Sunday, July 26, 2009

When someone's "deep belief-structure" includes an absolute prohibition of criticism of Muhammad, how can anyone tell the truth?

A few thoughts for all free men to consider:
the abrupt wording Mr "A" has chosen has apparently violated the sensitive nature and deep belief-structure of my friend Mohamed Fadly
Ironically, out of Christian concern for Mohamed, my "abrupt wording" is actually toned-down.

But this is where every honest examination of Islam's "sacred" texts -- the written records of Allah's commands and the words and deeds of Muhammad -- always lead, since Mr. Fadly's "deep belief-structure" includes an absolute prohibition of criticism of Muhammad.

When that's the case, how can anyone tell the truth?

In my last post on why a woman must cover up under Islam, the only adjectives I used about Muhammad were "paranoid" and "jealous."

Do those two words compare at all in harm to the actual rape, brutality, and degradation women and little girls suffered at Muhammad's own hands (and other body parts) and [in accord with his example] emulated by devout Muslim men for fourteen hundred years?

If anyone, including Mohamed, can demonstrate where I've written something false, I will retract it.

Mr. Fadly's reaction is nothing new personally for him (or among Muslims in general), and so adds to this discussion by providing some insight into the attitudes and thought processes Muhammad's words and example shape in his followers:
Once ascendant, when Allah's apostle heard someone say something he didn't like, he had them killed (the poetess Asma bint Marwan opposed Muhammad, so he had her murdered. At least her killer set her nursing baby aside before he ran her through).

The same sort of death-for-criticizing-Muhammad has been carried out against non-Muslims for 1400 years (see the Pact of Umar and modern blasphemy/Qur'an-desecration laws for two vivid examples . . . .).

Today, those faithful Muslims who find themselves in a position of strength in a society (lands in which some form of shari'a dominates) do the same thing: Behead someone here, burn down something there.

Those who are not in the dominant position in their host country (most Western nations) resort to -- besides violence -- name-calling, law suits, and playing the victim.

Sometimes they shoot nuns over cartoons.

[Or imprison teachers over teddy bears.]
If Muhammad beheaded 700-900 Jews who had surrendered to him, is it improper to call him a "butcher" (or worse)?

If Muhammad began raping little Aisha when she was nine -- at Allah's ordaining! -- is it rude to say so?

Is it moral to speak "nicely" about such depravity?

I agree that my presentation can be forceful at times, but is it ever inaccurate, disproportionate to the evil under discussion, or false?

This is another form of blaming the victim, of demonizing those who tell the truth about Muhammad.

Here's conclusive proof of that: Has Mr. Fadly denounced any of his god and prophet's commands to enslave, rape, and slaughter those who refuse the "invitation" to Islam?

If not, why not?

Is the problem, then, the style of my presentation, or its substance?

My tone, or Mr. Fadly's integrity?
Update: Two Observations from Mr. Reb:
(A) Because Mr Amillennialist's wording has given us his clear and unequivocal response to Mohamed's contentions, I feel it would be both inappropriate and unwise for this referee to say anything...

(B) Mr "A"s words literally jumped off the page (7/25/09) and presents a serious challenge for his opponent. Therefore, I choose to remain neutral...

1. "Mr. Fadly's 'deep belief structure' includes an absolute prohibition of criticism of (prophet) Muhammad...when that is the case, how can anyone tell the truth?"

2. "If anyone, including Mohamed, can demonstrate where I've written something false, I will retract it."