Sunday, April 11, 2010

A non-Muslim’s stating plainly what Muhammad’s followers were too shameless to hide isn’t “fear mongering,” it’s self-defense

Offered in response to another lying Muslim here:
ihsaan,

You call a genocidal pedophile "the best example to mankind," and I'm the "nutjob"?

(Don’t think that we all didn’t notice your inability to deny Muhammad’s genocide and pedophilia. There’s a kind of honesty in your silence on that, at least.)

Just in case anyone is tempted to give any credence to your mendacity . . .

Ibn Kathir is my source for Ibn Kathir, of course.

As for implying that I am misrepresenting or are unfamiliar with your "sacred" texts, I posted several passages demonstrating Muhammad's wanton bloodlust, along with specific citations. Anyone who can read can determine for themselves whether or not I’m “ignorantly fear mongering.”

Nowhere do I claim that Muslims are commanded to kill non-Muslims indiscriminately as you seem to suggest. Everyone knows that Allah has rules for how to butcher "infidels": First, "invite" them to convert; if they refuse, then demand the jizya; if they refuse that, then war. If that sounds familiar, then that’s because I posted it above, along with the special “accommodation” for the “People of the Book” (Qur’an 9:29). Perhaps you ought to read before ranting about my “ignorance” of exceptions for Jews and Christians (and later, other non-Muslims).

As for "later peace agreements," demanding money from non-Muslims in order to protect them from yourselves is not a “peace agreement;” it’s extortion. (Those “agreements” were "later" because Muhammad realized that slaves are more profitable than corpses, and most Muslims preferred raping the living rather than the dead -- even Muhammad.)

And thanks for admitting (accidentally, no doubt) that your texts are vile, murderous refuse: The fact that your pedophile prophet was ordered to fight against ANYONE AT ALL because of their “unbelief” proves incontrovertibly that Muhammad served hell. Claiming that the order to kill was abrogated by "later peace agreements" demonstrates that the obvious reading of the text is the correct one: It was an order to war over religious belief. How do "later peace agreements" make commands to genocide on religious grounds acceptable, again?

It is absurd in the highest degree to argue that "The passage doesn’t say to kill because later texts replaced (abrogated) it saying 'Don’t kill them!'" You realize that a command to genocide’s being limited by later “peace agreements” proves that the former command is murderous, don’t you?

Finally, you defend “kill the pagans wherever you find them” (Qur’an 9:5) and then lie to everyone here about it, but then claim that I’m the one “increasing hate for non-muslims from muslims.” How sad. A non-Muslim’s stating plainly what your coreligionists were too shameless to hide isn’t “fear mongering,” it’s self-defense. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

You think that you’re serving God, but you’re serving hell. Christ committed no sin, spoke only the truth, healed the sick, raised the dead, died for the sins of the whole world, and resurrected. He commanded His people to love even their enemies.

On the other hand, Muhammad practiced genocide, pedophilia, mutilation, torture, rape, slavery, extortion, theft, wife-beating (endorsed only?), polygamy, religious and gender apartheid, deceit, and blasphemy, claimed “allah made me do it!” and commanded others to do the same. In other words, Muhammad “sacralized” the violation of all Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule.

Turn from hell and trust in the Son of God, Who died for all your sins to give you peace with His Father.

Regards,

Amillennialist