Sign in to follow this  
Richard Wiig

Geert Wilders: Time to Unmask Muhammad

Recommended Posts

At Least 12 Killed During Koran-Burning Protest at UN Office in Afghanistan

Published April 01, 2011

| FoxNews.com

koran640.jpg

April 1: Afghans carry a man who was wounded following an attack on UN's office during a demonstration to condemn the burning of a copy of the Muslim holy book by a Florida pastor, in Mazar-i- Sharif north of Kabul, Afghanistan. An Afghan official says seven people have been killed at a U.N. office in the northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif when a Koran-burning protest turned violent. (AP)

KABUL, Afghanistan — Demonstrators incensed at the burning of a Koran by a Florida pastor opened fire on a United Nations office Friday in northern Afghanistan, killing 12 people, including three foreign UN workers and five Nepalese UN guards, officials said.

Two of the foreign dead reportedly were beheaded, Reuters reported.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/04/01/seven-killed-koran-burning-protest-headquarters-afghanistan/#ixzz1IIHDYZWA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
post='130983']The religious leaders, as you point out, are long dead, and to view the actions of their billions of followers through the narrow prism of the words those leaders said or wrote alone, instead of the layered centuries of thought, non-thought, knowable and unknowable circumstance, is unproductive of anything except further dissension.

Carol,

Man, is that a weird conclusion.

Are you writing in secret code or something?

:)

Michael

You are right, Michael, it is weird. My Inner Postmodernist just leapt out and seized the keyboard and I let it.That's what any prolonged exchange with our Infidel will do to a person.

My thought about the unlikelihood of defeating terrorist fundamentalism by "proving" that a religion was fundamentally evil at its inception, has already been expressed by you on this thread - and others - and better than by me.

Edited by daunce lynam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carol,

Fair enough, though. We do usually tend to discuss ideologies as if they're frozen in time, like specimen slides under a microscope.

It needed saying.

Tony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know or care if Wilders is a bigot.

So you don't care whether he is or is not unjustly treated?

I don't know anything about him or how he is being treated.

The religious leaders, as you point out, are long dead, and to view the actions of their billions of followers through the narrow prism of the words those leaders said or wrote alone

It is only certain actions that are of concern, and it is clearly through certain teachings that they are explained. What is actually wrong with identifying those aspects of Islam?

Certain actions are not explained by certain teachings, they are rationalized/justified by the actors using the teachings .

, instead of the layered centuries of thought, non-thought, knowable and unknowable circumstance, is unproductive of anything except further dissension.

So it should all be examined through thought and unthought, through knowable and unknowable circumstances? Sorry, but that's just gobbledegook not aimed at clarifying anything.

Yes, it is gibberish. Excuses in earlier post to Michael.

Edited by daunce lynam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it is gibberish. Excuses in earlier post to Michael.

It made sense to me. Restricting your understanding of a religion by focusing solely on the founder’s words is folly. I made a related point about Christianity when I brought up the “get out of jail free” card it’s apologists pull out at will.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=10393&view=findpost&p=130910

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My thought about the unlikelihood of defeating terrorist fundamentalism by "proving" that a religion was fundamentally evil at its inception, has already been expressed by you on this thread - and others - and better than by me.

Ummm, unless people actually realise that Islam creates these monsters, as opposed to those monster merely being hijackers of a peaceful religion, then their victims will always be intellectually disarmed and unprepared in the face of a deadly enemy. Nice thing to work for huh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it is gibberish. Excuses in earlier post to Michael.

It made sense to me. Restricting your understanding of a religion by focusing solely on the founder’s words is folly. I made a related point about Christianity when I brought up the “get out of jail free” card it’s apologists pull out at will.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=10393&view=findpost&p=130910

Once again more dishonesty from ninth doctor. I haven't seen anyone yet tie militancy to what Jesus taught. That line about the sword is so easily shown to not be a call militancy - when you read the full verse that Ted posted it clearly isn't - yet you persist in it. How about showing how Muhammad's calls to militancy are not actually calls to militancy? That would actually achieve something towards putting an end to the ongoing jihad.

Edited by Infidel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to spin the lives of those who were killed and beheaded. I grieve for them. The guilty parties are the ones who attacked them.

I will say, though, that public expressions of hatred by mocking, defiling and destroying things fanatics hold sacred tend to result in innocent injuries and deaths--not just with fanatical Islamists, either. When you goad crazy violent nutcases, they tend to get crazy and violent.

There are better forms of persuasion and defusing this (like, for instance, getting to their kingpins and youth), unless the intent is to create martyrs. But I hold that, even though Jones is one spiteful loon, I cannot believe he wanted innocent martyrs.

He just hates and thinks that's all he needs to do to fix this.

Other haters responded.

I reject the false-dichotomy world of mutual hatred they operate in.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dennis,

What do you think about the way Ayn Rand tied violent militancy to the altruism and self-sacrifice Jesus taught?

She did not use His name much, and she stayed on the fundamental principles--rarely discussing the details of Christianity, but she was very clear about her meaning.

I think she did a good job--both in her fiction and nonfiction. You can find lots of violence that utilized self-sacrifice in both.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it is gibberish. Excuses in earlier post to Michael.

It made sense to me. Restricting your understanding of a religion by focusing solely on the founder’s words is folly. I made a related point about Christianity when I brought up the “get out of jail free” card it’s apologists pull out at will.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=10393&view=findpost&p=130910

Once again more dishonesty from ninth doctor. I haven't seen anyone yet tie militancy to what Jesus taught. That line about the sword is so easily shown to not be a call militancy - when you read the full verse that Ted posted it clearly isn't - yet you persist in it. How about showing how Muhammad's calls to militancy are not actually calls to militancy? That would actually achieve something towards putting an end to the ongoing jihad.

I persist in tying the sword line from Matthew to Christian militancy? Dishonest? Can you read? Assuming you didn’t bother to click and read the linked post, here it is, reproduced:

How does recognizing the essential difference between a religion whose founder says "he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword", "my kingdom is not of this earth" and "render unto Caesar that which is Casear's" and a militant who demands war and murder to establish a religious dictatorship amount to "bigotry"? The accusation is superficial, baseless, and offensive.

If it’s just a matter of pulling out quotes, it’s doable:

Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Jesus,
Gospel according to Matthew,
10:34

There’s another quote, from one of the parables, I’m drawing a blank on it though. This isn’t going to convince anyone, however. Since you didn’t include any Koran quotes I won’t either.

There’s a fundamental problem in comparing Christianity and Islam, and that’s the fact that their “founders” had very different careers. In effect, Christianity has a “get out of jail free” card its apologists can produce at any time, since Jesus was never a political leader. If, in 622 AD, when as Gibbon put it “the lance of an Arab might have changed the history of the world”, Muhammad had been killed, his creed, if it survived him through his followers, would have been comparable to that of Jesus in terms of explicitly pacifistic content. Later, as a besieged and/or aggressive military leader, he had to make decisions (or, ahem, receive revelations) on problems Jesus never had to deal with.

So, how to balance the scales? Christians didn’t become rulers until 300 years after the death of Jesus, but once they did, they took to acting like despots like fish to water. And they did this with ecclesiastic support, in fact the violence began within their ranks in the 340’s, when, again according to Gibbon, more Christians were killed at each other’s hands than in all the Roman persecutions combined. The climax was the Battle of the Frigidus in 394, which was the end of religious toleration in the West for about 1200 years (using the Edict of Nantes as a convenient milestone for it’s rebirth).

I say we have to compare theocracy to theocracy, so if you’re willing to compare the 1st century of Islam (600-700 AD to use round figures) with the 4th century of Christianity (300-400 AD), I’m game, let’s marshal the facts. Or we can just agree that theocracy sucks, more or less equally among the Abrahamic faiths, that’ll take less work. There’s no way to correct for such factors as body count, given that the west is more densely populated than the Arabian desert, plus, no one’s figures are very reliable, especially once you add the Jews (e.g. the book of Joshua) to the mix.

I actually make an argument in the last three paragraphs. Try addressing it. My quoting of the sword verse was only to demonstrate that such things can be pulled out of context, and that such a practice is useless, such is the meaning of “isn’t going to convince anyone”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually make an argument in the last three paragraphs. Try addressing it. My quoting of the sword verse was only to demonstrate that such things can be pulled out of context, and that such a practice is useless, such is the meaning of "isn't going to convince anyone".

So your point is that anyone who justifies violence by the words of the child rapist can only do so by taking his words out of context?

You still have not explained how criticizing voluntarily held evil beliefs amounts to bigotry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So your point is that anyone who justifies violence by the words of the child rapist can only do so by taking his words out of context?

This is typical of what I call an argument from hatred--especially the "child rapist" thing.

The following--including many other credible sources saying very similar things--has been common knowledge for a long time. My post alone was from last year.

There is an error of history called "presentism." This means interpreting the acts of a person in olden times not in light of the customs of his times, but instead according to modern-day tabus, customs and laws.

The hate argument typically makes use of this fallacy.

(Note: I originally quoted a later post of mine that used the WikiAnswers post, but since it contained other issues, I thought it better to stay on topic, so I replaced it with my earlier one below. This happened with the space of about a half-an-hour anyway.)

As to the pedophile thing, here is a page from WikiAnswers, which is pretty non-biased in looking at the different facets: Was Muhammad a pedophile?
Answer

The simple answer is no. However the answer is more complex than it might look on the surface.

One of Muhammad's wives was Ayesha or Aisha. Depending on what sources are used her age at marriage is sometimes put at 6 and consummation at 9. However there are a number of facts which need to be factored in.

1: Not all sources agree with Bukhari about Ayesha's age, Bukhari's Hadith were not collated until 300-odd years after Muhammad's death. Other sources give Ayesha's age as being 16 at marriage and 19 at consummation.

2: Even if her age were 6 / 9, the custom of taking child brides was a part of Middle-Eastern culture. The Jews practised it as well as many of the other nations in the Middle-East and remember too that Mary of Nazareth's age was probably around the 12-14 mark.

3: Pedophilia is both a sexual dysfunction and a legal one. Muhammad's others wives were adult women with who he apparently had very good realtions. This would not normally be the case for a pedophile.

4: Customs and Traditions as well as laws were very different then from now. What is considered unacceptable now was not considered anything to comment about then.

Note: There are comments associated with this question. See the discussion page to add to the conversation.

. . .

This answer is closed to changes. This is done in rare cases when questions are being vandalized or answers have become debates. E-mail Reopen @ WikiAnswers.com (no spaces) if you would like it to be reopened.

Note that WikiAnswers closed the topic. They had to. Hater hate (and vandalize when they can). They don't stop at facts and reasonable historical conjectures.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will say, though, that public expressions of hatred by mocking, defiling and destroying things fanatics hold sacred tend to result in innocent injuries and deaths--not just with fanatical Islamists, either. When you goad crazy violent nutcases, they tend to get crazy and violent.

All you need do is draw a cartoon, and they'll murder people. Any excuse will do. Two politicians have been murdered in Pakistan merely for speaking against the blasphemy laws. In the face of that, you choose to single out the florida pastor for having done something wrong. The Guardian in the UK has just done a poll that shows 60% of Britons say the pastor is responsible for the murders. You may as well have your signature on that poll too.

There are better forms of persuasion and defusing this (like, for instance, getting to their kingpins and youth), unless the intent is to create martyrs. But I hold that, even though Jones is one spiteful loon, I cannot believe he wanted innocent martyrs.

He just hates and thinks that's all he needs to do to fix this.

Here we go with the "he just hates" thing again. Just hates what? The man's method of making his point was crude, but so what. Imagine everyone stood and burned a koran in solidarity with freedom of Speech. Imagine everyone donned a cartoon of Muhammad with a bomb in his turban, and every newspaper printed the cartoon. That would send a clear and emphatic message to the Jihadists that would rattle their nerve like you woulnd't believe. All this kowtowing to them though will never rattle their nerve. Their morale keeps going from strength to strength.

Other haters responded.

I reject the false-dichotomy world of mutual hatred they operate in.

Michael

Blah, blah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So your point is that anyone who justifies violence by the words of the child rapist can only do so by taking his words out of context?

I said no such thing. Are you going to address what I actually wrote?

You still have not explained how criticizing voluntarily held evil beliefs amounts to bigotry.

If you insist on characterizing Wilder’s piece as “criticizing”, as though it were just a bit of mild discourse, I don’t see how I can convince you. I addressed the “voluntary” part earlier, why not reply to what I wrote? Or must I repeat myself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dennis,

What do you think about the way Ayn Rand tied violent militancy to the altruism and self-sacrifice Jesus taught?

She did not use His name much, and she stayed on the fundamental principles--rarely discussing the details of Christianity, but she was very clear about her meaning.

I think she did a good job--both in her fiction and nonfiction. You can find lots of violence that utilized self-sacrifice in both.

Michael

Yes, altruism and irrationalism and faith, lead to violence. In the absence of reason, all that's ultimately left is force, and Christianity is ripe with it, as it is Islam, as are all the religions, but once again you are merely blurring distinctions by shifting the focus. There is a difference between Christianity, Bhuddism, Hare Krisnaism, Hinduism, Islam, etc, differences that make some more immediately dangerous than others. The violence inherent in faith and irrationalism, isn't the same as the direct teachings of Muhammad. Christianity has very largely been tamed by reason, albeit there is still a lot to do, but Islam hasn't been. The only thing your shifting of the focus does is hinder that end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My quoting of the sword verse was only to demonstrate that such things can be pulled out of context, and that such a practice is useless, such is the meaning of “isn’t going to convince anyone”.

Of course things can be taken out of context. Is that you're point in raising the sword line? You know it's taken out context, but you can use it to be militant if you want to? If so, it doesn't stack up. If you're implying that Jihadists act violently only because they take things out of context, or use things out of context to justify themselves, then show the evidence for that. Many people repeat this over and over, but no one ever shows it to be the case. I have looked at what they use to justify their actions, and I can tell you they don't take anything out of context. But perhaps I am mistaken and you are right. Can you lay the evidence on the table?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Richard,

I suspect you are happy innocent people got murdered.

It helps your spread hatred.

Just like with Israel, I don't think you give a damn about any of this unless it can be a prop for your agenda.

Michael

And my agenda is what? You constantly throw out words such and bigot, and haters, etc, but they are empty. Totally empty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Richard,

I suspect you are happy innocent people got murdered.

It helps your spread hatred.

Just like with Israel, I don't think you give a damn about any of this unless it can be a prop for your agenda.

Michael

BTW, this is one of the most offensive things that has ever been said to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Richard,

I suspect you are happy innocent people got murdered.

It helps your spread hatred.

Just like with Israel, I don't think you give a damn about any of this unless it can be a prop for your agenda.

Michael

BTW, this is one of the most offensive things that has ever been said to me.

I agree. Whatever Michael's personal connections to certain Muslims he should be able to accept criticisms of Islam in good faith. His attributions of evil motives to you are made without evidence outside his emotions. As, ironically, was your accusation against me of looking down on New Zealanders for criticizing Perigo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note that WikiAnswers closed the topic. They had to. Hater hate (and vandalize when they can). They don't stop at facts and reasonable historical conjectures.

Michael

[/quote

What's notable about this post of Michael's is that he seems to equate disagreement with "being a hater", whatever that means - he hasn't yet clarified it. There are a good number of problems with points 1,2,3 and 4 in the wiki page that are open for dispute, so its not surprising that they are hotly disputed, but Michael agrees that they "had to" close it, because "the haters" (those who disagree with certain points) "vandalize when they can". What vandalized means is to change something on the page, as wikipedia is set up for people to do. It cannot by any stretch of the imagination be termed as vandalism. But of course vandalism is a loaded term that suits the demonising agenda. Oh for some rational discussion of the facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Richard,

I suspect you are happy innocent people got murdered.

It helps your spread hatred.

Just like with Israel, I don't think you give a damn about any of this unless it can be a prop for your agenda.

Michael

BTW, this is one of the most offensive things that has ever been said to me.

I agree. Whatever Michael's personal connections to certain Muslims he should be able to accept criticisms of Islam in good faith. His attributions of evil motives to you are made without evidence outside his emotions. As, ironically, was your accusation against me of looking down on New Zealanders for criticizing Perigo.

Well,that seemed to be what you were saying, Ted. You seemed to be suggesting that Lindsay should dumb things down for his audience, but I know from personal experience that Lindsay gained a large following in New Zealand without ever once doing that. In fact he'd do just the opposite; challenge people to raise themselves up. Anyway, thanks for the support in the face of Michaels post.

Richard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well,that seemed to be what you were saying, Ted. You seemed to be suggesting that Lindsay should dumb things down for his audience, but I know from personal experience that Lindsay gained a large following in New Zealand without ever once doing that. In fact he'd do just the opposite; challenge people to raise themselves up. Anyway, thanks for the support in the face of Michaels post.

By audience in my comment I meant people who see him on YouTube. Regardless of my opinion of him as a person, I have no hope that Perigo fail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whatever Michael's personal connections to certain Muslims he should be able to accept criticisms of Islam in good faith.

Ted,

I have no problem with criticisms of Islam.

I have plenty myself.

I don't even have a problem with boneheaded arguments, if they are presented and there they stay like everyone else does.

I do have a problem with bigotry using smokescreens. The constant hammering of the hate I see around here is something I am very familiar with.

I grew up around bigots--Southern racists to boot in the Appalachian hills--and I can smell them from a mile off.

As you yourself said elsewhere, I'm just sayin'.

Take that any way you want.

Michael

btw - I deleted your name-calling post--it didn't even go into the Garbage Pile. The posting guidelines exist for a reason, so I'm putting you on restriction for a while. If you don't want to post here anymore, that's fine, too. I'm sick of the goddam hatred.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will say, though, that public expressions of hatred by mocking, defiling and destroying things fanatics hold sacred tend to result in innocent injuries and deaths--not just with fanatical Islamists, either. When you goad crazy violent nutcases, they tend to get crazy and violent.

All you need do is draw a cartoon, and they'll murder people. Any excuse will do. Two politicians have been murdered in Pakistan merely for speaking against the blasphemy laws. In the face of that, you choose to single out the florida pastor for having done something wrong. The Guardian in the UK has just done a poll that shows 60% of Britons say the pastor is responsible for the murders.

I'm not surprised at that 60% poll in the UK - you can just see it coming: madness from one man, to evil madness from insane killers, to appeasing, justifying, sanctimonious madness from a 'progressive' society.

Tony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this