Your particular assertions about what you imagine to be fact and interpertations.
None of these claims and interpretations do we find in any way convincing. Not even offensive. It is reminds me of the crazy street preachers I saw in New York in visiting. More it is puzzlement that they think it is effective.
Self convinction and tone deafness I guess.
Dragging up your revisionist history in one more thread is not going to actually address the topic of this thread.
Even if your nonsense was true, (the given premise of the OP), do you really think that openly condemning the religion at every level is going to have any good results?
Those who believe their faith without question will be angered by your insults. Those who recognize the mischaracterization of their faith, shaped by other Islamophobes, are going to dismiss your cries as mere unlettered hatred. Those who are not believers who recognize your errors are going to dismiss your calls as those of one more ignorant hater. Those who share your beliefs are going to be the choir at which you preach.
So, instead of simply ranting about how evil you perceive Mohammed to have been, try answering the question in a realistic manner.
I read and apply the Quran in my understanding. And i do not need a translation.
Your discourse, it is like to me of those street preachers, founded in some strange distorted mirror vision reading as your reply to tom highlights.
Oh really:
which of the following did Mohammed not do:
1- order the death of of Pagans and Idolaters
2- say that women are to be modest and that a man is a degree above a woman
3- say that slaves can be captured in war
4- say that slaves can be born from slaves
5- capture and own slaves
6- own and use sex slaves
7- say that sex slaves must obey their masters in all commands
8- make his living as a bandit
9- call for punishments like stoning, beheading, and cutting off limbs
10- speak directly for god and gods commands
11- invade mecca by force killing 12 people to take the city
12- engage in many other offensive battles
13- make over 200 statements about the doom and suffering to befall unbelievers
The radical Muslims can accurately say the exact same thing.
The facts don’t back that up. There have been attempts to paint “lone wolf” right-wing terrorism as the real threat, but even when they stack the deck in their favour by omitting the two deadliest Islamic terrorist attacks in America, they still only get parity between Islamic terrorism and right-wing terrorism in raw numbers, even though there are ten times more Republicans than Muslims in the country.
And nobody pulled a Charlie Hebdo on The Onion when they drew Jesus and other religious figures having a gay orgy.
If one assumes that God is the font of all morality, and then furthermore accepts that God’s commands are murderous and psychopathic, it would follow that murderous psychopathy is the only moral way in which to live, would it not?
According to Mohammed and Moses, yes
I’m pretty sure it’s worth pointing out that the report you’re citing is about military attacks that kill civilians. The question in the poll was:
Some people think that for the military to target and kill civilians is sometimes, justified, while others think that kind of violence is never justified. Which is your opinion? (Never/Sometimes/Depends)
It’s not about lone-wolf attacks or 9/11-style attacks, or indeed what I think most people would call “terrorism”. It’d be nice if there was a follow-up question asking if it was “never/sometimes/depends” acceptable for Al-Qaida, Hamas, ISIS or similar groups to target and kill civilians.
Save it. We have seen your spiel.
If you cannot address the actual topic of this thread, there is no point to your continuing to post to this thread.
Do you have a serious suggestion in reply to the OP?
1- you cannot refute any of those points
2- you are the one engaging in revisionist history
3- i feel that telling the whole brutal truth about Mohammed is the best way to stop the spread of his religion
Did you fail to continue reading the linked article?
If you can not dispute the hateful violent acts in the list I provided, then perhaps you should stop calling me an ignornat hateful person.
Dislike, hatred, of murder and slavery and other forms of violence does not make me a bad or hateful person.
If you continue with such remarks I will report you to another moderator. I grow tired of your insults.
and if I could provide you with an article that said that most Muslims in the middle east think death should be the appropriate punishment for leaving the religion, what then, Tom? Will you change your opinion?
Nope. Keep scrolling past that military question. After is, exactly as I said, a follow up question asking “Some people think that for an individual or a small group of persons to target and kill civilians is sometimes justified, while others think that kind of violence is never justified. Which is your opinion?”
And, as with the question about the military, a higher percentage of Muslims answered “Never justified” to that question than any other religious group, including atheists.
So, nothing more than Islamophobic revisionism and a refusal to produce a serious suggestion to respond to the OP. I have already noted the response one could expect to your attempt at polemics. It will clearly fail. You will alienate ALL Muslims, including the many good U.S. citizens who are Muslim, while doing nothing to actually change anyone’s opinions or prevent more violence. Are you calling for a crusade to wipe out Islam, by chance? Or do you actually think that just demonizing the religion is going to actually help the situation?
What I failed to see was the relevance to the larger question, I just thought it worth noting that “military” was in there.
Anyway, Muslims who have assimilated into American society oppose attacks on civilians, be it by military or (I assume, since no specific groups were named) terrorist groups? Cool. I still want to see the sponsor nations of those latter groups bankrupted through indifference to their primary export.
Again, there’s a second, follow up question about individuals or small groups (and not the military) targeting and killing civilians.
Again, you can not , have not, refuted any single claim. Either do so, specifically, or admit by your inability to do so, that I am right.
which of the following did Mohammed not do:
1- order the death of of Pagans and Idolaters
2- say that women are to be modest and that a man is a degree above a woman
3- say that slaves can be captured in war
4- say that slaves can be born from slaves
5- capture and own slaves
6- own and use sex slaves
7- say that sex slaves must obey their masters in all commands
8- make his living as a bandit
9- call for punishments like stoning, beheading, and cutting off limbs
10- speak directly for god and gods commands
11- invade mecca by force killing 12 people to take the city
12- engage in many other offensive battles
13- make over 200 statements about the doom and suffering to befall unbelievers.
Stop lecturing me. Stop badgering me. Stop insulting me. At least until and unless you can prove your assertions are true.
I’d say the same for apologetics that shield Islam from any/all criticism and deny the true origins of its past and deny the violent commands in it’s text.
Please be careful with what you insinuate and imply. Surely, as a moderator, you are aware that you are supposed to react to the actual claims that I make and not invent meanings that I do not actually declare.
And it did so by confronting the basic precepts of Islam itself, by expressing the same views that will get you labeled an ‘Islamophobe’ by those in the West who bend over backwards to prove to themselves that they are tolerant (or executed by the state or lynched in many Muslim majority countries).
For example, it’s common for those who consider themselves to be tolerant and enlightened to respond condescendingly to criticism of Islam by claiming that, for example, Medieval Muslims made invaluable contributions to the study of mathematics, and their key role is clear from the many terms derived from Arabic. Perhaps the most famous mathematician was Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi.
But when one examines his actual beliefs, it becomes apparent that his views were far more in line with those of Richard Dawkins than of the average Muslim of today, and that his inclusion in the umah is not a result of what he actually believed, but of the requirements of their public relations campaigns to reform the tainted image of Islam.
[QUOTE= al-Khwarizmi]
The prophets—these billy goats with long beard—cannot claim any intellectual or spiritual superiority. These billy goats pretend to come with a message from God, all the while exhausting themselves in spouting their lies, and imposing on the masses blind obedience to the “words of the master.” The miracles of the prophets are impostures, based on trickery, or the stories regarding them are lies.
The falseness of what all the prophets say is evident in the fact that they contradict one another: one affirms what the other denies, and yet each claims to be the sole depository of the truth; thus the New Testament contradicts the Torah, the Koran the New Testament. As for the Koran, it is but an assorted mixture of ‘absurd and inconsistent fables,’ which has ridiculously been judged inimitable, when, in fact, its language, style, and its much-vaunted ‘eloquence’ are far from being faultless.
You claim that the evidentiary miracle is present and available, namely, the Koran. You say: “Whoever denies it, let him produce a similar one.” Indeed, we shall produce a thousand similar, from the works of rhetoricians, eloquent speakers and valiant poets, which are more appropriately phrased and state the issues more succinctly. They convey the meaning better and their rhymed prose is in better meter. … By God what you say astonishes us! You are talking about a work which recounts ancient myths, and which at the same time is full of contradictions and does not contain any useful information or explanation. Then you say: “Produce something like it?
Custom, tradition, and intellectual laziness lead men to follow their religious leaders blindly. Religions have been the sole cause of the bloody wars that have ravaged mankind. Religions have also been resolutely hostile to philosophical speculation and to scientific research. The so-called holy scriptures are worthless and have done more harm than good, whereas the writings of the ancients like Plato, Aristotle, Euclid, and Hippocrates have rendered much greater service to humanity.
[/QUOTE]
There certainly are not many Muslim communities where one could express the above opinions and still be considered Muslim.