Islamaphobia, bigotry, hate, and cruelty!

[SomeRandom]

You are a Polytheist. Muhammad said "slay the Idolators wherever you find them". They were the primary target of his wrath!

Not really a polytheist, but okay.
Throughout history the tolerance of Muslim rulers were inconsistent to say the least. If you want to take on that much baggage, good luck to you. I just found it toxic, making myself angry over past grudges and misdeeds done to ancestors long since dead. It's unhealthy at best.

The Koran bashes and dehumanizes people like you more than Jews, Christians, or anyone.

So does the Torah, the Bible and even certain Hindu scriptures. (Minus the Jews and Christians parts respectively, obviously.)

Polytheists occupied Mecca. Muslims make pilgrimage there to celebrate Muhammad's victory over the Idolators, and the destruction of their shrines, Idols, and all they held as sacred, and the mass slaying of these "Idolatrous enemies of Allah"!

Yes, I am well aware of the trespasses. I've learned about them all my life. Don't come into the dogfight now and get all haughty like you lost something, y'all came to the party thousands of years too late to do that.

Don't pretend there aren't countless people like you and me living in constant fear, trembling, persecution, and misery, under Islamic Theocracies as we speak. Idolators are a Satanic abomination to Allah!

Don't pretend to understand their plight, the intricacies, the cultural clashes nor indeed the various nuances that continue to rule their existence. I can't even truly comprehend the underling battle for control in Fiji, and my own mother is from there!
You're not living like that. I'm not living like that. It's all very easy to bluster on the internet in a first world country.
You're so concerned? Awesome, go campaign your closest international affairs minister. Do a documentary, go on a Ted Talk I dunno. Petition the Government. There are far more productive ways than trying to create a frenzied mob. That rarely turns out well.

I don't think that about Polytheists, because I reject bigotry in the Bible as well, thanks to people like me exposing the ugly, disgusting, repulsive, psychotic truth, in a way that i could see how sick and repulsive it was!

Well didn't you read it in the first place when you were a Catholic? I mean surely that was cause of at least some contemplation in your faith?
Why did it take other people pointing it out to you? Surely you can read? (Or listen to it on audio, whatever.)

 

[Spiderman]

Not really a polytheist, but okay.
Throughout history the tolerance of Muslim rulers were inconsistent to say the least. If you want to take on that much baggage, good luck to you. I just found it toxic, making myself angry over past grudges and misdeeds done to ancestors long since dead. It's unhealthy at best.


So does the Torah, the Bible and even certain Hindu scriptures. (Minus the Jews and Christians parts respectively, obviously.)


Yes, I am well aware of the trespasses. I've learned about them all my life. Don't come into the dogfight now and get all haughty like you lost something, y'all came to the party thousands of years too late to do that.


Don't pretend to understand their plight, the intricacies, the cultural clashes nor indeed the various nuances that continue to rule their existence. I can't even truly comprehend the underling battle for control in Fiji, and my own mother is from there!
You're not living like that. I'm not living like that. It's all very easy to bluster on the internet in a first world country.
You're so concerned? Awesome, go campaign your closest international affairs minister. Do a documentary, go on a Ted Talk. There are far more productive ways than trying to create a frenzied mob. That rarely turns out well.


Well didn't you read it in the first place when you were a Catholic? I mean surely that was cause of at least some contemplation in your faith?
Why did it take other people pointing it out to you? Surely you can read? (Or listen to it on audio, whatever.)

No,
As a Catholic, i read about how horrible the Albigensian heretics were, and how Saint Dominic saw the Virgin Mary, received the Rosary, and went forth to win miraculous victories against them.

I had to hear people take the ugly stuff and make it sound as ugly as possible.

Or hear an atheist say "In the Bible, God had children killed for disrespecting parents, people killed for burning incense the wrong way, descendants of ham cursed for gazing at Noah naked, children mauled by bears for making fun of a "bald head", people killed for working on the wrong day of the week? What would we think of laws that kill people for working on the wrong day of the week? THATS ****ING PSYCHOTIC! And God is going to burn us atheists and non-christians in hell forever and ever and EVER JUST FOR NOT BELIEVING IN THE D*UCHEBAG!!! Really??"

In other words, I needed p*ssed off atheists to shove what I already read into my face, so that it looked as ugly, asinine, cruel, and psychotic as possible, before a light-bulb turned on and it sunk in! "Wow! Every fiber of my being finds this sick, depressing, and wrong"!

 

[SomeRandom]

No,
As a Catholic, i read about how horrible the Albigensian heretics were, and how Saint Dominic saw the Virgin Mary, received the Rosary, and went forth to win miraculous victories against them.

I had to hear people take the ugly stuff and make it sound as ugly as possible.

Or hear an atheist say "In the Bible, God had children killed for disrespecting parents, people killed for burning incense the wrong way, descendants of ham cursed for gazing at Noah naked, children mauled by bears for making fun of a "bald head", people killed for working on the wrong day of the week? What would we think of laws that kill people for working on the wrong day of the week? THATS ****ING PSYCHOTIC! And God is going to burn us atheists and non-christians in hell forever and ever and EVER JUST FOR NOT BELIEVING IN THE D*UCHEBAG!!! Really??"

In other words, I needed p*ssed off atheists to shove what I already read into my face, so that it looked as ugly, asinine, cruel, and psychotic as possible, before a light-bulb turned on and it sunk in! "Wow! Every fiber of my being finds this sick, depressing, and wrong"!

So you needed an objective perspective in order to push past all the propaganda?

 

[Augustus]

So to question the answer of Muhammad and antisemitism the answer with facts is an astounding no....

Thanks for your reply.

You seem to have misunderstood what I was saying though as I never argued that Muhammad should be seen as anti-semitic. I said that the label was anachronistic and thus wasn't relevant to the 7th C. This implicitly means I was arguing he wasn't anti-Semitic.

Because I'm not Muslim and because for fear I may misinterpret the text I chose to not go in-depth on the subject.

One of the problems with using Islamic sources for this period is that they are really theological texts rather than historical ones. In case you think this makes me awfully biased, it's no different to being sceptical regarding the Gospels as portraying objective history.

The sources about Muhammad's life get more detailed the later they are written, which was centuries after the fact. In addition parts often appear to be written to explain the Quran. Early exegetes clearly didn't know how to interpret certain passages and orthodoxy emerged much later. The same is true for the sirah.

To accept the accuracy from a historical perspective would require one to believe that early Muslims managed to accurately record even the most trivial details about Muhammad's life, while also forgetting far more important things, such as who counted as 'people of the book'.

According to Watt, in the book Muhammad, Prophet, and Statesman, the author states "the Banu Qurayza were killed not because of their faith but for "treasonable activities against the Medinan community" (p. 170-176). Watt also notes that the treatment of the Banu Qurayza was "regular Arab practice." So according to these authors the treatment of this Jewish tribe had nothing to do with the fact that they were Jewish, but the fact that they broke a pact with the Muslims who were being hunted by the Quraysh, and were punished. In fact, there are some claims that the execution of the Banu Quraysh was done in accordance to Judaic Law (Torah), however this is disputed. Regardless, the execution of the Jewish tribe doe snot present any antisemitic link to Muhammad. The punishment was in relation to the treasonable actions of the tribe thus not making Muhammad antisemitic. In fact, the Jews were allowed to be judged according to their own law:

While Watt's scholarship is a bit outdated due to it predated the paradigm shift away from uncritically trusting the Islamic sources, I agree with your overall idea.

While early Islamic sources are notable for their absence, most historian agree that the Treaty of Medina is genuinely historical (although only known from later sources). In this Muhammad establishes a covenant between the proto-Muslims, Jews and Christians.

One of the reasons it's seen as historical is the criteria of embarrassment as it is unlikely to have been fabricated later on due to changing theological positions re people of the book. Attitudes had somewhat hardened as the Muslim identity became more distinct and noticeably separate. For example, the early shahada didn't mention Muhammad at all, only 'no God, but God'.

In addition we know that the Arab conquests also featured Christians and Jews fighting alongside the proto-Muslims. The degree of antagonism against these communities may actually reflect 8th/9th C sensibilities rather than 7th.

The relationship between Arabs and the Jews in the time of Muhammad was more of a relationship between kinsman. Both trace their lineages between Ishmael and Isaac. The commonality that Muhammad saw in the Jews in his time was their common worship of Allah, the One God of all the living and non-living things in the universe. Muhammad believed in their prophet Moses and respected and believed in their law the Torah as he believed it was the book sent to them by God. Although this common respect was religious, Muhammad held political ties with Jews in his time as well and as per Arab custom held their oath by their word.

Well many 'Arabs' were Jews at this time, just as they were Christians. Also, it's pretty debatable if an Arab self-identity existed at this point.

Paganism had all but died out in South Arabia based on the archeological record. There was significant conflict between Jews and Christians in Himyar in the period leading up to Muhammed's life. The North Arabian Tribes such as the Ghassanids and the Lakhmids were aligned with the 2 Empires and formed the bulk of the Roman military and a significant part of the Persian one. They were Christians.

The Persians had been using Jews as proxies in East Arabia, the Romans used Christians in the South, West and in Ethiopia to try to control the region.

It's plausible, although speculative, that the Muslim community developed out of Arabs who were aligned with the Romans, and that some of the cultural memory of fighting Jewish tribes has telescoped into the Sirah. There is some evidence that events that predate Muhammad appear in the Sirah (for example the Year of the Elephant is a fictionalised version of an actual conflict decades earlier).

In general though there was a lot of interaction between the groups, and the idea that Arabia was an isolated pagan backwater as per the canonical Islamic history is misleading. But I agree with you that Muhammad did have political ties with Jewish groups during his lifetime.

(If you want sources for any of this then I'll dig them out)

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Thanks for your reply.

You seem to have misunderstood what I was saying though as I never argued that Muhammad should be seen as anti-semitic. I said that the label was anachronistic and thus wasn't relevant to the 7th C. This implicitly means I was arguing he wasn't anti-Semitic.

Ok.

One of the problems with using Islamic sources for this period is that they are really theological texts rather than historical ones.

In discussing the history of the Banu Quarayza I used a non-Muslim source:

But you're also wrong. A lot of Muslim scholars use a combination of sources in conjunction with a particular topic of interest concerning a period in Islamic history. Not sure where you got the idea that they use pure theological ones because that notion is false.

The sources about Muhammad's life get more detailed the later they are written, which was centuries after the fact. In addition parts often appear to be written to explain the Quran. Early exegetes clearly didn't know how to interpret certain passages and orthodoxy emerged much later. The same is true for the sirah.

How did you come up with this? What is Sirah? Are you referring to a Surah?

For example, the early shahada didn't mention Muhammad at all, only 'no God, but God'.

Do you have evidence of this, if so post it?

 

[Augustus]

In discussing the history of the Banu Quarayza I used a non-Muslim source:

But you're also wrong. A lot of Muslim scholars use a combination of sources in conjunction with a particular topic of interest concerning a period in Islamic history. Not sure where you got the idea that they use pure theological ones because that notion is false.

What I said was that the early Islamic sources are closer to theology than they are to objective history. This is not surprising seeing as history in pre-modern times wasn't an exercise in dispassionate objectivity, but generally written in support of an agenda or to provide justifications for the current state of affairs.

Traditionally, historians from the Islamic world and from the West have taken such sources as factual history, whereas it's long been the tradition not to do that regarding the Bible for example. More recently, especially since Crone and Cook's Hagarism, there has been a change to viewing the rise of Islam from within the context of Late Antiquity in the Middle East, rather than seeing Islam as something that emerged magically fully formed from an isolated pagan backwater.

How did you come up with this? What is Sirah? Are you referring to a Surah?

Sirah/Sira/Sirat = the prophetic biography

How did I come up with it? As I've told you before, I'm interested in the subject so I read about it.

My favourite quote showing how many details of the Sira took a long time to become canonised:

According to various Muslim sources Muhammad "was born in the Year of the Elephant, or fifty days after the attack of the troops of the Elephant, or thirty years after the Year of the Elephant, or forty years after the Year of the Elephant Many traditions are recorded in Ibn N~ al-Din's Jami' al-iithiu, fols. 179b-180b:the Prophet was born in the Year of the Elephant, he received the Revelation forty years after the Elephant (The fight at - K.) 'Ukaz took place fifteen years after the Elephant and the Ka'ba was built twenty-five years after the Elephant; the Prophet was born thirty days after the Elephant, or fifty days, or fifty-five days, or two months and six days, or ten years; some say twenty years, some say twenty-three years, some say thirty years, some say that God sent the Prophet with his mission fifteen years after the Ka'ba was built, and thus there were seventy years between the Elephant and the mission (mab'aJh) of the Prophet; some say that he was born fifteen years before the Elephant, some say forty days or fifty days, some say thirty years before the Elephant, and finally, some say that there were ten years between the expedition of the Elephant and the mission"

What are your views on the historical reliability of early Islamic sources?

Do you have evidence of this, if so post it?

The earliest attested is from 71AH, whereas earlier inscriptions don't contain this formulation


This Egyptian scholar also noted that ^Abbasa, the woman named on the stele, was the daughter of Jurayj [Little George] son of Sanad, and that both names were associated with Copts [lines 5–6]. Therefore, he concluded that she must have converted to Islam. From the data on the tomb- stone he also determined that the date of her death was 14 Dhu l-Qa^da 71 or 21 April 691 C.E...

Turning now to the issue of the formula for the Muslim “affirmation of faith”, we read on ‘Abbasa’s tombstone her confessing (wa-hiya tashhadu): alla ilaha illallahu / wahdahu la sharika lahu wa-anna / muhammadan ^abduhu wa-rasuluhu salla llahu ^alayhi wa-sallama, “there is no deity except God, He alone, He has no partner, and that Mu1ammad is His Servant and His Messenger”

From:
Early Versions of the shahada: A Tombstone from Aswan of 71 A.H., the Dome of the Rock, and Contemporary Coinage - Bacharach, Jere L; Anwar, Sherif. (via Proquest)
http://search.proquest.com/openview...ab31813d94c1/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=28019

Also the terms Islam/Muslim seem to be late developing:

"It is by now commonly known that the early followers of the Prophet Muḥammad were not primarily titled Muslims, muslimūn. Rather, the documentary Arabic evidence shows that they called themselves “Believ- ers,” muʾminūn.1 It must be admitted that there are some Qurʾānic passages where muslimūn and islām seem to be employed as technical terms...

But outside the Qurʾān, the word Islam, as a name of the religion, appears for the first time on the tombstone of a woman named ʿAbbāsa dated 71AH/ 691 CE.3 There, the Believers are called ahl al-islām. The first definitely datable evidence of the usage of the word muslimūn, in the sense of adherents of Islam, is from 123 Ah / 741 Ce,4 although it was probably used widely even before that.5 Thus, the change from a “community of Believers to [a] community of Muslims”6 was a rather slow one, at least appellation-wise. Islam seems to have been a distinct religion from early on, but it took some decades, if not more, for its characteristics to become shaped."

(Muhājirūn as a Name for the First/ Seventh Century Muslims - Illka Lindstedt)


For some early Islamic inscriptions/graffiti see, you'll see early ones tend not to mention Muhammad, just God and perhaps the caliph.

https://www.islamic-awareness.org/history/islam/inscriptions/

This one is interesting as it mysteriously starts with a Christian cross:

The translation of the inscription is:

1. In the days of the servant of God Muʿāwiya (abdalla Maavia), the commander
2. of the faithful (amēra almoumenēn) the hot baths of the
3. people there were saved and rebuilt
4. by ʿAbd Allāh son of Abū Hāshim (Abouasemou), the
5. governor, on the fifth of the month of December,
6. on the second day (of the week), in the 6th year of the indiction,
7. in the year 726 of the colony, according to the Arabs (kata Arabas) the 42nd year,
8. for the healing of the sick, under the care of Ioannes,
9. the official of Gadara.

 

[Katzpur]

Mormons still have vestiges of violence in their Temple ceremony.

You obviously haven't been in many years.

 

[robocop (actually)]

You obviously haven't been in many years.

vestige: a trace of something that is disappearing or no longer exists. Just the hand motions right? I talked with my mom about it. Oh yeah, and even if it is completely gone it's still a vestige because it is in people's minds!

 

[Sir Doom]

In what context do you use the word "subversive"?

Again, twisting my words, exploiting statistics, cherry-picking, with-us-or-against-us, etc. That I've detailed twice to you. This'll be the third time.

If you are talking about undermining Fascist policies, intolerant Theocracies, and threats to the liberties of millions and millions of people, then guilty as charged!

The fact you feel it necessary to attempt to undermine my ability to discern the truth in order to accomplish the above means the above is likely smoke aimed for my 4th point of contact. In other words, your methodology tells me different.

It's worthwhile to notify people of such errors and undermine barbaric cruelty that is damaging so many people, including the 1.4 billion Muslims drinking such poison!

What you spend your time doing is your decision, but your aren't breaking any news to me. I was in the US Army when 9-11 happened. This is the same dog and pony show people have been regurgitating since then and really since before then.

@Sir Doom
What are your Religious beliefs?

Incomplete, as stated. Not Muslim if that's what you are wondering. Relevance?

 

[Katzpur]

vestige: a trace of something that is disappearing or no longer exists. Just the hand motions right? I talked with my mom about it. Oh yeah, and even if it is completely gone it's still a vestige because it is in people's minds!

It's gone completely and has been for years. I know exactly what you're referring to and it no longer exists. It's now only in the minds of the very old (70+ ) and only when something reminds them.

 

[Spiderman]

Again, twisting my words, exploiting statistics, cherry-picking, with-us-or-against-us, etc. That I've detailed twice to you. This'll be the third time.



The fact you feel it necessary to attempt to undermine my ability to discern the truth in order to accomplish the above means the above is likely smoke aimed for my 4th point of contact. In other words, your methodology tells me different.



What you spend your time doing is your decision, but your aren't breaking any news to me. I was in the US Army when 9-11 happened. This is the same dog and pony show people have been regurgitating since then and really since before then.



Incomplete, as stated. Not Muslim if that's what you are wondering. Relevance?

And could you please show me how anything i said was falsehood?

"Slay Idolators, take no Jews as friends, the enemies of Allah shall be crucified, boiling water shall be poured on them, their hands and feet shall be cut off" etc. Are cruel sadistic content from the Koran.

Such torture and mutilation of others would be considered inhumane and psychopathic by modern standards.

If Americans did that to the Taliban prisoners identified as "terrorists" there would be outrage all over the media, regardless of what the terrorists were guilty of.

You just don't do that to anyone!

How was what i said falsehood and how are those tortures and mutilations not "cruel, sadistic, barbaric, inhumane, or psychopathic"?

 

[idav]

If there were a billion people in our world who adhered to Fascism, and most of those Fascists were "Peaceful, law-abiding citizens" who didn't hurt anyone, should we defend it as "peaceful" ideology, or call the condemnation of Fascism, "Fascist-phobia"?

Fascist governments tends to be intolerant which isn’t always the fault of its citizens. It kind of depends but a theocracy going by the Quran tends to be pretty intolerant indistinguishable from a fascist regime. I suppose not all fascism is necessarily evil just like how a theocracy isn’t necessarily intolerant but what are the chances.

 

[Spiderman]

Fascist governments tends to be intolerant which isn’t always the fault of its citizens. It kind of depends but a theocracy going by the Quran tends to be pretty intolerant indistinguishable from a fascist regime. I suppose not all fascism is necessarily evil just like how a theocracy isn’t necessarily intolerant but what are the chances.

There are many peaceful law-abiding fascists who are kind to others and compassionate.

I have met them in real life.

I don't think most people who embrace Fascism as an acceptable or ideal form of government, commit any acts of violence against others.

Many people embraced Fascism because it was originally intrinsically spiritual, and the Doctrine of Fascism condemns communism and secularism, while defending Christianity. It defends what secularists and communists were attacking.

Mussolini kept prayer in schools, closed down night clubs and places of immorality, worked with the Pope, condemned much of what the Pope condemned, and outlawed or voiced disapproval of what many Christians viewed as "sin". Mussolini defended many of the faith and morals Christians cherished.

Hence, many Fascists were or are devout Catholics.

 

[idav]

There are many peaceful law-abiding fascists who are kind to others and compassionate.

I have met them in real life.

I don't think most people who embrace Fascism as an acceptable or ideal form of government, commit any acts of violence against others.

Many people embraced Fascism because it was originally intrinsically spiritual, and the Doctrine of Fascism condemns communism and secularism, while defending Christianity. It defends what secularists and communists were attacking.

Mussolini kept prayer in schools, closed down night clubs and places of immorality, worked with the Pope, condemned much of what the Pope condemned, and outlawed or voiced disapproval of what many Christians viewed as "sin". Mussolini defended many of the faith and morals Christians cherished.

Hence, many Fascists were or are devout Catholics.

That’s why I see a similarity betweeen fascism and certain theocracy types. While many theocracies may be intolerant toward secularism not all religions hate atheists. Some may not resort to violence with their intolerance but seems like the next step. In a theocracy your good if your in the right religion otherwise watch out.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Excellent thread. Prepare for the fake feminists to emerge and try to defend Islamic men and the abusive practices of Islam and Islamic countries while simultaneously bashing white men and the non-existent western "patriarchy."

 

[Sir Doom]

And could you please show me how anything i said was falsehood?

Did I accuse you of that? Why don't you respond to what I am accusing you of, for the fourth time. You're running the totalitarian information control play book to the letter with your thread here. You are literally putting words in my mouth with this question. That's misinformation. Subversive word twisting to satisfy a hidden agenda laden with bigotry and painted to look like love. Its again, disgusting.

"Slay Idolators, take no Jews as friends, the enemies of Allah shall be crucified, boiling water shall be poured on them, their hands and feet shall be cut off" etc. Are cruel sadistic content from the Koran.

Such torture and mutilation of others would be considered inhumane and psychopathic by modern standards.

And that doesn't stop similar acts from happening around the world regardless. Even in your own backyard (I say that having no idea where you live because its everywhere, anyway). The outrage isn't there. Because they've got you looking over fences like a good little sheep. "Look, Popeadope! The bad guys are over there!"

Meanwhile, bribed cops turn a blind eye to drug-fueled prostitution/slavery rings in the heart of a free, secular nation. A process made possible by the lovely free and super liberating free doctrine of capitalism. Of course, we still prosecute the customers when they're stupid enough to solicit a tax-collector in disguise. Or, a drug-slave who thinks they don't need their master. Or a master who doesn't pay their cops. Again, all made possible by the lovely free and super non-apatheticly free and liberating doctrine of due-process, jury trial and self-incrimination. All of these things enable the violent, oppressive slave trade here in America.

Isn't that funny how something we generally consider a positive thing (capitalism, due process, jury trial and self-incrimination) can be exploited to horrible effect even in a secular society such as the United States. Of course if an Islamic radical calls the US a nation of prostitutes based on that they'd be guilty of running a subversive propaganda campaign because that's exactly what they'd be doing. Just like you are doing now with the Quran and Islam. Tracking yet?

If Americans did that to the Taliban prisoners identified as "terrorists" there would be outrage all over the media, regardless of what the terrorists were guilty of.

So you are calling for outrage in the media over passages in the Quran? Or over the ill treatment of women in other countries? Or the oppressive regimes that run this place or that? Honestly, I've been watching the news 30+ years, I'm pretty sure you have been missing something if you think there isn't already plenty of outrage in the media over exactly this. Where have you been living, under a rock?

You want media outrage and somehow this is supposed to convince me that you are not part of a totalitarian propaganda campaign? You just keep demonstrating it over and over.

You just don't do that to anyone!

Yes, actually. People have been doing that to each other forever. We'll never stop. You can destroy the instruments used, but you can't destroy the ideal. Its unfortunate, but violence and terror works to motivate people. That will be true even if no one ever breathed the word Islam or Muhammed ever again. So, you can point the finger at whatever you like and stack your bonfire of Qurans as high as you like. You'll never get rid of fascism no matter how fascist you become to defeat it.

How was what i said falsehood and how are those tortures and mutilations not "cruel, sadistic, barbaric, inhumane, or psychopathic"?

Again, stop putting words in my mouth. That is EXACTLY the 'us-or-them' mentality that drives the fascist ideal. Its broken and backwards and more to the point its completely ineffective. History has demonstrated this to us over and over and over and over again. Yet here you are, pretending to advocate peace yet calling for 'outrage' and labeling 'apathy' as enabling. The opposite of apathy is action. What action are you calling for here? How exactly do you expect to beat violent oppressors without resorting to violent oppression? Those that might stand up are not reading your thread, friend. Only those on the outside. So how do you propose we go about helping those that can't even hear your message without forcing it through violence? Where do we stand now? Decades of this, and we're still meant to discuss it? So long as we still think of 'them' as 'them' what does it matter to those that would steal your wits and will with clever posters?

For the record, I never accused you of falsehood, nor have I endorsed any of the horrible list you listed. That is you, again, putting words in my mouth like some kind of grand inquisitor trying me for witchery. Just because I disagree with YOU does not mean I endorse those you hate (I mean love, whatever you want to call it). That's classic totalitarian nonsense. You might want to stop doing that since you seem to be against such things so long as its happening 'over there'.

 

[`mud]

hey Doom,
That was a lot of word salad there.
What are you complaining to ?
Is his objection to superior masculine Muslim cruelty or something else ?
Or the fascist attitudes of some other people ?
It's not clear to me why your complaining ?
And....are the cartoons really necessary ?

 

[Sir Doom]

hey Doom,
That was a lot of word salad there.

I don't seek your approval. If you can't discern the meaning due to the number of words I use, I submit the fault is yours.

What are you complaining to ?
Is his objection to superior masculine Muslim cruelty or something else ?

Something else, obviously. I have explained it four times.

Or the fascist attitudes of some other people ?

Other people meaning the OP. I disagree with the fascist tactics being used by the OP.

It's not clear to me why your complaining ?

I don't know what you are confused about. I will state it for the fifth time.
THIS IS MY ISSUE HERE------->>>This thread is an example of information control indicative of totalitarian fascist propaganda.<-------------THIS IS MY ISSUE HERE
He is peddling prejudicial notions in guise of statistical facts. He has twisted my words to both support his own position and the position of his enemy. He has extrapolated a conclusion from a mostly useless statistic (instances of violence mentioned in the Quran vs. Doctrine of Fascism). He's called for outrage and action and does it all behind a mask of love and tolerance. He presents detailed lists of Muslim atrocities and then morbidly sounds off his greater acceptance of Fascist atrocities vs. Muslim atrocities. He has repeatedly accused me of siding with violence and oppression despite the fact that I abhor such things and have said nothing at all to support them. My only crime being to disagree with the moral authority of his 'fact' based statements. These are all classic subversive tactics employed to horrible effect by totalitarian regimes all over the globe and throughout history to control information.

And....are the cartoons really necessary ?

As necessary as any other signature, I suppose. What's the problem, exactly? Oh wait... I don't care at all.

 

[Spiderman]

Did I accuse you of that? Why don't you respond to what I am accusing you of, for the fourth time. You're running the totalitarian information control play book to the letter with your thread here. You are literally putting words in my mouth with this question. That's misinformation. Subversive word twisting to satisfy a hidden agenda laden with bigotry and painted to look like love. Its again, disgusting.



And that doesn't stop similar acts from happening around the world regardless. Even in your own backyard (I say that having no idea where you live because its everywhere, anyway). The outrage isn't there. Because they've got you looking over fences like a good little sheep. "Look, Popeadope! The bad guys are over there!"

Meanwhile, bribed cops turn a blind eye to drug-fueled prostitution/slavery rings in the heart of a free, secular nation. A process made possible by the lovely free and super liberating free doctrine of capitalism. Of course, we still prosecute the customers when they're stupid enough to solicit a tax-collector in disguise. Or, a drug-slave who thinks they don't need their master. Or a master who doesn't pay their cops. Again, all made possible by the lovely free and super non-apatheticly free and liberating doctrine of due-process, jury trial and self-incrimination. All of these things enable the violent, oppressive slave trade here in America.

Isn't that funny how something we generally consider a positive thing (capitalism, due process, jury trial and self-incrimination) can be exploited to horrible effect even in a secular society such as the United States. Of course if an Islamic radical calls the US a nation of prostitutes based on that they'd be guilty of running a subversive propaganda campaign because that's exactly what they'd be doing. Just like you are doing now with the Quran and Islam. Tracking yet?



So you are calling for outrage in the media over passages in the Quran? Or over the ill treatment of women in other countries? Or the oppressive regimes that run this place or that? Honestly, I've been watching the news 30+ years, I'm pretty sure you have been missing something if you think there isn't already plenty of outrage in the media over exactly this. Where have you been living, under a rock?

You want media outrage and somehow this is supposed to convince me that you are not part of a totalitarian propaganda campaign? You just keep demonstrating it over and over.



Yes, actually. People have been doing that to each other forever. We'll never stop. You can destroy the instruments used, but you can't destroy the ideal. Its unfortunate, but violence and terror works to motivate people. That will be true even if no one ever breathed the word Islam or Muhammed ever again. So, you can point the finger at whatever you like and stack your bonfire of Qurans as high as you like. You'll never get rid of fascism no matter how fascist you become to defeat it.



Again, stop putting words in my mouth. That is EXACTLY the 'us-or-them' mentality that drives the fascist ideal. Its broken and backwards and more to the point its completely ineffective. History has demonstrated this to us over and over and over and over again. Yet here you are, pretending to advocate peace yet calling for 'outrage' and labeling 'apathy' as enabling. The opposite of apathy is action. What action are you calling for here? How exactly do you expect to beat violent oppressors without resorting to violent oppression? Those that might stand up are not reading your thread, friend. Only those on the outside. So how do you propose we go about helping those that can't even hear your message without forcing it through violence? Where do we stand now? Decades of this, and we're still meant to discuss it? So long as we still think of 'them' as 'them' what does it matter to those that would steal your wits and will with clever posters?

For the record, I never accused you of falsehood, nor have I endorsed any of the horrible list you listed. That is you, again, putting words in my mouth like some kind of grand inquisitor trying me for witchery. Just because I disagree with YOU does not mean I endorse those you hate (I mean love, whatever you want to call it). That's classic totalitarian nonsense. You might want to stop doing that since you seem to be against such things so long as its happening 'over there'.

Because what you are actually accusing me of was too difficult to respond to, because you are trying to some how lump me into the category of a Fascist Dictator or some one guilty of the atrocious behavior I condemn.

No sir! I want all people to be purified, enlightened, peaceful, and happy, if not in this life, in the next life.

I don't promote hateful violence. I love all Muslims.

I love Muhammad. He was orphaned as a baby and had no one.

I feel sorry for any orphan who turns into an illiterate mass-murderering cult-leader like Charles Manson multiplied by 100.

That's gotta be a lot of deeply disturbing stuff that torments their mind, and he claims the Angel Gabriel appeared to him in a cave and told him to call forth a manson-family like army to torture, murder, and mutilate people.

And his following bloomed into what it is today.

I feel deep sorrow for anyone who is influenced by cult-leader to think they are pleasing God by torturing, mutilating, and executing innocent people, for stupid things like shooting children for watching soccer, because it "violates Sharia law".

Anyone who would gun down children in public for watching soccer , and think it pleases God, is an unhappy troubled soul that I pity.

I love members of groups like ISIS who are not to blame for believing they are doing the will of Allah. They are victims too.

Regarding me asking you to point out falsehoods. I wasn't putting words in your mouth. If the OP is so offensive to you, I assume you would not be offended by truth, therefore you could point out what's false about it.

And yes, I know corruption is everywhere, but at least people in America can speak the truth about Trump or anyone without being tortured, imprisoned for decades, or executed for starting a blog or stating facts.

At least women can dress sexy without getting legally raped or killed. At least children can watch sports without getting gunned down. At least a child can steal a candy bar without losing a hand.

For some under Islamic Theocracies that have existed in the 21st century, that is how life is. And that makes the Manson family seem quite harmless in comparison to the damage done!

Any cult leader that motivate people to torture, mutilate, and kill others bothers me. I'm just pointing out the one that has done the most damage.

The American media has often called it a "Religion of peace" and I feel it is good to let people know the facts.

It seems like the loving thing to do.

 

[Spiderman]

@Sir Doom
Maybe I have planted a seed in you that will one day grow into something good, even if there is no evidence for now...the seed may still be buried under soil with no evidence of having made a difference.

All I'm trying to accomplish is to plant a seed in someone (even if it's just one person) to recognize that the founder of Islam had obvious psychopathic tendencies, that his movement was bigoted, and that the first Muslims were in some ways like the Manson family.

Many people believe that Muhammad was a man like Buddha, Gandhi, or Jesus Christ, but he was nothing like them. Gandhi and Buddha didn't kill anyone, or return violence for violence, and Jesus said "Love your enemies, forgive your enemy 70X7, do not judge, do not condemn, and he forgave the people who crucified him saying "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do". None of them raised up an army to kill, torture, conquer, loot, enslave, destroy, and oppress.

Muhammad said some good things too, and as I stated in the OP, most of the Qur'an is not calls to violence, torture, and hate. However, some of it is gruesome, psychopathic, and sadistic torture and mutilation, as well as calls to mass-killings.

When a Religious leader speaks like that, I don't care how many of the verses are peaceful. Psychopathic torture and mutilation should be done to no human being under any circumstances.

In my lifetime, regimes that adhere to the Qur'an have legally used non-Muslim women and prepubescent girls as sex-slaves, crucified people, cut off hands, feet, and noses, and acted out the psychopathic fantasies of the author in the Qur'an.

By all means, focus on the fact that the majority of Muslims are peaceful, while at the same time educating people about where the hate and bigotry of these regimes and Theocracies is coming from. Barak Obama said we should not call terrorists "Radical Islamic Terrorists", because they "hijacked a peaceful religion" and are not "Islamic". When a President can speak such ignorance about a violent mass-murderer, and not totally destroy his credibility in the eyes of the American people who admire him, it goes to show how ignorant and clueless countless American people are about Islam.

Anyone who has studied the behavior of Muhammad and the first Muslims, or read the Qur'an and Hadiths, knows that it was founded to be an extremist, intolerant, bloodthirsty, terrorist movement, and some of the teachings of their "Word of God", the Qur'an, show this to be true.

Yes, absolutely, lovers of freedom, equality, and social justice, should be educating others and taking a stand on this, in the same way we should teach our children why not to join or admire groups like the KKK or Neo-Nazis.