Is Islam an evil religion?

[FireGarden]

People seem to be doing this by using the "spoiler" tool, I have noticed.

I tend not to check out spoliers. But you're right, River does manage to swear. I would consider that against the rules.

That said, the link itself is free from swearing. So google, etc, won't flag this page as having swearing on it. I think that might be the rational behind the auto-censor on this site, which seeks to not be banned by schools and such.

I'm not a moderator. It's their call.

Craig, what was that whole business about Turkey anyway?

I don't recall why the matter of Turkey/Greece was originally raised. But, at some point, you made a dismissive remark about the population transfers. That kind of thing doesn't sit well with your rather vague description of what you want done about Islam.

But at the same time, I would only make a statement if I was 100% sure or had proof at hand.

Maybe on some level I throw some things into the mix to watch deserving dolts pull their hair out. Maybe.

'On some level', Bill?
Are you trying to blame this on your subconcious?

I mean, this is not an op-ed piece or a blog. If others post ramblings about Syria or Bosnia or something that happened in the 1400s and then fail to explain what they mean, the proverbial bar is lowered, don't you think?

So you're going to blame us for you not playing at your best?

Shame. And there was I thinking you were exhibiting a talent:

Yes, you have a talent for saying things you don't believe. Do you have any more examples?

 

[bikerdruid]

Today we have Islam to thank for teaching kids that evolution is a lie, the heavens are like a shell around the earth and even sometimes that the earth is flat. And the only book you need for any information is the Quran.

wow, bill....i think you are confused.
the american christian right is who is telling people that evolution is a lie.

the arabs named most of the stars in the sky. they were damn good astronomers.

the bible also teaches that the earth is flat.
if american christians could get away with the flat earth nonsense, they would,

 

[Belgian thought]

wow, bill....i think you are confused.
the american christian right is who is telling people that evolution is a lie.

the arabs named most of the stars in the sky. they were damn good astronomers.

the bible also teaches that the earth is flat.
id american christians could get away with the flat earth nonsense, they would,
.

So who is wrong?

 

[Bill Thompson]

• Since a lot of ex-muslims seem to say that it is an evil religion, to them at least the answer to the OP is yes, it is an evil religion.
• Since it took American Special forces to take out Osama bin Laden who was taken care of and hidden by Muslims rather than being taken out by Muslims, it seems that the answer is yes, it is an evil religion.
• If any other religion was behind 9-11, that religioin would be removed from society. But islam has a special case because of its size and people's fear of being killed. WIth this in mind, yes, it is an evil religion.
• The more I learn about Islam, (like my Muslim co-worker not being able to concentrate and do his job during Ramadan and getting fired because of this) the worse it seems. Experience tells me that, like other religions I have studied, if it starts to look bad it only looks worse the deeper i dig. With this in mind, yes, Islam is an evil religion.
• Lincoln, like most Union Politicians during the Civil War, blamed the Catholic Church for aiding the South in their waging war against the North. This only means somehow that Islam is an evil religion to your logic and to my dismay and amusement. I invite you to contat the University of Washington History Department if you doubt this at UW Department of History, 315 Smith Box 353560, Seattle, WA 98195-3560 | TEL 206.543.5790 | Fax 206.543.9451

Before many of the posts were moved from Ask A Muslim Anything to Abandon All Hope, Bill Thompson was arguing about the evils of Islam (he never actually used the word "evil", but that's the general impression), so I thought I'd open up a thread specifically for people to voice their opinions on the subject.

I had to Google it, but here's the video and a transcript of the points...



ONE

Islam has not been hijacked. That Islam has been hijacked is what non-Muslims naturally assume because they assume that all religions are the same.

The reason that non-Muslims are so easily confused is that most of us don't realize the difference between the Qur'an and every other religious book we are familiar with.

The Christian Bible is a collection of writings from various authors written sometimes hundreds of years apart, with parables, advice and dreams all collected together into one book. The same with the Jewish Torah.

Even those of us in the west who are neither Christians nor Jews are still familiar enough with these religions to know this much, and therefore we assume the same is true for the Qur'an.

But the Qur'an is only one book, written by one man in his own lifetime. And it is meant to be taken literally, and it is not full of symbolism or vague analogies. It is mostly direct commands.

Of course the Qur'an contains contradictory statements, just like other religious books. But the Qur'an itself provides the reader with a way to know what to do with the contradictions. It's explained in the Qur'an that if you have two passages that contradict each-other, the one written later supersedes the one written earlier.

Most westerners are unaware that the peaceful, tolerant passages were written early in Mohammad's prophetic career.

According to the Qur'an, those passages have been abrogated by later, more violent and less tolerant passages. So when most westerners see Jihadist's quoting violent passages from the Qur'an, and then peaceful Muslims quoting peaceful passages, they interpret that the way they would as if someone was quoting the Bible or the Torah.

They think to themselves, oh there must be many different and contradictory passages, like there are in other religious books. So Muslims can pick and choose what they like, and justify whatever actions they want to take.

But the Qu'ran is nothing like that. There is no picking and choosing. It says very explicitly, and in no uncertain terms that a Muslim must not alter or ignore any part of this very clear and direct message, or they will burn in a fiery torment forever.

TWO

Striving to institute world-wide Shari'a Law is a religious duty. Many people don't realize how politically oriented Islam is at it's core. In fact, Islam is less of a religion than it is a religious ideology.

It includes a mandatory and highly specific legal and political plan for the whole society. Shari'a. There is no separation between the religious and the
political in Islam.

Rather, Islam and Shari'a constitute a totalitarian means of ordering society at very level, including ritual worship, transactions and contracts, morals and manners, beliefs and punishments.

In the Qur'an, Allah makes it clear that man-made governments (such as democracy) and free-speech (such as criticizing the Qur'an) are abominations and must be eliminated.

The modern expression "creeping Shari'a" is used to describe the slow, deliberate and methodical advance of Islamic law in non-Muslim countries. Official Sharia courts already operate in the UK, and in cases ranging from divorce, financial disputes and domestic violence. Attempts to introduce Shari'a in the legal system in Germany, Sweden and other European countries are ongoing.

While Shari'a already has a foot in our door in the matter of minor disputes like inheritance and domestic violence, it should concern you that Shari'a commands that drinkers and gamblers should be whipped, allows husbands to hit their wives, allows an injured plaintiff to exact revenge. Literally an eye for an eye.

Commands that a thief must have a hand cut off. Commands that homosexuals must be executed. Orders unmarried fornicators to be whipped, and adulterers to be stoned to death.

Orders death for both Muslim and non-Muslim critics of Mohammad, the Qur'an, and even Shari'a itself. Orders apostates to be killed. Commands offensive, aggressive and unjust Jihad.

As written in the Qur'an, Shari'a is the law of Allah. Any other form of government is a sin. It is the duty of every Muslim to keep striving until all governments have been converted to Shari'a law.

THREE

Muslims are allowed to deceive non-Muslims if it helps Islam. For non-Muslims this principle, called Taqiyya, is another surprising concept of Islam.

While most other religions speak highly of truthfulness, the Qur'an instructs Muslims to lie to non-Muslims about their beliefs and their political ambitions, to protect and spread Islam.

There are many examples of today's Islamic leaders saying one thing in English for the western press, and then saying something entirely different to their own followers in Arabic a few days later.

Deceiving the enemy is always useful in war, and Islam is at war with the non-Islamic world until the whole world follows Shari'a law.

All non-Muslims living in non-Muslim states are therefore enemies. So deceiving westerners it totally acceptable, even encouraged if it can forward the goals of the spread of Islam.

As a recent example, the Islamic American Relief Agency were seemingly raising money for orphans, but in fact giving the money to terrorists. The deceived good-hearted western infidels into giving money to organizations that were actively killing western infidels.

Do the research yourself. This is not an isolated case.

Islam as a religion of peace. Muslim organizations worldwide often declare that Islam is a religion of peace. But what does that really mean?

It seems easy for a Muslim to quote a peaceful verse from the early parts of the Qur'an while, by following the principle of Taqiyya, neglecting to mention the fact that it has been officially abrogated by later, more violent verses.

According to the Qur'an, the world will only be at peace only when Islam and Shari'a reign in every country, and never until then. This is why every Muslim can truthfully say that Islam is a religion of peace.

• Since a lot of ex-muslims seem to say that it is an evil religion, to them at least the answer to the OP is yes, it is an evil religion.
• Since it took American Special forces to take out Osama bin Laden who was taken care of and hidden by Muslims rather than being taken out by Muslims, it seems that the answer is yes, it is an evil religion.
• If any other religion was behind 9-11, that religioin would be removed from society. But islam has a special case because of its size and people's fear of being killed. WIth this in mind, yes, it is an evil religion.
• The more I learn about Islam, (like my Muslim co-worker not being able to concentrate and do his job during Ramadan and getting fired because of this) the worse it seems. Experience tells me that, like other religions I have studied, if it starts to look bad it only looks worse the deeper i dig. With this in mind, yes, Islam is an evil religion.
• Lincoln, like most Union Politicians during the Civil War, blamed the Catholic Church for aiding the South in their waging war against the North. This only means somehow that Islam is an evil religion to your logic and to my dismay and amusement. I invite you to contat the University of Washington History Department if you doubt this at UW Department of History, 315 Smith Box 353560, Seattle, WA 98195-3560 | TEL 206.543.5790 | Fax 206.543.9451

 

[Bill Thompson]

wow, bill....i think you are confused.
the american christian right is who is telling people that evolution is a lie.

the arabs named most of the stars in the sky. they were damn good astronomers.

the bible also teaches that the earth is flat.
if american christians could get away with the flat earth nonsense, they would,

• WRONG I am on the mailing lists of lots of Muslim web sites, and masques. They have sent lots of emails that demand that evolution is an invention of the infidels and all that stuff. They are very much against evolution and the teaching of it. Much much more than the Christian right wingers.
• WRONG Ghandi was in charge when the bloodiest part of India's history went down
• WRONG Islam is even less tolerant on social issues that even the most extreme right-winger
• WRONG Islam is not tolerant of other religions and is more political than even the Christian Right in the USA. You cannot be both a believer in freedom of religon and a supporter of Islam.
• WRONG I am not so stupid to not know that the Bible teaches that the earth is flat. Your comment is meaningless because most christian leaders stress that the Bible is not to be taken literally. I have said this dozen of times.

 

[A'isha]

I see Bill has quoted the OP of this thread, basically using the transcript of the video Brian-M initially posted as a final, compelling argument, completely ignoring the intervening twenty-eight pages of discussion.

But it did make me realize that while some of what the video/transcript says had been talked about, it hasn't really been directly addressed in any detail. So, for the benefit of everyone who doesn't have me on ignore, here's what the video gets utterly, utterly wrong.

ONE

Islam has not been hijacked. That Islam has been hijacked is what non-Muslims naturally assume because they assume that all religions are the same.

Not true. That's also been stated, flat-out, by actual practicing Muslims. For example, the argument that Islam has been hijacked is actually the central thesis of the book The Great Theft: Wrestling Islam from the Extremists, by Dr. Khaled Abou El-Fadl, a professor of law at UCLA and a trained faqih (scholar of Islamic Jurisprudence). He argues rather compellingly that the extremists (he calls them "puritans" in his book) have indeed hijacked Islam, and traces not just the historical events of this hijacking and the reason for its prevalence today, but also compares and contrasts it to both "Classical Islam" as it was practiced for most of the religion's history, and to modern "moderate" Islam.

The reason that non-Muslims are so easily confused is that most of us don't realize the difference between the Qur'an and every other religious book we are familiar with.

The Christian Bible is a collection of writings from various authors written sometimes hundreds of years apart, with parables, advice and dreams all collected together into one book. The same with the Jewish Torah.

Even those of us in the west who are neither Christians nor Jews are still familiar enough with these religions to know this much, and therefore we assume the same is true for the Qur'an.

The guy in the video apparently doesn't know as much as he thinks he does, else he'd know that in Jewish tradition, the Torah is reputed to all have been written by a single person as well: Moses.

But the Qur'an is only one book, written by one man in his own lifetime.

This is incorrect on both direct grounds (not every Sura was revealed by Muhammad - the Sura containing the infamous "verse of the sword", for instance, was revealed by Muhammad's cousin Ali ibn Abi Talib), and on indirect grounds (the Qur'an was transmitted mostly orally with a few different written copies floating around until about 650 AD, when the third Caliph, Uthman, ordered that a "definitive" written version be produced, and had all the other written versions collected and destroyed).

And it is meant to be taken literally, and it is not full of symbolism or vague analogies. It is mostly direct commands.

This is completely wrong. The Qur'an itself says that some of the verses contained with in it are mukham (or "clear"), while others are mutashabih (or "ambiguous").

This has resulted in the centuries-old tradition of tafsir, the many exegetical works that explain, interpret, and comment on the Qur'an (tafsir comes from the word fassara, which means to explain or interpret - someone who comments on the Qur'an in a tafsir is called a mufassir).

There is also a distinction made between tafsir, which is used to explain the "outer" or zahir meaning of the Qur'an, and ta'wil, which explains the "inner" or hidden (batin) meaning of the Qur'an. Sufis and Shia sects like the Isma'ilis make quite a bit of this distinction and believe that the obvious interpretation of the Qur'an is often not the correct interpretation.

And then there's the method of interpretation favored by scholars like the 13th-century Ibn Arabi, who argued that every possible linguistic interpretation of the Qur'an is correct (albeit not necessarily equally correct).

For more detail about interpretation of the Qur'an, see my post here (which the above bits are repeated from)

Of course the Qur'an contains contradictory statements, just like other religious books. But the Qur'an itself provides the reader with a way to know what to do with the contradictions. It's explained in the Qur'an that if you have two passages that contradict each-other, the one written later supersedes the one written earlier.

Not exactly. This refers to the practice of naskh, or abrogation. It's ostensibly based on 2:106, which says "None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?" (Yusuf Ali's translation)

The word "revelations" there, ayah (plural ayat), is translated that way because doesn't mean just "passage" or "verse", but "omen, sign, proof, commandment, law, rule and/or guidance". The "verses" of the Qur'an are called by the same word because each one is also considered a revelation. The only way to tell what the word ayah or ayat is referring to is by context. And, if you read the passages leading up to 2:106, you'll see that it's addressing the Jews (2:92 even talks about how Moses came down with clear ayat, but the Jews turned to worship of the Calf).

As a result, not only is there a colossal disagreement among scholars as to which verses are abrogated, there are a large number of scholars who dismiss the concept of abrogation as being entirely invalid.

For an in-depth exploration of abrogation and its history and concepts, I recommend John Burton's The Sources of Islamic Law: Islamic Theories of Abrogation.

Most westerners are unaware that the peaceful, tolerant passages were written early in Mohammad's prophetic career.

Not all of them. The "peaceful, tolerant" passages are scattered all through the Qur'an, and appear just as often in the later, supposedly more violent Medinan verses as they do in the earlier, supposedly more peaceful Meccan verses.

For example, 60:7-9 "It may be that Allah will grant love (and friendship) between you and those whom ye (now) hold as enemies. For Allah has power (over all things); And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just. Allah only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) Faith, and drive you out of your homes, and support (others) in driving you out, from turning to them (for friendship and protection). It is such as turn to them (in these circumstances), that do wrong."

That was revealed less than a month before the final conquest of Mecca by Muhammad, the culmination and end of the long war with the Quraysh.

According to the Qur'an, those passages have been abrogated by later, more violent and less tolerant passages.

Nope, not according to the Qur'an. According to some (but far from all) mufassir, yes. But, as noted above, not even those mufassir who accept naskh agree on which specific verses have been abrogated.

So when most westerners see Jihadist's quoting violent passages from the Qur'an, and then peaceful Muslims quoting peaceful passages, they interpret that the way they would as if someone was quoting the Bible or the Torah.

They think to themselves, oh there must be many different and contradictory passages, like there are in other religious books. So Muslims can pick and choose what they like, and justify whatever actions they want to take.

But the Qu'ran is nothing like that. There is no picking and choosing. It says very explicitly, and in no uncertain terms that a Muslim must not alter or ignore any part of this very clear and direct message, or they will burn in a fiery torment forever.

In Dr. El-Fadl's book mentioned above, he notes that it's the puritans, via the mechanism of abrogation, who are actually picking and choosing what passages in the Qur'an to follow, precisely because of all those peaceful passages: "Significantly, it is exactly because their worldview is not supported by the Qur'an that they [the puritans] have to resort to dubious methods such as declaring that parts of the Qur'an have been abrogated, not by human beings interpreting the text, but by God. This way they can avoid taking responsibility for ignoring parts of the Divine book, and instead attribute the responsibility directly to God."

[EDIT:And, again, the guy in the video doesn't understand the other holy books as well as he thinks it does - the Bible also contains threats towards anyone who alters or removes part of it, such as at the end of the Book of Revelation.]

TWO

Striving to institute world-wide Shari'a Law is a religious duty. Many people don't realize how politically oriented Islam is at it's core. In fact, Islam is less of a religion than it is a religious ideology.

It includes a mandatory and highly specific legal and political plan for the whole society. Shari'a. There is no separation between the religious and the
political in Islam.

Rather, Islam and Shari'a constitute a totalitarian means of ordering society at very level, including ritual worship, transactions and contracts, morals and manners, beliefs and punishments.

In the Qur'an, Allah makes it clear that man-made governments (such as democracy) and free-speech (such as criticizing the Qur'an) are abominations and must be eliminated.

The modern expression "creeping Shari'a" is used to describe the slow, deliberate and methodical advance of Islamic law in non-Muslim countries. Official Sharia courts already operate in the UK, and in cases ranging from divorce, financial disputes and domestic violence. Attempts to introduce Shari'a in the legal system in Germany, Sweden and other European countries are ongoing.

While Shari'a already has a foot in our door in the matter of minor disputes like inheritance and domestic violence, it should concern you that Shari'a commands that drinkers and gamblers should be whipped, allows husbands to hit their wives, allows an injured plaintiff to exact revenge. Literally an eye for an eye.

Commands that a thief must have a hand cut off. Commands that homosexuals must be executed. Orders unmarried fornicators to be whipped, and adulterers to be stoned to death.

Orders death for both Muslim and non-Muslim critics of Mohammad, the Qur'an, and even Shari'a itself. Orders apostates to be killed. Commands offensive, aggressive and unjust Jihad.

As written in the Qur'an, Shari'a is the law of Allah. Any other form of government is a sin. It is the duty of every Muslim to keep striving until all governments have been converted to Shari'a law.

Regarding this whole section, I recommend either Dr. El-Fadl's book above (which discusses the roots of "puritan" Shari'a vs. other kinds of Shari'a [no, there's not just one single Shari'a] as part of his overall discussion of moderate Islam vs. extremist Islam), or his book And God Knows the Soldiers: The Authoritative and Authoritarian in Islamic Discourses, which covers the subject in much more depth.

And as for the "creeping Shari'a" nonsense specifically, this essay by Abraham Foxman, head of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League, says it all as far as I'm concerned.

I'll address the third part, the crap about taqiyya, later.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I see Bill has quoted the OP of this, basically using the transcript of the video Brian-M posted as a final, compelling argument, completely ignoring the intervening twenty-eight pages of discussion.

But it did make me realize that while some of what the video/transcript says had been talked about, it hasn't really been directly addressed in any detail. So, for the benefit of everyone who doesn't have me on ignore, here's what the video gets utterly, utterly wrong.



Not true. That's also been stated, flat-out, by actual practicing Muslims. For example, the argument that Islam has been hijacked is actually the central thesis of the book The Great Theft: Wrestling Islam from the Extremists, by Dr. Khaled Abou El-Fadl, a professor of law at UCLA and a trained faqih (scholar of Islamic Jurisprudence). He argues rather compellingly that the extremists (he calls them "puritans" in his book) have indeed hijacked Islam, and traces not just the historical events of this hijacking and the reason for its prevalence today, but also compares and contrasts it to both "Classical Islam" as it was practiced for most of the religion's history, and to modern "moderate" Islam.



The guy in the video apparently doesn't know as much as he thinks he does, else he'd know that in Jewish tradition, the Torah is reputed to all have been written by a single person as well: Moses.



This is incorrect on both direct grounds (not every Sura was revealed by Muhammad - the Sura containing the infamous "verse of the sword", for instance, was revealed by Muhammad's cousin Ali ibn Abi Talib), and on indirect grounds (the Qur'an was transmitted mostly orally with a few different written copies floating around until about 650 AD, when the third Caliph, Uthman, ordered that a "definitive" written version be produced, and had all the other written versions collected and destroyed).



This is completely wrong. The Qur'an itself says that some of the verses contained with in it are mukham (or "clear"), while others are mutashabih (or "ambiguous").

This has resulted in the centuries-old tradition of tafsir, the many exegetical works that explain, interpret, and comment on the Qur'an (tafsir comes from the word fassara, which means to explain or interpret - someone who comments on the Qur'an in a tafsir is called a mufassir).

Or the distinction made between tafsir, which is used to explain the "outer" or zahir meaning of the Qur'an, and ta'wil, which explains the "inner" or hidden (batin) meaning of the Qur'an. Especially since Sufis and Shia sects like the Isma'ilis make quite a bit of this distinction and believe that the obvious interpretation of the Qur'an is often not the correct interpretation.

And then there's the method of interpretation favored by scholars like the 13th-century Ibn Arabi, who argued that every possible linguistic interpretation of the Qur'an is correct (albeit not necessarily equally correct).

For more detail about interpretation of the Qur'an, see my post here (which the above bits are repeated from)



Not exactly. This refers to the practice of naskh, or abrogation. It's ostensibly based on 2:106, which says "None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?" (Yusuf Ali's translation)

The word "revelations" there, ayah (plural ayat), is translated that way because doesn't mean just "passage" or "verse", but "omen, sign, proof, commandment, law, rule and/or guidance". The "verses" of the Qur'an are called by the same word because each one is also considered a revelation. The only way to tell what the word ayah or ayat is referring to is by context. And, if you read the passages leading up to 2:106, you'll see that it's addressing the Jews (2:92 even talks about how Moses came down with clear ayat, but the Jews turned to worship of the Calf).

As a result, not only is there a colossal disagreement among scholars as to which verses are abrogated, there are a large number of scholars who dismiss the concept of abrogation as being entirely invalid.

For an in-depth exploration of abrogation and its history and concepts, I recommend John Burton's The Sources of Islamic Law: Islamic Theories of Abrogation.



Not all of them. The "peaceful, tolerant" passages are scattered all through the Qur'an, and appear just as often in the later, supposedly more violent Medinan verses as they do in the earlier, supposedly more peaceful Meccan verses.

For example, 60:7-9 "It may be that Allah will grant love (and friendship) between you and those whom ye (now) hold as enemies. For Allah has power (over all things); And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just. Allah only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) Faith, and drive you out of your homes, and support (others) in driving you out, from turning to them (for friendship and protection). It is such as turn to them (in these circumstances), that do wrong."

That was revealed less than a month before the final conquest of Mecca by Muhammad, the culmination and end of the long war with the Quraysh.



Nope, not according to the Qur'an. According to some (but far from all) mufassir, yes. But, as noted above, not even those mufassir who accept naskh agree on which specific verses have been abrogated.



In Dr. El-Fadl's book mentioned above, he notes that it's the puritans, via the mechanism of abrogation, who are actually picking and choosing what passages in the Qur'an to follow, precisely because of all those peaceful passages: "Significantly, it is exactly because their worldview is not supported by the Qur'an that they [the puritans] have to resort to dubious methods such as declaring that parts of the Qur'an have been abrogated, not by human beings interpreting the text, but by God. This way they can avoid taking responsibility for ignoring parts of the Divine book, and instead attribute the responsibility directly to God."



Regarding this whole section, I recommend either Dr. El-Fadl's book above (which discusses the roots of "puritan" Shari'a vs. other kinds of Shari'a [no, there's not just one single Shari'a] as part of his overall discussion of moderate Islam vs. extremist Islam), or his book And God Knows the Soldiers: The Authoritative and Authoritarian in Islamic Discourses, which covers the subject in much more depth.

And as for the "creeping Shari'a" nonsense, this essay by Abraham Foxman, head of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League, says it all as far as I'm concerned.

I'll address the third part, the crap about taqiyya, later.

No wonder Bill has you on ignore.

 

[Bill Thompson]

No wonder I put whom on Ignore?

In case you don't know, Islam is not true. It does not really matter if someone can defend it. Islam is fake just like Mormonism and Scientology.

AntPogo's excuse for the fact that the Quran begins with a prayer is to say that an angel is making the prayer. Well, that cannot be right because he made lots of mistakes in the Quran.

This kind of Apolgist nonsense can be applied to several religions and cults.

Speaking of cults. Shouldn't the 19 hijackers also be remebered on Ground Zero? Aren't they victims too?

Also, if Antpogo is examining a youtube video, she is breaking her own rules and did not comment on the ones that slams Islam more effectively.

I got tired of all her nonsense like saying that I should not be critical of Islam and that Christianity is a bigger threat. Then she failed to expalin why.

She refused to comment on Thunderf00t's video explaining why Islam has no place in the modern world. So I am going to ignore her until I have the time to transcribe it.

No wonder I put whom on Ignore? The woman who repeatedly accused me of being a biblical fundamentalist? Why would I pay attention to such nonsense?

 

[A'isha]

*sigh*

 

[Bill Thompson]

So, anyway, the point of this discussion is if Islam is evil. Someone pretending that it has merrit will be ingored until I have the time to transcribe Thunderf00t's video.

It is necessary since BikerDruid could only watch about 4 seconds of it and he did not even catch that it was mostly about Theo Van Gogh; the Age of Reason; and Modern Society (not about South Park).

Then I have more questions to ask. Like, should the 19 hijackers names also be at ground zero? I mean, if you are going to morn an event caused by a cult wouldn't you have a plack at Wacco, Texas for the Branch Dividians since they were out of their minds, just as the 19 hijackers were under and influence of, for lack of a better term, "Evil".

ANTPogo also side-steps my questions and focuses on meanless stuff like how I spell Memri or some other meaningless item. Oh, you found a typo. I guess that invalidates everything I think

Or she will find one quote of Osama bin Laden where he sounds political and ignore all the other quotes where he expresses his motives as being purely religious.

Or she will piece together a list of contrived myths that Mohammed's last bride was not 9 years old when if she spent that much time and energy looking for the facts, she would not have bothered.

I have been reading some blogs from ex-muslims who have left islam. This was not even the whole story of the bad deeds Mohammed did that led to terrible practices in the islamic world. He married the wife of one of his adopted sons. His reasoning behind why that was OK has led to the fact that now it is not permited to adopt kids in Islam. That is pretty evil, don't you think?

There was also a mentioning of Mohammed being so honorable to have married women whose husbands had died. But then, if you dig deeper you find out that these women were not exactly old maids. They were, in fact stunningly beautiful and Mohammed had had their husbands heads cut off.
This story was taken from one of the web sites I have been reading from people who have left Islam.

 

[Lowpro]

Maybe Bill, just maybe, those websites don't reflect all of Islam, but you desire confirmation bias above truth so whatever.

 

[RandFan]

I like Thunderf00t. He attacks all religions. I do think he paints with too broad a brush at times though. Most Muslims are not terrorists and do not support terrorism. I wouldn't call it evil. I would call it wrong. Christians can be very good terrorists . George Tiller was killed by some creationist piece of **** terrorist. Right now Christians are threatening the lives of abortion doctors across America and causing very real harm to women and reproductive rights. They are very adept at striking terror.

Muslim terrorists believe they are doing god's work. That's all you need to kill and terrorize.

 

[bikerdruid]

So, anyway, the point of this discussion is if Islam is evil. Someone pretending that it has merrit will be ingored until I have the time to transcribe Thunderf00t's video.

It is necessary since BikerDruid could only watch about 4 seconds of it and he did not even catch that it was mostly about Theo Van Gogh; the Age of Reason; and Modern Society (not about South Park).

Then I have more questions to ask. Like, should the 19 hijackers names also be at ground zero? I mean, if you are going to morn an event caused by a cult wouldn't you have a plack at Wacco, Texas for the Branch Dividians since they were out of their minds, just as the 19 hijackers were under and influence of, for lack of a better term, "Evil".

ANTPogo also side-steps my questions and focuses on meanless stuff like how I spell Memri or some other meaningless item. Oh, you found a typo. I guess that invalidates everything I think

Or she will find one quote of Osama bin Laden where he sounds political and ignore all the other quotes where he expresses his motives as being purely religious.

Or she will piece together a list of contrived myths that Mohammed's last bride was not 9 years old when if she spent that much time and energy looking for the facts, she would not have bothered.

I have been reading some blogs from ex-muslims who have left islam. This was not even the whole story of the bad deeds Mohammed did that led to terrible practices in the islamic world. He married the wife of one of his adopted sons. His reasoning behind why that was OK has led to the fact that now it is not permited to adopt kids in Islam. That is pretty evil, don't you think?

There was also a mentioning of Mohammed being so honorable to have married women whose husbands had died. But then, if you dig deeper you find out that these women were not exactly old maids. They were, in fact stunningly beautiful and Mohammed had had their husbands heads cut off.
This story was taken from one of the web sites I have been reading from people who have left Islam.

bill, some 1400 years later, who really gives a rat's ass how old muhammadd's wife was?

 

[Bill Thompson]

• Islam fosters disrespect among other religions and other cultures.
• Islam inhibits education and understanding.

because of these two points, 9-11-2001 required Islam in order to become a reality.

What is more is that it is fake.

I met a couple of Mormons on my way home last week. I can apply the same logic to Islam as I applied to Islam.

"What would the Quran look like if it was fake?" is a question one can pose to a Muslim. If the Quran was fake it would borrow the same mistakes and myths from existing legends and religions. The Quran does that.

 

[Bill Thompson]

bill, some 1400 years later, who really gives a rat's ass how old muhammadd's wife was?

You are so well read. I mean, you might be well read in other things but not with current events.

WRONG Human Rights Activists all over the world give a rats ass how old Mommad's last wive was because Muslims in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, Egypt and the UAE emulate Mohammed's example by raping underage girls.

That makes 6. You are half way to a complete dozen.

• WRONG I am on the mailing lists of lots of Muslim web sites, and mosques. They have sent lots of emails that demand that evolution is an invention of the infidels and all that stuff. They are very much against evolution and the teaching of it. Much much more than the Christian right wingers.
• WRONG Ghandi was in charge when the bloodiest part of India's history went down
• WRONG Islam is even less tolerant on social issues that even the most extreme right-winger
• WRONG Islam is not tolerant of other religions and is more political than even the Christian Right in the USA. You cannot be both a believer in freedom of religon and a supporter of Islam.
• WRONG I am not so stupid to not know that the Bible teaches that the earth is flat. Your comment is meaningless because most christian leaders stress that the Bible is not to be taken literally. I have said this dozen of times.

 

[bikerdruid]

You are so well read. I mean, you might be well read in other things but not with current events.

WRONG Human Rights Activists all over the world give a rats ass how old Mommad's last wive was because Muslims in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, Egypt and the UAE emulate Mohammed's example by raping underage girls.

wow...i never realized how eeeeville muslims are.
all of them do this....right?

 

[zooterkin]

No wonder I put whom on Ignore?

In case you don't know, Islam is not true. It does not really matter if someone can defend it. Islam is fake just like Mormonism and Scientology.

And Christianity?

 

[FireGarden]

Bill, I was going to reply in more detail. But...

*sigh*

...I'll go with what she said.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Ask yourself this. If the Quran was fake, if it was contrived and pieced together from existing myths at that time, what would it look like? If Mohammed was just a power-hungry politician and had perverse ambitions to do what he did, how would that look like and how different would that alternative reality look to what exists in Islam?

You see, if you come at this from another angle -- a scientific angle rather than a faith filled angle where you look for faults rather than excuses and small grains of passages that can support the faith -- you will see that, just like Dianetics and just like the Book of Mormon, the Quran is fake and Mohammed was just a politician.

The truth is a good thing.

 

[Bill Thompson]

wow...i never realized how eeeeville muslims are.
all of them do this....right?

That makes seven

WRONG One does not confuse a belief with the people who have that belief. People are born in the Islam. But when someone says, for example, that they hate Christianity, usually, (if not always) this does not mean that they hate Christians. I love Mormons, for example, I have Mormon friends. I consider them to be victims of Mormonism, not the source of Mormonism. It is the same with Islam. Mosab Hassan Yousef hates Islam. It is clear that he hates Islam with the white-hot intensity of a thousand suns. But just as much as he hates Islam, he loves Muslims. In fact, his love for Muslims and his desire to set them free fuels his hatred for Islam.

That is seven falsehoods, Bikerdruid, care to make it an even number today?