I'm cherry picking Moderate Muslim's huge post
Reader comment on item: How the West Could Lose
Submitted by Noah Wilk (United States), Mar 9, 2007 at 04:14
Well, I'm only going to cherry-pick Moderate Muslim's encyclopedic-length post because I only have so much free time, and most of it I have already covered. Since the formatting on this forum is deteriorating by the day (I wish the moderators would address this problem already!), I am going to try a new approach. I will preface all quotes I am responding to with that person's name or initials. Hence, if it says:
MM wrote: "blah blah blah blah"
That means it's something Moderate Muslim said, etc.
MM wrote: "The Qurayza Jews -The desicion to execute the men of Qurayza was made by an Arab man, not the Prophet (pbuh). The Qurayza men had plotted against their supposed allies, the muslims, thus violating their treaty. Regarding the wife of the Prophet, she accepted to marry him, and he did so as a gesture of good will to the people, not as a man taking property."
Once again, you are ignoring the scholars on this one. Mohammed had already decided to kill them. He claimed the angel Gabriel appeared to him and told him to kill them. He simply agreed with another person's assessment of the situation, but the ultimate decision was his to make. As for the woman he raped, no sane woman is going to willingly have sex with a man who just murdered her husband and cut his head off, as well as having just wiped out her entire tribe. Now if you can prove to me that she was insane, I might be willing to believe that she willingly gave herself to Mohammed, but even then it would be rape due to the fact that she was mentally ill.
MM wrote: "Aisha was already a women by the time the marriage to the Prophet occured. In those times it was customary to be engaged very early, as people matured much quicker."
You're telling me that girls back then went through and finished puberty by the time they were nine years old? I need to see some documentation on that absurd claim! As for the claim that she was a woman, here's proof that is a lie, from your own religious scholars:
Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64: Sahih Bukhari [the most venerated and authentic Islamic source]-"...the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death)"
How kind of him to refrain from raping the poor child until she was all of nine years old [rolling my eyes]. At nine years old, a child is in third grade! In the Compilation of Ishaq b. Mansur al-Kasaj, in the chapter on marriage and divorce, the writer claims that it is acceptable in Islam to have sexual relations with pre-pubescent 9 year old girls. Khomeini claims that it is ok to have sex with a baby, as long as it is "only" sodomized. Disgusting? Damn right it is!
Here's a good reference for you that will help you polish up on the sexual teachings of your religion:
Every major Islamic scholar - Bukhari, Ibn Hisham, Tabari, Ibn al-Athir, Ibn Sa'd, Ibn Hanbal, etc.- agrees that she was a mere child of 9 child when Mohammed raped her. No civilized society on the planet would fail to consider that a pedophilic rape. Worse yet, he was fantasizing about her when she was just 4 or 5 years old. Historical facts which are unpleasant and depraved to civilized people.
MM wrote: "The Prophet did in no way, I can't even say it, commit any crime against her, she was an adult in the definition of the time. I have read many scholarly reports, and they all say this."
I can and I will say it for what is is - pedophilia and rape. Your pathetic defense of this atrocity against a pre-pubescent child is even more disturbing than your refusal to call it what it was. The fact that Islam considers pre-pubescent 9 year old girls to be women does not change the fact that it is pedophilic rape.
Moving on ...
MM wrote: "The ayat sent by various posters, such as Noah Wilk, are all pertaining to attacking the non believer if he "transgresses" upon you, this in no way condones violence."
We've covered this already. In Islam, the later verses which call for unprovoked violence supercede the earlier verses. I'll leave this for our Islamic scholars such as Dhimmi No More to address in detail as I tire of covering this ground countless times, and they can quote chapter and verse better than I can.
MM wrote: "I strongly condemn these attacks also because I wept just as much as any one of you on 9/11."
Strange. I did not weep on 9/11. Rather, I was filled with fury and swore to take the war right back to Islam. And thus, I am doing so. You should thank Allah that I was not the President of the United States on 9/11. Because if I had been, Riyadh, Tehran, Mecca, and Medina would have been glowing sheets of glass on 9/12. Without question, without regret, without apology, and without hesitation.
MM Wrote: "But is this a fair assessment of the Muslim community as a whole?"
Yes, it is, because you can philosophize all you like. The fact still stands that jihad in Islam means a holy war against infidels, since that is how it manifests almost exclusively.
MM wrote: "I do not know if other Muslim countries are condemning the actions of these Islamic nations that so easily violate human rights."
No, they aren't. They're too busy whining to the United Nations about the "atrocities" and "war crimes" those nasty Jews in Israel are committing against all those poor, innocent, peace-loving Palestinians. They have no time left over for unimportant issues such as Islamic genocide of Christians in Sudan.
MM wrote: "However, when one knows a Muslim, studies say, one is most likely to have a positive view of Muslims."
Yes, because they present a facade of friendliness. As I pointed out to Plato, when I had infiltrated the Muslim community here many years ago, they seemed about as friendly as any human being can be imagined. It was only after I gained their confidence (they even believed that I'd "converted" to Islam) that their true nature was revealed. That's the point when the hate rhetoric started pouring forth from mouths that had once spoken kinds words about America only days before. It was like a mass case of Jekyll and Hyde. Disturbing to say the least. That is also when they tried to recruit me into their terror network to train them. I uncovered all sorts of illegal, subversive activities they were into. And I'm not talking just a couple of bad apples. The entire community was complicit in one way or another.
MM wrote: "If you have met a Muslim who is rather radical I am sorry, I and I cannot do anything except tell you that most of us are not like that, we are peaceful people who integrate well into society. Most Muslim children I know go to public high schools, and are very good kids, not radical at all, but still retainging their Islamic identity."
That is not my experience, and that is not what is happening in America, in Britain, in France, in Spain, etc.
MM wrote: "I condemn terrorism in all forms, and I will join the Muslim Ummah in asking all non Muslim to not identify us with the killers, we are not them, we do not help them, we want them to be brought to justice and that means a trial, and a punishment."
You speak as though you represent some sort of organization. I see no such organization. What I see are millions of Muslims in America who adamantly refuse to criticize their cult of death, who refuse to enact reform, who refuse to speak out against violence. But who still manage to gather in droves to protest a stupid tv show they find offensive. For that, they can mobilize! All they ever mobilize over is something that offends them by painting an accurate picture of Islam.
MM wrote: "The worst possible nightmare is a possbility of war between Islam and the West."
"Possible" nightmare? The nightmare is already happening! The current segment of the war between Islam and the West was declared by Islam at least a good decade ago.
MM wrote: "If one kicked out all the Muslims from the West, it would just create more anger."
Oh, so it'll make a bunch of homicidal, suicidal, intolerant madmen who kill innocent people over a couple of stupid cartoons even angrier? And that matters why? Good! Let them get angrier! With their lack of self control that would just make them less able to repress their violent urges and reveal their true selves. And that would indeed be a good thing!
MM wrote: "There needs to be dialogue"
Wrong. There needs to be a total deportation and isolation of Muslims and a complete and utter reform of Islam. Nothing else will work. You cannot have "dialogue" with people who adamantly refuse to admit to the historical fact that their prophet was a pedophile and a child rapist. You cannot have a dialogue with people who believe God wrote their (un)holy book and that it cannot be questioned. You cannot have a dialogue with people who are taught by their religion that they are superior and who are mandated to lie to non-believers. Civilized people cannot have dialogue with tribal savages and fanatics. It simply does not work.
MM wrote: "That means that their needs to be concessions."
There we go as expected! Muslims are always the first to demand concessions but the last to offer them. I've offered a very generous concession. I would allow Islam to exist in the USA if it denounces its violent teachings and reforms itself into a civilized religion instead of a fanatical death cult. That's being very generous. I have heard no concessions in return from any Muslims to this point.
MM wrote: "Dhimmi, Noah, and Susan, should accept that moderate Islam exists, and that it is in fact the only true Islam."
I'll accept that as truth precisely 30 seconds after I am given verifiable evidence that proves your galactically absurd claim. When I see that Muslims are parading in the tens of thousands calling for reform, when I see CAIR denouncing Islamic terrorists by name, when I see the PLO acknowledging Israel's right to exist, when I see maps of the region in Islamic school books that actually show Israel on the map instead of just "Palestine", when I see Muslims electing secular leaders who disband the various terrorist groups, when I see Muslims marching on mosques and madrassahs and dragging those clerics who incite terror outside and beating them for perverting their religion, when I see a Muslim leader publicly referring to Amadmajihad of Iran as a "slightly more demented reincarnation of Hitler", when I see the Palestinians cancelling their jihadist tv shows and endorsing peace-promoting programming, when I see Muslims praising those of us show stand up and expose the truth instead of trying to vilify us, when I see Islamic countries enacting true and equal rights for other religions, when I see the Palestinians repealing their mandate that no Jew is allowed to live in "Palestine" (should they ever get their second nation)...that is precisely when I will "accept" that "moderate" Islam exists. And not one nanosecond before. Obviously, I will not be holding my breath.
MM wrote: "I admit that people claiming to be Muslims perpetrate crimes every day against humanity, and that they needed to be stopped yesterday."
You're in denial. See, this is a perfect example of why there can be no dialogue. You simply refuse to admit the facts. You want us to believe that all those Islamic terrorists who justify their actions with what is written in the Koran and the hadith, who have the endorsement of eminent Muslim scholars worldwide, who dominate Islamic countries, who are financed by the donations of other Muslims, who choose Muslim names, attend Muslim madrassahs and mosques, and who follow the Islamic faith are not actually Muslims, but rather imposters. Why is it, then, that the 90% of Islam that is supposedly peace loving not able to rid themselves of these imposters who make up a 10% minority?
Like I said earlier, intelligent, civilized people simply cannot reason with tribal savages who are in denial of reality.
MM wrote: "Please work for peace and understanding, not war and hate."
Islam is working towards war and hate everywhere it travels on this planet. It has declared war on me, on my country, on my religion, and on my civilization and culture. War is all I have to offer it in return, unless and until it reforms, civilizes itself, and becomes friendly.
Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".
Reader comments (2097) on this item
Comment on this item
You can help support Daniel Pipes' work by making a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum. Daniel J. Pipes