A former 40 year Atheist analyzes Atheism, without resorting to theism, deism, or fantasy. *** If You Don't Value Truth, Then What DO You Value? *** If we say that the sane can be coaxed and persuaded to rationality, and we say that rationality presupposes logic, then what can we say of those who actively reject logic? *** Atheists have an obligation to give reasons in the form of logic and evidence for rejecting Theist theories.
Wednesday, January 7, 2015
In the Spirit of Free Speech and Solidarity With Those Who Died For It
Beheadings on video: all "isolated incidents done by individuals" - no connection to anything in Islam, the official "religion of peace."
Abduction of underage girls for the slave market: all "isolated incidents done by individuals" - no connection to anything in Islam, the official "religion of peace."
Cutting off the heads of children and using them as soccer balls: all "isolated incidents done by individuals" - no connection to anything in Islam, the official "religion of peace."
Terrorist attacks around the world - all "isolated incidents done by individuals" - no connection to anything in Islam, the official "religion of peace."
{Insert here your own favorite news flash regarding the "peaceful" activities of your favorite Islamic "team". Such a wealth of illustrative incidents, so little space to document them in a comment box.}
Why can't you haters see that there is no "religious obligation ordered by Islam" in any of these incidents?!?
Listen up:
You infidels will NOT attempt to connect any of this continuing violence to the pieceful religion of Islam or we will have to piecefully kill you, following the numerous examples of the pieceful Prophet Muhammad, may Allah bless his pieceful name!
Note to the toothless serpent:
Perhaps it would be easier for you to try to make the case for Islam as a "religion of peace" if the adherents were a little more tolerant (peaceful?) toward non-Muslims or members of those sects which have a different (peaceful?) interpretation of the Noble Qur'an.
To be honest,one can hardly claim these are isolated incidences when the overwhelming consensus among muslims is that blasphemers against Allah and his apostle must be put to death.Can you show me any examples from muslim-majority nations where they had a good laugh at these cartoons and gave the cartoonists a pat on the back?
@RC Opinion repeatedly asserted with no argument made to support it.
Islam is not a sport match where you pick whatever interruption that appeals to you. The correct interruption is sought and applied.
It is He who has sent down to you, [O Muhammad], the Book; in it are verses [that are] precise - they are the foundation of the Book - and others unspecific. As for those in whose hearts is deviation [from truth], they will follow that of it which is unspecific, seeking discord and seeking an interpretation [suitable to them]. And no one knows its [true] interpretation except Allah . But those firm in knowledge say, "We believe in it. All [of it] is from our Lord." And no one will be reminded except those of understanding.(Quran 3:7)
How many scholars, who dedicated their lives to understanding the Quran, throughout the centuries and now agree with you? Boom, credibility gone.
Islam seeks peace from multiple aspects, thus it was called the religion of peace. Doesn't mean that it is a religion of pacifism.
Islam gives non-Muslims the same rights, if not more, that Secularism can give non-Secularists.
@Phoenix Muslims are obligated to fulfill all contracts, thus the laws of the countries they reside in (While obviously not violating tenets such as drinking alcohol or performing adultery). However, matters such as blasphemy (objective morality and all) are handled by a judge under Islamic jurisdiction. Outlaws, vigilantes, or violent rebellions have no authority in Islam.
Why would any Muslim be happy about these cartoons? What point would it prove, that they don't take their religion seriously?
In light of the original post with the depiction of a bomb on the brain, I have to agree: your argument (or lack thereof) and credibility are blown up.
It is He who has sent down to you, [O Muhammad], the Book; in it are verses [that are] precise - they are the foundation of the Book - and others unspecific. As for those in whose hearts is deviation [from truth], they will follow that of it which is unspecific, seeking discord and seeking an interpretation [suitable to them]. And no one knows its [true] interpretation except Allah .But those firm in knowledge say, "We believe in it. All [of it] is from our Lord." And no one will be reminded except those of understanding.(Quran 3:7)
Couple of problems with this passage: -The Quran contains unspecific verses which only Allah knows the true meaning of. -This refutes the purpose of the Quran,since it was sent for man as a guidance. === Islam gives non-Muslims the same rights, if not more, that Secularism can give non-Secularists.
Can you cite examples because I can sure give countless examples of extreme prejudices and hostilities that non-muslims (especially christians) have to suffer on a daily basis in muslim majority nations.The converse of course is extremely unlikely. === Muslims are obligated to fulfill all contracts, thus the laws of the countries they reside in (While obviously not violating tenets such as drinking alcohol or performing adultery). However, matters such as blasphemy (objective morality and all) are handled by a judge under Islamic jurisdiction. Outlaws, vigilantes, or violent rebellions have no authority in Islam.
Ok,so you agree that blasphemy is punishable by death but you say such punishments should be meted out by the Islamic courts only.But that is only a small part of the problem.The claim you made implied that mob justice are isolated incidences,when in fact there are countless examples where christians and other minorities like Ahmadis suffer such persecution which is fueled by Islam's blasphemy laws.Prior to those laws,such incidences were rare. === Why would any Muslim be happy about these cartoons? What point would it prove, that they don't take their religion seriously?
That's completely beside the point.It's not about NOT being offended.Muslims have every right to take offense just as christians,hindus,buddhists,etc take offense when their beliefs are unfairly portrayed or ridiculed.Yet they don't have mob rampages burning muslim homes,raping their women and killing their men.These practices are almost exclusively Islamic.There have been a few incidences of hindus and buddhists retailiating against muslims in a similar manner but only because they've been pushed beyond the point.
I hope you can understand at least one thing.Christians especially, do not hate muslims or wish to see every muslim either killed or subdued and humiliated.Just a simple observation of how muslims are treated in christian majority nations is enough proof.Unfortuanately the inverse is not the case.
@RC Yes, I am well aware of your history in cyber terrorism, hence my argument and credibility are bomb-proof. Unfortunately, you did not have insurance on your credibility and yet-to-be born argument.
@Pheonix
The Prophet said, "My Lord knows whatever is said throughout the heaven and earth, and He is the Hearing, the Knowing." (Quran 21:4)
Vision perceives Him not, but He perceives [all] vision; and He is the Subtle, the Acquainted. (Quran 6:103)
We don't know how he listens or how he hears, therefore trying to interrupt that is useless. However, that is explained by a specific verse such as:
[He is] Creator of the heavens and the earth. He has made for you from yourselves, mates, and among the cattle, mates; He multiplies you thereby. There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the Hearing, the Seeing. (Quran 42:11)
There is nothing like unto him, thus trying to compare God is useless. Likewise, there are people who try to push their interruption while not being cohesive and ignoring what specific verses say.
---
I am not really aware of the instances of hostility and would be interested of hearing of some examples, but they would be wrong if they do indeed exist:
Narrated A number of Companions of the Prophet: Safwan reported from a number of Companions of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) on the authority of their fathers who were relatives of each other. The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said: Beware, if anyone wrongs a contracting man, or diminishes his right, or forces him to work beyond his capacity, or takes from him anything without his consent, I shall plead for him on the Day of Judgment. -Sunan Abi Dawud, Book 19, Hadith 3046
What can I say, the mobs need education. I can site you examples countless of examples of non-Muslim massacres against minorities. We both agree they are wrong.
@Stan There are Christians who behave like Jesus? Like doing what he asked of them to never save money? Or doing a Muslim 'sujud' to God? I think we both agree the reason liberalism was born is because Christianity doesn't work, just like Islam said hundreds of years before it.
"Thousands", really? Exaggerations and truth claims contradictory to reality are not a sign of a truth seeker. The causalities of both sides are about 1200. The Jewish tribe which attacked Medina from within during the siege asked to be judged based on the Torah, thus a Jewish chief was made judge and he gave the order to kill them from Deuteronomy. If you have an objection, then object to the OT. Interestingly, Mohammed was asked to marry her as a peace offering since she was the daughter of the tribe leader, in other words he didn't seek her. Why did he free her and marry her? Would a lusty many marry at age 25 to a 40 year old widow for 25 years? Mohammed is either a prophet or he is not. If he is a prophet, then he didn't violate anything, if he is not a prophet then I ask you for evidence. The four-wives limit was made after he had multiple political and social marriages which in many ways represent lessons such as the abolishment of adoption (which is different from foster care), and since the mothers of believers have a special status, they can't remarry if they choose to divorce (obviously since Muslims will fight for the honor of marrying them), it wouldn't be fair to them. Mohammed (PBUH) had other privileges such as being the only one allowed to fast uninterrupted for multiple days, and night prayer being an obligation on him when it is optional to others.
'Why should Muhammedans who mimic Muhammed not have the same "holy" attitude?'
Why indeed.
Narrated Al-Mughira: The Prophet (PBUH) used to offer night prayers till his feet became swollen. Somebody said, to him," "Allah has forgiven you, your faults of the past and those to follow." On that, he said, "Shouldn't I be a thankful slave of Allah)?" -Sahih al-Bukhariو Vol. 6, Book 60, Hadith 360
Narrated `Umar: I heard the Prophet (ﷺ) saying, "Do not exaggerate in praising me as the Christians praised the son of Mary, for I am only a Slave. So, call me the Slave of Allah and His Apostle." -Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 4, Book 55, Hadith 654
"@RC Yes, I am well aware of your history in cyber terrorism, hence my argument and credibility are bomb-proof."
Highly entertaining, oh misplaced and dull tooth of the Serpent: YOU introduce a verbal "bomb" into the conversation, and then accuse ME of cyber terrorism.
Dragon Fang says, ”There are Christians who behave like Jesus? Like doing what he asked of them to never save money? Or doing a Muslim 'sujud' to God?”
That is absurd; first that’s not what I said, so you purposely corrupted it. Second, that is not what Jesus asked, is it? You also corrupt the bible. Do you wish to engage in biblical exegesis in order to justify Islam?
”I think we both agree the reason liberalism was born is because Christianity doesn't work, just like Islam said hundreds of years before it.”
This is even more absurd. “Liberalism” was created, if that is the term – “Leftism” is better, by murderous Jacobins who slaughtered their way through France during their Reign of Terror. They have always been totalitarians at heart and class-war creators with genocide and death as their main tool when they have the power to use it. The original USA liberalism was Christian based and focused on actual freedom and tolerance, not the faux equality of outcome and tolerance for me but not for thee of Leftists. In the 20th century they called themselves progressive “New Man” ideologs and covered half the earth in blood. It was halted by Christian democracy and freedom lovers, although it was not eradicated. Islam, in fact, adopted the genocidal traits of Hitler – yes Hitler – under the Grand Mufti of Palestine (Arafat’s Uncle), and fought on the side of the Germans, bringing his Fascism home to the middle east after WWII was lost and the Fascist Liberals were crushed.
Your slurs, had I said such lies to Islamists, would bring dismemberment upon me and my house, the liberal hope and change they wish for. In fact, telling the truth is an even more egregious affront to Islamists, who are constantly overwrought about such things.
”"Thousands", really? Exaggerations and truth claims contradictory to reality are not a sign of a truth seeker.”
Calling me a liar are you? Read “The Life of Muhammad” if you dare. The life of the prophet was one long kill-sex-kill fest, with his approval given to the psychos who lined up to follow him and to kill anyone he deemed offensive, whether in his presence or not. Sound familiar?
”The causalities of both sides are about 1200.
The Jewish tribe which attacked Medina from within during the siege asked to be judged based on the Torah, thus a Jewish chief was made judge and he gave the order to kill them from Deuteronomy. If you have an objection, then object to the OT.”
”Interestingly, Mohammed was asked to marry her as a peace offering since she was the daughter of the tribe leader, in other words he didn't seek her. Why did he free her and marry her? Would a lusty many marry at age 25 to a 40 year old widow for 25 years?”
Name your source. The “liberal” sources you so admire say otherwise. And your “would he…” is no argument; of course he would. He expanded the wife-limit for his own personal self.
”Mohammed is either a prophet or he is not. If he is a prophet, then he didn't violate anything, if he is not a prophet then I ask you for evidence.”
The evidence is manifold in the internal contradictions between “religion of peace” and the bloody life of Muhammad and his robot followers. Killing is easy. Abusing women is easy. Behaving oneself is not so easy. Islam and the Muhammad model for living form a cookbook for barbarism.
”The four-wives limit was made after he had multiple political and social marriages which in many ways represent lessons such as the abolishment of adoption (which is different from foster care), and since the mothers of believers have a special status…”
Yes they have a special status alright: second class to the deadly and uncontrollable male.
…”they can't remarry if they choose to divorce (obviously since Muslims will fight for the honor of marrying them), it wouldn't be fair to them.”
And they are so special that they cannot decide for themselves “what is fair for them”; the men will tell them what is good for them. That actually is representative of the non-coherence of Islam: the Islamist will dictate to everyone what is good for them; if “everyone” declines to accept that (say, forced conversion in order to stay alive) then they die, forcibly. Muslims war on Muslims constantly.
I know, these are just individuals (hordes of them, everyday, around the world).
I once had sympathy for Islam and the arguments made as if Islam actually were a religion of peace and tolerance. No longer. The evidence to the contrary is immense and constantly arriving. Plus I have read the Qur’an, which is further evidence.
”'Why should Muhammedans who mimic Muhammed not have the same "holy" attitude?'
Why indeed.”
Case closed. Holy massive violence is justified, based purely on the ravages of Muhammad himself being copied by followers.
Quote shard: ”…slave of Allah and his prophet.”
And this justifies the modern ravages based on Muhammad’s ravages being approved by Allah. So says Muhammad.
@ Dragon fang said... Hey, a hunting rifle can easily emit a boom. Why did you assume that it was a bomb? Exactly. ;)
Memo to the dull of mind and memory as well as dull of fang:
I didn't assume it: YOU introduced the "bomb" association with YOUR statement:
"@RC Yes, I am well aware of your history in cyber terrorism, hence my argument and credibility are BOMB-proof."
No, oh misinformed one: hunting rifles do NOT emit "boom." Bombs emit "BOOM!" Jets breaking the sound barrier emit "BOOM!" Allah emits "BOOM!" (Maybe there's a connection in there somewhere. . . just saying.)
@RC Yeah, people have time to distinguish between a "boom" and a "bang" when their eardrum's ringing. The point is that your credibility got sniped.
I did not introduce the bomb, I anticipated and suspected that you might have VED (virtual explosive device), thus I installed security measures just in case. Anticipating that there is a relatively high probability of burglary, and installing house alarm doesn't mean you made a tea party invitation in which timing is determined by the guest.
@Phoenix Except in Pakistan, in which the situation should really get under control, and war-affected areas, the issue seems to be in evangelizing.
We have different understanding of religion. The word in its broad Arabic sense can mean "method of life" and "law".
[...]Thus did We plan for Joseph. He could not have taken his brother within the religion of the king except that Allah willed. [...] *(Quran 12:76)*
If we look at it from that perspective secularism is a religion, in which the leader makes rules based on an ideology stated in te constitution, and these rules are subjected on the citizens, and the officials are required to pledge their allegiance to that ideology. Since religion or ideology fulfils the role of "nationality", citizenship is not based on borders or being born in a specific area. Discarding the citizenship, or Islam, is not acknowledged. Furthermore, if someone leaving the whole religion is to be acknowledged, then there would be no right to not-acknowledge the absurdities of someone leaving part of the religion can produce, like saying: "I am a Muslim and I don't care what the Quran says; adultery is allowed!" or "I created a new version of Islam with no Zakat or prayer!". Thus, the constitution, or the Quran and Sunnah, loses its point.
17 comments:
Hear, hear. Keep your wee-pon handy, though.
Are you claiming that this is no an isolated incident done by individuals but a religious obligation ordered by Islam?
Beheadings on video: all "isolated incidents done by individuals" - no connection to anything in Islam, the official "religion of peace."
Abduction of underage girls for the slave market: all "isolated incidents done by individuals" - no connection to anything in Islam, the official "religion of peace."
Cutting off the heads of children and using them as soccer balls: all "isolated incidents done by individuals" - no connection to anything in Islam, the official "religion of peace."
Terrorist attacks around the world - all "isolated incidents done by individuals" - no connection to anything in Islam, the official "religion of peace."
{Insert here your own favorite news flash regarding the "peaceful" activities of your favorite Islamic "team". Such a wealth of illustrative incidents, so little space to document them in a comment box.}
Why can't you haters see that there is no "religious obligation ordered by Islam" in any of these incidents?!?
Listen up:
You infidels will NOT attempt to connect any of this continuing violence to the pieceful religion of Islam or we will have to piecefully kill you, following the numerous examples of the pieceful Prophet Muhammad, may Allah bless his pieceful name!
Note to the toothless serpent:
Perhaps it would be easier for you to try to make the case for Islam as a "religion of peace" if the adherents were a little more tolerant (peaceful?) toward non-Muslims or members of those sects which have a different (peaceful?) interpretation of the Noble Qur'an.
Perhaps. . .
Dragon Fang
To be honest,one can hardly claim these are isolated incidences when the overwhelming consensus among muslims is that blasphemers against Allah and his apostle must be put to death.Can you show me any examples from muslim-majority nations where they had a good laugh at these cartoons and gave the cartoonists a pat on the back?
@RC
Opinion repeatedly asserted with no argument made to support it.
Islam is not a sport match where you pick whatever interruption that appeals to you. The correct interruption is sought and applied.
It is He who has sent down to you, [O Muhammad], the Book; in it are verses [that are] precise - they are the foundation of the Book - and others unspecific. As for those in whose hearts is deviation [from truth], they will follow that of it which is unspecific, seeking discord and seeking an interpretation [suitable to them]. And no one knows its [true] interpretation except Allah . But those firm in knowledge say, "We believe in it. All [of it] is from our Lord." And no one will be reminded except those of understanding. (Quran 3:7)
How many scholars, who dedicated their lives to understanding the Quran, throughout the centuries and now agree with you? Boom, credibility gone.
Islam seeks peace from multiple aspects, thus it was called the religion of peace. Doesn't mean that it is a religion of pacifism.
Islam gives non-Muslims the same rights, if not more, that Secularism can give non-Secularists.
@Phoenix
Muslims are obligated to fulfill all contracts, thus the laws of the countries they reside in (While obviously not violating tenets such as drinking alcohol or performing adultery).
However, matters such as blasphemy (objective morality and all) are handled by a judge under Islamic jurisdiction. Outlaws, vigilantes, or violent rebellions have no authority in Islam.
Why would any Muslim be happy about these cartoons? What point would it prove, that they don't take their religion seriously?
"Boom, credibility gone."
In light of the original post with the depiction of a bomb on the brain, I have to agree: your argument (or lack thereof) and credibility are blown up.
It is He who has sent down to you, [O Muhammad], the Book; in it are verses [that are] precise - they are the foundation of the Book - and others unspecific. As for those in whose hearts is deviation [from truth], they will follow that of it which is unspecific, seeking discord and seeking an interpretation [suitable to them]. And no one knows its [true] interpretation except Allah .But those firm in knowledge say, "We believe in it. All [of it] is from our Lord." And no one will be reminded except those of understanding.(Quran 3:7)
Couple of problems with this passage:
-The Quran contains unspecific verses which only Allah knows the true meaning of.
-This refutes the purpose of the Quran,since it was sent for man as a guidance.
===
Islam gives non-Muslims the same rights, if not more, that Secularism can give non-Secularists.
Can you cite examples because I can sure give countless examples of extreme prejudices and hostilities that non-muslims (especially christians) have to suffer on a daily basis in muslim majority nations.The converse of course is extremely unlikely.
===
Muslims are obligated to fulfill all contracts, thus the laws of the countries they reside in (While obviously not violating tenets such as drinking alcohol or performing adultery).
However, matters such as blasphemy (objective morality and all) are handled by a judge under Islamic jurisdiction. Outlaws, vigilantes, or violent rebellions have no authority in Islam.
Ok,so you agree that blasphemy is punishable by death but you say such punishments should be meted out by the Islamic courts only.But that is only a small part of the problem.The claim you made implied that mob justice are isolated incidences,when in fact there are countless examples where christians and other minorities like Ahmadis suffer such persecution which is fueled by Islam's blasphemy laws.Prior to those laws,such incidences were rare.
===
Why would any Muslim be happy about these cartoons? What point would it prove, that they don't take their religion seriously?
That's completely beside the point.It's not about NOT being offended.Muslims have every right to take offense just as christians,hindus,buddhists,etc take offense when their beliefs are unfairly portrayed or ridiculed.Yet they don't have mob rampages burning muslim homes,raping their women and killing their men.These practices are almost exclusively Islamic.There have been a few incidences of hindus and buddhists retailiating against muslims in a similar manner but only because they've been pushed beyond the point.
Dragon Fang
I hope you can understand at least one thing.Christians especially, do not hate muslims or wish to see every muslim either killed or subdued and humiliated.Just a simple observation of how muslims are treated in christian majority nations is enough proof.Unfortuanately the inverse is not the case.
@RC
Yes, I am well aware of your history in cyber terrorism, hence my argument and credibility are bomb-proof. Unfortunately, you did not have insurance on your credibility and yet-to-be born argument.
@Pheonix
The Prophet said, "My Lord knows whatever is said throughout the heaven and earth, and He is the Hearing, the Knowing." (Quran 21:4)
Vision perceives Him not, but He perceives [all] vision; and He is the Subtle, the Acquainted. (Quran 6:103)
We don't know how he listens or how he hears, therefore trying to interrupt that is useless. However, that is explained by a specific verse such as:
[He is] Creator of the heavens and the earth. He has made for you from yourselves, mates, and among the cattle, mates; He multiplies you thereby. There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the Hearing, the Seeing. (Quran 42:11)
There is nothing like unto him, thus trying to compare God is useless. Likewise, there are people who try to push their interruption while not being cohesive and ignoring what specific verses say.
---
I am not really aware of the instances of hostility and would be interested of hearing of some examples, but they would be wrong if they do indeed exist:
Narrated A number of Companions of the Prophet:
Safwan reported from a number of Companions of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) on the authority of their fathers who were relatives of each other. The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said: Beware, if anyone wrongs a contracting man, or diminishes his right, or forces him to work beyond his capacity, or takes from him anything without his consent, I shall plead for him on the Day of Judgment. -Sunan Abi Dawud, Book 19, Hadith 3046
What can I say, the mobs need education. I can site you examples countless of examples of non-Muslim massacres against minorities. We both agree they are wrong.
@Stan
There are Christians who behave like Jesus? Like doing what he asked of them to never save money? Or doing a Muslim 'sujud' to God?
I think we both agree the reason liberalism was born is because Christianity doesn't work, just like Islam said hundreds of years before it.
"Thousands", really? Exaggerations and truth claims contradictory to reality are not a sign of a truth seeker. The causalities of both sides are about 1200.
The Jewish tribe which attacked Medina from within during the siege asked to be judged based on the Torah, thus a Jewish chief was made judge and he gave the order to kill them from Deuteronomy. If you have an objection, then object to the OT.
Interestingly, Mohammed was asked to marry her as a peace offering since she was the daughter of the tribe leader, in other words he didn't seek her. Why did he free her and marry her? Would a lusty many marry at age 25 to a 40 year old widow for 25 years?
Mohammed is either a prophet or he is not. If he is a prophet, then he didn't violate anything, if he is not a prophet then I ask you for evidence. The four-wives limit was made after he had multiple political and social marriages which in many ways represent lessons such as the abolishment of adoption (which is different from foster care), and since the mothers of believers have a special status, they can't remarry if they choose to divorce (obviously since Muslims will fight for the honor of marrying them), it wouldn't be fair to them.
Mohammed (PBUH) had other privileges such as being the only one allowed to fast uninterrupted for multiple days, and night prayer being an obligation on him when it is optional to others.
'Why should Muhammedans who mimic Muhammed not have the same "holy" attitude?'
Why indeed.
Narrated Al-Mughira:
The Prophet (PBUH) used to offer night prayers till his feet became swollen. Somebody said, to him," "Allah has forgiven you, your faults of the past and those to follow." On that, he said, "Shouldn't I be a thankful slave of Allah)?" -Sahih al-Bukhariو Vol. 6, Book 60, Hadith 360
Narrated `Umar:
I heard the Prophet (ﷺ) saying, "Do not exaggerate in praising me as the Christians praised the son of Mary, for I am only a Slave. So, call me the Slave of Allah and His Apostle." -Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 4, Book 55, Hadith 654
@ Dragon fang said...
"@RC
Yes, I am well aware of your history in cyber terrorism, hence my argument and credibility are bomb-proof."
Highly entertaining, oh misplaced and dull tooth of the Serpent: YOU introduce a verbal "bomb" into the conversation, and then accuse ME of cyber terrorism.
ROTFLMAO!
Hey, a hunting rifle can easily emit a boom. Why did you assume that it was a bomb? Exactly. ;)
Dragon Fang says,
”There are Christians who behave like Jesus? Like doing what he asked of them to never save money? Or doing a Muslim 'sujud' to God?”
That is absurd; first that’s not what I said, so you purposely corrupted it. Second, that is not what Jesus asked, is it? You also corrupt the bible. Do you wish to engage in biblical exegesis in order to justify Islam?
”I think we both agree the reason liberalism was born is because Christianity doesn't work, just like Islam said hundreds of years before it.”
This is even more absurd. “Liberalism” was created, if that is the term – “Leftism” is better, by murderous Jacobins who slaughtered their way through France during their Reign of Terror. They have always been totalitarians at heart and class-war creators with genocide and death as their main tool when they have the power to use it. The original USA liberalism was Christian based and focused on actual freedom and tolerance, not the faux equality of outcome and tolerance for me but not for thee of Leftists. In the 20th century they called themselves progressive “New Man” ideologs and covered half the earth in blood. It was halted by Christian democracy and freedom lovers, although it was not eradicated. Islam, in fact, adopted the genocidal traits of Hitler – yes Hitler – under the Grand Mufti of Palestine (Arafat’s Uncle), and fought on the side of the Germans, bringing his Fascism home to the middle east after WWII was lost and the Fascist Liberals were crushed.
Your slurs, had I said such lies to Islamists, would bring dismemberment upon me and my house, the liberal hope and change they wish for. In fact, telling the truth is an even more egregious affront to Islamists, who are constantly overwrought about such things.
”"Thousands", really? Exaggerations and truth claims contradictory to reality are not a sign of a truth seeker.”
Calling me a liar are you? Read “The Life of Muhammad” if you dare. The life of the prophet was one long kill-sex-kill fest, with his approval given to the psychos who lined up to follow him and to kill anyone he deemed offensive, whether in his presence or not. Sound familiar?
”The causalities of both sides are about 1200.
The Jewish tribe which attacked Medina from within during the siege asked to be judged based on the Torah, thus a Jewish chief was made judge and he gave the order to kill them from Deuteronomy. If you have an objection, then object to the OT.”
Name your source.
”Interestingly, Mohammed was asked to marry her as a peace offering since she was the daughter of the tribe leader, in other words he didn't seek her. Why did he free her and marry her? Would a lusty many marry at age 25 to a 40 year old widow for 25 years?”
Name your source. The “liberal” sources you so admire say otherwise. And your “would he…” is no argument; of course he would. He expanded the wife-limit for his own personal self.
”Mohammed is either a prophet or he is not. If he is a prophet, then he didn't violate anything, if he is not a prophet then I ask you for evidence.”
The evidence is manifold in the internal contradictions between “religion of peace” and the bloody life of Muhammad and his robot followers. Killing is easy. Abusing women is easy. Behaving oneself is not so easy. Islam and the Muhammad model for living form a cookbook for barbarism.
”The four-wives limit was made after he had multiple political and social marriages which in many ways represent lessons such as the abolishment of adoption (which is different from foster care), and since the mothers of believers have a special status…”
Yes they have a special status alright: second class to the deadly and uncontrollable male.
…”they can't remarry if they choose to divorce (obviously since Muslims will fight for the honor of marrying them), it wouldn't be fair to them.”
And they are so special that they cannot decide for themselves “what is fair for them”; the men will tell them what is good for them. That actually is representative of the non-coherence of Islam: the Islamist will dictate to everyone what is good for them; if “everyone” declines to accept that (say, forced conversion in order to stay alive) then they die, forcibly. Muslims war on Muslims constantly.
I know, these are just individuals (hordes of them, everyday, around the world).
I once had sympathy for Islam and the arguments made as if Islam actually were a religion of peace and tolerance. No longer. The evidence to the contrary is immense and constantly arriving. Plus I have read the Qur’an, which is further evidence.
”'Why should Muhammedans who mimic Muhammed not have the same "holy" attitude?'
Why indeed.”
Case closed. Holy massive violence is justified, based purely on the ravages of Muhammad himself being copied by followers.
Quote shard: ”…slave of Allah and his prophet.”
And this justifies the modern ravages based on Muhammad’s ravages being approved by Allah. So says Muhammad.
@ Dragon fang said...
Hey, a hunting rifle can easily emit a boom. Why did you assume that it was a bomb? Exactly. ;)
Memo to the dull of mind and memory as well as dull of fang:
I didn't assume it: YOU introduced the "bomb" association with YOUR statement:
"@RC
Yes, I am well aware of your history in cyber terrorism, hence my argument and credibility are BOMB-proof."
No, oh misinformed one: hunting rifles do NOT emit "boom." Bombs emit "BOOM!" Jets breaking the sound barrier emit "BOOM!" Allah emits "BOOM!" (Maybe there's a connection in there somewhere. . . just saying.)
YOU da BOMB! You're "killing" me with laughter!
@RC
Yeah, people have time to distinguish between a "boom" and a "bang" when their eardrum's ringing. The point is that your credibility got sniped.
I did not introduce the bomb, I anticipated and suspected that you might have VED (virtual explosive device), thus I installed security measures just in case. Anticipating that there is a relatively high probability of burglary, and installing house alarm doesn't mean you made a tea party invitation in which timing is determined by the guest.
@Phoenix
Except in Pakistan, in which the situation should really get under control, and war-affected areas, the issue seems to be in evangelizing.
We have different understanding of religion. The word in its broad Arabic sense can mean "method of life" and "law".
[...]Thus did We plan for Joseph. He could not have taken his brother within the religion of the king except that Allah willed. [...] *(Quran 12:76)*
If we look at it from that perspective secularism is a religion, in which the leader makes rules based on an ideology stated in te constitution, and these rules are subjected on the citizens, and the officials are required to pledge their allegiance to that ideology.
Since religion or ideology fulfils the role of "nationality", citizenship is not based on borders or being born in a specific area. Discarding the citizenship, or Islam, is not acknowledged. Furthermore, if someone leaving the whole religion is to be acknowledged, then there would be no right to not-acknowledge the absurdities of someone leaving part of the religion can produce, like saying: "I am a Muslim and I don't care what the Quran says; adultery is allowed!" or "I created a new version of Islam with no Zakat or prayer!". Thus, the constitution, or the Quran and Sunnah, loses its point.
Such delicious incoherence! I love it!
Post a Comment