"I have long struggled to understand how smart, well-educated liberals can fail to perceive the unique dangers of Islam. In The End of Faith, I argued that such people don’t know what it’s like to really believe in God or Paradise—and hence imagine that no one else actually does. The symptoms of this blindness can be quite shocking. For instance, I once ran into the anthropologist Scott Atran after he had delivered one of his preening and delusional lectures on the origins of jihadist terrorism. According to Atran, people who decapitate journalists, filmmakers, and aid workers to cries of “Alahu akbar!” or blow themselves up in crowds of innocents are led to misbehave this way not because of their deeply held beliefs about jihad and martyrdom but because of their experience of male bonding in soccer clubs and barbershops. (Really.) So I asked Atran directly: ..."
If detesting the misogynistic and violent ideology of Islam is "racist," then I am a racist as well. Of course, Islam is not a race, so the "leftards" are simply enforcing dishonesty.
Paul Weston is one of the only public officials speaking the truth about Islam in Europe and the rest of the world. I love his calls for trying for treason those responsible. The same thing needs to be done in the U.S.
Be prepared for a very unpleasant future because of this deliberately contrived culture clash.
_________________ Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:
Yes, indeed, if you like bloodshed, hatred, bigotry and all the rest of THIS:
Beheadings Stonings Hangings Crucifixions Honor killings Genocide Supremacy/global domination Warfare/conquest Beatings Torture Limb amputations Genital mutilation Death to apostates Forced conversion Slavery Sex slavery and rape Misogyny/sexism Women enslavement Wife beating Child marriage/rape Brutality against homosexuals Censorship Dictatorship Bigotry and hatred Robbery and pillage Extortion of nonbelievers Animal cruelty Prohibition of music/singing Destruction of pre-Islamic antiquities Etc., ad nauseam
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm Posts: 5205 Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Wow, I was unaware that Richard Carrier and other atheists at 'freethought blogs' were dhimwits for Islam:
Dick Carrier wrote:
Pat Condell Gets Seriously Fucking Pwned by Dick Carrier http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4831
"...But now it’s just straight off world’s end into the abyss, as Alex Gabriel meticulously demonstrates (with, you know, facts) that in Condell’s latest right wing rant he could not have provided a clearer or more consistent example of…
* Not knowing what the f**k he is talking about (while arrogantly claiming he’s the one who knows what he’s talking about). * Why criticism of Islam needs to be Way Fucking More Nuanced than his racist, ethnophobic bullshit (and, through Gabriel’s deconstruction of it, how to actually effect such a nuanced critique). * Why Dawkins needs to start listening to smarter friends who Actually Know What They’re Talking About (given that Dawkins repeatedly praises Condell as the man to heed on this issue). * How not to do skepticism (and, amusingly, giving Gabriel a superb opportunity to demonstrate how to do skepticism really well).
Alex’s takedown (with its even more beautiful and educational and extensive statistics addendum) is a tour de force of admirable measure. I cannot fathom how anyone so brutally and thoroughly exposed as wrong about nearly everything he says, and wrong for no plausibly good reason (thus demonstrating that it is very probably bigotry driving his rants and not, say, facts), and never apologize and correct it, can continue to have anyone’s respect in the atheism, humanism, or skepticism communities.
In a world using objective outcome measures, Condell would be done and dusted. Sadly, too many people in the atheism, humanism, or skepticism communities replace objective facts with subjective feelings and defend their Brave Heroes rather than admit when they’ve destroyed their own credibility and their entire efforts have been exposed as a factophobic sham. Condellians will probably pepper my comments with defensive screeds somehow trying to restore Condell’s bullet-riddled body in logic-space to some semblance of crypto-ethnophobic zombie life. Just not with actual facts or logic. (Or they’ll just attack me with complete non sequiturs that don’t even defend their Hero, like I’ve seen them do time and again to others.)
There are lots of things wrong with Islam. But there are lots of things wrong with Christianity, too. And fascism. And poverty. And superstition. And ignorance. And bigotry.
Don’t listen to the Rush Limbaugh of Islamocriticism anymore. Please. Listen to people who know what they’re talking about, and aren’t ignorant ethnophobic bigots. We have at least six blogs on our network with contributors who have extensive experience with or knowledge of Islam and Muslims, some of them by or featuring actual ex-Muslims. I’m sure if you take the trouble to explore our roster you’ll find them (yes, I’m challenging you to do that…assuming you haven’t already!). Hear what they have to say instead."
Dear Pat Condell… why this homo-Islamic masochist rejects your anti-Muslim crusade by Alex Gabriel http://freethoughtblogs.com/godlessness/2013/11/19/dear-pat-condell-why-this-homo-islamic-masochist-rejects-your-anti-muslim-crusade/
Ann Marie Waters – You Are Not Helping By Supporting Condell by Avicenna http://freethoughtblogs.com/amilliongods/2013/10/01/ann-marie-waters-you-are-not-helping-by-supporting-condell/
There can be only One Problem, and it is Muslim by PZ Myers http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/09/30/there-can-be-only-one-problem-and-it-is-muslim/
Dhimwit: "A non-Muslim member of a free society that abets the stated cause of Islamic domination with remarkable gullibility. A dhimwit is always quick to extend sympathy to the very enemy that would take away his or her own freedom (or life) if given the opportunity."
"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth."
- Omar M. Ahmad, founder of Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), July 4th 1998
Over the years, I've been in many debates with Muslim fanatics and dhimmi defenders (collectively "apologists" or "defenders"). As is the case with Christian apologetics, Muslim apologetics follows a basic pattern. Here I will discuss the pattern and give my rebuttals, so that others who encounter this very serious issue - and problem - will know what they are up against and how to proceed.
The most important rule when engaging in a debate of this sort is to resist the urge to become insulting in any way, shape or form. It's quite tempting just to sling epithets and insults back at the apologist when s/he becomes rude and insulting, which almost always happens and which is a major stage of apologetics. They don't call such defenses "polemics" for nothing, as "polemic" - meaning "a strong verbal or written attack on someone or something" - comes from the Greek word πολεμικός (polemikos), connoting "warlike" and deriving from the root word πόλεμος (polemos) denoting "war."
Even if you avoid insults, you will be insulted in return, simply for bringing up scientific or historical FACTS. For example, if you say that Islam's warriors have been responsible for the slaughter of some 270 million non-Muslims, you will be called a "racist" and "Islamophobe." It matters not whether or not you have the FACTS at hand to prove this contention. An emotional, kneejerk appeal will be made just to shut you up. The insults and shrieks of "racism," "bigotry" and "Islamophobia" are designed to block out the facts, akin to plugging one's ears and going "Nyah, nyah, nyah!" at the top of one's lungs.
When you encounter such behaviors, either point out that the individual has just made an ad hominem personal attack or ignore it, resisting the urge to return the abuse. Those who abuse the most are generally considered to have lost the debate. It's best to avoid the "you are" or "u r" this and thats, although you can point out something to the effect: "Thanks for the insults. I expected it in response to the FACTS I've just shared."
Here is how the debate with Muslim apologists and Islamodefenders usually goes:
Both males and females engage in the first three, while women tend to shy away from the last two.
In the first stage, the insults can come up immediately, if you hit a nerve with, say, a criticism of the oppression of women. Oddly enough, Muslim women will jump all over you if you point out that the niqab or burka are oppressive. They will deny this fact with great hostility. They will also throw out the utterly false apology that dressing in this manner is a "choice." Their dhimmi defenders will also jump in with insults, right out of the gate. So, sometimes all three of the first stages are passed through immediately, in a singe response.
The attempt is to shame you into submission by claiming that it is WE who are oppressing Muslim women by denying them the "choice" to dress in Islamic slave clothing. If you respond with FACTS, a less dishonest apologist may grudgingly backtrack and claim that s/he never said it was "always a choice." Note, however, that you will not be given any credit or recognition for your knowledge or intelligence at this point, as the fact that you were correct will not be acknowledged. The apologies will continue.
Oppression of Women
The standard factual rebuttal is that most Muslim women who dress in this oppressive clothing designed to remove their faces from public do NOT have a choice in wearing these garments. In Saudi Arabia, for example, the women are considered MINORS their entire lives and must be subject to a MALE GUARDIAN. They do NOT have a choice of whether or not to wear the niqab or full face veil with eyes only showing, unless their male guardian(s) allows it.
You should also point out that women in parts of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran assuredly have NO choice about wearing Islamic female slave clothing, as I call it. Women in Afghanistan continue to be beaten into submission by the more fanatical Muslim males there. The Iranian women were DEAD SET against the hijab and likewise were beaten physically into submission into accepting it. Here is an eye-opening video about the women in Iran just after the revolution of 1979 that brought in the evil Khomeini and his diabolical minions:
Here's the sad story of a beautiful Canadian girl who was murdered by her father and brother for not wearing hijab - in Canada. Choice? Between hijab and death?
There are other proofs for this contention of female oppression, including the Quran itself. Here is a summary of quotes from Islam's sacred text:
SUMMARY OF KORANIC QUOTES REGARDING WOMEN
Menstruating women are unclean, and men must stay away from them. Women are men's "fields," and men can have sex with them whenever they want. Men are superior to women and have authority over them, while women must obey men or risk being beaten. A woman is worth one-half of a man. Muslim men can own sex slaves.
The actual quotes from the Koran/Quran can be found here - and you can always link to my blog:
If someone concedes that the veil can be oppressive and not a choice - as happened recently with one Muslim woman who was soooo offended by me that she and I engaged in a lengthy debate on Twitter - the next apology will be "OUT OF CONTEXT!"
This "context" apology still fits into the denial stage, although it is also a deflection, so it fulfills both stages 1 and 2. Deflection is also used feverishly in defending Islamic female slave clothing, by batting away the criticisms and pointing attention to the dress of women in the West. Bikinis and thongs are thrown up, as if we are all compelled to run about in those. The abuse of young girls as "sexual objects" is also thrown up, as if that's an accepted and unchallenged part of our culture.
The insults at this stage include trying to make you appear as if you have said something about little girls when you haven't even brought up the subject. So, by criticizing Islamic female slave clothing, you will be smeared with some very seedy rhetoric. It's like asking, "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" Obviously, we are completely against the abuse of females of any age, so this vicious deflection reflects the desperation and sociopathy of the apologist.
Moreover, unlike in many Muslim countries, there are laws against abusing young girls in the West. On the contrary, Islamic law in various countries allows them to be married at any age and raped at puberty or sometime before, after the age of nine. Mohammed is cited as the example, since in the sahih (authorized) hadiths, he is depicted as marrying a six-year-old and having sex with her beginning when she was nine. This simple fact, which has led to the "marriage" and rape of millions of little girls, is often denied and deflected as well, even though we can cite the sahih hadiths and the numerous places in the Muslim world where such behaviors are practiced widely, as in Yemen quite blatantly.
Here are just a couple of hadiths about Mohammed having sex with his nine-year-old wife Aisha:
The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88 Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64
More data in this regard can be found at Wiki Islam, a bane to apologists who will, of course, attack the source.
Next we proceed to the "out of context" argument, used to deflect any kind of criticism of Islam's sacred texts, such as the Quran and sahih hadiths. I am reminded, naturally, of the following video, which can be circulated at this point, although it's addressing Christian apologetics:
In the first place, the Quran is meant to convey ETERNAL EDICTS, not history, so this "context" apology is just plain wrong straight away. Someone who claims the Quran is merely a history book and does not convey principles and commandments from Allah that are to be followed for all eternity - indeed, as the very definition of what it is to be a Muslim - would be considered an apostate by the most devout ("radical" or "extremist") Muslims.
These most fanatical Muslims are quite certain that all the infidelophobic hate speech and misogyny of the Quran is how they are supposed to think, as Muslims, here and now. No historical context is needed or given to the millions of children attending Islamic schools or madrassas, where they are forced to learn the Quran by heart. They are simply told that these are Allah's commandments, not that they shouldn't take them to heart because they are "mere history" ripped out of context by infidels or those who are "not really Muslims." Again, these fanatics brainwashing these kids through deprivation and abuse into memorizing the Quran would consider these apologists to be apostates and infidels, worthy of death.
'Slave of Allah.' A child is chained in an Islamic school or madrassa (in Bangladesh?). Photo: GMB Akash
Secondly, the burden should be placed back on the apologist to tell these fanatics that it is THEY who are taking the quotes "out of context." Send them to this article:
Ask the apologists to track down all these MUSLIM AUTHORITIES who are "misunderstanding Islam" and "taking quotes out of context." If the apologists can prove that they have found these Muslim spokespeople and straightened them out for misunderstanding Islam and taking quotes out of context, then we may be impressed by the apologists' opinions but not until then.
What about Christianity?
Those are a few examples of the stages of denial and deflection. The latter really kicks into gear when apologists bring up Christianity, which they like to throw in anyone's face, not realizing the person they are addressing may not be a Christian. This stage occurs usually after one has employed the previous responses and thoroughly trounced the false apologies regarding women and context. There is no answer to the proofs proffered, so the apologist must resort to changing the subject as quickly as possible. Hence, frantic appeals to the guilt of Christianity are tossed out next.
Obviously, to those who are not Christian, this apology does not present much of a challenge. Christians will point out that the misbehaviors of Christianity are well in the past, although that's not quite true, obviously, as Christian fanatics in America even in high political office continue to threaten our freedoms with the same old oppressive junk of the past. But they are kept in check largely by our secularism, which is pretty engrained at this point. The same cannot be said of Africa, where the deadly mix of Christian and animistic superstitions continue to imperil innocents, accused of witchcraft, for example, and abused horrifically. See, e.g.: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/1 ... 24943.html
In any event, we secularists can say that we aren't Christians, so that deflection won't work. In fact, we criticize Christianity somewhat fiercely, and we can point out that this apology is changing the subject because we were not discussing Christianity. Both faiths emanate from the Abrahamic root, so one can go off on that path, if one wishes. One can also point out that Islam accepts Christianity as a "revealed religion" and Christians as part of the "People of the Book." Islam embraces not only Abraham but also Moses, Joshua, Jesus and other biblical figures as "real prophets of Allah."
Moreover, when discussing Islam, the inevitable ad homs of shrieking "racism!" and "Islamophobia!" will come up. By criticizing Christianity, we may ask, are these apologists "racists" and "Christianophobes?"
Racism and Islamophobia
This deflection brings up the "racism" and "Islamophobia" insults, which also accompany shrill cries that one is a "bigot" merely for discussing Islamic history and terrorism. It's quite unbelievable that anyone remotely civilized or with pretenses at honesty attempts to force us not to discuss the 800-pound gorilla in the room by using insults to bully us into silence. But so it is, and this derogating abuse over reciting facts is a tactic that works with many "sheeple" who are too frightened of confrontation and not educated enough to stand their ground. It is with this fear in mind that I compose this lengthy post here, so that others will feel empowered to defend themselves against an encroaching oppression that is worse than any other religious fanaticism ever devised by the human mind, even more so than Christianity.
It should be obvious that criticizing an ideology such as Islam is not racist. Again, is it racist to criticize Christianity? Images such as these are useful in getting the point across:
If it's racist to criticize Islam, it is also racist to criticize Judaism, and Muslims do that quite abundantly.
Hence, these Muslim fanatics must be "racists." Islamic texts define Jews as the descendants of apes and pigs, and children are taught such hatred; thus, Muslim parents are instilling racism in their innocent children.
As concerns the bogus epithet "Islamophobia," you can use the second image about about ideas not being people. I have a very handy blog post with three honest Muslim men all pointing to ISLAM as the source of "Islamophobia":
There are many other apologies for this "Islamophobia" slur, including that having a healthy fear of something is not a "phobia" and that Islam's history of full of violent acts that all sensible people should fear. Moreover, most of us dislike Islam and those who are activists against its fanaticism are certainly not fearful - otherwise, we wouldn't say anything! We are among the LEAST fearful by taking on this violent ideology known to murder its critics. Other terms have been proffered, such as "Islamorealism," "Islamonausea" and "Islamomisia," the latter of which means "hatred of Islam."
Furthermore, since Islam is against infidels, including Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus and atheists, one could respond in kind that Muslim fanatics are infidelophobes, Christianophobes, Judeophobes, Buddophobes and Hindophobes. Here's another image one can use - I wish the term "infidelophobia" would catch on:
There are many infidelophobic verses in the Koran - indeed, over 60% of the text is hate speech against nonbelievers. Here is a link with these infidelophobic verses "taken out of context" - not by us, but by Islam's most fanatical followers, who are inculcating these "eternal edicts" without restraint and historical context into millions of impressionable minds on a daily basis:
"Lord...give us victory over the unbelievers." Quran 3:147
"I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers." Quran 8:12
"Let not the unbelievers think they will ever get away. They have not the power so to do. Muster against them all the men and cavalry at your command, so that you may strike terror into the enemy of Allah and your enemy..." Quran 8:59-60
"When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them." Quran 9:5
"Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate." Quran 9:73
"Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them. Know that God is with the righteous." Quran 9:123
"Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another..." Quran 5:51
"He that chooses a religion over Islam, it will not be accepted from him and in the world to come he will be one of the lost." Quran 3:85
"Let not believers make friends with infidels in preference to the faithful - he that does this has nothing to hope for from Good - except in self-defense. God admonishes you to fear Him: for to God shall all return." Quran 3:28
"Garments of fire have been prepared for the unbelievers. Scalding water shall be poured upon their heads, melting their skins and that which is in their bellies. They shall be lashed with rods of iron.
Etc., ad nauseam
Also, don't forget this article with videos of Muslims themselves agitating for the following aspects of sharia law - if one is to be considered a "misunderstander of Islam" by claiming these barbarities are Islamic, then the apologist again must approach these Muslim authorities and tell them that they are "misunderstanding Islam" and "taking these things out of context."
Beheadings Stonings Hangings Crucifixions Honor killings Genocide Supremacy/global domination Warfare/conquest Beatings Torture Limb amputations Genital mutilation Death to apostates Forced conversion Slavery Sex slavery and rape Misogyny/sexism Women enslavement Wife beating Child marriage/rape Brutality against homosexuals Censorship Dictatorship Bigotry and hatred Robbery and pillage Extortion of nonbelievers Animal cruelty Prohibition of music/singing Destruction of pre-Islamic antiquities
When confronted with the atrocities committed in the name of Islam, many apologists will deflect off Islam onto its practitioners, blaming individuals, rather than the ideology, e.g.:
...the problem is in some ignorant Muslim not in Islam....
This is yet another typical apology that is false and rings hollow. Why, then, are there so many "ignorant Muslims?" Why can't they behave properly, if what they believe is so good and righteous? Millions of them would be "ignorant Muslims," according to you? Why is there such a high percentage of these "ignorant" (and violent and hateful) people within Islam?
It's because the IDEOLOGY inculcates and/or encourages hatred and violence in them. It really doesn't take a genius to see that. If the IDEOLOGY does not affect people's behavior, good or bad, then it is worthless. Why become a follower of Islam, if it doesn't affect your mind and behavior somehow?
One cannot hear and read such infidelophobia and misogynistic hate speech on a regular basis without being programmed by it - that's the whole purpose of memorizing and reciting the Quran every day!
And HERE is what these "ignorant Muslims" are learning day in and day out - sheer hatred and viciousness towards others, BASED ON QURANIC TEXTS.
"About sixty-one percent of the contents of the Koran are found to speak ill of the unbelievers or call for their violent conquest; at best only 2.6 percent of the verses of the Koran are noted to show goodwill toward humanity. About seventy-five percent of Muhammad’s biography (Sira) consists of jihad waged on unbelievers." –Dr. Moorthy Muthuswamy
Small children are being programmed with this hatred, day in and day out. The desired effect of this Quranic conditioning is to create minds reflecting the verses being memorized. Otherwise, all is for naught. Fanatical imams/Muslim clerics frequently preach this hatred from the pulpit during Friday sermons, after which mobs of Muslim fanatics rampage in the streets, attacking infidels such as Hindus and so on.
"(Reuters) - In 13 countries around the world, all of them Muslim, people who openly espouse atheism or reject the official state religion of Islam face execution under the law, according to a detailed study issued on Tuesday.
And beyond the Islamic nations, even some of the West's apparently most democratic governments at best discriminate against citizens who have no belief in a god and at worst can jail them for offenses dubbed blasphemy, it said.
The study, The Freethought Report 2013, was issued by the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU), a global body uniting atheists, agnostics and other religious skeptics, to mark United Nations' Human Rights Day on Tuesday.
"This report shows that the overwhelming majority of countries fail to respect the rights of atheists and freethinkers although they have signed U.N agreements to treat all citizens equally," said IHEU President Sonja Eggerickx......."
Freedom of Thought 2013: A Global Report on the Rights, Legal Status, and Discrimination Against Humanists, Atheists, and the Non-religious was created by the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU)
The International Humanist and Ethical Union is the world union of more than 120 Humanist, atheist, rationalist, secular, ethical culture, and freethought organizations from more than 40 countries. Its mission is to represent and support the global Humanist movement, with the ultimate goal of building a Humanist world in which human rights are respected and all can live a life of dignity.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 7 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum