look at what these famous non muslims say about muhammad

Post Reply New Topic

If anything, it's the Salafists that will need a bunker. Light and honesty will gradually win the day.

Once the CIA finishes it's project to develop a goat and camel immunovirus, and make it transmittable to humans, the Salafists will be finished in a decade!

Those who get the reference might chuckle.

The muslims here have not directly adressed the criticisms that we made, namely:

- pedophilia (Aisha)
- genocide (of jews)
- warlord (mohammed wasn't defending himdelf, otherwise he wouldn't conquer the entire arab peninsula)
- death penalty for apostasy.

I'll leave just these four for you to refute. I'm not interested in reading the good qualities atributed to mohammed, because he did these above things, so the only conclusion is that he was a terrible human being and just an evil cult leader.

However, you have adressed it indirectly saying that you weren't not even 1% ashamed of your "prophet". So aren't you ashamed of anything mentioned in this post? Aren't you ashamed that mohammed was a warlord who raped 9 year old children?

This is arguing from a position of authority. So what if famous people praised him? That does not an argument make.

In balance Islam is very similar in vitriol and vengeance to the Hebrew Bible, which is the source of it primarily.

From purely archeological perspective, Islam is a rehash or reboot of the same Abrahamic teaching, primarily Judaism, with an afterthought of Christianity. However this was done very remotely, as the Arabian peninsular is far away geographically and culturally, and this explains the differences.

Although Christianity has turned out no better and is pretty awful source of morality, I have reason believe that early Christianity was an attempt to subvert this oppressive culture as well as roman rule. In that sense it was more a clever piece of propaganda than a religion. That is my hypothesis, and it was partially successful in that guise. Although Jewish Christians (the first Christians) were essentially wiped out and Paulists and Gnostic branches where what were left.

I think the difference with the slaves and such lapse morality, is Christianity specifically doesn't make the argument 'it was culture of the time'. It would have been very much opposed to slavery at the time, as it was a movement of the marginalized. Early Christianity, which didn't have concept of original sin or much that came later, argued against many of the things that Islam and Judaism uphold, although they also knew the limitation of how far to push the subversion.

Islam uses the convenience of arguing that the former Abrahamic traditions were corrupted, and Islam is the true version of events and is the true immutable word. The problem with that is total lack of contemporary sources. I'm not talking of lack of contemporary evidence in Mohammed's lifetime, which is a real issue in its own right, but the fact that their account of the Christian period is unique and uncorroborated. It is not that there isn't inconsistencies in the Christian story, it is the fact that there are many contemporary references, and those are not all made by Christians. You see what I mean if someone comes up with a totally different story years later, which is uncorroborated, and there is already a general narrative that was not taken up, it is not really immutable as it sounds.

You could only therefore argue that Islam didn't quite get the current story on Abrahamic religion from the Levant, before it appropriated it, which is not really surprising since it happened many centuries later in an area that was fairly remote.

Judaism is on the edge of old religion a lot of their practices are similar in that respect to Hinduism. The origins of many of the strange practices like talking chickens and swinging them over their heads, family/ritual purity, animal sacrifice, worshiping sacred fruits and vegetables. These archeologically come from the cultures of the time like Canaanite, Assyrian, to a lesser extent Babylonian. People also forget the Judaism was polytheistic until the Babylonians invaded.Tthis was political as much as anything, more don't worship other cultures' gods, more than there is only one god. The slaves out of Egypt if there is any truth to it, doesn't change their cultural roots, which were primarily Canaanite.

Of course all three are folk-law, and a not a great moral guide.

Islamic terrorism is the greatest enemy of Islam. And guess what? It doesn't work.

Why does the CIA always screw around with goats?
What is it about the goats?
Does the CIA know something we all do not?

Really? Then how come there was a Big Hole where the WTC used to stand?

ruveyn

I don't think it's strictly true to call what Muhammad did in the context of 7th century Arabia paedophilia. Yes, he married and had sex (or what we could call rape) with a child, but again, this seems to be quite commonplace in that era and time. He doesn't seem to have had a preference for children, and the concept of paedophilia probably would not have existed then. Doesn't change the fact that this guy is a horrible, horrible role model.

The real problem is that Muslims are essentially endorsing this behaviour today by trying to make out that their boy was infallible. Which is why child marriage and child rape is still quite legal in places like Saudi Arabia and that country and a few others like it do cater for paedophiles.

Last edited by Tequila on 21 Jan 2013, 6:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Almost anything can be rationalized with a moral relativistic approach. Carry your logic further and conclude that Canaanite Child Sacrifice helped bring in bigger harvests.

ruveyn

No, you misunderstand me. I definitely think it was absolutely wrong, no question, but he doesn't seem to have been any different from people at that time.

So I think he's a horrible person to worship but, hey, 7th century Arab warlords were not generally known for their tenderness.

Once again the Lesser of Vile and Evil prevails. Or was Mohammed the Lesser of Evils?

ruveyn

Do you regularly read texts about prophets that are not of your religion? Have you read about Zoroaster, the Edda or the Vedas? You probably don't believe in any of those without having read all there is to read about them. So why should we take a special interest in your prophet? By the way, I think the main reason people are making fun of Mohammed is because it always provokes a reaction (that idiot pastor that burned a koran).

If Islam wasn't an aggressive religion with violently non-negotiable texts and not marinated in vicious adherents, we perhaps wouldn't bother too much. You don't hear me criticising the Bhagavad Gita too much.

Since you're not religious you'll probably not understand what I say to the fullest extent (or even argee), but moral values are absolute and eternal. The correct moral atitude in each situation doesn't change through time. So unless it's something that is out of their range of power, the founders of good religions should have near perfect moral discipline. And that sure is not the case of mohammed. Jesus, as far as I know had a very good moral discipline, so I consider those who follow (only) the new testament followers of a good religion. mohammed, on the other hand, could have avoided all the horrible things he did. But he didn't, so islam is not, imo, a good religion.

And one other thing that is very important: only evil men considered pedophilia as acceptable. The degree of evil varies acording to culture, of course, but it's still evil. As an example, Plato, who liked 13/14 year old boys wouldn't touch them in what he called something like "virtuous restraint". So even hundreds of years before mohammed there were men who thought pedophilia was wrong. So it's not a good practice to excuse horrible behaviours with social influence. That would withraw responsability of the nazi soldiers and simpathisers, puting all the responsability on propaganda.

That too. Look at those idiots in Mali right now, destroying graves and mausoleums. Even a**hole atheists like me wouldn't pull a stunt like that.
But the responses to Mohammed cartoons or koran burnings are priceless, it works every time. If people would just ignore it, maybe there would not be so much reason to do it (and I personally don't burn books, but I think people should definatively have the right to do that).