In his latest essay, our Norwegian correspondent The Observer draws some conclusions about Islam that can be derived from empirical observation, rather than theological or philosophical analysis.
A few things about Islam that should be blatantly obvious
by The Observer
I watched a TV debate on Islam the other day. It was one of those standard discussions where the Muslim panellist blamed everyone but Islam and its adherents for the massive problems that exist wherever Islam has a noticeable presence, while the non-Muslim counterpart offered very tepid arguments to try to refute those claims.
Whenever I watch debates like this, it always amazes me that the non-Muslims have such difficulties in delivering clear and concise arguments describing the true nature of Islam. They are unable to do so in a manner that completely annihilates the insidious arguments offered by the supporters of Islam. Because it should be a pretty straightforward process for those who possess more than a basic knowledge of Islam to verbally eviscerate this pernicious ideology, to show how absurd it is to worship such a deviant philosophy and how absolutely outrageous it is for its followers to insist that their ideology is worthy of anyone’s respect
Hence, I have decided to highlight some of the arguments that I believe opponents of Islam should be focusing on whenever they venture into a debate on Islam with Muslims and individuals who have gone a couple of rounds through the politically correct wringer.
Criticism of Islam should be as basic as possible. It should not try to rely on scholarly critiques, which ordinary Non-Muslims still in the dark about the viciousness of the religion only find confusing. The best strategy is to keep it as simple as possible, go for the jugular and ram the message home until it sticks. What follows are a few basic points that ought to be self-evident, irrespective of one’s knowledge of Islamic doctrine.
The first point that I would like to make is that it should be blatantly obvious to any rational person that there is something seriously wrong with Islam, based solely on the poor state of democracy and human rights wherever Islam is the dominant force. Certain alarm bells should go off when reading or watching MSM reports about people in the Islamic world who are routinely executed by stoning, decapitation or simply being hanged from mobile cranes in public squares for having violated some of Islam’s strict codes. A normal sane ideology would never call for punishments of such a nature, and people who commit violent acts of a similar kind are rightly treated as psychopaths in most parts of the Western world.
The second point is this: It should be equally obvious that there is something wrong with Islam based on the countless terrorist attacks that are carried out in its name. To maintain that these attacks are perpetrated exclusively by extremists who do not represent true Islam should, from a purely rational point of view, be dismissed — given the frequencies of the attacks, the fact that they are carried out on practically every continent (Antarctica coming soon!), and that Muslims from all over the world voluntarily and proudly partake in them.
A question that should be asked when listening to claims about “extremists” is this: What are Islam’s views on violence and terror when so many of its adherents, both rich and poor, get the impression that such behaviour is acceptable, and actually believe that it gets them a free ticket to paradise?
My third point is that it should be glaringly evident that Islam has serious democratic deficiencies, considering that outspoken critics of this ideology are routinely targeted both verbally and physically by Muslims all over the world. It is simply intellectual laziness to accept the dishonest claim that these attacks are carried out by a few radicals who misuse their religion. If it had been one or two isolated incidents, then perhaps this claim could be considered, but these episodes occur on a daily basis, and they occur all over the world.
In other words, it’s a systematic tactic used to silence criticism of Islam. Thus, it is part and parcel of Islam’s overall strategy to implement its policies wherever it has a noticeable presence. What other conclusions can be drawn when reading about authors, politicians and activists who have had to go into hiding, or who live under 24 hour police protection for speaking out against this religion, let alone the numerous individuals who have been killed for doing so? It should be clear to anyone that these individuals are being subjected to methods that are otherwise only used by mafia groups. Any organization that utilizes such tactics would in any other circumstances rightfully be labelled as a criminal entity and be dealt with accordingly.
The fourth point that I would like to make is that the claim that ISIS is misusing Islam and that its members aren’t true Muslims can be dismissed purely on logical grounds. In fact, it is a ludicrous argument, given the number of devout Muslims from all corners of the globe that voluntarily flock to join its ranks. And we’re not talking about a few handfuls here and there, but tens of thousands of individuals. Statistical data also corroborate this widespread support for ISIS among Muslim communities all over the world, so the idea that ISIS is un-Islamic falls by its own logic.
Thus, from a rational perspective, ISIS cannot be dismissed as having nothing to do with Islam. If that were the case, then devout Muslims would not migrate to the Caliphate in such large numbers. In fact, that would be just as unlikely as seeing tens of thousands of US conservatives move to Venezuela because they believed that the political system of that particular country was pure capitalism.
My fifth point concerns an aspect that is very obvious, but which many people for some strange reason still seem to have immense difficulties wrapping their heads around. The point is as follows: Muslims who insist on following Islamic law, regardless to what extent, and who advocate the covering up of females in burkas and hijabs, are never going to integrate into our societies. Nor are they going to embrace Western liberal values.
What logical conclusions can be deduced from this little nugget of information? Well, in plain English it means that they reject our laws and our way of life. It means that they do not value freedom of speech and democracy. It could not be made any clearer unless they started holding up big placards stating as much (which they often do). This is of course a very troubling thought, and it should cause some warning lights to flash, because this invariably puts a huge strain on these values, and over time as the Muslim population grows in the West the same values will start to erode rapidly.
The above observations are just a few of the most obvious points that should be self-evident even to people who have no knowledge of Islamic doctrine. When adding everything up, and doing so without tainting the bottom line with politically correct bias, people should be led to the realization that Islam has some serious issues with Western concepts such as freedom of speech, equality and democracy. That again should lead people to the realization that Islam is a dangerous and totalitarian ideology.
When taking all of these aspects into consideration it becomes very clear that Islam has a whole lot more to do with Saudi Arabia and ISIS than it has to do with secular Western democracies, or the sugarcoated picture that the so-called moderate Muslim representatives are trying to paint. Looking at the religion and the countries where Islam is practiced through unbiased eyes makes one realize that this ideology is nothing that one wishes to foist upon any society. Islam evolved 1400 years ago, and to be quite honest, that is where it belongs.
There are no moderate Muslims. There are only jihadis and apostates.
Obama’s Daddy was an apostate for a while then he converted back and went back. Like father like son.
Which Daddy?
That would be on one his birth certificates?
Very good. Here’s a kicker for me which I must say no one seems to mention much and which one must assume Obama knows something about: the slaughter of something like 1/3 of East Timor’s citizenry by Muslim jihadis. I must admit to confusion about the time period, for in looking at Wikipedia and Front Page Magazine I notice that it appears that Gerald Ford and Henry Kissinger sold weapons to the Indonesians. (I thought the time period was aprox. 1999 – 2000 or so). Apparently this was as some sort of buffer against the Russians. That seems a rather nasty fate for people who were by and large peaceful and non threatening.
I’d love to see someone at a press conference question the liar Obama about what he thinks about 200,000 people murdered by followers of Islam against these peaceful people?
He is simply one of the most horrible cover up artists of all time.
Is it simply too much to hope that one day one or both of his daughters learn of his perfidious nature, of his cover up for murderers and figuratively spit on him and walk away from him forever?
Mike from Brooklyn
Anywhere Muslims gain access by hook or by crook the locals are eventually massacred and the remnants converted or enslaved. That’s been obvious for at least 1400 years. It is a mystery why we refuse to see? Am I missing something?
You missing the traitors in our midst helping Islam to fain a foothold.
[redacted unproved assertion] You seem unable to criticize a totalitarian ideology without constantly bringing it back to him. A man who has been so scrutinized and rightfully held under the microscope, and yet not a shred of evidence that he is a Muslim has surfaced. No pictures, no video, no hard textual evidence, just conspiratorial anecdotes. All this while the man has ordered almost 4000 airstrikes on ISIS targets. A man who said: “I have made it clear that we will hunt down terrorists who threaten our country, wherever they are. That means I will not hesitate to take action against ISIL in Syria, as well as Iraq.”. Yes, I agree its ridiculous that he won’t just call muslim terrorists Islamic and yes I don’t think it helps further an honest dialogue. But when your over seeing that many airstrikes on targets you know are muslims, I fail to see how that therefor makes him a muslim and somehow perpetuating the destruction of America and the west.
Your comment re Obama’s willingness to kill ISIS or any other Muslims is proof he’s not himself a Muslim doesn’t make the case at all, unfortunately.
I don’t have a dog in this fight – i.e., proving whether or not Obama is a Muslim – but the arguments you make to prove he’s not one don’t hold up. Muslims past and present have had absolutely no compunction about killing other Muslims; they do it all the time. When ISIS (that famous “jayvee” team Obama sneered at) began killing in Iraq, first it took out all the non-Sunni Iraqis, even before the infidels, because they were the worst sinners.
Please give one counter-argument of something Obama has done that proves he’s not intent on destroying America. So far, all his actions have served to limit us, to destroy our standing among other nations, and to leave MENA more lawless and ruined than it was before he took office. Not to mention his destructive domestic policies and his marked intensification of the divisive racial hatreds and political polarizations.
Leaving aside most of the particulars, one has merely to judge the man by the fruits of his labors. For me the worst of them was mostly symbolic and meant to send the message it did. That was when, without precedent, the man closed the White House to the public. The White House has historically been known as “The People’s House” – he had neither precedent or law to slam the doors shut -this behavior from a fellow who claims to be a teacher of the Constitution.
His deal with Iran, done in contravention of US law re treaties, knowing the spineless Congress wouldn’t stop him, is proof he’s at least very Islam-sympathetic. The billions he released to them have been funneled into both Hamas and Hezbollah – quite a feat. As war ratchets up in the Gaza area, we can thank Obama for the materiel that money paid for. Now Israel is stuck with the terrorists in Lebanon and the terrorists among the Palestinians – directly due to Obama’s lone decision to give Iran that money…it’s been frozen since, what, Carter’s day? Had to wait for a real sympathizer to get it back. And we got nothing in return. Not even our prisoners. AFAIK, their names were never even on the table.
His refusal to say Islam = terrorism (which it does if behavior is to be given any credence) is just a small indication of a hugely successful take down of the United States.
By their fruits you shall know them, and Obama’s fruits are bitter indeed. Our country will be a long time recovering from the man who gave that public address in Cairo in 2009.
The best one can say is that perhaps Obama isn’t a Muslim but for darn sure he’s a Marxist. Except for Allah there isn’t much difference between the two tyrannies.
Excellent commentary Dympha.
As for Obama. He’s an apostate of Islam. His father was Muslim and by Islamic jurisprudence he by birth is Muslim. But in order to get into politics he had to renounce Islam and proclaim himself Christian.
I’ve made this comment before. In many countries apostasy is a capital crime. In some countries it means a death sentence. So what I’m saying is that Obama would be likely dead already if he had pulled off what he has done here elsewhere.
Also further backing is his own blood relatives in Kenya. They are all Muslim’s. At his first inauguration, the Saudi’s treated his family members like royalty. His grandmothers charity organization sends students to Wahhabis’ schools in Saudi Arabia.
One curious link that may seem like an Illuminati plot line, is the his grandfather Dunham is distantly related to 6 U.S. president’s. Which makes Obama a blood relative.
Yes, Obama basically transferred some dollars to Hezbollah to keep the sectarian wars going.
What’s even more important for me is the local implications of that agreement. The nuclear agreement was translated into friendship between nations and advertised day and night in the local media to make the angry people docile one more time. Millions who didn’t seem to be satisfied with anything less than death of Islamic Republic and almost rebelled in 2009, suddenly started to take the side of the regime.
Well, I do not like that kind of unprincipled rebels who can be incited with one news and tamed with another, but that has nothing to do with the intentions of White House: Democrats did their best to save their allies.
And I forgot the most damning behavior of all: Obama’s personal intervention to bring so many Syrians into this country, largely unvetted.
The step-up in the numbers of MENA immigrants into this country via the scams those NGOs, State, and ORR (Office of Refugee Resettlement under the aegis of DHS) is alarming. No one can even pin down the up-front costs but they are known to be over five billion at this point…Spend some time at Refugee Resettlement Watch to get an idea of the breadth and depth of this invasion…
https://refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com/
She has an excellent search function on her website (we had to get rid of ours entirely as it proved to be a hole for initiating DoS attacks). Search on any subject you want…
Recently I searched for “Idaho” (w/o the quote marks) and got five or six pages on their refugee problems, going back to 2014. Of late, the sensationalist bloggers have been shrieking about the sexual abuse of that little girl in a laundromat in Twin Falls – normally the kind of story the MSM loves but on this one has lowered the cone of silence, of course. The alt right blogs will cover the story until the next hot item comes along, but RRW will continue following the far more dreadful back story as it has for years.
https://refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com/2016/07/01/how-the-idaho-story-confirms-what-we-have-been-saying-for-years-it-is-about-money/
Big money for/from Big Food processors is what she means…
Ann is using WND as her source because there is absolutely no mainstream media coverage of this on-going destruction of the town by anyone else. If you read the whole essay, at the end she names other towns which are on the hook and then has a link to her own full Twin Falls archives.
It was the role played by Australian UN troops in securing East Timor’s freedom that led to the Bali nightclub bombing. The club was popular with Aussies.
Whether this connects with Australia’s recognition of Indonesia’s occupation of (and genocide in) West Papua New Guinea, I couldn’t say.
Funding the Muslim Indonesians has been happening for a very long time ever since the Indonesian Chinese were slaughtered over 500 thousand to million, recently remembered on the news
In all cases below it could be similar numbers as above.
USA, UK, Australiana, Netherlands, all had a part in funding Indonesia, with money or equipment.
Australia gave Indonesia, 375 million dollars last year, while it spends big about 18 billion US dollars on defence.
“Globalfirepower” rated 14, Australia was 14 has slipped to 24th
Very interesting to look up Indonesias modern military on YouTube, including navy. Australia was picking up refugees while Indonesia did nothing, and where was the UN telling Australia about human rights
To find out more about these countries look up ETAN org
Also includes Kissinger. Some other things Look up Kissinger’s Spies, Operation Paperclip
While we chat Indonesia is closely annihilating West Papuans and replacing them with their own people. Building up naval, workforce and military bases on Australia’s doorstep. Already over 40,000 TNI police and military. If one searches Indonesia military include TNI to get more results.
Search “FreeWestPapua” org to read the news articles in their struggle with Indonesia
East Timor invasion
West Papua, takeover
There are no moderate Muslims. There are only jihadis and apostates.
And it needs to be said again and again!
RELIGION OF BLOOD
“Islam is a religion of blood for the infidels”
Ayatollah Khomeini
Ah yes. Ayatollah Khomeini lovingly nurtured in France. So successful that all western countries are falling over themselves for more of the same. Democracy is being tweeked and tweeted. The tweekers are winning.
I think one of the most important argument left out: Muslims believe more than anything else that all their instructions (to crate sharia, to take over the world, fight infidels to do Jihad, etc… so all this comes from “God”. As a God’s direct law, for them there is no competition with any kind of basic law or Constitution. They are all man made so it is inferior and all Muslim holly duty to attack it and destroy it. They will never reform it, never change it.
Every Muslim who takes the oath of citizenship in any Western country is guilt of perjury. Muslims cannot be loyal to infidel nations.
For me, without rebutting the myriad “empirical” arguments critical of Islam cited by the Observer, is that Islam is as evil a political system as is Nazism or Communism. It demands and enforces “submission” of the individual to a “higher” authority. Any system that robs one of his life or of his values at the point of a gun or with the threat of force, is evil because it relies not on rational or even on illogical persuasion, but on naked, brute force. One cannot say that Nazism or Communism is a moral system. Aside from the murderous records of Nazism and Communism and Islam, as historical, demonstrative evidence of their being the political applications of different species of collectivism, in the abstract, just on paper, Islam shares with it companion systems the requirement that the individual submerge his own life to the purposes and ends of a polity intended to “free” him from the responsibility of living his own life for his own reasons. Any system that bypasses or commands the submission of one’s mind and volition to the collective, is necessarily an evil system. If one surrenders to Islam, one surrenders one’s self to another person or another entity, one surrenders one’s life to an external reason for one’s existence, whether that’s to the Umma, the “master race,” or to the proletariat. Islam, more than even Nazism or Communism, requires total selflessness in all aspects of one’s life.
Name one totalitarian system that is moral. I can’t.
Because the term “selflessness” often carries a positive affect in the West (e.g., “her selflessness in taking care of her family was beyond description”), perhaps one could say that “Islam…requires total abnegation of self in all aspects of one’s life”?
One problem I have encountered recently is the tall buildings in Dubai. Defenders of that faith have learned to tell us that Islam is the progressive thingy that leads to such tall buildings. I am speechless.
No doubt moslems would try to tell you they built those buildings. Not so of course, westerners designed and built the lot; muslims don’t even supply most of the labour–most of the labourers come from India and the Philippines, and very often have trouble collecting their pay from the ‘oh so superior’ moslems.
islam is, and has been the enemy of all non-moslems from the time mohammed crawled out of some Arabian sewer, right up to the present. moslems are still, and always will be the enemy, yet we watch in utter amazement as ALL western leaders actually welcome the enemy into our countries, ply them with benefits and treat them as ‘superior’ beings!
In fact it should be obvious to any sane person that islam is a fanatical, murderous, retrograde cult, so insane it’s amazing the western world tolerates it.
not so amazing, really; most western “leaders” are leftists, and leftists as a rule don’t like to be corralled by silly things like laws. they consider themselves the smartest ones in the room, and thus the only ones qualified to run the State. unfortunately for them, most westerners aren’t leftists (yet; they’ve taken over the education system in most western republics, and have changed the public schools into public indoctrination centers) and are rather fond of controlling their own lives, so they need a way to convince the average joe on the street to turn to the State for protection.
here is where i believe that islam comes in: the left is introducing just enough chaos and death to make the public demand that the State “do something,” and the left imposes martial law, which is never rescinded. i don’t think that they checked with the muslims, however, because they don’t pay attention to non-sharia laws, and are willing to die to force the imposition of sharia law. leftist leaders have lots of guards, but what happens when the muslims they have inflicted on the stinking masses and mixed in well with the general population takes aim at them? your guard could be a muslim, some of your subordinates could be muslim, etc., and if the left aren’t willing to *immediately* start killing muslims by the thousands (maybe they are!), one will get through and kill them. there will be a leftist coup, but that will just be the beginning of the bloodbath.
the unbelievable hubris and stupidity of these fools is astounding, and were it not for the mass death it portends, it would be funny. the blood will be on their hands, and i’m pretty sure a lot of us stinking masses will have something to say about how the rest of their lives will be spent.
Amen! Very well said.
What I wonder is how to turn this around and send them all back to their own countries.
Thanks for the informative essay.
A point to consider as well is all the commonalities with Marxism that are present in Islam. Both can function at either stealthy, insidious levels all the way to violent, brutal conflict. I believe this is what generates much of the cognitive dissonance in the Western world. The media is intent on pushing the narratives and finding useful idiots to drive the point home. Cultural Marxism under the guise of PC silences critics with cries of “bigot,” “racist,” etc.
When discussing the dangers of Islam with others, I often ask who amongst Muslim “scholars” has declared ISIS or any of the other terrorist groups to be apostate if they’re a false version of Islam. They got all over Salmon Rushdie for merely publishing a book. People are pouring in to join ISIS’ ranks instead of taking up arms to perform their Muslim obligation to destroy the apostate. Sadly most people still have a “yeah but…” Self-education seems to be on life support at this point.
Good for you, bringing up the critical point of Muslims declaring Muslim “extremists” as apostates. See the comment I’m going to make below.
There are good Muslims and there are bad Muslims. The bad Muslims want to kill us and the good Muslims want the bad ones to kill us!
The moderate Muslims want to find a middle ground between the two.
Zoltan
Your dichotomy is far too simplistic, the good Muslims:
1) want the bad Muslims to kill all of us; or
2) want the bad Muslims to kill only some of us, particularly those that speak out against Islam, and then subjugate the rest of us as dhimmis who know their place;or
3) don’t care if the bad Muslims kill all of us, most of us or just some of us – this constitutes perhaps the largest group, but if they do kill any infidels they will rally around the bad Muslims and vehemently defend them and justify the killers’ actions;or
4) don’t want the bad Muslims to kill all of us, or even most of us, but if they do kill any infidels they will rally around the bad Muslims and vehemently defend them and justify the killers’ actions;or
5) don’t especially want the bad Muslims to kill any of us, but if there is any killing of infidels they will go to any lengths of dishonesty to obfuscate the religious motives of the killers, find excuses for them and work assiduously to create a disconnect in the minds of the other infidels that the killings have nothing to do with Islam – these Muslims tend to find work as journalists, academics, politicians and “human rights” activists and lawyers. One of them just became the Mayor of London.
So on closer examination it can be seen that the Muslim community is a rich and varied blend of people embracing a wide spectrum of views on the killing of infidels.
Very good.
All Muslims are ‘moderate’ until they’re cutting your throat, then they ‘are nothing to do with Islam’.
to summarize it, – there is factual reality of
– historical records of islamic conquest of non-Muslim lands, starting from 7th century
– islamic ideology – supremacist, totalitarian, oppressive, hegemonic and expansionist
– the means to achieve Islamic goals – barbaric and immoral
– modern Islamic countries and societies – regressive at least, usually or hellish or chaotic
– islamic terrorism in the West – the most urgent social problem of our time
any sane person would admit all of the above.
and then time comes to talk about more subtle things like civilization jihad.
…
The advice is correct; keep the arguments simple and close to undisputed evidence.
The set of arguments I recommend is the following.
1. Islam means slavery: 4:24
2. Islam means mass murder & genocide, tell the story the story of the Banu Quaraiza
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Quraiza; point to 9:5 as an example
3. Islam means conquest: again the story of the Banu Quaraiza: 33:27
4. Islam means misogyny: 2:228, 2:282, 4:24, 4:34, 4;43
5. Islam means racism: 5:51; 8:55
6. Islam means terror: 8:17; 3:151
7. Islam means pedophilia: tell the story of Aisha
8. Islam means lies, cheating and deception (Taqqiya): 3:54
9. Islam means bestiality: 5:33
10: Islam means intolerance: point to apostasy and the death penalty
As a round up, point to the number of victims of Islam: 290’000’000
This incomplete list of virtues of Mohammedans will be helpful in any discussion.
Arguments supported by the Quran proving slavery, mass murder, conquest, misogyny, racism and terror will silence any relativist.
Mohammedans will hate to discuss these facts, which are supported by the Quran and Biographers such as Ibn Ishaq.
I agree! It’s all in what I refer to as the Muslim Manifestos, the Quran , the Suras and the Hadeiths, a basic how to guide on how to spread the ‘faith’ and deal with the ‘unclean’ and ‘unholy’ Infidel ( Including Muslims of other sects who may practice a different version of the ‘religion’) When I discuss this thought on Islam I get dirty looks, I say well folks they sure aren’t acting very peaceful and BTW there is little or zero condemnation from the Muslim hierarchy here in the USA following each mass slaughter, act of terrorism or targeted murder of an Infidel. We get more lip service from the groveling apologists, lackeys and lapdogs of Islam in the MSM (the government media complex) academia and the political class.
In view of Plato’s Allegory of the Cave,
you cannot condemn those (the Mohammedans) sitting in the cave;
however you can condemn those who speak that the cave is a good place for mankind, such as Barack Hussein Obama.
No 7’s a good one. Who do you think the “eternal youths ” in Islam’s paradise are. They are boy’s, eternally serving. Bacha Bazi is the name of Arab men’s dancing boy’s.
An old Arab saying– Goats for use, women for enjoyment, boy’s for ecstasy
Do the research- In Pakistan of the estimated 1.5 million street children, 90% of them are sexually abused
I think the number is too low. Out of shame or shock, some would either lie or not remember. A friend of mine is a forensic psychiatrist who has done in-depth (or rather in-breadth) questionnaires of several prison populations and almost without fail inmates reported childhood sexual abuse.
I haven’t read all of Nicolai Sennel’s work with immigrant adolescents and children, but iirc, he reported sexual abuse of Muslim children almost as a given. In a retrograde culture like Islam, children are objects, some even beloved objects, but not autonomous beings as they are in Western culture.
Any kind of physical violation of children is damaging, but in particular sexual violation has the most severe long-term abuse. Kidnapping and parental loss through sudden death are both right up there, too for lasting damage, particularly before the age of ten.
See this overview from Lenore Terr on Childhood Traumas:
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/psychology/courses/3615/Readings/Terr_Childhood_Trauma.pdf
The trouble with most Islamic apologists is that all their information comes from supporters of the religion, not from the critics. You would think that logical thinking would dictate if you desire to know what is wrong with something, you need to listen to the critics. Somehow logic escapes these people because they are more comfortable with finding explanations that fit their liberal world view rather than trying to find the truth. Their explanations for events become more and more bizarre. Look at the gay community in Orlando desperately seeking some alternative explanation to reality, no matter how divorced from that reality it might be. It’s actually very similar to the thinking of the Islamists who can come up with the craziest explanations for events in the middle east.
“And when the kingdom shall have come to its full fruition, be assured that the Father in heaven will not fail to visit you with an enlarged revelation of truth and an enhanced demonstration of righteousness, even as he has already bestowed upon this world him who became the prince of darkness, and then Adam, who was followed by Melchizedek, and in these days, the Son of Man. And so will my Father continue to manifest his mercy and show forth his love, even to this dark and evil world.” ~ Jesus, The Urantia Book, (176:2.3)
Everything taking place in the West now is satanic. Pardon me if I don’t feel the love from an indifferent God.
In general, one thing that can never be explained enough, is the sharia doctrine’s war cry “allahuakbar”
“Our god is greater (than your’s)!”
This comparative makes the whole difference, referring to different world views, where the mohammedans’ war cry is trying to belittle any religion they are attacking through history. So, the comparative “greater”, is the clue here.
By MSM’s misinterpretation “God is great”, they do not get the point about mohammedans’ conquering new lands and belittling any people they are attacking, which is the basis for understanding the whole doctrine based on the Koran.
.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3325645/Hillary-hammers-
obsession-words-radical-Islamic-terrorism-insists-Muslims-
whatsoever-terrorism.html#v-7601064626533975723
———-
… then devout Muslims would not migrate to the Caliphate in such large numbers.
“In fact, that would be just as unlikely as seeing tens of thousands of US democrats move to Venezuela because they were assured that today’s political conditions of that poor country was just pure and shipshape socialism.” Mmm!
The highly esteemed author of this valuable post omits, I find, the most important – and flagrant, argument against the Islamic doctrine: its screaming stupidity bordering on total idiocy, from its image of allahs paradise right down to his silly amateurish hell – and everything in between.
Islam deserves nothing but unlimited contempt mixed with liberating ridicule.
https://youtu.be/V7b15rz7C4s
https://youtu.be/0nBB58aTLZY
https://youtu.be/Q3icPIHeZ-I
https://youtu.be/HXNOTAJVClE
https://youtu.be/1xFkaYcFkqs
http://www.howcast.com/videos/217206-how-to-attend-a-muslim-friday-prayer-service-jumah/
———-
At last one truthful muslim!
.
https://youtu.be/YOPhr0UQ9wc
I think the author of the article, The Observer, is forgetting one thing:
The debates and forums are carefully selected to exclude any critic of Islam who knows anything about Islam.
You can see a perfect example of this in the “town meeting” hosted by Fox News announcer Megyn Kelly. Kelly brings lying Muslims together with emotional, but Islam-ignorant critics. The result is that the main argument against Islam is that it produces “extremists” and the Muslims arguing that’s not really Islam at all.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/5018502572001/muslim-leaders-asked-to-answer-for-actions-of-extremists/?intcmp=hpvid1#sp=show-clips
There’s not really much you can do about that, because as soon as anyone develops the ability to express a coherent set of descriptions of Islam, that person will be systematically excluded from any meetings, debates, or discussions.
If I had to give one principle to anti-Islamic participants in these sham debates, it would be to challenge the Muslims to declare the terrorists in general and ISIS in particular as apostates. Not outlaws or murderers, but apostates to Islam.
Muslims don’t care about accusations of being murderers, but apostasy is a very serious matter, which can result in the death of the accused…or the accuser. No lying Muslim defender is worth listening to unless they are willing to declare the terrorists as apostates. Which they will not, as it might draw unwanted attention to the accusing Muslim.
If I ever engage with a practitioner of the religion of peace, the first thing I do is tell them they are now talking with someone who has read their ‘holy’ book and who has read about the life of their so-called ‘prophet’. So I know what their religion teaches – and btw I know all about the principle of abrogation.
Strangely enough, this seems to disincline many of them from continuing the discussion.
Understanding the doctrine of abrogation and knowing that the sequencing of the surah in the Koran is not according to the date of the writing of each sura are two essentials.
So if some Muslim apologist points to one of the “nice” early Meccan sura, say sura 86 (the numbers aren’t important), you can point to one of the “nasty” later Medinan sura, say sura 15 and advise them that, because 15 was written after 86, it wholly abrogates 86. Sura 15 is the one that stands and is followed.
One doesn’t even have to have a comprehensive knowledge of the Koran: if it’s nice it was written in Mecca when Mo was trying to persuade the locals to adopt his new creed; if it’s nasty it was written later in Medina when Mo had become a warlord and city conqueror and wasn’t interested in persuasion any more.
The article focuses on televised “debates”. I gave a reference showing a town meeting, where any opponent with detailed knowledge was systematically excluded. A detailed reply, however necessary for truth, will lower the entertainment value of the video. Thus, participants who show signs of a knowledgeable, as opposed to strictly emotional, response will not be in the audience in the first place.
I don’t see a realistic way around this dilemma. It’s one reason why the internet is pushing the mainstream media out of business. It’s also why the establishment, particularly the Obama administration, is doing everything possible to sabotage the freedom of the internet.
I just tell people “For [jeepers sake]…I don’t like Islam because there is no compassion–no Golden Rule…love. All other religions have compassion.”
Good point!
A point I always make is that Christian nations traditionally have a cross on their flags indicating self-sacrifice and giving one’s life up for the many (that is what the cross means, actually), while Muslim nations have a sword.
This is the power that each religion understands. The power of sacrificial love or the power or overwhelming grinding tyranny.
Proof that ISIS is mainstream Islam:
Apparently in Bangladesh there were episodes where terrorists spared people who could recite parts of the Koran.
If ISIS were a deviant offshoot of Islam, why would they ask people to recite the fundamental texts underlying the entire religion?
It’s like the KKK holding some black hostages and they are going to whip some and they say “We’ll spare you if you can recite the XIV Amendment of the Constitution.”
QED. The good Muslims are the deviants. ISIS is right there with orthodox Muslims hangong out with Mo.
In addition, there is no shortage of data that sharpen these common sense points. It’s telling how the otherwise loathsome Bill Maher focuses on survey data that damn living, breathing Muslims.
Still pretty long and convoluted. To me, all that people need to understand is that Islam has always been and will always be spread and enforced by the sword. It’s an undeniable fact with 1400 years of history and countless examples to prove it. Once that is understood, the rest follows.
– Imperialism! Quite simply.
A biographer explains that the idolized mohammedan warlord was intent on outdoing the greatest hero of those times, Alexander the Great.
Unfortunately, the first four tactics can be, and are regularly, fended off by variations on Tu Quoque and non sequiturs and red herrings.
Secondly, I’d say that our task as “warriors-of-ideas” in the various battle spaces of communication should be 100% directed at our fellow non-Muslim Western idiots who predominate and remain the #1 reason why the problem of Islam continues to be a problem. I.e., we shouldn’t be wasting our time arguing / debating with Muslims (except insofar as that can become a useful spectacle for our real audience, our fellow non-Westerners who still haven’t woken up from their ridiculously comatose pre-911 beauty sleep).
The battle needs to be fought over sharia law. The imposition of sharia law unites ISIS,
Al Qaeda, Boko Harem and other sharia supremacists groups. Sharia Law is totally incompatible with the US constitution and the Bill of Rights. We should push hard for a policy of Zero Tolerance For Sharia Law. Potential immigrants should not be permitted to come to or stay in the US unless they sign documents that acknowledge that the US constitution always supercedes Sharia Law.
. . . and that they therefore abjure Islam. Anyway, there should simply be no more Muslim immigrants or residents, citizen or otherwise. Muslims must be returned to their own lands. Until we embrace this we are just playing at defending ourselves. Muslims were allowed in by treachery and mistake. We are not obligated to ratify either.
The fact that none of the 54 countries at the Organisation of Islamic cooperation have signed the Universal declaration of human rights is proof that the doctrine is not compatible with other forms of humanity. To go some way to appeasing ordinary humanity they have signed the farcical 1992 Cairo declaration instead,which essentially advocates Sharia.
Read that document and ram it home to your friends and political representatives when you argue your points,it is as blatant a disregard for any law but Sharia as it’s possible to see.
This is a very simple way to immediately take 90 steps out of 100 towards completely convincing them that something is badly wrong.
Democracy is not a suicide pact. It has a right to keep ideas that are harmful to its survival out. This means we cannot tolerate everything, especially ideas that promote the dissolution of itself = democracy. This existential principle is used by every living creature and all organizations of mankind. It is as simple as our need to keep the Plague or Ebola under control. “You were exposed to Ebola? You stay away or go into isolation! ” “You were indoctrinated with Islam? You stay away or go into isolation!”
If Islam is found in prisons, it must be eradicated there also, just as Ebola would be.
We aren’t used to banning ideas–it seems un-American– but we have actually done this many times: slavery, smoking, drugs are ideas, the idea of the KKK, National Socialism, the idea of allowing people to sell their homes only to whites, the idea of allowing people privy to insider information to trade on this information….on and on.
Westerners tolerate everything and defend nothing.
Sodomy is now a sacrament and Supreme Court treachery is celebrated. Muslim savagery is imported like it’s spun gold.
Thousands of U.S. troops operate in Afghanistan and have operated in Iraq and Serbia. Thousands are based in Germany, Japan, and Korea. But not one defends our southern border. Not one.
Disgraceful lies to conceal the true nature of these betrayals issue from the establishment media and both political parties.
Islam should be a called a cult. More akin to idol worship.
A cult that practices the five “D”s
Dependency
Debility
Desensitize
Dread
Sorry I forget the last one. But Margaret Singer was one of the foremost authorities on cults. Here’s a brief on thought control:
Keep the person unaware of what is going on and how she or he is being changed a step at a time. Potential new members are led, step by step, through a behavioral-change program without being aware of the final agenda or full content of the group. The goal may be to make them deployable agents for the leadership, to get them to buy more courses, or get them to make a deeper commitment, depending on the leader’s aim and desires.
2. Control the person’s social and/or physical environment; especially control the person’s time. Through various methods, newer members are kept busy and led to think about the group and its content during as much of their waking time as possible.
3. Systematically create a sense of powerlessness in the person. This is accomplished by getting members away from the normal social support group for a period of time and into an environment where the majority of people are already group members. The members serve as models of the attitudes and behaviors of the group and speak an in-group language.
4. Manipulate a system of rewards, punishments and experiences in such a way as to inhibit behavior that reflects the person’s former social identity. Manipulation of experiences can be accomplished through various methods of trance induction, including leaders using such techniques as paced speaking patterns, guided imagery, chanting, long prayer sessions or lectures, and lengthy meditation sessions.
5. Manipulate a system of rewards, punishments, and experiences in order to promote learning the group’s ideology or belief system and group-approved behaviors. Good behavior, demonstrating an understanding and acceptance of the group’s beliefs, and compliance are rewarded while questioning, expressing doubts or criticizing are met with disapproval, redress and possible rejection. If one expresses a question, he or she is made to feel that there is something inherently wrong with them to be questioning.
6. Put forth a closed system of logic and an authoritarian structure that permits no feedback and refuses to be modified except by leadership approval or executive order. The group has a top-down, pyramid structure. The leaders must have verbal ways of never losing. (Singer, 1995).
Do you have a link to Singer??
Is the last ‘D’ Death?
Put in those terms, it sounds just a wee bit like Western Leftists. Maybe. Just a bit.
Denise Winn published a book called ” The Manipulated Mind” It’s available as a free E-book. She first standardized the 4 D’s of control. Margaret Singer added a fifth.
Here’s a couple links other’s: http://www.culteducation.com/group/798-abusive-controlling-relationships/5474-cults-in-our-midsts.html
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Margaret_Singer