violating the laws, etc. refers to speech which is not allowed regarding the activities of Muhammad and the properties of Islam. In other words, heresy is punishable by death, using lying, and back-stabbing murder, per the authority of Muhammad.
You claimed that Medina was conquered and I asked for historical evidence. You referenced the treaty.
http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/treaty22.html
The treaty doesn't support your claims.
This charge is blatantly false. You said that I must show that Medina was conquered. I never said that it was. The issue was what was stated to have happened, and only that. It was not necessary to show that Medina was conquered to demonstrate the totalitarianism of Muhammad as is demonstrated in the “treaty”.
” ‘Well, the ways of sin can be accepted if the prophet orders them to be visited upon others, obviously.’
Actually that is how every signle society works. Bring one example of a society that have two contradicting constitutions or moralities at the same time and place.”
So the answer is yes. And you base your answer not on the morality of Muhammad, nor the morality of Islam, but on the claim that “everybody does it”. Further, your reason for that being valid does not even exist, much less does it reflect a moral life for Muhammad, who sinned at will for his own personal benefit. Since Muhammad was in charge of the society, there were not two societies; there was one society which was ruled by force of death for those who dissent from the reigning “morality”; thus there was one society with one morality and one dictator. All tyrants are beneficent to their own, and they kill dissenters. It’s as old as animals have lived on Earth.
Post a Comment