Wednesday, April 22, 2015

If You Had Any Doubts About the Intellectual Honesty of Muslims...

...this should do the trick:
Watch What Happens When 3 Muslim Spokesmen Are Asked About Islam’s Death Penalty for Apostasy

41 comments:

Dragon fang said...

If You Had Any Doubts About the Intellectual Honesty of about 1.6 billion of the world's population...
...prepare to be underwhelmed.

Stan said...

If that's some sort of insult, which is all I have come to expect from you, then you have missed your mark.

Russell said...

"...prepare to be underwhelmed."

Why, are you asleep at the wheel?

Man, the amount of deflection is amazing. Until I remembered taqiyya. And then it made sense.

Milo is sharp. His observation that the Muslims say one thing in the media spotlight is on them, but act differently when they are addressing their group deflates the angry Muslim's posturing.

Phoenix said...

An apostate is worse than a Jew because it's an explicit rejection of Muhammad and his quran.Mulsims will rather befriend or tolerate jews to a certain extent but they cannot under any circumstance befriend an ex-muslim.He/she must die.

Dragon fang said...

@S
I can confirm that that is some sort of absurd-looking assertion that promises to deliver before failing to live up to the hype; have you been practicing your salesman prowess by any chance? Cause to be honest, I am not impressed; work on it if you are practicing! I merely paraphrased your initial statement and added my reaction; an interesting case of generalization to say the least. Nothing rational to be expected from you; it comes up as amusing nonetheless.

@R
I am confused about your use of the word "Taqiya". May you:
1- Give the definition of the word.
2- Inform us of which minority sect invented and practices 'Taqiya', and whether the people you are discussing subscribe to that particular sect.
3- Explain to us under which limited circumstances that minority sect practices 'Taqiya'.

Don't you love how foul play will be cried if a similar anti-intellectual copout such as gathering you all in a group and calling you all islamphobes is made? Yeah, that is called hypocrisy.

@P
We all must die, for we are mortal. How for the apostate specifically, that depends on multiple factors such as what society he lives in, whether he publicizes his rejection and insists on public statement, hence it is not a necessity. Are Christians, Jews or Atheists incapable of explicit rejection of Mohammed (PBUH) and the Quran? Wouldn't it follow based on your (oversimplified) logic that they would be as bad, assuming they heard the message?

Robert Coble said...

As usual, evading the issue is deemed an adequate LOGICAL response, larded with a charge of "anti-intellectualism" and a tu quoque.

Next will follow a demand for a demonstration of the tu quoque, more deflecting charges, followed by more evasion and attempts to change the subject to Islam, the tolerant religion of peace (as defined by Islamists to fit whatever actions they take).

Why bother chasing this squirrel around the tree one more time? It's "Nuts to you!"


Russell said...

'I am confused about your use of the word "Taqiya"'
D, may I call you Doris?

Doris, I apologize, I had no idea you were utterly ignorant of Islam.

Here, let me google that for you: http://bit.ly/1QpPRXv

As you can see, there are tons of resources, Delia, to help you on your journey to understanding Islam and the oft difficult concepts, such as what in the West is referred to as taqiyya, or sometimes "al-Taqiyya", since the translation from Arabic to English isn't perfect and usually based on phonetic spelling it can be rather confusing to sort through all the terms.

But don't despair, Dorothy! There are a lot of resources out there to help make sense of it all.

For example, in hi book "At-Taqiyya fi’l-Islam" Dr. Sami Mukaram writes: "Taqiyya is of fundamental importance in Islam. Practically every Islamic sect agrees to it and practices it … We can go so far as to say that the practice of taqiyya is mainstream in Islam, and that those few sects not practicing it diverge from the mainstream … Taqiyya is very prevalent in Islamic politics, especially in the modern era." (Page 7, translation from http://www.raymondibrahim.com/islam/taqiyya-about-taqiyya/)

See how easy it is to find information, Denise? I bet with that first link you'll be well on you're way to gaining a better understanding of Islam!

Stan said...

Dragon Fang,
Your response is interesting, especially in light of the current set of world affairs.

First you seem to think that we should hold all “sects” of Islam in high esteem until we are personally attacked by them. We actually don’t keep track of all the murderous sects of Islam. It’s not easy, once you progress beyond the major sects, Sunni and Shia, which murder each other for heresy at will. The Taliban, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, these we know a little about. But it would take all my waking hours to catalog the murdering Islamic sects around the planet, and track their atrocities on others. And all in the name of the prophet, who killed and killed and had his staff killers kill dissenters, while declaring his new religion to be the one of peace.

I, for one, cannot name a “peaceful, tolerant sect” of Islam, certainly not one outside of either Sunni or Shia. I can, however, with a little effort produce some, even many, atrocities which were performed by the model person from whom many (very many) Muslims take their behavior cues. It cannot possibly be erroneous to follow the behaviors of the creator of the religion, now can it? The prophet was perfect and his name and image must be protected and held in perfection, right? Right?? How is this to be done? In the same fashion as the prophet himself did: by killing dissenters. Under the banner of religion of peace.

That behavior of the prophet places all behaviors, no matter how contradictory, under the banner of Islamic legitimacy and hardly restricted to aberrant cults, as you would have us believe. The prophet's behavior cannot be declared "anti-Islamic", now can it?

Would the prophet himself object to such barbarism? Hardly. He engaged in it and he encouraged it in his own people. So that puts your protestations in contrast to the prophet and his life. That is so obvious that no matter how you protest, your own position is seen to be outside the positions taken by the prophet himself.

This leaves your protestations outside of logic and rationality, and even demonstrates that Islam itelf is self-contradictory, implying a devotion to a self-contradictory deity. Such an internally contradictory deity could hardly exist as depicted in Islam.

Also, if by islamophobe you mean "realist regarding the life of the prophet and those who model their lives after him", then I wear that mantel proudly and openly. You may call me that if you wish, although I'd actually prefer "islamorealist".

Do you see no contradiction in your insistence that the mainstream Islamists do not follow the model of their own prophet, not even in belief much less in practice? And if you do not follow his practices, how could you be a Muslim in good standing and not a heretic yourself?

No, rather than heretical, you seem to be misrepresenting and dissembling in the manner of taqiyyah and possibly kitman, the acceptable Islamic forms of lying as a moral behavior with non-believers.

Finally, would I trust you not to kill me, if you came to my house to convert me and I declined? Of course not. I am an Islamorealist.

Robert Coble said...

Examine one of the fundamental (or is it fundamentalist?) premises (or is it a conclusion?) of Islam:

"The Prophet (PBUH) is the perfect model of behavior for all TRUE believers in Allah and followers of Islam."

(Already we have a definitional problem in the Islamic qualification of what constitutes a "TRUE believer" and also who gets to decide this question, but I'll leave that issue alone, at least for now.)

In the specific concept of "G-d" (vice the general concept of "g-d"), G-d is characterized as possessing the attribute of "perfection."

Everything that is "good" is attributed to G-d; G-d possesses no attribute of either "bad" or "evil." (I use scare quotes only to draw attention to the opposite attribute from "good." It is sometimes difficult to determine from discussions whether the opposite of "good" is "bad" or "evil;" I'm not trying to equivocate.)

If the attribute of perfection adheres to any "model," then it would seem logical that that entity possessing perfection would also be infinitely "good" (in at least some sense of that word). "Good" is a transcendental attribute, and has been shown to be metaphysically equivalent to the other transcendental attributes: Being, Truth, Love, and Beauty.

My question (based solely on this line of reasoning) is:

If the Prophet (PBUH) is "perfect," then does the Prophet (PBUH) possess all of the transcendental attributes of G-d, thereby making the Prophet (PBUH) equivalent to G-d, or, more appropriately to Islam, equivalent to Allah?

This appears to present a conundrum to Islamists for whom "There is no G-d but Allah."

A followup question:

If the Prophet (PBUH) is NOT "perfect," then how can he be the "perfect model?"

I can hardly wait for the equivocation regarding the terms "good" and "perfect."

Phoenix said...

Dragon Fang

@P
We all must die, for we are mortal. How for the apostate specifically, that depends on multiple factors such as what society he lives in, whether he publicizes his rejection and insists on public statement, hence it is not a necessity


Sure,we must all die eventually but does that give muslims the right to send non-muslims to an early death?
For the apostate,there are no multiple factors involved,it's actually really simple:You reject Muhammad and his quran,you die.
===
Are Christians, Jews or Atheists incapable of explicit rejection of Mohammed (PBUH) and the Quran? Wouldn't it follow based on your (oversimplified) logic that they would be as bad, assuming they heard the message?

Jews,Christians,Atheists,etc are the enemy and they're expected to resist Muhammad's message.However,when the rejection is from within the muslim community who have already pledged their allegiance to Muhammad and Allah then the betrayal seems much more personal.

Dragon fang said...

@R#2
Ah, so further inquiring about a statement brings out the skeletons in the closets, duly noted.

@R#1
Well R1, you are free to call me Doris as long as you give me the express permission to call you Rascal. Negotiations for the tother names can be initiated in the near future, however I do have a rather friendly and lax policy to those suffering from disabilities such as errant memory or intelligence; don't forget to provide medical papers documenting any deficiency.


It is nice knowing that you do not actually have a specific definition and the whole taqiya business is just rhetoric play where you attempt to make the audience assume the meaning of something you are not willing to clarify. Unfortunately, I am interested in a more cogent arguments. Oops, sorry! I didn't mean to ask you to do something beyond your capability...


@Stan
I for one world rather not have a boring discussion type; hopefully it turns fruitful.

You shouldn't hold all sects in high esteem; just don't generalize on some nonsense applied by 10% minority.
If you have noticed, we are dealing with human beings, hence there are situations that calls for war and situations that call for peace; the later is the default position. Can you be specific on what is the object of tolerance? Cause I believe it is quite clear Islam doesn't tolerate falsehood or immorality.
Then we have someone who is as morally void as an Atheist talking about how atrocities are immoral. I agree, but how do you know? I do not see a valid argument. Can you be more specific on your claim that atrocities were committed? Is being harsh with those who were treacherous and betrayed their pacts in an attempt to destroy Muslims and weaken them in time of war, in other words toward those who commit high treason, an atrocity?

That behavior of the prophet places all behaviors, no matter how contradictory, under the banner of Islamic legitimacy and hardly restricted to aberrant cults, as you would have us believe.

In other words, there are not prohibitions in Islam? No 'you should do that' nor 'you should not do that'? I am not sure what you are talking about anymore.

More question begging and circular reasoning by mentioning barbarism (also, empty moral claim that barbarism is bad), I kindly ask you to elaborate. Would you agree that the number of abortion and alcoholism (I am not even including violence of accidents) annually is barbarism? Would imperalism and the Vietnam war fall into that? Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Could you provide an argument how God is contradictory? If people do not follow the model of the prophet in belief, much less in practice, then they are not Muslims by definition. The term "realist" is practically problematic as it implies the existence of a firm grip on the reality of affairs which you have yet to demonstrate and made much less credible with indoctrinate-style circular reasoning. The model of the prophet have been made and is in practice some 1430 years ago.

There is no forced conversion or compelle intrare in Islam nor do I commit felonies, so I don't see where the fuzz is about. I am not insulted at all by your mistrust, in fact I am flattered to not be in your group; after all there needs to be people like you for such things like the principle of mutually-assured destruction to be applicable. A genuine mistrust of anyone who is not in your group (more often than not boiling down to racism or blind nationalism), not that you trust half the people in your group.

Dragon fang said...

@Robert Coble
Knowing a real believer is done by God, as the Quran says: "Do not claim yourselves to be pure; He is most knowing of who fears Him". However, Islam alsoo heavy encourages giving the benefit of the doubt outside testifying in court and spying is not allowed, so you assume that a person is a true believer based on what is apparent.

'Maximally' is more accurate than 'infinitely', in the sense that it is impossible to conceive of a being who has more of an attribute than God. Perhaps this quote will clarify the equivalence in your question: "I am a human being, so when I command you about a thing pertaining to religion, do accept it, and when I command you about a thing out of my personal opinion, keep it in mind that I am a human being".

Prophets are among the best and most honorable people (basically moral elites) who deliver the message that there is no God but Allah, while informing people of divine legislation and act as role models. When it comes to delivering the message, it is done perfectly, so it is impossible for a prophet to misinform, lie, forget, or make an error about his revelation. We are human beings, I don't think I need to tell you how absurd it is to have an unfathomable 'rolemodel'.


@Phoenix
So if you reject Mohammed (PBUH) and the Quran, you instantly die of heart attack or something?

A Muslim-majority society has five necessities to preserve in that order: Religion and the ability to worship Allah, Life, The Mind, Progeny, and property.
It is more of a question of acknowledgment rather than resistance. Since religion or ideology fulfills 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 by a nation. 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, lose their point.

Stan said...

Dragon Fang said,
” @Stan
I for one world rather not have a boring discussion type; hopefully it turns fruitful.

You shouldn't hold all sects in high esteem; just don't generalize on some nonsense applied by 10% minority.”


That is absurd. All Islamic sects are <10% minorities, so far as I can tell. And why should that matter? Whatever sect you are in is the correct sect, even according to you. Whatever sect Dragon Fang is in is the correct sect. I have no idea what sect you belong to, nor what you believe, except that you believe that no matter what is said by outsiders is incorrect with respect to your particular sect.

’If you have noticed, we are dealing with human beings, hence there are situations that calls for war and situations that call for peace; the later is the default position.”

For your particular sect, so you say. I have no reason to believe you over any other sectarian.

”Can you be specific on what is the object of tolerance? Cause I believe it is quite clear Islam doesn't tolerate falsehood or immorality.”

Which Islam are we talking about? Your sect’s Islam? Not the 10 percenter’s Islam for sure. Only your particular take on Islam is correct, but I don’t know what you call it. Or what it’s premises might be, except that it is not the same Islam as the 10 percenter’s Islam. And how many different 10 percenter types of Islam are there? If there are nine, then there also would be ten.

”Then we have someone who is as morally void as an Atheist talking about how atrocities are immoral. I agree, but how do you know? I do not see a valid argument. Can you be more specific on your claim that atrocities were committed?”

Of course you do not define the actions of the prophet as atrocities; you cannot because it would be treason. So it is obvious that you will not. Atrocities: Ordering murders of dissenters; slitting throats due to “treason” (actually merely due to thinking thoughts that were not approved); pedophilia; killing a groom in order to have his bride; etc. ad nauseum. Since the prophet performed these actions, you cannot admit that they are atrocities. In fact, there are no actions which can be declared atrocities if a Muslim does them, since the prophet also did them and the prophet was perfect. This amounts to anarchy of behaviors, if the anarchic behaviors are done in the name of Allah.

Stan said...

”Is being harsh with those who were treacherous and betrayed their pacts in an attempt to destroy Muslims and weaken them in time of war, in other words toward those who commit high treason, an atrocity?”

It is an atrocity to declare dissent from the prophet’s thought to be treason, and then killing the dissenter in cold blood, without a trial, as did the prophet. It is an atrocity to kill a groom in order to seize his bride. It is an atrocity to kill Jews because they are Jews: independent people and do not bow to atrocity-type bullying.

”That behavior of the prophet places all behaviors, no matter how contradictory, under the banner of Islamic legitimacy and hardly restricted to aberrant cults, as you would have us believe.

In other words, there are not prohibitions in Islam? No 'you should do that' nor 'you should not do that'? I am not sure what you are talking about anymore.”


Of course there are prohibitions: against harming other Islamists, so long as the Islamists are the “right kind” of Islamists. The wrong kind of Islamists are fair game, though, and in open season.

”More question begging and circular reasoning by mentioning barbarism (also, empty moral claim that barbarism is bad), I kindly ask you to elaborate.”

Even the word “barbarism” derives from the bloody atrocities visited upon the Other by muslim Barbary Pirates. Nothing has changed; the term barbarism still applies. If you condone barbarism, and you apparently do, then the question of where you stand on atrocity is very clear, indeed: you are, then, my enemy and will kill me in any possible manner, including the most painful, bloodiest manner possible. As such, being my enemy and intent on my destruction, I am obligated to self-defense and defense of my family and nation. You have in essence and reality declared your war upon me and my kind, which you will not tolerate, and that atrocity as a concept does not apply to you as the right kind of Islamist. That is the definition of tolerance, and no, neither you nor any Islamist can make any claim to tolerance at all.

Stan said...

”Would you agree that the number of abortion and alcoholism (I am not even including violence of accidents) annually is barbarism?

Yes. But the perpetrators of abortion do not deserve painful death, nor do alcoholics.

”Would imperalism and the Vietnam war fall into that?”

All of the Middle East is given over to indigenes, mostly Islamists, who crave even the tiny sliver of ground that is under Israeli control. There is no imperialism involved, except for Islamists who want to seize countries for themselves, which is the current state of affairs in the Middle East. Iraqis drove into Kuwait to kill and plunder. Iran wanted to drive into Yemen but have been repulsed. The Palestinians want all of Israel, and target Israeli civilians ( and their own) for death. So your accusations ring hollow.

The Viet Nam war was intended to prevent civilian massacres by the communists; the war was badly managed (by Democrats) and failed. There were atrocities such as at My Lai - the perpetrators were tried and punished, by the Americans. The intent was to avoid atrocities, not cause them; the intent was not met. But that in no manner is equivalent to Islamic atrocities which are intentional and deemed moral by the perpetrators. Even you justify such as that by defining the victims as treasonous. Or imperialists.

”Hiroshima and Nagasaki?”

Again the comparison is a false equivalence, unless you admit that you are my enemy and that you are at war – as we were – and that all the killing being done by Islamists as defensive war actions, not merely gratuitous slaughter of dissenters. You cannot do that if you wish to keep on the side of truth. And that comes down once again to takiyya, about which you dissemble with “definition” concerns.

”Could you provide an argument how God is contradictory?”

God is not contradictory; the prophet’s version of Allah as God is contradictory. And the prophet himself is contradictory.

Stan said...

”If people do not follow the model of the prophet in belief, much less in practice, then they are not Muslims by definition. The term "realist" is practically problematic as it implies the existence of a firm grip on the reality of affairs which you have yet to demonstrate and made much less credible with indoctrinate-style circular reasoning. The model of the prophet have been made and is in practice some 1430 years ago.”

This makes no sense. Of course the model of the prophet is not new; I did not claim that it is. And your claim to the ability to judge my grip on reality is completely rejected, because you do not need reality in your worldview – all you need is the Qur’an, Hadith, and some Islamist to tell you that his interpretation is the only correct one and that all others are false and deserve death. There is no reality involved, only dogma.

”There is no forced conversion or compelle intrare in Islam nor do I commit felonies, so I don't see where the fuzz is about.

At the moment, one is either a Muslim or dead in very large portions of the Middle East. The domination of Sunni Islamists is so severe that even other Sunnis are fighting back, aided by their traditional enemies, the Iranian Shias. Christians and their artifacts are being wiped from the earth in extreme violence. You claim there is no forced conversion; ISIS, Taliban, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, all claim otherwise. They claim to have the only correct version of Islam. You claim to have the only correct version of Islam. Every Muslim seems to claim the same thing. But the prophet is the model, and his model forced conversions and/or taxed dissenting people of the book, and killed the rest.

” I am not insulted at all by your mistrust, in fact I am flattered to not be in your group; after all there needs to be people like you for such things like the principle of mutually-assured destruction to be applicable.”

So mutually assured destruction is a tenet of Islam? Interesting. Is that just your version of Islam, or all versions of Islam?

” A genuine mistrust of anyone who is not in your group (more often than not boiling down to racism or blind nationalism), not that you trust half the people in your group.”

Another false analogy, it appears. I don’t mistrust you based on race or nationality. I don’t know either of those things about you. But I do know that you and your Islam do not respect national boundaries because you have said so. I do know that you and your Islam consider dissent to be treason, punishable by death. I do know that your prophet and his version of deity is internally inconsistent and contradictory and not a worldview that could ever be brought into self-evident truth. I do know that Islam is claimed by many contradictory sects, all of which have other sects who they hate and deem treasonous and fit only to kill. And I do know that Islamists of unknown (to me anyway) versions of Islam are busily killing, enslaving, and raping their way across the Middle East and Northern Africa, even as we sit here.

There is only one rational approach to random Islamists: skepticism and mistrust. That’s how Islamists approach each other, since the other Islamist might have a need to behead you. It is rational and common sense.

Phoenix said...

DF
So if you reject Mohammed (PBUH) and the Quran, you instantly die of heart attack or something?

Come on!Do you I have to spell it out? Okay then,muslims have the right to murder you for rejecting Islam,says the quran and it's a sunnah of muhammad.I hope that is clear enough for you.Now i guess you'll want me to quote quranic passages and hadith,which you'll charge me with "taking them out of context".How am I doing so far?
===
Discarding the citizenship, or Islam, is not acknowledged by a nation

People reject their countries of origin all the time without being labeled traitor and fear of being assassinated.In fact muslims form the majority of immigrants into western nations.By your logic,muslim immigrant to the west deserve to be murdered just like religious apostates.

Dragon fang said...

[That is absurd. All Islamic sects are <10% minorities, so far as I can tell]

Your credibility can dive pretty low, I see. I recommend doing research or finding better sources. Sunnis make about 80-90% which is supposed to be common knowledge. The prophet said that the Ummah will split into 73 sects, all leading to hellfire except one, which is the main body; I am interested in learning where the "all sects are correct!" statement came from though.


[Which Islam are we talking about? Your sect’s Islam? Not the 10 percenter’s Islam for sure]
Nice math skills, the equation is a quite bit off though.
There is only one Islam; it is not brought together by someone or an organization, but by the Quran and Sunnah.

Indeed, those who have divided their religion and become sects - you, [O Muhammad], are not [associated] with them in anything. Their affair is only [left] to Allah ; then He will inform them about what they used to do. (Quran 6:159)


[Of course you do not define the actions of the prophet as atrocities; you cannot because it would be treason]

You kick off with an appeal to motive fallacy and redherring, you then slide through assertion with the help of apparent ignorance (seriously, 10%?). Every state has an identity that it usually would like to spread, yet at the same time it would protect the foundations of its identity and not acknowledge any dissent from it (how would you like me to change the US constitution?). However, unlike the typical politician, Islam is realistic, honest, and doesn't know of double standards; thus it protects the foundations of its identity and doesn't force other societies to change theirs. I am pretty sure warmongering and betraying oaths is called treason. Pedophilia includes children; Can you explain the relevance of the term? Can you demonstrate prior knowledge of the bride, and delibirate targeting of the groom for the sake of marrying the bride?
Your statements are sunk in irrationality; are you saying that the Prophet did everything? Wouldn't it follow that they wouldn't be atrocities if a non-Muslim does them? Does this mean that there are no established rules and punishments for breaking certain rules?

[It is an atrocity to declare dissent from the prophet’s thought to be treason, and then killing the dissenter in cold blood, without a trial, as did the prophet]

With police court, judicial tribunal, nor a court-martial established yet in a community yet, and the lack of a state executioner, citizens can be appointed to be one. Furthermore, with the person of treason residing in a fortress, unnecessary bloodshed was averted. Good thing Islam doesn't condone kill Jews because they are Jews.


[Of course there are prohibitions: against harming other Islamists, so long as the Islamists are the “right kind” of Islamists]

There are also prohibitions against harming innocents. The wrong kind of Islamists are not fair game; they could be sinners or ignorant for all we know, and it is the job of the court as the accussed is innocent until proven guilty, not militias or mobs.

[Yes. But the perpetrators of abortion do not deserve painful death, nor do alcoholics]

In other words, I slam prevents forms of barbarism in a larger scale than any of your accusations. They don't deserve any human punishment at all since their society condones it. Their penalty is not a painful death in Islam by the way.

Dragon fang said...

[All of the Middle East is given over to indigenes, mostly Islamists, who crave even the tiny sliver of ground that is under Israeli control]

Naturally. Zionism is a racist colonial project, expansionist by nature and fascist in its methods; it is inherently illegitimate for its underlying racist ideology, land theft, and ethnic cleansing of indigenous people, and such colonial projects and racist ideologies and structures must be defeated wherever they may be found. You are not authorized to negotiate on behalf of the Plaestinian people or demand less than their full rights. While there is a debate regarding the ideal method of liberation, there is no moral or legal equivalence between the violence of the occupier/colonizer and the resistance of the occupied/colonized. An usurping foreign invader and occupier has no right to use any level of force in defense of its military occupation and colonial regime that shouldn't exist in the first place.
So the US wasn't supportive of Saddam and largely responsible for him to reach power, and supplied him with chemical weapons knowing that he will use them? That it wasn't aiding both sides in Iraq's wars and genocides to protect its oil interest (Carter Doctorine)? The problem was simply that the US picked the wrong collaborators to establish a puppet regime, and Saddam began nationalizing the oil industry and Western assets, thus the US attempted to economically choke the country after being used against Iran; the Kuwait invasion was a desperate attempt to gain funds and cancel the debts under the petrodollar inhumane sanctions. In the 42 day assault, the US deliberately destroyed the vast majority infrastructure necessary to sustain society (roads, electricity, water purification, sewage systems, agriculture, industry, communication, health care all gone), bringing the death toll of the massacre to 3 millions.

[The Viet Nam war was intended to prevent civilian massacres by the communists; the war was badly managed (by Democrats) and failed]

Gee, talk about propaganda. While the Vietnam war is said to last 11 years, US involvement actually stretches a decade prior. After the Japanese imperialism was defeated in 1945, the US provided financial support and military advisers to restore French colonial control. After the French colonialism restoration project was defeated in the battle of Dien Bien Phu, an election was set to be made and the country was temporary divide into North and South until the elections are done. After it was quite clear that the communist revolutionist was going to win over emperor Bao Dai (Who was a puppet to Japan, France, and the US), The US declared South Vietnam to be a separate state to prevent reunification. Think on that; the US invaded a country and committed massacres to crash an election and make sure they have a puppet state. I mean what are you thinking? Poisoning agriculture and forests with chemical weapons and filling the country with landmines sure sounds like a way to avoid atrocities.
I acknowledge that some Muslims committed atrocities, yet none of them as bad as the US'. Also, are we doing a popularity vote or something? The Quran and Sunnah is what decides what is moral for Muslims; that they attempt to justify their actions wrongfully is their own fault.

The US is the prominent mass killer since WW2, and that this isn't acknowledged makes it less likely to rise above this legacy. I guess people get accustomed through lies to wars that cause them no pain or suffering that they support or are indifferent to unjust aggression in the name of imperialism.

Dragon fang said...

[Again the comparison is a false equivalence, unless you admit that you are my enemy and that you are at war – as we were – and that all the killing being done by Islamists as defensive war actions, not merely gratuitous slaughter of dissenters]

You do realize that Japan was defeated and seeking surrender and the war would've been officially over within two weeks, right? Dropping nukes on two cities was a demonstration of warfare technology and a testrun on live targets. Absolutely despicable. But hey, can't expect the people who thought Jim Crow was alright to have much of a quarrel against the third Reich beyond strategic interest.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html
Also, I do not have the authority to declare war, although you are my debate opponent.

God is not contradictory; the prophet’s version of Allah as God is contradictory. And the prophet himself is contradictory.

Provide specific examples to form an argument.

[This makes no sense. Of course the model of the prophet is not new; I did not claim that it is]

So are you saying that taking testimony = rejecting reality, and that the war on Vietnam was to minimize civilian death. Interesting. Nobody would accept an egoistic guy stating that his interruption is the correct one because he said it; as I stated at one point, there are methodologies and legal schools of thought. Misinterpretation doesn't equal death. Questionbegging to the umpteenth degree as usual.

[At the moment, one is either a Muslim or dead in very large portions of the Middle East]

As I said, I am not required nor willing to defend rebels, criminal acts, or immorality. Do licensed or prominent scholars support them?

[So mutually assured destruction is a tenet of Islam]

It is a tenet of those who invented it, hence of your ideology. "WE should have nukes, THEY should not have nukes". Just look at the panic over Iran's nuclear energy, nevermind that there is absolutely no evidence of weaponization, nor that Israel has illegal nukes. I mean do you think the powerbrokers who pull Obama's strings had a change of heart over the policy they had on Cuba for decades? It is obviously due to an economical deal.

[Another false analogy, it appears. I don’t mistrust you based on race or nationality]

The grandiose notions of supremacy says otherwise. "Do as we Say, Not as we Do". Would you support China's right to self defense if they colonize a chunk of US soil, or support Cuba or Korean occupation and bombing of the US as a war on terror?

'Merica...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10qatUWwIeg

National boundaries are based on treaties, hence they are respected. Discussion is welcome, dissent is welcome except on the foundations of morality. I am waiting for the deductive arguments that are hundreds of years late how God is inconsistent; worldview self-evident truth requires no transfer of knowledge, however entering heaven requires either use of simple reasoning or being a good listener. As clearly stated by the Quran and Sunnah, Islam doesn't acknowledge sects.


[People reject their countries of origin all the time without being labeled traitor and fear of being assassinated]

Unequal comparison. Do they stay in their countries if they successfully renounce their citizenship? A society's rules are not applied when you are outside that society.
An ideology directly affects your actions; your nationality indirectly affects your actions by the prominent ideology of where you live.

Stan said...

[That is absurd. All Islamic sects are <10% minorities, so far as I can tell]

”Sunnis make about 80-90% which is supposed to be common knowledge.”

And right now Sunnis are slaughtering Sunnis. Just being Sunni doesn’t seem to mean much… to other Sunnis.

” I am interested in learning where the "all sects are correct!" statement came from though.”

Pure empirical observation: ask a member of any sect: “Is your Islamic sect the correct sect?” What would the answer be? Yes, of course.

So if there is a “main sect” of Sunni Islam (which is not the Islam of the descendants of Muhammad) but is actually an offshoot, then what is that sect called? How is it to be differentiated from the “false” sects? If you meet a Muslim on the street, how do you know if his Islam is the correct Islam or the false Islam? Otherwise, if you cannot know the rightness of his Islam, how do you know whether to accept him or kill him? Surely you would want to kill the holder of false Islam, because he would be a heretic.

” Their affair is only [left] to Allah ; then He will inform them about what they used to do. (Quran 6:159)”

Since you provide this verse in this context, you apparently believe that islam is purely between your Allah and the individual Islamic person. If that is the case, and Allah instructs your neighbor to kill you and your family, then that must be the correct action in the eyes of Allah… Right? You might claim that Allah would not do that, yet that means that you have insight into the mind of Allah; If you do not have that insight, then you cannot know what Allah has “informed” any other Muslim to believe or do. And that being the case, then you cannot declare the beliefs of any other Muslim to be in error, or else this verse is false. So which is it?

” However, unlike the typical politician, Islam is realistic, honest, and doesn't know of double standards;”

That is interesting, because I just pointed one out just above. Islam is constantly projecting double standards – religion of peace/religion of bloody conquest by jihad – that is my favorite. It is internally contradictory, and it takes all sorts of convolutions of logic to support it. Not that Islamists are not up to it.

Stan said...

” thus it protects the foundations of its identity and doesn't force other societies to change theirs. I am pretty sure warmongering and betraying oaths is called treason.”

What with Sunnis and Shias stomping all over everybody else’s countries, this claim is observably incorrect.

” Pedophilia includes children; Can you explain the relevance of the term? Can you demonstrate prior knowledge of the bride, and delibirate targeting of the groom for the sake of marrying the bride?”

Do you deny the history of Muhammad, who married a nine year old out of lust? He apparently did not sexually molest her until she was eleven or so, still a child. That is pedophilia.

” Your statements are sunk in irrationality; are you saying that the Prophet did everything? Wouldn't it follow that they wouldn't be atrocities if a non-Muslim does them? Does this mean that there are no established rules and punishments for breaking certain rules?”

My statements follow western, Aristotelian logic. Your sort of “rationality” is actually rationalization, wherein the conclusion is dictated and the premises which support the conclusion are sought out, and contrary premises are rejected regardless of their grounding in First Principles and passing tests of Reductio Ad Absurdum. Muhammad did exactly every barbaric act I can think of, from calling for the murder of his opponents, to mass slaughter, to pedophilia, to giving himself a new wife whenever he lusted for another woman regardless of her marital status. Only because he declared himself to be The Prophet and perfect, therefore anything he might do – ANYTHING – is perfect by his own definition of perfection, and furthermore it is treason (death of course) to question anything which he did. That is the exact definition of a tyrannical megalomaniacal barbarian, of course by western standards. I can certainly understand why you would not want to question the Prophet, given the punishment for doing so. But you cannot call that sort of avoidance either “logic” or “rational” perceptions of the Prophet. It is merely parroting the necessary narrative and nothing more.

This is already too long, but this statement is fascinating:

” Good thing Islam doesn't condone kill Jews because they are Jews.”

Someone should tell the Jews that. The “rock will shout out, ‘there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him!” I read that somewhere. Pretty sure it was in the Qur’an.

I have to go for the moment; I'll be back.

Stan said...

Dragon Fang says,
”[Of course there are prohibitions: against harming other Islamists, so long as the Islamists are the “right kind” of Islamists]

There are also prohibitions against harming innocents. The wrong kind of Islamists are not fair game; they could be sinners or ignorant for all we know, and it is the job of the court as the accussed is innocent until proven guilty, not militias or mobs.”


Where would one find this generalized Islamic court? Certainly not in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, or Egypt. Is it in the UAR? Maybe in Mecca? Or Medina? Not in Morocco, Algeria, Sudan, Ethiopia, not in Yemen, Somalia. Maybe its down in Oman? Or Qatar?
Probably not in Indonesia or Malaysia.

Where is a Muslim to go to find this correct Islamic Court which represents the Good Sect of Islam? The Good Majority Sect of Islam?

”[Yes. But the perpetrators of abortion do not deserve painful death, nor do alcoholics]

In other words, Islam prevents forms of barbarism in a larger scale than any of your accusations. They don't deserve any human punishment at all since their society condones it. Their penalty is not a painful death in Islam by the way. ”


That is the most bizarre statement of Islam that I have ever read. I repeat it here, because I can hardly believe that you have written it: ” They don't deserve any human punishment at all since their society condones it. Their penalty is not a painful death in Islam by the way”

Qur’an 2:191:
“And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.”

This is preceded by 2:190:
“Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors.”

Transgress? How can a world-wide Caliphate transgress, when there are no national borders as far as Islam is concerned? The national borders of the Middle East and North Africa are all artifacts of the hated westerners who tried after WWII to divide up the ground so that every sect got a share. But that’s not good enough for the sects, it appears.

It appears, then, that the Qur’an does allow the killing of not only apostates and heretics, but also any others who “fight you” when the Islamists take over.

And certainly that matches the history of Islam and the Islamic hegemony during which Islamists tried and succeeded in conquering North Africa and Spain, but were defeated in France. They were ultimately expelled from Europe. But not from the rest of North Africa and the Middle East. Turkey has its own unique history, but appears to be going back under the repression of Islam.

Stan said...

” [All of the Middle East is given over to indigenes, mostly Islamists, who crave even the tiny sliver of ground that is under Israeli control]

Naturally. Zionism is a racist colonial project, expansionist by nature and fascist in its methods; it is inherently illegitimate for its underlying racist ideology, land theft, and ethnic cleansing of indigenous people, and such colonial projects and racist ideologies and structures must be defeated wherever they may be found.”


That response is hysterically funny, considering the continuing Islamic assaults on Israel which started the day Israel was created. Israel defeated its Islamic attackers and seized lands necessary to buffer itself from further attacks – which did come and come constantly from Islamists on almost all sides. (Notably not Jordan). NOTE THIS: Israel has not attacked any Islamic state, ever. It has fought back when attacked by ISLAMIST HEGEMONISTS who crave Israel’s land.

And note this: people of all races and religions live peacefully within the borders of Israel.

Your charges are false. The evidence is firmly against you. You are promoting falseness. Let’s take your absurd charges one at a time:

You equate Israel with “Zionism”, which is a fabricated conspiracy story.

Israel is NOT racist; many races and religions live peacefully in Israel.

Israel does NOT initiate wars of expansion; that is a characteristic of Islamic hegemonists.

Israel is NOT fascist; in fact it is Islam which participated with the NAZIs, and that heritage is alive today in much of Islam – not Israel.

Israel does not get its legitimacy from any Islamist judgment, nor Islamist state, nor Islamist court.

Israel did not steal land: it conquered it after it was attacked by Islamists using that land as entry ports into Israel. The war was an Islamic aggression on Israel, not Israeli aggression to steal land.

Israel did NO ethnic cleansing; the Islamic attackers of Israel made that accusation in order to put fear into the Islamic residents of Israel in order to cause them to rise up and fight from within, while the other Islamists attacked from all sides. The result was that many, not all, Palestinians left in terror. Not many returned. There was no – NO – ethnic cleansing: that is now being done en masse by Islamists who are killing all religions which are not Islamic, and literally hundreds every day, over a thousand in the past week alone. The charge that Israel does ethnic cleansing is maximally absurd – especially coming from the Religion of Peace which is massacring its way across the Middle East at this very moment.

Your accusations are false and absurd.

Finally this statement places you firmly in the camp of the Islamic hegemonists whose entire existence is predicated on the morality of the destruction of others: “such colonial projects and racist ideologies and structures must be defeated wherever they may be found.”

That you can claim to be the only legitimate Islam, and simultaneously claim the moral objective of attacking those who you falsely accuse under your type of Islam proves conclusively that your Islam is aggressively dangerous to the rest of the world.

As such, your ideology must be contained by the civilized world.
There is nothing more to say.

I will not address any more of what you have written. You have managed to betray the underlying hatred and aggression of "the correct Islam" which you claim to exist in the majority of Islamists.

The case is closed. Islam is an onerous, dangerous, religion of falseness, internal contradiction and outward lies and obfuscations, while in its heart it harbors hatred and the need for total conquest.

Steven Satak said...

I seem to recall Joseph Smith of the Mormon faith did exactly the same thing when it came to women he desired.

Phoenix said...

DF
With police court, judicial tribunal, nor a court-martial established yet in a community yet, and the lack of a state executioner, citizens can be appointed to be one. Furthermore, with the person of treason residing in a fortress, unnecessary bloodshed was averted. Good thing Islam doesn't condone kill Jews because they are Jews

Firstly,the charge of treason against the annihilated jews of yathrib is a false and baseless charge.Their only crime was to reject Muhammad's self-proclaimed prophethood.There is zero evidence in the hadith that the jews were instigating a plot to overthrow Muhammad and his sahaba.There was only rumors of the type "he said she said"but nothing concrete.To annihilate an entrie tribe based on a rumor is as irrational and insane as any man can be,never mind a so-called perfect role model.
Secondly,yes,Islam do condone the killing of jews for being jews (ie.adhering to their own ideology,independent and exclusive of Muhammad).Muslims are given carte blanche to murder,subjugate,humiliate and extort money from jews.
Do you want me to quote the hadith?

Stan said...

Phoenix,
Actually, if you have the passage(s) from the Hadith, go ahead and quote them.

Thanks.

Phoenix said...

Stan

First,here's a simple excercise for Dragon Fang.I doubt he could bs his way around this one.
What reasons did Muhammad have for exterminating the jewish tribe of Banu Quraiza?

We know from muslim sources that he killed close to 900 of their men,enslaved the children,took their women as sex captives and confiscated their wealth and property as booty.But why would a most excellent human role model behave like a common thug?
===
Now for some anti-semitic verses from the Islamic texts.There are many more but they require context:

-Jews are a humiliated people
Quran 2:61 And remember ye said: "O Moses! we cannot endure one kind of food (always); so beseech thy Lord for us to produce for us of what the earth groweth, -its pot-herbs, and cucumbers, Its garlic, lentils, and onions." He said: "Will ye exchange the better for the worse? Go ye down to any town, and ye shall find what ye want!"They were covered with humiliation and misery; they drew on themselves the wrath of Allah. This because they went on rejecting the Signs of Allah and slaying His Messengers without just cause. This because they rebelled and went on transgressing.

- Christians and Jews are not suitable friends for muslims
Quran 5:51
O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.

- This verse,which can be corroborated by tafsir,says Allah turned Jews into pigs for breaking the Sabbath
002.065
YUSUFALI: And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected."

-It's imporatant to note that People of the Book refers to both Christians and Jews but sometimes that term will be used for one of those groups only in a particular context.Like this one refers to jews who are said to be perverted:
003.110
YUSUFALI: Ye are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah. If only the People of the Book had faith, it were best for them: among them are some who have faith,but most of them are perverted transgressors.

-This one says to fight them because they don't believe.Subdue them and extract the Jizyah,which is a special tax levied against the People of the Book.
009.029
YUSUFALI:Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth,(even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

-Here's an infamous one from Sahih Muslim,commanding muslims to kill jews on Judgement Day.It's particularly disturbing.

Hadith Sahih Muslim:Book 041, Number 6985:
Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying:The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.

Phoenix said...

Stan said:Do you deny the history of Muhammad, who married a nine year old out of lust? He apparently did not sexually molest her until she was eleven or so, still a child. That is pedophilia.

I missed this one.Yes,that does qualify as pedophilia but there's a slight correction needed.The most authentic recordings of Muhammad's sunnah (examples),such as Sahih Muslim,Bukhari and Abu Dawd relate that Aisha was 6 when he married her and 9 years old when he consummated his marriage with her.Some sources say Muhammad used to rub his penis between Aisha's legs before he finally sealed the deal when she was 9.This is not from the authentic hadith but it still practised in some Middle eastern countries.

Bukhari 5:58:236
Narrated Hisham's father:Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married 'Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed that marriage when she was nine years old.

Bukhari 7:62:64
Narrated 'Aisha:that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).

Dragon fang,feel free to dispute these verses.

Stan said...

Phoenix,
Thanks for the correction. I was working from memory and got it wrong. That Muhammad was a pedophile is indisputable; that he legitimized that disorder is despicable. That an entire religion of billions reveres him as perfect is incomprehensible.

Dragon fang said...

[And right now Sunnis are slaughtering Sunnis]

Just like being American doesn't mean much in place of worldly temptation.

[Pure empirical observation: ask a member of any sect]

Pure logical gibberish. If we are to go by this logic, all scientific and historical hypothesis are equally true. More changing the goal post.

[So if there is a “main sect” of Sunni Islam]

The correct sect is the one that follows the Quran and Sunnah, taking example from two of the greatest Imams, Ahmed bin Hanbal asked to not follow him but whom he follows which is the scholarly chain leading to the prophet, and Malik bin Anas said that any statement can be taken or rejected except of whom this grave belongs referring at the grave of the Prophet. The scholarly license is based from teacher to student which leads all the way to the prophet, hence it is the Islam of the companions of the Prophet. Do most sects introduce a third source of jurisdiction like a new prophet, or a figure claiming to be god-like? If so, then congratulations, you know that most sects are invalid.
*snicker* I didn't know Aristotelian logic is dependent on loaded questions. Learn something new everyday, or perhabs this is more of your inability to formulate an argument or seek a productive discussion. I believe I already answered the righteousness question to Robert. To answer your complex question; no I wouldn't have the right to kill him, neither would I accept falsehood, but I would accept him as my brother in religion, hence I would politely correct him and provide evidence why he would be incorrect and then wish him a good day since I am not to meddle with his private life. If someone acts that way you are suggesting, he'll possibly face an execution sentence by an Islamic court for deliberate murder or be put in a mental ward.

[Since you provide this verse in this context, you apparently believe that islam is purely between your Allah and the individual Islamic person]

Hmm... So not only do you repeatedly provide shamelessly false historical information and displays of ignorance while maintaining an aura of a self-proclaimed experthood, but you have bad reading comprehension? An other product of your rationalization? Seriously, a bit of intellectual responsibility and honesty won't kill you.
No, Islam includes belief, actions, and statement. You do realize that the verse talks about actions that already happened during judgement once resurrected, right? Strong in this one, the rationalization is.


[That is interesting, because I just pointed one out just above]. Islam is constantly projecting double standards – religion of peace/religion of bloody conquest by jihad – that is my favorite. It is internally contradictory, and it takes all sorts of convolutions of logic to support it. Not that Islamists are not up to it.
Show me scripture documenting this so called internal contradiction. A more accurate slogan is a religion that leads to heaven/home of peace, inner peace, and inclines to peaceto peace when others would. A system that does not address war in human relations is incomplete.

[What with Sunnis and Shias stomping all over everybody else’s countries]

What does this have to do with my claim?

[Do you deny the history of Muhammad, who married a nine year old out of lust]

The last portion of your initial statement is incorrect; it was to create a social bond with his best friend, furthermore you are using the false assumption that she was a child. Islam doesn't assign age for adulthood, but rather a criteria, including puberty and mental and physical maturity, in which social norms may follow. However, if the conditions are invalid in a certain social environment, then it is to be prevented based on the principle of preventing harm to self and others. Hence, that is not pedophilia.

Dragon fang said...

[My statements follow western, Aristotelian logic. Your sort of “rationality” is actually rationalization]

Funny thing that I have yet to see syllogism (Not to mention that you admit that your moral arguments, the crux of your objection, are logically invalid). Rationalization being spoken by you is rich; If you are not disingenuous, I am sure you can point out any unaddressed argument you have presented or addressed by a mere opinion of "You are wrong/end-statement", or making unresearched statements that bluntly contradicts reality, hmm?
Calling for the murder of your opponent whom you have been patient with after calling for your murder multiple times over? Gee, I am sure you would be glad to curl over and await to be murdered. The death in the battles of Islam is surprisingly low. your claim of pedophilia contradicts scientific and historical analysis. "regardless of martial status", so the Prophet married a married woman? Evidence. I am confused, doesn't sex drive peek sometime during teenage years and gradually lessen? How come he married a 40 years old woman at age 25 for more than 24 years? Can you justify your claim that his marriages are based on lust and contains no social or political reasons? Can you cite the claim that the prophet is perfect rather than being a human prophet with exalted moral character? The Prophet tolerated many who questioned him; they might have been hypocrites, but tolerated nonetheless.


[Someone should tell the Jews that. The “rock will shout out, ‘there is a Jew hiding behind me]

And someone should tell you that it happens during a battle. More blatant displays of ignorance of the topic of discussion, how consistent.


[Where would one find this generalized Islamic court]

It is applicated to various degrees, but they'll have to wait for a full application.

[That is the most bizarre statement of Islam that I have ever read]

I, can hardly believe the level of your reading comprehension skills. Islam builds society and takes out the roots of the problem before any punishment is ought to be made; the alcohol drinking punishment is not made as long as alcohol is being sold, the punishment for burglary is not made as long as society suffers from poverty or hunger. But I'll respond to your poor reading comprehension anyway.
Can you clarify what your objection is?

[That response is hysterically funny, considering the continuing Islamic assaults on Israel which started the day Israel was created]

Sigh, it's like you are fighting reality. The war of independence, or the Nakbah, was long time coming when Plan Dalet was announced, and the war started when Israel made good on the plan and annexed the Palestinian Arab territories of Galilee, Auja, parts of Gaza Strip, and parts of the West Bank, all of which were parts of the Palestinian Arab state according to the Partition resolution. Israeli forces had attacked Palestinian territories, particularly Galilee, well before the Arab states entered the war.
I assume from your note that Pheroah was being defensive when he ordered Jewish new borns killed? You clearly have no historic knowledge; Israel directly attacked and invaded Egypt and Lebanon. Pretty much all Israeli wars were wars of aggression or a response to these wars.

Dragon fang said...

[And note this: people of all races and religions live peacefully within the borders of Israel]

Tautology.
Aha. Lets see what the director of the JNF, Yosef Weitz, had to say:

1941: "The land of Israel is not small at all, if only the Arabs were removed, and its frontiers enlarged a little, to the north up to the Litani, and to the east including the Golan Heights...with the Arabs transferred to northern Syria and Iraq...Today we have no other alternative...We will not live here with Arabs."

1948: "I have drawn up a list of Arab villages which in my opinion must be cleared out in order to complete Jewish regions. I have also drawn up a list of land disputes that must be settled by military means"

It is interesting that Christians and Muslims being annexed qualifies as peaceful.

[You equate Israel with “Zionism”, which is a fabricated conspiracy story]

Haha, so an established political party called Zionism with different variations and theories didn't exist, and it didn't have a congress in 1897 in Basle, Switzerland, where they decided to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine, on the expense of the Palestinian people? Are you a Zionism denier by any chance?

[Israel does NOT initiate wars of expansion; that is a characteristic of Islamic hegemonists]

Redherring.
Lets see what the military and political leader Moshe Dayan thinks:

"Before [the Palestinians] very eyes we are possessing the land and the villages where they, and their ancestors, have lived... We are the generation of colonizers, and without the steel helmet and the gun barrel we cannot plant a tree and build a home."

[Israel is NOT fascist; in fact it is Islam which participated with the NAZIs]

Redherring.
Do agree that the terms: [colonialism, ethnic cleansing, military occupation, and apartheid], are relevant to fascism?
http://www.hsrc.ac.za/en/media-briefs/democracy-goverance-and-service-delivery/report-israel-practicing-apartheid-in-palestinian-territories
Nazism is a totalitarian political movement that believes in the superiority of the Aryan race. Nothing to do with Islam. Why some Arabs associated with it? Simply due to the principle of the 'enemy of my enemy is my friend', and colonial Britian was a common enemy. I also love how you neglect Paris' mosque role in the resistance, or the Muslims who sheltered Jews in Belgium, Albania, and Morocco.

[Israel does not get its legitimacy from any Islamist judgment, nor Islamist state, nor Islamist court]

Nor does it get its legitimacy from establishing an entity in a country without the consent the original inhabitants, its only indigenous population and the sole owners of the land. Sounds to me that it has no legitimacy, not to mention that it has the world record for the most number of violated UN resolutions.

Dragon fang said...

[Israel did not steal land: it conquered it after it was attacked by Islamists using that land as entry ports into Israel]

"We must expel the Arabs and take their places and if we have to use force, to guarantee our own right to settle in those places then we have force at our disposal." - Ben Gurion, 1937
"During the assault we must be ready to strike the decisive blow; that is, either to destroy the towns or expel its inhabitants so our people can replace them." -First Prime Minister, Ben Gurion, 1948

There is no difference between "Israeli conquering" and stealing. A conquering army becomes an occupying power once military operations have ceased. The occupying power has the duty to restore public order and safety and protect the local civilian population, it cannot seize or annex any part of the territory occupied or forcibly deport civilians, nor can it permanently transfer its own citizens into the occupied territory. It must also relinquish control of the occupied territory and return it to civilian authority and control as soon as reasonably possible once order is restored.
The US actually did a good job of this after WW2 (although the process was idiotic at best in Iraq), and helped Japan, Germany, and Italy recover and rebuild its infrastructure, which transformed them from bitter enemies to allies. It did not seize or annex the sovereign territory, it didn’t deport civilians, nor did it transfer portions of its own civilian population to these countries.

[Israel did NO ethnic cleansing]

Account of Duwayima Village massacare:
"The first [wave] of conquerers killed between 80 to 100 Arabs, women and children. To kill the children they fractured their heads with sticks. There was not one house without corpses. The men and women of the villages were pushed into houses without food or water. Then the saboteurs came to dynamite the houses. One commander ordered a soldier to bring two women into a house he was about to blow up… Another soldier prided himself upon having raped an Arab woman before shooting her to death. Another Arab woman with her newborn baby was made to clean the place for a couple of days, and then they shot her and the baby. Educated and well-mannered commanders who were considered "good guys"… became base murderers, and this not in the storm of battle, but as a method of expulsion and extermination. The fewer the Arabs who remain, the better."

In the end, all we got was emotionally denialism attempting to shelter itself within fallacies and through wails of ignorance. If your knowledge is poor and you don't have the time to do research while being skeptical, simply ask me to support my statements rather, otherwise provide a rational answer when being assertive, all for a productive discussion. Thank you.
Your irrationality causes you to move expeditiously away from material evidence and into the domain of fallacious rhetorical inversions and slander; I extend my arguments and accept your concession.

Dragon fang said...


[Firstly,the charge of treason against the annihilated jews of yathrib is a false and baseless charge]

If you are going to present some alternative history, provide your evidence, otherwise say: "I would like to think that".
Mohammed (PBUH)'s prophethood is supported with evidence, more notably the lasting miracle of the Quran, hence people entered Islam voluntarily, and sufficient is Allah as a witness.

This is Abu Sufyan's retreat speech: 'O people of the Quraysh, you are not in a safe and secure place. Our horses and camels have perished. The Banu Qurayzah have deserted us and we have had unpleasant news about them. We are buffered by this cold wind. Our fires do not light and our uprooted tents offer no protection. So get moving. For myself, I am leaving.'

O you who have believed, if there comes to you a disobedient one with information, investigate, lest you harm a people out of ignorance and become, over what you have done, regretful. (Quran 49:6)
Hence an investigation and negotiation was made. Muslims had to leave people behind to watch over the women and children because of this when it Banu Qurayza was pledged to a mutual protection agreement.

Lets go over this logically:
1- An objective and fair law excludes whims and emotions.
2- Banu Qurayza instigated a plot to aid the siege when Muslims were suffering from fear, hunger, and cold.
3- Such treason requires the harshest of punishments.
4- A trial was made, and based on Banu Qurayza's request it would be judged based on the Torah and the Judge was among the Jewish Chiefs, Saad bin Muath. Hence, we are discussing Jewish law rather than Islamic law.
Now, lets go over the procedure:
1- Collaberators were judged even if they weren't part of Banu Qurayza, hence Huyay ibn Akhtab was killed.
2- Who condemned the treason from Banu Qurayza, such as Amr Ibn Suad, was spared, furthermore you may ask to be vouched for like Zabir ib Bata did.
3- The judgement would be on a consenting collaberator with physical and mental ability, which is adulthood.

Come at me again:
The Messenger of Allah 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.

Phoenix said...

Mohammed (PBUH)'s prophethood is supported with evidence, more notably the lasting miracle of the Quran, hence people entered Islam voluntarily, and sufficient is Allah as a witness

The quran does not contain a single miracle.Muslims still perpetuate this lie,even though it's well known by now (thanks to the internet) that the quran contains thousands of errors,contradictions and historical inaccuracies,yet it claims to be a perfect guidance for mankind authored by God himself.
===
This is Abu Sufyan's retreat speech: 'O people of the Quraysh, you are not in a safe and secure place. Our horses and camels have perished. The Banu Qurayzah have deserted us and we have had unpleasant news about them. We are buffered by this cold wind. Our fires do not light and our uprooted tents offer no protection. So get moving. For myself, I am leaving

The Quraysh were Muhammad's enemies.If the Banu Quraiza deserted the enemies of muslims then it should be a good thing.Instead Muhammad had them face a terrible doom.
===
Hence an investigation and negotiation was made. Muslims had to leave people behind to watch over the women and children because of this when it Banu Qurayza was pledged to a mutual protection agreement

And how did the Banu Quraiza break the treaty? By not fighting.Once again,this is a good thing,since the fight against the Meccans never took place because they retreated.So Muhammad decides to attack the jewish tribe anyway because he received a visit from the angel telling him to
http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/052-sbt.php#004.052.068
===
Lets go over this logically:
1- An objective and fair law excludes whims and emotions
.
Completely irrelevant

2- Banu Qurayza instigated a plot to aid the siege when Muslims were suffering from fear, hunger, and cold
Baseless accusation,since (a)the jews actually loan their tools to Muhammad.(b)Muslims returned from the battle of the trenches unscathed.(C)How does suffering from cold fear and hunger permit the holiest man to commit mass murder?

3- Such treason requires the harshest of punishments
The treason charge is without substance and even then,given that the Battle of trenches were never actually fought and no one was injured.Yet the jews still deserved a terrible fate.
===
Now, lets go over the procedure:
1- Collaberators were judged even if they weren't part of Banu Qurayza, hence Huyay ibn Akhtab was killed

Huyay was killed because the angel said he was going to throw a rock on Muhammad's head sometime in the future.

2- Who condemned the treason from Banu Qurayza, such as Amr Ibn Suad, was spared, furthermore you may ask to be vouched for like Zabir ib Bata did

Funny that Muhammad did not spare the children their mothers and vice versa because they were sold into slavery.

3- The judgement would be on a consenting collaberator with physical and mental ability, which is adulthood

Yes,the mentally impaired posed very little threat to Muhammad.How noble of him to spare the lives of harmless people.

Stan said...

Dragon Fang,
This is very long and I haven’t much time at the moment. But I will respond as much as I can.

1. “And right now Sunnis are slaughtering Sunnis]

Just like being American doesn't mean much in place of worldly temptation.”


That is no response at all, not even in its Tu Quoque form. The FACT is that Sunnis are slaughtering Sunnis, en masse.

2. “[Pure empirical observation: ask a member of any sect]

Pure logical gibberish. If we are to go by this logic, all scientific and historical hypothesis are equally true. More changing the goal post.”

Scientific hypotheses must stand no their own merit of objective, observable, experimental, non-falsification. There is no empirical proof possible for even the existence of Muhammad; all evidence is historical not empirical. Empirically, it is exactly true and valid to say that every Muslim believes his own version of Islam is the Truth. So your objection has no merit, especially under the rubric of “logical” attack on “science”.

3. ”[So if there is a “main sect” of Sunni Islam]

The correct sect is the one that follows the Quran and Sunnah, taking example from two of the greatest Imams,…”


Says who? The two imams? Certainly not Muhammad? Under whose authority is this random decision declared? Which parts of those documents are to be obeyed and which are to be ignored? And what about obeying contradictory parts? Who decides which part is correct? As you said before, Allah speaks to each person, so who gets to judge the person who has been spoken to directly by Allah… you?

4. ”Ahmed bin Hanbal asked to not follow him but whom he follows which is the scholarly chain leading to the prophet, and Malik bin Anas said that any statement can be taken or rejected except of whom this grave belongs referring at the grave of the Prophet.”

That’s great. “Ahmed bin Hanbal asked to not follow him but whom he follows which is the scholarly chain leading to the prophet, and Malik bin Anas said that any statement can be taken or rejected except of whom this grave belongs referring at the grave of the Prophet.”

So do whatever you want, basically, because Muhammad did exactly that. You are proving my point.

5. ”The scholarly license is based from teacher to student which leads all the way to the prophet, hence it is the Islam of the companions of the Prophet.”

Who made up that rule? Certainly NOT Muhammad, who left no religious successor thereby creating the warfare between “companions of the prophet” and “blood heirs of the prophet” – i.e. Sunni vs. Shia. Why should one be given priority over the other since Muhammad did not define the “chain” which would be “correct”? It’s probable that Muhammad never uttered the words, “Sunni” or “Shia”.

6. ”Do most sects introduce a third source of jurisdiction like a new prophet, or a figure claiming to be god-like? If so, then congratulations, you know that most sects are invalid.”

Considering the number of fatwas coming from imams all over the globe on a daily basis, it appears that many, if not all, imams think that they are demigods; they give commands declaring life or death for people, just as did Muhammad. And given the direct connection between Allah and every man, then who is to say that these imams are, in fact, not demigods in their understanding of Allah’s words in their minds?

There is, in fact, no intellectual test for such things, other than the Aristotelian tests of coherence, foundations, and Reductio Ad Absurdum. They fail all three.

Having failed rational tests, then they must be seen for what they are – blind beliefs without any hope of rational basis.

Stan said...

7. ”*snicker* I didn't know Aristotelian logic is dependent on loaded questions. Learn something new everyday, or perhabs this is more of your inability to formulate an argument or seek a productive discussion.”

Snicker away, but you provide no grounding for any belief in what you claim, other than unfounded claims which are based on the belief itself. That is officially called Circular Reasoning, and is non-coherent under Aristotelian testing (also failing Reductio). Further, by claiming “loaded question” without any reference to which question, you invalidate even your sarcasm – which is a rhetorical device, not a dialectic. (read Schopenhauer).

8. ”To answer your complex question; no I wouldn't have the right to kill him, neither would I accept falsehood, but I would accept him as my brother in religion, hence I would politely correct him and provide evidence why he would be incorrect and then wish him a good day since I am not to meddle with his private life.”

Now there is an answer which I can appreciate, at least from a comity perspective. However, I don’t see how that squares with the prophet’s admonition to deal harshly with believers of falseness/heresy. Thus I suspect that this is your personal interpretation, and not an official position of “correct Islam”.

9. ”If someone acts that way you are suggesting, he'll possibly face an execution sentence by an Islamic court for deliberate murder or be put in a mental ward.”

Really? A woman who is raped and is killed by her father for disgracing the family results in the father’s conviction in an Islamic court? Killing a heretic? A Sunni killing an unrepentant Shia? These occurrences are so common that I doubt your claim, although you did demur with the term “possibly”.

10. ”[Since you provide this verse in this context, you apparently believe that islam is purely between your Allah and the individual Islamic person]

Hmm... So not only do you repeatedly provide shamelessly false historical information and displays of ignorance while maintaining an aura of a self-proclaimed experthood, but you have bad reading comprehension? An other product of your rationalization? Seriously, a bit of intellectual responsibility and honesty won't kill you.
No, Islam includes belief, actions, and statement. You do realize that the verse talks about actions that already happened during judgement once resurrected, right? Strong in this one, the rationalization is.”


You did not provide that context at the time, did you? No, so you take the opportunity for more Rhetorical nonsense. In fact, within the original context, the assumption was justified, as Allah is speaking directly to the individual. Further, your new context seems to contradict the original. And that appears to be an artifact of convenience you provide for yourself.

Taken by itself (since you provide it by itself), AND interpreted using your slant that it is an afterlife communication between Allah and the individual, that still does not invalidate the argument that killing apostates, heretics, Jews, etc. is not the business of “true Islamists”, yet there are admonitions in the Qur’an to do so as well as not do so. This is internally contradictory (non-coherent under Aristotelian testing). Further, all of the above seems to depend upon the divine necessity of the total perfection of the Qur’an and Sunnah, despite internal non-coherence.

Show where Muhammad declares the edited Uthman Qur’an and Sunnah to be definitive. And explain why internal non-coherence is of no value as a truth test to Islamists.

11. ” [Of course you do not define the actions of the prophet as atrocities; you cannot because it would be treason]

You kick off with an appeal to motive fallacy and redherring, you then slide through assertion with the help of apparent ignorance (seriously, 10%?)”


Stan said...

12. ”That is interesting, because I just pointed one out just above. Islam is constantly projecting double standards – religion of peace/religion of bloody conquest by jihad – that is my favorite. It is internally contradictory, and it takes all sorts of convolutions of logic to support it. Not that Islamists are not up to it.

Show me scripture documenting this so called internal contradiction. A more accurate slogan is a religion that leads to heaven/home of peace, inner peace, and inclines to peaceto peace when others would. A system that does not address war in human relations is incomplete. ”


You claim that Islam is dictated to be peaceful, under certain verses. Here are contradictory verses:

Qur'an (4:89) - "They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of God; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper."
Qur'an (9:11-12) - "But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then are they your brethren in religion. We detail Our revelations for a people who have knowledge. And if they break their pledges after their treaty (hath been made with you) and assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief - Lo! they have no binding oaths - in order that they may desist."

Bukhari (52:260) - "...The Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.'

Bukhari (83:37) - "Allah's Apostle never killed anyone except in one of the following three situations: (1) A person who killed somebody unjustly, was killed (in Qisas,) (2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse and (3) a man who fought against Allah and His Apostle and deserted Islam and became an apostate."

Bukhari (84:57) - [In the words of] "Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"

Bukhari (89:271) - A man who embraces Islam, then reverts to Judaism is to be killed according to "the verdict of Allah and his apostle."

Bukhari (84:58) - "There was a fettered man beside Abu Muisa. Mu'adh asked, 'Who is this (man)?' Abu Muisa said, 'He was a Jew and became a Muslim and then reverted back to Judaism.' Then Abu Muisa requested Mu'adh to sit down but Mu'adh said, 'I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and His Apostle (for such cases) and repeated it thrice.' Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed. Abu Musa added, 'Then we discussed the night prayers'"

Bukhari (84:64-65) - "Allah's Apostle: 'During the last days there will appear some young foolish people who will say the best words but their faith will not go beyond their throats (i.e. they will have no faith) and will go out from (leave) their religion as an arrow goes out of the game. So, wherever you find them, kill them, for whoever kills them shall have reward on the Day of Resurrection.'"

Abu Dawud (4346) - "Was not there a wise man among you who would stand up to him when he saw that I had withheld my hand from accepting his allegiance, and kill him?" Muhammad is chastising his companions for allowing an apostate to "repent" under duress. (The person in question was Muhammad's former scribe who left him after doubting the authenticity of divine "revelations" upon finding out that he could suggest grammatical changes. He was brought back to Muhammad after having been captured in Medina).

Stan said...

al-Muwatta of Imam Malik (36.18.15) - "The Messenger of Allah said, "If someone changes his religion - then strike off his head."

Reliance of the Traveller (Islamic Law) o8.1 - "When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed." (o8.4 affirms that there is no penalty for killing an apostate).


Islamic Law:

There is also a consensus by all four schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence (i.e., Maliki, Hanbali, Hanafi, and Shafii), as well as classical Shiite jurists, that apostates from Islam must be put to death. The process of declaring a person to be an apostate is known as takfir and the disbeliever is called a murtad.

Averroes (d. 1198), the renowned philosopher and scholar of the natural sciences, who was also an important Maliki jurist, provided this typical Muslim legal opinion on the punishment for apostasy: "An apostate...is to be executed by agreement in the case of a man, because of the words of the Prophet, 'Slay those who change their din [religion]'...Asking the apostate to repent was stipulated as a condition...prior to his execution."

The contemporary (i.e., 1991) Al-Azhar (Cairo) Islamic Research Academy endorsed manual of Islamic Law, Umdat al-Salik (pp. 595-96) states: "Leaving Islam is the ugliest form of unbelief (kufr) and the worst.... When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostasizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed. In such a case, it is obligatory...to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed."

The equivalent, gravely negative implications of the OIC's Sharia-based Cairo Declaration are most apparent in its transparent rejection of freedom of conscience in Article 10, which proclaims: "Islam is the religion of unspoiled nature. It is prohibited to exercise any form of compulsion on man or to exploit his poverty or ignorance in order to convert him to another religion, or to atheism." Ominously, articles 19 and 22 reiterate a principle stated elsewhere throughout the document, which clearly applies to the "punishment" of so-called "apostates" from Islam: "[19d] There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Sharia.; [22a] Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Sharia.; [22b] Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Sharia.; [22c] Information is a vital necessity to society. It may not be exploited or misused in such a way as may violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets, undermine moral and ethical values or disintegrate, corrupt or harm society or weaken its faith."

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/012-apostasy.htm

Note the last item, which indicates that under Sharia, Muslims have the right ONLY to say things which do not “violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets”. Presumably such violation would constitute both heresy and treason.

One more thing.

12. ” [What with Sunnis and Shias stomping all over everybody else’s countries]

What does this have to do with my claim?.”


Seriously? Hordes of Islamists killing each other while you claim “religion of peace”? You see no relation?

However, I have to stop here. This is too long already.

Phoenix said...

Nice one Stan,especially the passages you quoted.

Qur'an (4:89) Is usually used as a justification for killing apostates.

"They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of God; then,if they turn their backs, take them,and slay them wherever you find them;take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper."

===
Regarding Bukhari (84:58),notice the psychotic nature in Muhammad's companions blase attitudes.Immediately after killing the apostate they turn around and discuss prayertime.Like they just got rid of a cockroach or something.

Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed. Abu Musa added, 'Then we discussed the night prayers'"

===
Lastly,the hadith from Abu Dawud (4346) is extremely incriminating as to how Muhammad received his divine revelations.Muslim sources tell us Muhammad could could either not read and write or was terrible at it,hence his reasons for employing scribes to jot down his messages from the angels.(Yup,those little gems are supposedly from superior heavenly beings).So why would a scribe leave Islam after witnessing multiple times Muhammad going into a trance-like state (think Shawn Spencer from Psyche) and emerging with another beautiful passage on how to butcher infidels.Surely someone who was by Muhammad's side,witnessing the birth of the most perfect book should be the last to leave Islam.