Monday, October 24, 2011

The Infidel's Guide to Islam (2 of 3) — The Anatomy of Jihad

According to the Qur'an, there's no such thing as a Muslim Extremist.

Xenocrates

This is the true intention of Islam. Anything else is a pacifist lie.

I've always wondered if Muhammad were still alive, if he would have wept over what all these modern day Islamic governments have done to their people and how they may have misread, misinterpreted or utterly misconstrued his teachings. He originally set out to unify all of Arabia. They in turn invented Sharia law and justification for flying commercial jets into office buildings. Now western governments have tried to appease Islamic moderates by suggesting that Islam has no political agenda. Take a long hard look at the picture above. This is far from the truth.


Advertisement:


If someone told you that Islam is a peaceful religion, you shouldn't find it hard to believe that someone would take offense to the fact that you find it hard to take them seriously. But that's not the really terrifying thing about Islam — that would have to be the fact that even after the many gross atrocities that occurred on 9/11, it is still the fastest growing religion in the world. It's a reliable testament of the profound anti-American sentiment that exists around the world.

But that's what tends to happen when you teach a doctrine that is highly contextualized in its historical and cultural backdrop. The evolution of society has ultimately rendered most religion redundant. Islam is no different. Society has become a thousandfold more complex that it was when nomadic people had to fight for survival in the harsh desert wasteland of warring tribes.

What does the Qur'an Say?

The Qur'an doesn't mince words when it talks about violence.

So passages of scripture in the Qur'an that speak to the necessity for justified war (specifically Qur'an Chapter 2:190-191) tend to lose their meaning in a more modern world where Arabs have mostly transformed their nomadic desert lives into wealthy oil kingdoms. But the Qur'an doesn't stop there. It even explicitly recommends jihad as a fundamental requirement for the intrepid Muslim, whether they enjoy fighting or not, since Allah clearly knows better (2:216).

These scriptures go from saying "if you are oppressed, you can fight back" to "you must fight whether you like fighting nor not" to finally saying "fight until there is only Islam left in the world" (2:193). Some scriptures just arbitrarily call Muslims to fight (2:244) just because it says Allah is loving. I'm not kidding. One scripture even justifies retaliation as being righteous (2:179). Then, there are the scriptures that do actually encourage martyrdom (Qur'an 3:157-158, 169).

Contrasting Christianity


Now by comparison, Judeo-Christianity does have a call to action for violence against people who worship false gods (Deuteronomy 13). The Old Testament in the Bible even goes as far as to document many incidents where entire civilizations are wiped out through various acts of genocide because they worshiped false gods. There is even a case where a king was severely berated for not killing enough! Now while Islam is no different, it is historically far less violent.

This is not to say that Islam hasn't had its share of wars since its inception 1400 years ago. However, Judeo Christianity has had many thousands more years (well over 5,000) to kill a lot more people and for far more precarious reasons. The key difference here is that some 2,100 years ago, Judeo Christianity took a turn for the better and completely revised its philosophy.

Whereas the Qur'an goes on and on about a multiplicity of reasons for committing jihad, the Christian Bible only has one general case declaration for such in the Old Testament and a grand total of zero (0) such references in the New Testament. In fact, the New Testament is just riddled with scriptures about loving your enemies, and also resisting the urge for revenge.

By contrast, the Qur'an barely has any reference to such a philosophy (Qur'an 60:7) and it is not really a commandment as much as it is a reference to a feint probability that Allah would engender love between Muslims and their enemies. In fact, the references to vengeance in the Qur'an are shockingly pervasive. It makes one question its claim to be a "religion of peace".

Questioning Moderate Islam


Moderate Imams like to say these scriptures aren't a Carte Blanche admonition of unprovoked warfare against infidels like America. What the Imams would not say, is that the Qur'an does clearly justify violence against those who are not Muslim (Qur'an 9:29), which is everyone else. Therefore, this verse does actually give Muslims Carte Blanche to attack anyone. Here is why:

The Qur'an openly facilitates the idea that Muslims have the right to regard non Muslims as enemies of Islam by virtue of not being Muslim. This is what inspires these courses of violent indoctrination among many Muslim sects. This is why it is difficult to consider those who follow Islam to the letter to be extremists. The religion is rife with many calls to violent indoctrination. So how could "moderate" Muslims rationalize these verses? Let us again compare Christianity:

Christianity is based on a central philosophy built into the New Testament that effectively deprecates Moses' teachings from the Old Testament. It does away with this old law and replaces it with the new law put forward by Jesus Christ (John 1:17). This is because the old law was inadequate for the salvation of men (Acts 13:39) and it was an unsustainable way of resolving conflict (Matthew 5:43-45) — a way that's still being upheld by even moderate Islam.

But it doesn't stop there. While the Bible does talk about indoctrination (2 Corinthians 5:11), it is not the type that requires violence. In fact, Jesus even went as far as to tell his disciples that if people reject the gospel that they bring to them, that they should just walk away, shaking the very dust of the city that they visited from their sandals (Matt 10:14, Mark 6:11).

Where is there such a call in the Qur'an? I scoured the Muslim holy book from cover to cover and I couldn't find an even remotely comparable equivalent. What I did find however, were several verses that called for the expression of compassion (Qur'an 90:12-17), goodness and maturity (7:199) and righteousness to be rewarded (16:97). I had even found a verse that admonishes peace towards those who don't persecute Muslims regarding their religion (60:8).

However, there are no scriptures in the Qur'an that repeal the commandments in 2:190-191 and 2:193. There is no clear context for Muhammad's revelation outlined in Al Baqarah (i.e. Book 2), that says that this violence is only for specific circumstances. Moderate Muslims say that the context is that of resistance to oppression. However, 2:193 has no such context. In fact, in many of the addenda to the Qur'an (called Hadiths), an expression regularly appears:


War is deceit

Muhammad, Prophet of Islam (Source)


That can only mean one thing. While I have no doubt that moderate Muslims genuinely believe that the Qur'an admonishes nothing but peace towards his brother (and believe me, I have been privy to such peaceful interactions with moderate Muslims), it is very hard to deny that these hadiths where Muhammad repeatedly makes this claim, are not also grossly unsettling.

What does the Ayatollah Say?


The Ayatollah Khomeini — the icon of Islamic Totalitarianism

What this seems to suggest is that moderate Islam is little more than a ploy to engender support from non believers, when its true intentions are far more sinister. As much as I do not wish to subscribe to such an interpretation, there has been one quotation from the Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran that reinforced all my darkest suspicions. Moderate Muslims should read this:

Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled or incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of [other] countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world...

But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world. . . . Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless.

Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]?

Islam says: Kill them [the non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us?

Islam says: Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean that we should surrender [to the enemy]?

Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors!

There are hundreds of other [Qur'anic] psalms and Hadiths [sayings of the Prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.


Ayatollah Khomeini

It's pretty hard to be moderate about that.


A matter of Context

Muhammad's troops attack a Quraysh convoy. This skirmish later escalated into full blown war.

However, like all ancient scripture, these were written in context of a long dead ideological war between polytheistic Arabians and a monotheistic ideological movement (Qur'an 9:36). Now that those wars have been won, some modern Muslims are looking for a new enemy in the super powers of America and Europe who have sanctioned the invasion into their lands.

Muhammad wrote all this after launching a first strike against a Quraysh convoy and then had to resort to full blown war when the Quraysh brought the fight back to him with a vengeance. Mohammad's first strike was a clear act of vengeance for the torment meted out to him and his people in Mecca. But the people in the convoy were innocent. They had no beef with him.

As a result, the Quraysh didn't take too kindly to his unprovoked attack and instead brought a small army to face him at an oasis called Badr. The Quraysh lost that fight, but brought it back to Muhammad in triple force. Now this is precisely why the Qur'an is written in the way it was, sanctioning violence against those who persecute Muslims, basically telling them to kill 'em all.

If Mohammad was a pacifist like the Christians' Jesus, 800 Jews would not have had to die. They wouldn't have felt that their loyalty to the Quraysh (with whom they had traded) was being threatened by their impending attack. Their betrayal was an act of survival, even though it ultimately backfired. Muslims tend to forget this part of the history, except the killing of Jews.

So this is the lesson some modern Muslims learn from Mohammad: fight for you faith — even if it means killing a few thousand people in the process. Of course, the Qur'an doesn't say this (at least, not explicitly). However, what it does say can be easily construed (not misconstrued) as waging a war against people who don't share their ideological position. That's not really a misinterpretation of the Qur'an. That's what it actually says. This is why it is such a problem.

Islamophobia

Muslims span a wide variety of human phenotypes and cultures.

It is commonly stated that the image we have in our heads of the angry Muslim wearing a turban and a bomb strapped to his chest has become something of an offensive stereotype. I can imagine that it is offensive to moderate Muslims, especially since the Qur'an does forbid committing acts of suicide (Qur'an 4:29-30), which is the only scripture that condemns suicide bombers. According to the Qur'an, they will not get 72 virgins. They're all going straight to hell.

What is a stereotype however, is the assumption that all Muslims wear turbans or that they are middle eastern. After 9/11, I can't tell how many people I've heard saying that if they saw a Muslim come onto a plane that they would take them down — as if they would know what a Muslim would look like. Most Muslims look like regular people. In America, they are often clean shaven people who wear business suits and are virtually of every race known to modern man.

There are Bedouin Muslims (Northern Africa). There are Afghan Muslims (Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh). There are Caucasian Muslims (Iran, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo). There are Negro Muslims (Somalia, Sierra Leone, Senegal, Sudan). There are Asian Muslims (Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei) and Indian Muslims. Heck, you probably even have Muslims living next door.

None of the people who attacked the United States on September 11, 2001 were wearing turbans. Most of them were indistinguishable from your average South East Asian male under 30. They looked just like the middle eastern guy who owns the electronics store down the road. Some of them have university degrees. Others can even have a dead pan British accent.

The dude on the left is Muslim. The dude on the right is Sikh. See the difference? Good! Moving along.
You can't tell who is a Muslim just by looking at them. That's why most of the revenge killings on 9/11 weren't even of Muslims. They were of Sikhs — a (genuinely) peaceful monotheistic religion not even remotely associated with Islam. On the contrary, that's also why European politicians are now becoming tough on immigration laws, without offending moderate Muslims.

Islamophobia is a real thing. One can be genuinely and dangerously discriminative of Muslims, to the point where even secular middle eastern immigrants (yes! they do exist!) are attacked in places like France, simply because they wear a beard and mustache or their women wear a scarf (hijab). France's new law banning the hijab is perhaps unconstitutionally sound, as it is a violation of human rights. However, that is the law of the land. Muslims aren't required to stay.

Corollary


With that said, it is not islamophobia when they really are trying to kill you. Immigration laws in The Netherlands, Germany and France that have targeted Muslim populations are perfectly reasonable for all the same reasons why it is impossible to differentiate between moderate and militant Muslims in the Schengen visa line. The immigration officer has to use their gut.

Then again, if Muslims didn't attack the World Trade Center, (twice for that matter), bomb the US embassy in Kenya, bomb the USS Cole, bomb the transportation system in London, bomb the transportation system in Madrid, bomb the night club in Indonesia, kill Theo Van Gogh in The Netherlands, or totally lose their cool over Kurt Westergaard's cartoons in Denmark, and a myriad of other atrocities I can't even be bothered to mention, then maybe (and this is a long shot), just maybe there wouldn't be such Islamophobia in the first place. It is a vicious cycle.

Doctrinal Issues

The Qur'an has a number of doctrinal problems.

The common declaration by Muslims is that Islam is a continuation of the word of God to man after that word had been corrupted in previous iterations. Even if I were to still consider myself a believer, that would be very hard to believe. There are several problems with this declaration and none of them are theological. So allow me to demonstrate using simple logic:

Continuity Problems


It makes no sense for god to repeat his message a third time to mankind for all the same reasons he gave his word to the first two times. If his word had been corrupted twice before when he gave it to man, what makes Muslims think that giving it a third time would prevent against the same type of corruption a third time? If Islam really is a religion of peace, then I can imagine no greater corruption than God's word of peace being converted to one of war.

Message Problems


700 years before Islam, there was Christianity. 3,000 years before Christianity, there was Judaism. In both religions, God had (eventually) commanded that his followers (whatever they called themselves) to not repay evil with evil. Virtually every religion that predated Islam has the message to turn the other cheek; repay evil with good; love your enemies; and so forth.

While Islam does have such a verse (Qur'an 41:34), there are far too many other verses that call for retaliation for most enterprising Muslims to take it seriously. It is a conflicting message and one that will ultimately be drowned out by the many calls to jihad, striving in the name of Allah and the celebration of martyrdom. That's why it's so difficult for Muslims to be moderate.

Epistemological Problems


If Islam is God's original word, then that means God is changing his mind by going back on his word as issued in the Bible. If God is changing his mind, then the certification that god doesn't change begins to lose some of its credibility. How can a god who never changes suddenly start to change his mind? Doesn't that invite doubt as to whether it is God's word or man's?

Consistency Problems


Why does Mohammad's initial revelations seem to show relative indifference to other religions (Qur'an 73:10, 88:21-24, 109:1-6) while he was yet with the Quraysh tribe, but as soon as he migrated to Medina where he consolidated his power in establishing the first Muslim state, that his message turns into a manifesto of violent indoctrination (Qur'an 2:193, 8:12, 66:9)?

Why would Allah first abhor suicide (Qur'an 4:29-30) but embrace an act of willful martyrdom (Qur'an 4:74) in the SAME book? How do Muslims expect people who are not believers to treat them, when the Qur'an doesn't expect Muslims to treat unbelievers first as brothers? (Qur'an 48:29) Wouldn't that suggest that Mohammad may be inherently duplicitous? (Qur'an 3:28).

Why do so many of Mohammad's subsequent revelations contradict each other? After reading the Qur'an, one is struck by the very distinct impression that the prophet seems to have been conceding to popular opinion simply to avoid persecution. I think more than anything else that this is a revelation of the humanity inherent in the prophet. I'll give him that much. Even Jesus flinched just before he was crucified. I guess if even a god could flinch, I guess so can a man.

That brings up to another issue:

Reliability Problems


The prophet Mohammad once spoke about an additional three gods besides Allah, namely Lat, Uzzah and Manat (Qur'an 53:19-22). This was apparently during one of his weaker periods where he and his followers were under great persecution, causing him to briefly concede to the polytheists of Mecca. He later retracted this concession, saying that it was the product of the whisperings of Satan (Qur'an 22:52-53). They are famously known as the Satanic verses.

However, that is not my problem. This sort of back and forth is intrinsic to the Qur'an. First it encourages peace, then it promotes war. It says to forgive your enemies, but it also says you should slay them. It is indifferent to unbelievers, but it also says you should kill them all and establish a world of Islam. The Qur'an can't seem to make up it's mind on all these matters.

In fact, this constant back and forth from the prophet (peace be upon him) has created in my mind a very serious reliability issue. I already knew I couldn't trust the writings in the Bible due to its vast number of inconsistencies. However, the fact that the prophet (may Allah be pleased with him) had a moment of weakness has led to the most important question here: How do I know with certainty that the rest of the Qur'an is not also whisperings from Satan?


Losing the Message


In the Bible, Jesus talks about the abolition of the old law and the establishment of the new one. Instead of having ten commandments, he issued two: 1) Love God with all your heart and mind, and 2) love your neighbour as yourself. These commandments are so profoundly simple and yet so all encompassing, that it is difficult to see the need to add anything more to them. That is the true elegance of the Christian message (even with all of its inherent flaws).

I personally have no interest in religion as a philosophical way of life. I believe that morality is an inherently genetic component that is built into all of us. We don't need an invisible man in the sky to tell us right from wrong. We invented that necessity because we haven't yet come to grips with the idea that we are wholly capable of being good to each other all on our own.

When we instead rely upon the teachings of an ancient man who (for all I can tell) relied on the voices in his head to tell him the difference between right and wrong, then we are doing nothing more than switching off our own built in capacity for advanced morality and relying upon a grossly outdated culture to guide us as to what we should believe as right or wrong.

The power of this delusion is no better demonstrated than the absent minded nature of a set of people who care so little for the image of their faith, that they would gladly murder themselves and other innocent people just so that they can gain the banal earthly pleasures of food and sex. Not since the crusades has any religion incited such blood lust and mayhem.

It is a true testament to the primitive nature of the minds that become deluded by the more aggressive messages of Islam. I make no bones about the fact that Christianity does have its problems. However, if I were to take a mindless dolt and bring him up in parallel universes, one in which he was raised a Christian and another where he was raised a Muslim, I'm pretty sure that he would do much more damage as a Muslim by virtue of teachings in the Qur'an.

If he was psychotic, it wouldn't make a difference.


It is still mind boggling to think that 1400 years after a camel riding merchant came up with a brilliant idea to unify Arabia, that the message had been completely lost before his death. It seems that war is in the blood of Islam. No sooner had Mohammad died, than the religion designed to unify Arabia become split between two warring factions, the Sunnis and Shias. The message of peace and unity it seems, was lost before it was even delivered successfully.

Islam's Effect On Race

There's no better contrast between Christianity and Islam than these two guys.

While I'm certain that Mohammad's message was intended to preserve the lives of those who subscribe to the Muslim faith, while simultaneously embracing those from all other cultures, races and backgrounds (Islam is certainly less racist than Christianity), it is very difficult for any rational person to look at the religion without feeling that it is a lot more like a religion of war.

To be fair, most of Christianity does embrace the violent indoctrination of the Old Testament, where the children of Israel marched upon and slaughtered many other indigenous cultures, simply because they worshiped another god or as vengeance for past affliction. To make matters worse, the Old Testament makes it seem that all other races of man (namely blacks and middle eastern phenotypes) were the product of a curse Noah placed on one of his sons.

Islam by contrast welcomed all races — white men, black men, brown men, yellow men, rich men, poor men, women and children. This is not to say that there aren't racist Muslims out there and Allah knows they haven't treated their women really well either. However, the mass migration of blacks to Islam during the civil rights era in the US is a testament to the less than friendly qualities of Judeo-Christianity to race. It is yet another reason why I can't embrace it.

Even so, you could tell the vast difference between the doctrines during the negro civil rights upheaval in America during the 1960's as iconified by two black men: Martin Luther King and Malcom X. Dr. King embraced the pacifist doctrine of Christianity. Malcolm X embraced Islam. Today, King is remembered for starting the movement that eventually won black people the right to be treated fairly. Malcolm X is also remembered fondly, bust mostly as a militant thug.

Only one of these men was revered by history. Only one of these men would eventually be embraced by white America. Then again, White America is inextricably Christian and it may have nothing to do with the pacifist doctrine of Christianity. Malcolm X never believed that blacks and whites could live together in harmony. That is not far from the doctrine in Islam.

While I can't say that Christianity is less guilty of being responsible for sectarianism and war, at least Christianity is pretty consistent about its doctrine of peace. It would be quite a long shot to use a passage that says to "turn the other cheek" as a means of justifying a suicide bombing. Christ's doctrine simply doesn't sanction killing by any stretch of the imagination.

Notice that I make the distinction between Christ's doctrine and the Old Testament. Those Christians who still defend any the tenets of the Old Testament are completely on their own.

Conclusively

It's amazing that this holy book is the cause of so much human suffering.

However, I don't need to justify Christianity to expose the doctrinal fallacies of Islam. While I'm sure there are many very decent, loving, law abiding, caring, nurturing Muslims out there (believe me, I've met my fair share of them), they need to understand that people outside of the religion have long been poisoned by the actions of those whom they now call extremists.

According to the Qur'an, there's no such thing as a Muslim extremist. They are only doing what the Qur'an says, that the better of you have learned to properly contextualize for its time. Most of you would never fly a passenger jet into an office building or blow up yourselves to take the lives of those who hate you. The large majority of Muslims really don't hate anyone.

That being said, it is now clear that Allah is desperately in need of a new Public Relations representative as blood thirsty infidels have infiltrated Islam — or is it that Islam has created blood thirsty infidels? War on terror aside, it is up to moderate Muslims to salvage what's left of their religion before the rest of the world turns this ideological conflict into a 3rd world war.

Either way, the damage to the name has already been done. Even now while the Arabic world erupts in revolt against the old ways of Islamic governance, there is still a side of secularists however, that will never trust the name of Islam ever again. Even as a new democratic Islamic party (I'm not making this up) comes to power in Tunisia, its promises of secularist governance will never be trusted by secular Tunisians. They are aware of what happened to Iran in 1979.

History has a nasty habit of repeating itself.

End of Part 2


Do secular Tunisians actually have something to fear? Can a democratically elected Islamic government resist the temptation to impose Sharia law and go the full extent of what the Qur'an demands? If you think that Secular Tunisians are over reacting about their elected moderate Islamic government, then you probably need another history lesson about Islam and governance as the freshly liberated Libya has just declared that they will follow Sharia law. The 3rd and final part in this series will show why democratic Islam is really an oxymoron.


E-mail: accordingtoxen[at]gmail[dot]com

7 comments:

  1. I really look forward to your 3rd post, master Xen. As a non-muslim living in Indonesia, I feel all the pain and they still say claim that they love democracy. It is interesting to see how someone like you see it :D

    ReplyDelete
  2. I used to love reading you're journal entries because they were well written, in my opinion, regardless of whether I agreed with them or not.

    On the whole, I know you enjoy taking contrarian views, because that's who you will always be. I can appreciate that.

    This time though, you seem to be spouting some common misnomers, and you're opinions and logic show enough fallacy to some one who HAS studied Islam. It makes me wonder how much else of your writing is filled with this same proneness to circular reasoning and common misnomers.

    You say you've scoured the quranic text at one point, but that isn't true. First of all, the quran is only in arabic, what you're ''scouring'' is a western translation. Unless you read arabic, which I doubt. There's a critical distinction between the translation and the original text, because much can be lost or changed in the meaning.

    Secondly, you're spouting about islamic sharia as if it's a terrifying thing. If you had any real insight, you realize that islamic sharia doesn't justify the slaughter of non muslims and the injust doctrinization forcibly on others. It actually enforces the rule of other people's beliefs. So if you're christian or agnostic, and you commit some offense, you're allowed to choose to be tried by your own standards. It brings relief to society in that sense.

    Thirdly, you can't give examples of ayatollah's and other countries giving sharia law and the ignorance of their methods because no country on earth follows the actual sharia. This is commonly understood by 95% of muslims world wide. This should be common knowledge.

    Fourthly, the ayatollah is a sharia thing, and not a mainstream muslim clergyman.

    Finally, I will say no more other than this, you have to understand you can't quote the advice of the quran out of context. Each piece of advise is given for the period in which the dilemma was being had, so in one period during one circumstance it may say to fight, when the muslims are a minority being persecuted by others. When it actually established power, during that period the advise was wholly different.

    I just realized, to my great dismay, you're just as ignorant and full of yourself as most people. You're just smart enough to wrap it up in ornamental wording.

    I'm letting go of an old friend here. It makes me sad.

    Continue believing what you do. I'm sure that you will. A man with your ego...

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Even now while the Arabic world erupts in revolt against the old ways of Islamic governance, there is still a side of secularists however, that will never trust the name of Islam ever again. "

    -There hasn't been an islamic government being over thrown in the middle east since the ottoman empire. Iraq was a secularist party the baath party that was over thrown, syria is too, egypt isn't a muslim government at all infact they ban certain islamic books.

    Get your facts straight man, i just realized for the first time how much you're talking out of your rear end. WOW. I thought you were smart.

    ReplyDelete
  4. DR,

    I have a bone or four to pick with your comments:

    DR: wrote: "I used to love reading you're journal entries... I know you enjoy taking contrarian views... This time though, you seem to be spouting some common misnomers....It makes me wonder how much else of your writing is filled with this same proneness to circular reasoning."

    When you make a claim like THAT, you're going to have to cite a few examples and qualify your statement, otherwise, all I can see are two comments making a stab in the dark because I dared to step on your toes.

    When I was stepping on the toes of black people, women, white people and all of humanity, you never had a problem until I stepped on Islam's toes. I'm thinking of a H-word....

    Don't you find that a bit curious, mate? That you have been reading my blog for long enough to "like" it, until I had something to say about Islam? Doesn't that call into question the validity of your claims of "circular logic", (which I doubt you know the meaning of). Yes, sir. I'm calling your bluff.

    Show me the circular logic. Let's debate it. You don't get to make a claim like that without examples. Otherwise, you're just spouting hot air because you're angry. Come on. Back up your claims. Let's have a go at it.

    [Continued...]

    ReplyDelete
  5. DR wrote:
    "You say you've scoured the quranic text at one point, but that isn't true. First of all, the quran is only in arabic, what you're ''scouring'' is a western translation. Unless you read arabic, which I doubt. There's a critical distinction between the translation and the original text, because much can be lost or changed in the meaning. "

    This is a laughable point at best. Allow me to explain:

    Did you even visit the links to each of the passages I quote from the Qur'an? There are seven translations there for every verse. Are you telling me that that 7 different western translations are all wrong? Oh please.

    That argument would fly only if the translations were done by people for whom Arabic is not their mother tongue. So this is a straw man argument at best. Here, let me give you a match.

    Which one of the scriptures have I quoted were improperly translated? How can you say "slay the infidels wherever you find them" in Arabic such that it doesn't translate to that in English?

    Finally, I have had every Qur'anic quote vetted by a Muslim scholar who does read Arabic (which is why it took me over a year to complete these posts). So please, give me a break.

    [Continued...]

    ReplyDelete
  6. DR wrote:
    "Secondly, you're spouting about islamic sharia as if it's a terrifying thing. If you had any real insight, you realize that islamic sharia doesn't justify the slaughter of non muslims and the injust doctrinization forcibly on others. It actually enforces the rule of other people's beliefs. So if you're christian or agnostic, and you commit some offense, you're allowed to choose to be tried by your own standards. It brings relief to society in that sense."

    Irrelevant. It also justifies:

    1. The subjugation of women (you avoided that)
    2. Brutal punishment for petty crimes (you also avoided that)

    Why did you ignore these points (which I actually raised in the post)? The points you raised are irrelevant because they side step the more horrific qualities of Sharia which was the intention of the post. How convenient is that?

    DR wrote:
    "Thirdly, you can't give examples of ayatollah's and other countries giving sharia law and the ignorance of their methods because no country on earth follows the actual sharia. This is commonly understood by 95% of muslims world wide. This should be common knowledge"

    Nonsense. If the Ayatollah and countless other Imams around the world are not calling for a ubiquitous review of Sharia law (or calling on other countries to review their implementation of it), then you cannot speak for 95% of Muslims — and yet you talk about me pulling stuff out of my rear end.

    Where did you find a study that quotes 95% of Muslims to understand Sharia as only partially implemented? That's right. No such study exists. You pulled it out of your... well... you just made that up.

    C'mon man. You had to know that I would call you out on that. That's debating 101 bro.

    [Continued...]

    ReplyDelete
  7. DR wrote:
    "Fourthly, the ayatollah is a sharia thing, and not a mainstream muslim clergyman."

    Tell that to his face. ;)

    DR wrote:
    "Finally, I will say no more other than this, you have to understand you can't quote the advice of the quran out of context. Each piece of advise is given for the period in which the dilemma was being had, so in one period during one circumstance it may say to fight, when the muslims are a minority being persecuted by others. When it actually established power, during that period the advise was wholly different."

    Irrelevant. I have already discussed the context of the passages in GREAT DEPTH. Nothing was quoted out of context. The problem, DR, is that 95% of Muslim extremists (yes, I just made that figure up) are the ones quoting the Qur'an out of context and using it to justify the wanton and indiscriminate murder of innocents.

    You're just pissed that I questioned your religion as a device for mass slaughter. So your comment is nothing more than a common straw man argument.

    DR wrote:
    "There hasn't been an islamic government being over thrown in the middle east since the ottoman empire. Iraq was a secularist party the baath party that was over thrown, syria is too, egypt isn't a muslim government at all infact they ban certain islamic books."

    Irrelevant. The posts never claim that Egypt and Syria were Islamic governments. Islamic Governance here refers to "authoritarian rule". I made that clear repeatedly as I am well aware that these countries' dictators are not Muslims. Their overthrow is a turning point in the history of the religion as it's tradition for authoritarian governance will not be tolerated by the people. They want democracy, and democracy doesn't jive with Islam. That was the point of the third post.

    As it is clear that you:

    1. Didn't bother to read the post
    2. Are clearly having an emotional response

    ...it calls into question the validity, nay, the necessity of your argument.

    DR wrote:
    "WOW. I thought you were smart"

    You thought correctly. I just proved it. QED.

    DR wrote:
    "I just realized, to my great dismay, you're just as ignorant and full of yourself as most people. You're just smart enough to wrap it up in ornamental wording."

    I realized from the outset, to my great joy, that like every believer, you're just as ignorant of your religion (as are Christians of theirs) and full of self righteousness as most Muslims I have been lucky enough not to meet. You're just not smart enough to wrap it up in ornamental writing.

    How's that for an ego?

    DR wrote:
    "I'm letting go of an old friend here. It makes me sad."

    Get off your high horse. We were never friends.

    As-Salamu Alaykum,
    Xen

    ReplyDelete