The list here is just a sample:
All Islamic men are morally weak with no character, so:It's "inerrant" logic is reminiscent of Atheist philosophers who insist with great intentionality that there is no free will and hence no intentionality. Whatever is necessary for the narrative becomes a non-negotiable Truth, regardless of its internal self-reference or general non-coherence.
Cover all women except for their eyes (they have to see in order to obey).
All Islamic men are morally weak with no character, so:
Remove the clitoris of all women in order that they not seduce men.
All Islamic men are morally weak with no character, so:
Freedom is not an option, only obedience or lashes/death.
All Islamic men are morally weak with no character, so:
No thinking contrary to Islamic narrative is allowed.
All Islamic men are morally weak with no character, so:
A woman who is raped is guilty of seduction, and must be beheaded to restore honor.
However, Islamists are very moral, so:
there is no atrocity which is not allowed, if it is done on the Other in the name of Allah.
Islamists are very moral (see above), so:
there is no atrocity which is not allowed, if it is done on the Other in the name of Allah.
Islamists are very moral (see above), so:
Slavery must be moral too.
Islam and Allah are not convincing as theological concepts, so:
Conversion is by force of fear of beheading, lashes, stoning or all of the above.
Uthman rewrote the Qur'an and burnt all prior copies and records, so:
the Qur'an is Muhammad's precise revelation and cannot be erroneous.
Allah is weak, so:
Muslims must perform all sorts of atrocities to protect him and the religion of peace.
Jihad is peaceful, so:
They kill people for jihad, to spread peace.
For the Islamics and western Leftists, Truth is no longer discerned, rationally; it is received either by heavily edited revelation or by some other authority. For the Muslim it is received from Uthman; for the Atheist it is received from Hegel/Hume/Diderot/Darwin/Comte/Nietzsche/Marx/Dawkins, etc.
8 comments:
It sure is "peaceful" around here ever since we killed all those faux Muslims and infidels.
The peace of death, coming to an infidel like YOU!
I am not sure what is the point of the article. I mean you make up fallacies and obviously false information in an attempt to attribute them to the average Muslim toward the goal of discrediting their position? Wow, you are definitely not bankrupt on arguments!
All Islamic men are morally weak with no character, so:
Cover all women except for their eyes (they have to see in order to obey).
Ignoring the platitude of fallacies on your initial assumption.
Right, nuns and M. Mary are modest, but Muslim women are oppressive.
It is more along the lines of: We conclude that they are the commands of God, and we will follow them because God orders what is good for us. And demonstrably so.
Just five minutes alone with an attractive female raise the levels of cortisol, the body's stress hormone, according to a study from the University of Valencia.
The effects are heightened in men who believe that the woman in question is "out of their league".
Cortisol is produced by the body under physical or psychological stress and has been linked to heart disease.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/7668344/Beautiful-women-can-be-bad-for-your-health-according-to-scientists.html
http://employmentdiscrimination.foxrothschild.com/2014/01/articles/uncategorized/thought-sexual-harassment-in-the-us-military-was-bad-consider-germany/
http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/busted-the-politics-of-cleavage-and-a-glance-20120210-1sy7e.html
All Islamic men are morally weak with no character, so:
Remove the clitoris of all women in order that they not seduce men.
It is encouraged, but not obligated. Is that really the best reason you could up with?
All Islamic men are morally weak with no character, so:
Freedom is not an option, only obedience or lashes/death.
Vague statement that can't be made heads or tails with. Freedom from what and granted by who? I mean I obey the law; is that a bad thing? I know for a fact that I have the freedom to take a stroll in the park.
All Islamic men are morally weak with no character, so:
No thinking contrary to Islamic narrative is allowed.
Are we in a George Orwell novel? Geez, get a grip on yourself; mind reading machines are not invented yet, although if they did, NSA's probably gonna have a big role.
All Islamic men are morally weak with no character, so:
A woman who is raped is guilty of seduction, and must be beheaded to restore honor.
Not necessarily, men and women should avoid meeting in secluded areas alone (with the exception of some family members as our moral instinct against incest is stronger). Even so, execution and the big punishments are limited by certain offenses, and "seduction" is not one of them. As for the rapist, his crime is considered to be as bad as terrorism and highway robbery. Discuss honor killing tribal trash somewhere relevant.
However, Islamists are very moral, so:
there is no atrocity which is not allowed, if it is done on the Other in the name of Allah.
Islamists are very moral (see above), so:
there is no atrocity which is not allowed, if it is done on the Other in the name of Allah.
More vague ipse dixit statements, joy.
Right, so that is why fighting non-warriors, destroying buildings, trees, animals, etc. is not allowed.
So the Quran and Sunnah never say 'Do not do that'?
Islamists are very moral (see above), so:
Slavery must be moral too.
Islam ensured it is moral by treating them kindly (hitting them = freeing them, must wear similar clothes and eat the same food), ensuring that they are freed eventually and integrated into society (the first penance for multiple sins is to find and free a slave, Zakat money is spent by the government on freeing slaves, the slave can write a contract to pay for freedom from money gained on a side job), and the only method of acquiring any slave is as an eventual consequence of war.
Islam and Allah are not convincing as theological concepts, so:
Conversion is by force of fear of beheading, lashes, stoning or all of the above.
That is why you were not able to provide an argument against the theological concepts, and why millions of people chose to convert throughout the centuries, and why Islam never forced a culture to convert.
More dishonesty and display of desperation by citing punishments for crimes such as adultery as "conversion".
Uthman rewrote the Qur'an and burnt all prior copies and records, so:
the Qur'an is Muhammad's precise revelation and cannot be erroneous.
What exactly did he rewrite? And what was his role in the official manuscript process (We call it the Uthmanic copy simply to honor him for taking the initiative; yes we take pride in it). And how did he achieve such an impossible feat as "the Quran" was memorized by thousands of people who had a chain of recitation going directly toward the Prophet, and live thousands of miles away from each other? *sips tea*
The end result of burning incomplete manuscripts mixed with personal notes and commentary, which was done voluntarily by people whose religious duty is to preserve the Quran, is an indisputable point of reference for the many people memorized the Quran by heart, and an impossibility for false written versions of the Quran once the Islamic society became less oral.
Look, the Quran was revealed in a period of 23 years, and handled a very wide diversity of topics, including: cosmology, politics, history, economy, society, etc. If you have something erroneous to offer, then please do so. It shouldn't be difficult considering the circumstances, right?
Allah is weak, so:
If someone actually believes that, then he is not a Muslim.
Jihad is peaceful, so:
They kill people for jihad, to spread peace.
The first Jihad is the Jihad of the heart against sin. Jihad, or struggling toward good, is not necessarily peaceful, so more strawmanned claims.
The first Jihad is the Jihad of the heart against sin. Jihad, or struggling toward good, is not necessarily peaceful, so more strawmanned claims.
Dragon Fang,to be fair,if you could clear up this confusion between the first jihad of the heart against sin and the second jihad which includes physical force then we'd have to concede that those muslim terrorists have indeed corrupted the quran and hadith.Having said that,how do you intend to prove that the first concept of jihad (inner struggle) is a sunnah of Muhammad?
Here are some difficulties should be able to clear up if you are to prove using scriptural sources that jihad also means inner struggle/heart against sin:
-We know that Muhammad's deeds (sunnah) are recorded in the hadith.They also provide context for the quranic ayats.Infact,without the hadith much of the quran is unintelligible.Since we're interested in the phenomena of jihad,it's important to see how the leader,Muhammad,put that term into practice.
-Having read numerous passages of bukhari,muslim and abu dawd,I have never come across any reference where jihad was not used in the military sense.
-To make matters even worse,the hadith not only mandates jihad (warfare) but considers it the best deed.
Bukhari 1:2:26
Allah's Apostle was asked, "What is the best deed?" He replied, "To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad). The questioner then asked, "What is the next (in goodness)? He replied, "To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah's Cause
Okay,so this hadith says to believe in Muhammad and Allah is the best deed and jihad second but technically a belief is not a deed,so jihad still supercedes any deed.
-Another hadith relates that those who fight are the best people even better than someone who lives peacefully alone
Muttawa21;21:1:4 "Shall I tell you who has the best degree among people? A man who takes the rein of his horse to do jihad in the way of Allah.Shall I tell you who has the best degree among people after him? A man who lives alone with a few sheep, performs the prayer, pays the zakat, and worships Allah without associating anything with him"
The above hadiths are all in conformity with Quran 9:45
Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-
It's imporatant to note that phrases and terms such as "sit at home","receive no hurt","goods and persons","fight" are all indicators of physical fighting and not spiritual struggles.You don't receive injuries from an inner struggle nor do you need to leave your home for that.
If we are still straw manning,then please clear that up.
@Dragon fang:
Thank you for once more providing such humor!
". . .but Muslim women are oppressive."
Okay, I can agree with you totally on that one. (Yeah, I know and concede without argument that you intended for it to read "Muslim women are oppressed.")
Where I broke into peals of laughter is your attempt to counter this assertion:
All Islamic men are morally weak with no character, so:
Cover all women except for their eyes (they have to see in order to obey).
It is more along the lines of: We conclude that they are the commands of God, and we will follow them because God orders what is good for us. And demonstrably so.
You "conclude"? Good! Perhaps we are making progress. May we see the chain of deductive logic (the premises) preceding this conclusion, in order that we may follow your impeccable logic? Since it is "demonstrably so," perhaps you would be so kind as to share the "demonstration" with us ignorant infidels?
You certainly piqued my interest at that prospect! But then you dropped this logic "bomb" on your own "argument":
Just five minutes alone with an attractive female raise the levels of cortisol, the body's stress hormone, according to a study from the University of Valencia.
The effects are heightened in men who believe that the woman in question is "out of their league".
Cortisol is produced by the body under physical or psychological stress and has been linked to heart disease.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/7668344/Beautiful-women-can-be-bad-for-your-health-according-to-scientists.html
http://employmentdiscrimination.foxrothschild.com/2014/01/articles/uncategorized/thought-sexual-harassment-in-the-us-military-was-bad-consider-germany/
http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/busted-the-politics-of-cleavage-and-a-glance-20120210-1sy7e.html
ROTFLMAO!
You provide supporting evidence for the assertion, rather than countering it.
Why must women be covered from head to toe?
(1) Because of an unavoidable physical reaction (raised levels of cortisol) among Muslim men when subjected to the torture of seeing any body part of a "attractive" woman. Of course, all women are attractive to Muslim men (or are they?), so that means that all women are required to avoid inflaming the cortisol levels of all Muslim men by being covered head-to-toe. Allah is certainly merciful to those bewitched Muslim men!
(2) Because it is even worse for those helpless Muslim men when the woman is not only attractive but is perceived as being (somehow) "out of their league." Talk about an inferiority complex! Put those bitches down where they belong, with the other animals! If all women are "attractive" to Muslim men, that would imply that all women might also be "out of their league." If all women are not "attractive" to Muslim men, then why require the ugly ones to cover up? What percentage of women are "attractive" and what percentage are "unattractive"? Does the Qur'an distinguish between ugly and attractive women?
(3) Because "cortisol is produced by the body under physical or psychological stress and has been linked to heart disease", it is imperative that Muslim men not be exposed to the deleterious effects of seeing any body part of any woman. We certainly wouldn't want those poor Muslim men to have higher incidents of heart disease! They might not be able to regularly take care of their 72 houris if they die with a bad heart. (That's an interesting aside: "houri" can be translated as "gazelle-eyed," "lovely eyed," or "modest gaze" - and yet it is only those bewitching female eyes that are left visible to tantalize and raise the cortisol level of Muslim men. How odd.)
Thanks for the laughs!
Well Bob, that got me to thinking. Could that explain why Muslim men prefer 14 year olds (even 9 year olds)? There's much less risk of finding a wrinkled mess on a young girl than on a random hijab wearer, once the hijab is off.
It's possible that Islamic men would run the other direction if the hijabs were removed and the actual contents were on view. It's probably better to imagine what's under all that full tarp covering than to actually have to see it.
Just speculation of course.
Dragon Fang says,
Stan:
” Islam and Allah are not convincing as theological concepts, so:
Conversion is by force of fear of beheading, lashes, stoning or all of the above.
DF:
That is why you were not able to provide an argument against the theological concepts, and why millions of people chose to convert throughout the centuries, and why Islam never forced a culture to convert.”
Seriously? Again you seem to think we are so ill informed that you can make any claim stick, no matter how ridiculous. Islam forced its way across North Africa, through Spain and into France before it was forcibly halted. Along the way the Islamists enslaved those who were in the way.
And as for theological concepts, conquest and slavery with death for apostasy and heresy seem to be the most engaging concepts. Forget the “pillars” and “peace” – even Muhammad didn’t buy all that.
You seem to speak for the “correct Islam” as if your version is the only version which is approved by the prophet; but the march of the Islamists and the cheers for western destruction from Islam around the world shows that your Islam is not the dominant version. There is no reason to accept your version as correct that I can see, and much of what you say is just not true, factually, so your credibility is not good.
” Uthman rewrote the Qur'an and burnt all prior copies and records, so:
the Qur'an is Muhammad's precise revelation and cannot be erroneous.
What exactly did he rewrite? And what was his role in the official manuscript process (We call it the Uthmanic copy simply to honor him for taking the initiative; yes we take pride in it). And how did he achieve such an impossible feat as "the Quran" was memorized by thousands of people who had a chain of recitation going directly toward the Prophet, and live thousands of miles away from each other? *sips tea*”
The evidence is clear: he found it necessary to burn the evidence of deviation from the originals. As for the “memorization”, how did they all memorize a text that was not yet written? They could not have. Another bogus claim, just one of many that are piling up at your end.
” The end result of burning incomplete manuscripts mixed with personal notes and commentary, which was done voluntarily by people whose religious duty is to preserve the Quran, is an indisputable point of reference for the many people memorized the Quran by heart, and an impossibility for false written versions of the Quran once the Islamic society became less oral.”
More credulous nonsense. Here’s why. The concept of “preserving the Qur’an which was different from the originals” is an impossibility. The Qur’an emerged as a result of editing by Uthman (best case scenario) or as a result of creative rewriting by Uthman and associates. There was no Qur’an to preserve before Uthman took it over. There were a lot of mini-Qur’ans running around, and Uthman destroyed them in one of the first thought-control actions of official Islam.
” Look, the Quran was revealed in a period of 23 years, and handled a very wide diversity of topics, including: cosmology, politics, history, economy, society, etc. If you have something erroneous to offer, then please do so. It shouldn't be difficult considering the circumstances, right?”
The internal contradictions are apparent, and I have listed them in the post. I will address a major non-coherence referenced in your next statement:
” If someone actually believes that, then he is not a Muslim.”
That is a major presupposition of Islam: Allah cannot take care of himself, he must be avenged by marauding killers. This was instilled by Muhammad himself. It is hardly controversial, because it is self-evident. It is the whole point of fatwas.
The fact that you deny that which is obviously the case gives a further insight into the thought control which Islam holds over you.
Stan:
” Jihad is peaceful, so:
They kill people for jihad, to spread peace.
DF:
The first Jihad is the Jihad of the heart against sin. Jihad, or struggling toward good, is not necessarily peaceful, so more strawmanned claims.”
Your comment in no manner refutes what I said. If anything it confirms it.
Islamists who scream “Jihad” and “Allahu Akbar”, do in fact kill people in the name of the religion of peace, and for the establishment of worldwide Islamic “peace” of totalitarian submission by fear.
In fact, that sort of totalitarian control is what you are defending.
But the jihad issue is well stated by other commenters, above, so respond to them.
Post a Comment