69 million page views

I promise I'll be a good kaffir

Reader comment on item: How to End Terrorism:
in response to reader comment: my yelling of Islamaphobia and prejudice? Like your yelling of caravan warlord and bandit?

Submitted by Ianus (Poland), Dec 22, 2006 at 18:36

phonetics ,

I have noticed that this is not a totally free forum. Some of my replies were censored , some were simply suppressed, so that you must understand that I have to circumcise my replies, so to speak . Otherwise they would be much more open.

>>You don't sound matter-of-fact and convincing , phonetics , and you know that. You have no rational arguments at all you can apply against those who have the courage to unveil the cadaverous scull of Islam. Your last resort is that of crying "Islamophobia!" , "prejudice!". Why not face the evidence and follow the way of reason, not that of grim Bedouin superstitions! Stop being a Moslem, phonetics!"

> Mahatma Gandhi, in his inimitable style, says "Some one has said that Europeans in South Africa dread the advent Islam -- Islam that civilized Spain, Islam that took the torch light to Morocco and preached to the world the Gospel of brotherhood. The Europeans of South Africa dread the Advent of Islam. They may claim equality with the white races. They may well dread it, if brotherhood is a sin. If it is equality of colored races then their dread is well founded."

Did he really say that ? I recognize this style though , the unhealthy spirit of dhimmitude is easily recognozible. Small wonder that with such speeches Ghandi brought about one of the bloodiest distasters in the history of his land - the emergence of Pakistan and his own death. Saints are seldom gifted historians , so that I'd be the last to attach any value to his statement repeated and not inquired into by himself.

> As for the civilization/ democracy/ consult the hadith and all that threatening etc. etc.:

I have done it. An appalling collection of barbarian trickery and infantilism.

> The Creator also states in the Qur'an (translated):

[42:36-38] So whatever thing you are given, that is only a provision of this world's life,

You there , Creator ! How about things we are not given ? Quiet , peace, freedom from Moslems ? They must be logically not a provision of this world's life, aren't they ?

> and what is with Allah is better and more lasting for those who believe and rely on their Lord,

Come on, Allah! Who can believe you , you notorious Bedouin moon-god! You are yourself as lasting as your maniacal-depressive Moslems, you dead phanthom.

> and those who shun the great sins and indecencies, and whenever they are angry they forgive, and those who respond to their Lord and keep up prayer, and their rule is to take counsel among themselves, and who spend out of what We have given them.

You there, Allah ! Come on! Have you penned nothing better since the beginning of time?

Plain text , please! You're Allah ! I am a kaffir! Phonetics is a Moslem. He would believe any nonsense as supreme wisdom provided it's "written" by you. Have you ever tried to write on non-Eucledean geometry on quantum physics, two great Moslem inventions ? I am fed up with these third-rate Bedouin "poetry"! It is like the desert of Rub al-Khali. Only scrpions thrive on it .

> God orders us in this verse to conduct our matters by taking counsel among ourselves,or by consulting each other.

How can He? Without councelling Him first or his postman Muhammad's example ? How liberal of Him!

> This is the methodology of the Islamic state, to consult one another, but to always keep the Qur'an and Sunnah paramount

Is it logical ? Why consult each other if the aim of all consulting is to find a proper passage in the Quran and the Sunnah and not in the head of the adviser? It is as if you asked someone the way strtching out to him the map you know by heart ?

> (Just so you understand, it's like conversing in a court of law and using the basics of the amendment to establish an argument).

You mean Islamic court of law. The Roman Law is based on quite different principles.

> This broad principle of consultation is certainly wide enough to encompass a form of government where all are heard - in fact, encouraged to be heard.

Where and when in the whole of Islamic history "a form of government where all are heard - in fact, encouraged to be heard" has existed , phonetics ?

> The early Islamic states were of this form.

What ? Making a fool of me again ? These bloody Bedouin tyrannies were "democracies", then? What was Athens of Pericles by your definition though?

>The petty governments of many `Muslim countries' today do not apply this principle

"Many" ? There are therefore "some" that do? Which ones? Saudi Arabia?

> and in fact commit many crimes against the people, hence have outrightly sinned against their own religion.

How so? Muslim criminals? They seem to belong to the sect of Islam you don't belong to . What sect of Islam are you from, phonetics?

> Then there is the Iana and Ianae... Forgive me, I thought you were a Girl...

I wouldn't mind being one. My hatred of Islam would be double if not triple then ...

Vocativus of "Iana" would still be "Iana" , the first declension, phonetics , -a , -ae.

> From now on I shall use Iana, so as not to misconstrue anything else.

Feel free to (ab)use "Ianus".

> Afterall you are not feminine at all.

I do respect the feminine much much, much .

> And then you said something about the emancipation of women and how Islam was not for it...

I? Everyone says it. Some were slaughtered for showing it (Theo van Gogh . Heard the name? )

> It is this same anti-democratic spirit of Islam as you call it that emancipated women from the bondage of man. Sir Charles Edward Archibald Hamilton says "Islam teaches the inherent sinlessness of man.

And the fairy tales of thousands of prophets Allah had to send down again and again to remind people of His own existence and the necessity of submission ?

> It teaches that man and woman have come from the same essence, posses the same soul and have been equipped with equal capabilities for intellectual, spiritual and moral attainments.

Has he read the Quran (4.34) ? Who does he want to make fool of ? Or is he joking

> " Hence non existance of the Original Sin. And also the Holy Book that has inscribed inside it basic laws that make it easier for women to claim divorce, and a lawful ground on inheritance and others that lay foundations for a physical and mental wellbeing. Something from Prof. K. S. Ramakrishna Rao, Head of the Department of Philosophy,
Government College for Women University of Mysore, Mandya-571401 (Karnatika).

Is he also on the Saudi payroll ?

"The Arabs had a very strong tradition that one who can smite with the spear and can wield the sword would inherit. But Islam came as the defender of the weaker sex and entitled women to share the inheritance of their parents.

Ever heard of the Roman Law, Moslem and the treatment of women there?

> It gave women, centuries ago right of owning property, yet it was only 12 centuries later , in 1881, that England, supposed to be the cradle of democracy adopted this institution of Islam and the act was called "the married woman act",

And it was "adopted of Islam"? Another Arab gift to the woman-hating West ? ...Sorry, but fool someone else into believing that rubbish! Ever heard about women in ancient Greece , Moslem?

> but centuries earlier, the Prophet of Islam had proclaimed that "Woman are twin halves of men. The rights of women are sacred. See that women maintained rights granted to them."

How many Khadijas can you enumerate after the triumph of islam?

>Other accusations:

>> Caravan Warlord? the cadaverous scull of Islam?

> Gibbon, a historian of world repute says, "A pernicious tenet has been imputed to Mohammadans, the duty of extirpating all the religions by sword."

What a nice quote ? Isn't it from "the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"?

>This charge based on ignorance and bigotry, says the eminent historian,

Who is this "eminent historian" who "refutes" Gibbons? Phonetics ibn Ignorantics?

> is refuted by Quran,

The Quran refutes nothing. It doesn't acknowledge and possess the most basic tools of logic and reasoning to be able to refute anything. Essentially, it is a collection of dubious sayings, obscure anecdotes and ununderstandable gibber. It's a most useless book I have ever come across. You may as well quote Walt Disney's comics as a proof that miracles exist.

>by history of Musalman conquerors

Phonetics ibn Ignorantics speaking again?

> and by their public and legal toleration of Christian worship.

Arabia - once a major centre of Christian and Jewish learning , today a spiritual desert .

>The great success of Mohammad's life had been effected by sheer moral force, without a stroke of sword.

The Jews of Banu Qurayza have never been robbed , their women and children enslaved and themselves decapitated , their heads never conveniently buried in the Central Square of Medina...

> But in pure self-defense,

A Moslem never attacks first....But even if , he does always act in self-defence ...? Or he must make believe he does ...It's the easiest thing in the world.

> after repeated efforts of conciliation had utterly failed,

The "miraculous" Quran hasn't helped to convince the contumacious Jews , the iron sword will...

> circumstances

"Circumstances"? Not Allah , this time? Was Allah on holiday ?

> dragged him into the battlefield. But the prophet of Islam changed the whole strategy of the battlefield. The total number of casualties in all the wars that took place during his lifetime when the whole Arabian Peninsula came under his banner, does not exceed a few hundreds in all.

But Allah knows better , a Moslem would say instinctively , wouldn't he ?

> His own treatment with his bitterest enemies is the noblest example for his followers.

Banu Qurayza e.g. ...

> At the conquest of Mecca, he stood at the zenith of his power. The city which had refused to listen to his mission, which had tortured him and his followers,

Did they ? How useless. They could have killed him ...

> which had driven him and his people into exile and which had unrelentingly persecuted and boycotted him even when he had taken refuge in a place more than 200 miles away,

Fairy tales. He started war against his homeland , the traitor!

> that city now lay at his feet. By the laws of war he could have justly avenged all the cruelties inflicted on him and his people. But what treatment did he accord to them? Mohammad's heart flowed with affection and he declared, "This day, there is no REPROOF against you and you are all free." "This day" he proclaimed, "I trample under my feet all distinctions between man and man, all hatred between man and man."

How about Abu-Jakhl e.g. ?

> This was one of the chief objects why he permitted war (Jihad) in self defense, that is to unite human beings.

How so ? You can unite humans beings in self-defense ? By Allah, how can you do that, phonetics?

> And when once this object was achieved, even his worst enemies were pardoned.

Abu Jakhl wasn't. Why? What trick was applied to make an exception?

> Even those who killed his beloved uncle, Hamzah, mangled his body, ripped it open, even chewed a piece of his liver. SoI guess only a caravan warlord knows how to forgive?

He couldn't anger his own clan and tribe. Tribalism in him was stronger than his Islam. Even paganism was stronger than his al-Rahman... Remeber the Satanic verses. Allah moved back to Mecca with his prophet. How useful for a god to have a right prophet in a right time!

> And more wonderful still is what the reverend Bosworth Smith remarks, "Head of the state as well as the Church, he was Caesar and Pope in one; but, he was pope without the pope's claims, and Caesar without the legions of Caesar,

And his murderous mjahedeens were what ? Boyscouts?

> without a standing army, without a bodyguard, without a palace, without a fixed revenue.

If this had been true, he couldn't assassinate and intimidate his critics ?

> If ever any man had the right to say that he ruled by a right divine It was Mohammad, for he had all the power without instruments and without its support. He cared not for dressing of power. The simplicity of his private life was in keeping with his public life."

This a theologian's (rev.) statement. I wish the reverend had studied history more assiduously.

>Then there is your claim:

>> Contrary to you, I am realistic. No Moslem can be a realist. It's incompatible with the irrational spirit of Islam.

Robert Priffault concludes in his well known book The making of humanity, "The debt of our science to the Arabs does not consist in starting discovers or revolutionary theories. Science owes a great more to Arabs culture; it owes its existence."

How many thousands did the Saudis pay him for these statement? Ever heard of Greece , Moslem?

>The same writer says "The Greeks systematized, generalized and theorized but patient ways of investigation, the accumulation of positive knowledge, the minute methods of science, detailed and prolonged observation, experimental inquiry, were altogether alien to Greek temperament.

I'd suggest this Saudi hireling should read Arristotle, Euclid, Galen at last... Praising the Quran debiliates your mind even if you can some money as a recompensation from the Saudis.

> What we call science arose in Europe as result of new methods of investigation, of the method of experiment, observation, measurement, of the development of Mathematics in form unknown to the Greeks. That spirit and these methods, concludes the same author, were introduced into the European world by Arabs."

The spririt of dogmatism and obscurantism was revived and held aflame by these Arabs. And this spirit is a death sentence to any science as the history of Arabic "science" proves. With its triumph science in Europe will die too.

> Imagine that? And he's not even Islamic... hmm... Perhaps the Arabs he was talking about weren't Islamic...

Sure, they were Persians, Syrians, Greeks... Arabs were mostly Bedouin barbarians that despised what they thought to be proper to their dhimmis and newly conversed kaffirs.

>Because according to you rationalism is alien to Islamists?

Absolutely, if you know what 'rationalism" means.

> I'm just glad that those who are the more knowledgable are in fact literally MORE KNOWLEDGABLE.

For a few thousands of Saudi dollars such "scholars" will write whatever the paymaster wishes to hear. Consult older books on Islam to see the point. Most of today's Islamology is a bought pseudo-science.

> And basically I hate to have to quote and present "evidence" when I am in a discussion, it makes it so formal and boringly loutish,

Why ? It's useful to see its uselessness.

> but if you insist, afterall an open discussion, according to what your view of it is, can never actually trust what the other is saying unless they are saying the same thing. not literally of course but it does give it a good nudge if not shove to that direction. I'm sorry, I'm only a muslim devoid of logic and reason and sarcasm, but always in view of solipsism...

I pity you ,phonetics. You have to adhere to this obscurantist worldview. If you don't you brethren in faith will finish you off ...Gloomy perspective,what! Take heed ! The knife of a Muslim that today shakes your hand cordially, tomorrow will cut your throat if he learns you dare doubt the abolute value of Islam.

>Gosh Ianus, so many -ism's... you are quite the knowledgable one, since grim Bedouin superstitions are what most of the asian muslims believe in...

Asian? All Muslims share them , whether in France or in the USA ...A Moslem is a Moslem ... to use a fruitful tautology ...

> mm... and here I thought I was the one being illogical.

Whom do you mean ? Me ? I am pleased to hear this as I couldn't stand a praise expressed about me by a Moslem.

> As a closing:

Thomas Carlyle, struck by this philosophy of life (Islam) writes "and then also Islam-that we must submit to God; that our whole strength lies in resigned submission to Him, whatsoever he does to us, the thing he sends to us, even if death and worse than death, shall be good, shall be best; we resign ourselves to God." The same author continues "If this be Islam, says Goethe, do we not all live in Islam?" Carlyle himself answers this question of Goethe and says "Yes, all of us that have any moral life, we all live so. This is yet the highest wisdom that heaven has revealed to our earth."

So that's why Hitler used to listen to him in his last days in the bunker in berlin . He also loved and admired Islam and cursed those great Europeans that stopped the "self-defending" assaults of Islam on Europe.


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".

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2024 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)