Good People and Bad Muslims


jts

Recommended Posts

It is not possible to be a good Muslim without being a bad person. Fortunately most Muslims are good people, which implies they are bad Muslims.

Islam is a war manifesto against humanity. Muhammad, founder of Islam, was a ruthless terrorist, a mass-murderer, a thief, slave trader, rapist and pedophile. To follow his example is to be a good Muslim but a bad person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jts: Human nature is the same for all people. The natural world presents the same challenges to all creatures and is equally ruthless to whomever ignores its laws. Could the Muslim culture have survived and thrived for all these centuries if the majority of its members had demonstrated the traits you've named? If so, how?

I am admittedly ignorant of Muslim culture but I believe the face that Muslims show to non-Muslims is far different than what they show to each other. I think a non-Muslim cannot know what it's like to be a Muslim. I can't forget Wafa Sultan however. It appears from her testimony that the experience of a Muslim woman is different than that of a man. I can understand a warrior culture but I cannot reconcile mistreatment of women to any part of my moral sense nor understand it.

As usual, I display my naivete to all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jts: Human nature is the same for all people. The natural world presents the same challenges to all creatures and is equally ruthless to whomever ignores its laws. Could the Muslim culture have survived and thrived for all these centuries if the majority of its members had demonstrated the traits you've named? If so, how?

I am admittedly ignorant of Muslim culture but I believe the face that Muslims show to non-Muslims is far different than what they show to each other. I think a non-Muslim cannot know what it's like to be a Muslim. I can't forget Wafa Sultan however. It appears from her testimony that the experience of a Muslim woman is different than that of a man. I can understand a warrior culture but I cannot reconcile mistreatment of women to any part of my moral sense nor understand it.

As usual, I display my naivete to all.

Wafa Sultan, an Alawite who like most Alawites of Syria, are very unaware of their own religious beliefs, that compounded with the fact that Syria has always been secular in government with the Baath Party in power which would have been her experience.

The writer of this thread makes some huge accusations against Muhammad yet doesn't back them up with fact. What I would like to see is him start a thread for each accusation and allow me to present a response to it, otherwise it's just rhetoric and BS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The writer of this thread makes some huge accusations against Muhammad yet doesn't back them up with fact. What I would like to see is him start a thread for each accusation and allow me to present a response to it, otherwise it's just rhetoric and BS.

I posted this link several times.

http://prophetofdoom.net/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The writer of this thread makes some huge accusations against Muhammad yet doesn't back them up with fact. What I would like to see is him start a thread for each accusation and allow me to present a response to it, otherwise it's just rhetoric and BS.

I posted this link several times.

http://prophetofdoom.net/

LOL. Sorry, I thought I was speaking to someone of independent thought who researched things for themselves rather than just believing BS from the internet.

Never mind then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The writer of this thread makes some huge accusations against Muhammad yet doesn't back them up with fact. What I would like to see is him start a thread for each accusation and allow me to present a response to it, otherwise it's just rhetoric and BS.

I posted this link several times.

http://prophetofdoom.net/

LOL. Sorry, I thought I was speaking to someone of independent thought who researched things for themselves rather than just believing BS from the internet.

Never mind then.

You want me to back up accusations against Muhammad. But if I do, it's BS from the internet.

Did you explore the website? Did you read the book or listen to the audio of the book? It is in html form, pdf form, and audio form. Zero price.

Islam is the religion invented by Muhammad. It consists of what Muhammad said. (We can't say 'wrote' because he was illiterate.) Based on his own statements, Islam is evil and he was a monster.

The sincere thing to do is to read or listen to the book. Muhammad's own words. Read or listen to the book as critically as you wish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You want me to back up accusations against Muhammad. But if I do, it's BS from the internet.

Did you explore the website? Did you read the book or listen to the audio of the book? It is in html form, pdf form, and audio form. Zero price.

Islam is the religion invented by Muhammad. It consists of what Muhammad said. (We can't say 'wrote' because he was illiterate.) Based on his own statements, Islam is evil and he was a monster.

The sincere thing to do is to read or listen to the book. Muhammad's own words. Read or listen to the book as critically as you wish.

No, I want you to back up your accusations after actually having gone and read the Qur'an, Seerah and hadiths for yourself, numerous translations of them and Qur'anic explanations by scholars of Islam who have not only studied the Qur'an in its original language, but looked at each verse within the context in which it was revealed. If you can't do that then there is no real use in discussing anything with you because it just means that you're another parrot who simply repeats what he hears or reads.

Craig Winn, the author of Prophet of Doom is perhaps one of the most ridiculous people I've heard of.

The reason is simple. He picks verses from different translations which suit the narrative that he wants to push, he leaves out the context in which it was revealed and the verses that relate to it, including those which surround them.

The reason why you believe what he says is because you lack the ability to use your own free thought to research things for yourself with an open heart and without your mind already made up about the issue.

The problem with people like yourself and Craig Winn is that you suffer from confirmation bias. You see a verse that you think is supporting your view previously held so you take it as confirmation of what you believe yet when there are verses or hadiths which contradict your point of view you ignore it.

This is why there's no use arguing with people like you or Craig Winn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I want you to back up your accusations after actually having gone and read the Qur'an, Seerah and hadiths for yourself, numerous translations of them and Qur'anic explanations by scholars of Islam who have not only studied the Qur'an in its original language, but looked at each verse within the context in which it was revealed.

Craig Winn did that.

Craig Winn, the author of Prophet of Doom is perhaps one of the most ridiculous people I've heard of.

The reason is simple. He picks verses from different translations which suit the narrative that he wants to push, he leaves out the context in which it was revealed and the verses that relate to it, including those which surround them.

How do you know? Did you read or listen to the book? He put things in chronological order and context.

The reason why you believe what he says is because you lack the ability to use your own free thought to research things for yourself with an open heart and without your mind already made up about the issue.

Craig Winn did the research.

The problem with people like yourself and Craig Winn is that you suffer from confirmation bias. You see a verse that you think is supporting your view previously held so you take it as confirmation of what you believe yet when there are verses or hadiths which contradict your point of view you ignore it.

This is why there's no use arguing with people like you or Craig Winn.

Actually the person you need to argue with is Muhammad.

Bottom line is: you don't want to read or listen to the book. Craig Winn says he got many death threats from Muslims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Craig Winn did that.

No, he didn't. He went in there trying to prove that Islam was a religion of violence and terrorism and so he took everything he could find that confirmed his preconceived notions without actually studying into the issue.

How do you know? Did you read or listen to the book? He put things in chronological order and context.

I've heard him debate and argue and what he does is nothing new, anyone could do it.

Craig Winn did the research.

That isn't proper research.

Research must be done with an open mind and heart and completely without bias, he was incapable of doing this and it is reflected in his work.

Actually the person you need to argue with is Muhammad.

Bottom line is: you don't want to read or listen to the book. Craig Winn says he got many death threats from Muslims.

Not quite sure why I'd need to argue with Muhammad, I agree with everything he did during his life.

Problem is that you don't know what he did in his life because all you're relying on is stupid websites which take things out of context instead of studying things for yourself.

And who cares if he got death threats? What did he expect when he started intentionally perpetrating lies to incite hate and violence against the honor of 1.6 billion people in the world, some of whom still hold chivalry to be very important to some extent? Flowers? Get real.

If a White Supremacist were to start pushing the notion that Blood Libel was real and that Jews secretly wanted to kill Christian children, to sacrifice them and said these things with the intention to incite violence against Jews what do you think the response from the Jewish community would be? Especially groups like the JDL? It would be violence, plain and simple and without prejudice and certainly without reservation. So how come Muslims should have to put up with anymore than any other group?

I've gotten death threats too and if you go to SOLO Passion's website and insult Ayn Rand, watch and see what their response will be to you. I went on there and corrected their views about Islam and they started threatening me.

The fact is that some people get quite emotional about having their honor insulted, does that excuse violence? In most cases I would say no, but in some cases it certainly does.

For example, if I were married and I were walking with my wife in Saudi Arabia, and some religious policeman came to me, arrogantly demanding to see my wedding papers to prove that I had the right to walk next to my wife, my response would be to give him a backhander so profound that it would cause his body to defy the laws of physics and Newton himself would turn over in his grave in amazement. And why is that? Two reasons.

The first being that I am a free man and my wife is a free woman, given by God natural rights and free will and no man has the right to interfere with that. Secondly, because by demanding to see such papers he would be therefore be making a subtle accusation that my wife is unchaste and I would not stand for that, not now, not ever.

Now could I care less if someone decided to rid this earth of people like Craig Winn? I'm sorry, but no, not really. I certainly wouldn't support such actions and would condemn them because they are unlawful but I could understand the reasoning behind it, particularly when I know that as a fact that Mosques and Islamic Schools get burnt down and firebombed and Muslim women get attacked on the street by people who believe his garbage in the first place. Or don't we have the same right to safety and security that Craig Winn does?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And who cares if he got death threats?

Surely that matters to you? It appears that you're justifying death threats against critics of Islam. No true libertarian would do that.

I actually agree with this. I only wish it were presented with a condemnation of the threats LM received in O-Land (and I'm thinking of a specific kind of mentality on a certain site).

After all, "no true libertarian would do that."

Oh... maybe the condemnation will now come, but only AFTER being called on it.

Funny how this makes it appear that the condemner is secretly OK with threats when they come from his end.

If you want to point a finger at someone, make sure to look at the other three in your fist pointing back at you.

Get a clue.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a message to all on this.

You don't eliminate bigotry and the resulting violence by forcing one side to stop.

You do it by refusing to be a coward who attacks from the shadows or gangs up in group to attack individuals. And you do it by refusing to condone this cowardice when others do it--even those on your side.

A coward is a coward.

The common word between Muslim coward and Western coward is coward.

Cowards are disgusting.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jts: Human nature is the same for all people. The natural world presents the same challenges to all creatures and is equally ruthless to whomever ignores its laws. Could the Muslim culture have survived and thrived for all these centuries if the majority of its members had demonstrated the traits you've named? If so, how?

I am admittedly ignorant of Muslim culture but I believe the face that Muslims show to non-Muslims is far different than what they show to each other. I think a non-Muslim cannot know what it's like to be a Muslim. I can't forget Wafa Sultan however. It appears from her testimony that the experience of a Muslim woman is different than that of a man. I can understand a warrior culture but I cannot reconcile mistreatment of women to any part of my moral sense nor understand it.

As usual, I display my naivete to all.

Wafa Sultan, an Alawite who like most Alawites of Syria, are very unaware of their own religious beliefs, that compounded with the fact that Syria has always been secular in government with the Baath Party in power which would have been her experience.

The writer of this thread makes some huge accusations against Muhammad yet doesn't back them up with fact. What I would like to see is him start a thread for each accusation and allow me to present a response to it, otherwise it's just rhetoric and BS.

Evidently we are being invited to conclude that Wafa Sultan's testimony doesn't count, is invalid, because she's not the "right" kind of Muslim, she is as ignorant of true Muslim religion as any non-Muslim. How many kinds of Muslim's are there? What is a true Muslim?

It is also evident from your reply to jts that there is no valid criticism of the Muslim religion possible because it would require the dedication to study the Muslim scriptures and all of its interpretations to achieve a thorough understanding (by your standards), something only possible to a devout believer. You have set an impossible standard. I certainly have no desire to read the Koran. jts is criticized for posting links to reading materials elsewhere on the web, you are worse, you exhort to "spend a lifetime reading and studying the Koran and all of its interpretations".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason why I started this thread is Bob Kolker in another thread liked war and was proud to have blood on his hands and in a previous incarnation probably was a Spartan and has a thing about Muslims. I understand that violence is sometimes necessary, but I am not a fan of violence. I look upon violence as the last thing, not the first thing. If violence is necessary, that's a tragic situation.

I was trying to suggest an alternative to violence. Even tho Islam is a war manifesto against mankind, it does not follow from that that all or even most Muslims want to make war against mankind. Most Muslims are good people (or at least I will give them the benefit of the doubt) and therefore they are bad Muslims (fortunately). So there is no urgent necessity for world war 3 against Islam as Bob Kolker seems to think.

The alternative to war against Islam is to tell the truth about Islam. Craig Winn says the most important thing you can do to beat Islam is tell the truth about Islam.

Ali Sina has another idea. Make fun of Islam.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/comics/introduction.htm

http://islamcomicbook.com/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason why I started this thread is Bob Kolker in another thread liked war and was proud to have blood on his hands and in a previous incarnation probably was a Spartan and has a thing about Muslims. I understand that violence is sometimes necessary, but I am not a fan of violence. I look upon violence as the last thing, not the first thing. If violence is necessary, that's a tragic situation.

I was trying to suggest an alternative to violence. Even tho Islam is a war manifesto against mankind, it does not follow from that that all or even most Muslims want to make war against mankind. Most Muslims are good people (or at least I will give them the benefit of the doubt) and therefore they are bad Muslims (fortunately). So there is no urgent necessity for world war 3 against Islam as Bob Kolker seems to think.

The alternative to war against Islam is to tell the truth about Islam. Craig Winn says the most important thing you can do to beat Islam is tell the truth about Islam.

Ali Sina has another idea. Make fun of Islam.

http://www.faithfree...ntroduction.htm

http://islamcomicbook.com/

We missed the right date for the war against Islam, Sept 12, 2001.

Too late.

We will have to await the next Jihadi Outrage committed against us.

I have not lost a wink of sleep over the work I have done on weapons of mass destruction. If I could not be a warrior, I could be and was tool smith for the warriors. I have blood on my hands and I am proud of every drop. Let the enemies of the United States quake in fear.

As the submarine commander in "The Enemy Below" said: We build them (weapons) good in the Fatherland - nicht wahr?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LM,

I care.

I believe in free speech.

Do you?

Or will you continue apologizing for blindsiding intimidation when it comes from your end?

btw - I totally disagree with the opinion in the opening post on this thread.

Michael

I certainly do believe in free speech Michael but unfortunately, what Craig Winn is doing is not just free speech. It's inciting violence and hatred against Muslims and therefore begins to infringe on the rights of Muslims with his free speech and as I believe in the principle written by Thomas Jefferson where he stated "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others."

Craig Winn is aware of what he is doing. He knows what he is publicly stating about Islam and Muslims are lies and the lies he perpetrates against the Muslim community has inspired religious fanatics all around to attack Muslims on the street and firebomb mosques and community centres.

He is no different to me than Rabbi Meir Kahane and actually has a major alliance with the Jewish Task Force, a Kahanist Group with links to Baruch Goldstein, an American Jew who moved to Israel and massacred 29 Palestinian worshippers in a mass shooting while they were praying, injuring more than 100 more.

Now when I say that I don't care if he receives death threats you fail to take it into context with what is said below it. I said if he was actually killed I would condemn it because it is unlawful too.

In terms of what I said about understanding where someone would be coming from if they did threaten or harm Craig Winn, I sincerely do because if your wife is attacked and beaten on the street by someone inspired by his lies, it's only natural that you'd see that person as a threat to your and your family's lives and wellbeing.

Now why should I care about threats to Craig Winn's life when as a result of his irresponsible lies, I now have to be more concerned about my safety and that of my community? Surely I have a right to care more about protecting my community.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now why should I care about threats to Craig Winn's life when as a result of his irresponsible lies, I now have to be more concerned about my safety and that of my community?

His criticism of Islam, and of the man you consider to be a prophet, somehow endangers you? How? In what way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is no different to me than Rabbi Meir Kahane and actually has a major alliance with the Jewish Task Force, a Kahanist Group with links to Baruch Goldstein, an American Jew who moved to Israel and massacred 29 Palestinian worshippers in a mass shooting while they were praying, injuring more than 100 more.

An Egyptian Muslim fanatic took care of Rabbi Kahane (in Brooklyn of all places). Kahane was a run-amok. No main line Jew in America would touch him. And most of the old fashioned Orthodox like the Lubovichers had problems with Kahane. They objected to Kahane because G-D had not yet restored His people to the Land or the Land to his People.

Alas for Benjy who went insane one day. He was killed for his extremism and the government of Israel never sanctioned his act. If the government of Israel wanted to eliminate the likes of Hamas they could do it in a week by paying never no mind to collateral damage. The fact the Palestinian fanatics still exist in Israel or at its borders is clear proof that the government of Israel is not up to genocidal wickedness. It turns out the Israelis are better Christians than the Christians. They have been turning the Other Cheek for going on 70 years. The refuse to follow up their military victories with a genocidal clean sweep. One reason is not "goodness" but self interest. If they ever tried such a thing they would not only lose the support of American Jews but the good will and help of the United States. The American people are not ready for genocide (yet). Perhaps the Muslim Jihadis, thinking that we Americans are weak will do one outrageous thing Too Much and wake the Sleeping Giant. Remember what we did to the Japanese because of Pearl Harbor? Hmmmm.... ? The only atomic attacks in history were unleashed by the U.S. against Japan because of what happened on a Sunday morning.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only atomic attacks in history were unleashed by the U.S. against Japan because of what happened on a Sunday morning.

Ba'al Chatzaf

The bombs were dropped to end the war. They were not dropped in vengeance, but to save lives, time and treasure that would have been lost in an invasion. Men who had fought in Europe--this included the war-weary Brits--were expecting to fight in Japan. They had a high expectation of dying in the spring of 1946. There were very few targets left for fire-bombing and just as much or more damage could have been done to the atomic targets by fire-bombing. The use of atomic weaponry was for end-the-war shock value. We did not have a third bomb ready to go and some Japanese military leaders suspected that.

--Brant

if I had been in WWII I could have been a crew member of the Enola Gay, not that I'd have been given the opportunity, but I'd have been a combatant though not out of blood lust--it would have damaged me psychologically: I know that because Vietnam did; everything costs something--everything--you have to keep adding to the positives to keep the negatives at bay, produce more than consume; war is the biggest consumption of all

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob's remark about the "sleeping giant" reflect my thoughts. My fear is some stupid "representatives" of Islam will actually succeed in their next wet dream of destroying a major population center in the US. Nuclear bomb, contaminate a major water source, whatever. If they manage to make the majority of the US citizens very angry and frightened the pay back will be worse than their worst nightmare. Muslim Armies, Navy's, Air Forces, major cities gone, virtually overnight. If they think the US is "weakened" by any degree because of economic difficulties and not capable of this they are fools. We have enormous resources in the US, a highly technically educated and motivated population of people who want to live, who don't seek death and paradise, but are perfectly willing to provide that for people who do. LM's recent bravado remarks illustrate total lack of awareness of reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

--Brant

if I had been in WWII I could have been a crew member of the Enola Gay, not that I'd have been given the opportunity, but I'd have been a combatant though not out of blood lust--it would have damaged me psychologically: I know that because Vietnam did; everything costs something--everything--you have to keep adding to the positives to keep the negatives at bay, produce more than consume; war is the biggest consumption of all

I would taken the glory and joy of that attack to my grave as one of the greatest things I could have done.

I have no scruples or hesitation about killing enemies. Which is why I worked on thermonuclear weapons and help design guidance systems for cruise missiles. Kill'em dead by day, sleep soundly at night, knowing that I and my children are safer. We build them good in the Fatherland --- nicht wahr?

One thing I have learned. Compassion is weakness, pity rots and kindness kills. There is only one course. A torch to the Enemy. That is why my choice heroes from WW 2 (the last good and victorious war the U.S. ever fought) were Curtiss Lemay and the Brit, Bomber Harris.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anybody ever notice that we have a population explosion on earth, not the contrary?

And that people have ever-increasing life-spans?

Simply put, the human species is one of the most successful living species to ever exist.

Ever.

This certainly is NOT because people kill each other out of revenge.

There's a premise somewhere in this state of affairs that needs to be checked if reality is the standard.

If pseudo-macho bluster is the standard, however...

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

--Brant

if I had been in WWII I could have been a crew member of the Enola Gay, not that I'd have been given the opportunity, but I'd have been a combatant though not out of blood lust--it would have damaged me psychologically: I know that because Vietnam did; everything costs something--everything--you have to keep adding to the positives to keep the negatives at bay, produce more than consume; war is the biggest consumption of all

I would taken the glory and joy of that attack to my grave as one of the greatest things I could have done.

I have no scruples or hesitation about killing enemies. Which is why I worked on thermonuclear weapons and help design guidance systems for cruise missiles. Kill'em dead by day, sleep soundly at night, knowing that I and my children are safer. We build them good in the Fatherland --- nicht wahr?

One thing I have learned. Compassion is weakness, pity rots and kindness kills. There is only one course. A torch to the Enemy. That is why my choice heroes from WW 2 (the last good and victorious war the U.S. ever fought) were Curtiss Lemay and the Brit, Bomber Harris.

What crap.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now