Islam

Good Muslims Are All Around Us

We shouldn't discount the charity of Muslims based on the heinous acts of a minute minority.

|

Julius.kusuma

From 9/11 to the Charlie Hebdo massacre to the savagery of the Islamic State, a grotesque amount of blood has been spilled by those who claim to act in the name of Allah. Many—including President Obama—reject "the notion that groups like ISIL somehow represent Islam," calling it "a falsehood." But others insist, as a recent article in The Atlantic put it, "the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic. … (T)he religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam."

Yet nearly 1.6 billion people—almost a quarter of the world's population—are Muslim, which makes the maniacal sadists of Islamic terror a minute minority. And while it often seems as though most terrorist acts are carried out by Muslims, this might be a distorted view, at least in the United States. A recent study published in the Journal of Communication found that while Muslims made up only 6 percent of suspected domestic terrorists in FBI reports, 81 percent of news coverage of domestic terrorism concerned Muslim perpetrators.

And there is another side to the coin. Take last week's horrific earthquake in Nepal. Many Christian and Jewish organizations have rushed to provide relief: Catholic Relief Services, World Vision, Samaritan's Purse, Christian Aid, American Jewish World Service, Magen David Adom, The American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, soldiers from the Israeli Defense Force and others.

But Muslim aid organizations also have sprung into action. Groups such as Muslim Hands, Muslim Aid and Islamic Relief have issued calls for help. The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies has launched a massive relief effort. Islamic nations also have mobilized: Pakistan deployed C-130 aircraft with relief supplies, doctors, paramedics and a mobile hospital. Indonesia has pledged $2 million in assistance. The United Arab Emirates has sent scores of aid workers.

"Islamic Relief is on the ground now in Nepal," says the group's Adam Sakprayoonpong by email. "More Disaster Response Team members will arrive in Nepal to assist in the coming days, including representatives from Islamic Relief USA."

Nepal is, no doubt, an immense catastrophe. But Muslim charitable groups do not lend help only for immense catastrophes. In recent months, Islamic Relief has rendered aid after tornadoes in Illinois and Texas; donated funds to prevent water shut-offs in Detroit; and delivered millions of food packets to the hungry in more than two dozen countries.

Now this is not all Muslim charities have done. Less commendably, there are questions about the links between certain Islamic philanthropic groups and terrorist organizations. Moreover, Muslim charities tend to gravitate toward Muslims in need, such as Syrian refugees and Palestinians in Gaza; they direct much of their attention to Muslim countries such as Lebanon and Yemen. Perhaps Christian and Jewish aid groups do much the same; perhaps not. If not, perhaps there are reasons for such a focus, such as the level of need and a lack of support from other faiths.

The point here isn't that one Abrahamic religion's charitable efforts are better than another's. The point is simply that they all try. And yet the nameless masses of Muslims who donate to charity (and, at least in Britain, donate at higher rates than Christians and Jews), and the many who drop everything when calamity strikes somewhere in the world, are not the image many Americans have when they think of Muslims. Maybe it should be.

Which is not to say that Islam has no dark side. The version imposed by tyrannical governments abroad is often astoundingly misogynistic, outrageously homophobic (most of the countries that impose capital punishment for homosexual acts are Islamic) and intolerably barbaric. Then again, you could say much the same about parts of the Christian U.S. not so long ago. And perhaps some Christians today.

Yet most of us recognize that when self-described Christians commit heinous acts in the name of their God, that does not mean all Christians approve, or that all the good works done by so many Christians around the world and throughout history must be erased from the cosmic ledgers. For every murder committed during the Crusades, there has also been a Mother Theresa. And for every Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood gunman, there is a Lassana Bathily—the Muslim store clerk who helped shield customers at a Jewish grocery in Paris from the Charlie Hebdo terrorists.

Most of us realize almost no person can be defined solely by the worst thing he or she ever did. And if that is true for solitary individuals, then it surely must hold true for entire religions.

NEXT: Gov. Brown's Water Plan: Hose Little Guys, Shower Cronies (Nanny of the Month, April '15)

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. So it appears Islam has a messaging problem.

    1. Dear ‘First of Etiquette’,

      Yes, Islam does gave a messaging problem…a huge, irreconcilable, schizophrenic message problem. This problem arises from the schizophrenic ‘holy’ prophet and founder of Islam himself, Muhammed.

      The murderous Religion of Peace, the misogynist Religion of Womens Rights, the merciful Religion of Decapitation, Amputation and Immolation, the kidnapping sex slaving Religion of KinderCare.

      Most importantly… the Religion of the murdering, raping, kidnapping, lying, looting, amputating, decapitating, torturing, mutilating, terrorizing genocidal psychopath, the ‘Holy Prophet’ and ‘beautiful pattern of conduct’, Muhammed.

      ~ The Infidel Alliance

  2. God bless the motherfucking UAE! Shucks, somewhere under a pile of heads and limbs in that sandy joint hides an adorable plethora of compassion.

  3. The United Arab Emirates has sent scores of aid workers.

    Okay. Then there is this

    Both civil law and Sharia criminalize homosexual activity. Under Sharia[,] the death penalty is the punishment for individuals who engage in consensual homosexual activity. There were no prosecutions for homosexual activity during … [2011]. At times[,] the government subjected persons to psychological treatment and counseling for homosexual activity. Cross-dressing is a punishable offense. The government deported cross-dressing foreign residents and referred citizens to public prosecutors.[3]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L…..b_Emirates

    And this

    The Government prohibits non-Muslims from proselytizing or distributing religious literature, under penalty of criminal prosecution, imprisonment, and deportation, as it constitutes engaging in behavior offensive to Islam. While there are no specific laws against missionary activities, in the past the Government reportedly has threatened to revoke the residence permits of persons suspected of missionary activities. There were no reports of such threats during the period covered by this report.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F…..b_Emirates

    But anyone in America who objects to gay marriage is an evil bigot. The Muslims of the UAE in contrast are great because they found some change in the couch to send to Nepal.

    1. Dude, its all moral relativism. By Middle eastern standards, the UAE are *saints* – the area is just that fucked up.

      1. I mean, Hitler was nice to animals.

        1. And he had a girlfriend and loved his German Shepherd.

          1. And he loved his niece.

          2. He called his mom every week.

            1. And he built special resorts where people could take vacations!

        2. You know who else- hey, wait just a dang second.

    2. “While there are no specific laws against missionary activities, in the past the Government reportedly has threatened to revoke the residence permits of persons suspected of missionary activities. ”

      Damn straight. Doggy style is the only Allah approved style. (pbuh).

      Seriously though, i’m not a fan of Muslims, but freedom of speech and expression doesn’t really exist in the world, with US being an exception of sorts thanks to 1st Amendment. Muslims will fuck with you for boozing and screwing, Germans for denying holocaust, French for being slutty, Australians for cartoon porn, Canadians and British for disliking Muslims.

      1. What the fuck say you? Where in Canada, Germany, France, or Australia can you get your head clipped off by a sword for committing ‘sorcery’?

        1. I don’t think there’s death penalty in those countries, so you just go to prison.

          As for ‘sorcery’ yes, Arab countries punish people for weirdest things.

          1. Incidentally, so do the animist/Christian combination cultures in Africa. Lots of witchcraft and other associated strange accusations.

            1. Those animist/Christians aren’t too keen on sodomy, either.

    3. So we have this giant mass of hideous atrocities spread all over the middle east where any dabbling with vocalizations of disaffection are met with extreme violence.

      Zero people within these hellholes can express even MINOR irritation with the system which leaves these poor saps only a single option for communicable redress which are the brains and voices in the FUCKING West who have the gonads to critique the Muslim macabre bazaar.

      So while human-rights concerned orgs and individuals in the West slam the fucking middle east (and all the other blood pits) for its cruel record on civil and human rights the goddamn Left-wing socialist progressives across the entire spectrum of beheading apologists are there to DEFEND the very philosophy that grants Muslim states the right to tyrannize its citizens.

      The Muslim voiceless masses are imprisoned, tortured, and killed while Left-wingers decry how awful those judgmental Westerners are. Even as the fucking Left-winger is a total hypocrite toward the American Christian and thinks nothing of attacking Christian philosophy as the core deterioration inflicting the American sociopolitical scene.

      Had Glenn Greenwald exposed Muslim governments in the same he properly exposed American indifference toward citizen rights Glenn Greenwald would have much more worries than he currently does.

      Happy Muslims happy with their happy belief do not fucking minimize the reality that Muslim countries tend toward violent dictatorship.

      1. Greenwald would never do that. He only worked with Snowden because he felt it would hurt the US. Greenwald is a nasty socialist fuck. He doesn’t care about privacy or freedom. If the US had a government that Greenwald liked, he would totally support the government spying on us. Greenwald is an enemy of freedom. He only worked with Snowden because he thinks the US is an agent of freedom and saw Snowden as a way to harm the US. He would never have worked with a dissident from some middle eastern hell hole.

        1. Greenwald is a hero who has done more for freedom than you every can hope to John. Now get back to working for the DOD and preparing to support the next hugely expensive and foolish mass war (as long as it’s ordered by a Republican, of course).

          1. No he is not. He is a totalitarian socialist shit bag. Just because he reported Snowden doesn’t make him anything but what he is. Greenwald did the right thing for the wrong reasons. If Greenwald had his way the country and indeed the world would look like Venezuela. No one who hold’s Greenwald’s appalling views and who has done so much to apologize for horrible and murderous people the way Greenwald has is anything but an enemy of freedom

            Snowden is a hero, not Greenwald. You only claim Greenwald is a hero because frankly, you are no different than he is.

            1. He reported the biggest government abuse of power in recent decades at the cost of his freedom within the US. What have you done?

              1. So what? He only did it because he hates the US. If a neo Nazi had reported it, would you be calling him a hero? Stalin helped destroy Nazi Germany. Is he a hero?

                Sometimes you are so stupid Bo it is almost too easy to pick on you.

            2. John, why bother even responding to him? You’re likely to get better (even if just more entertaining) responses from Shriek. You’ll note his comment didn’t provide any support of the notion of Greenwald as hero, just an attack on you.

              Really, for somebody who claims to be the One True Libertarian, Bo pretty much consistently ape the techniques of a Social Justice Cadre.

              1. It isn’t aping. And for someone so vehemently anti-military, I’m surprised he can claim to be a 2A supporter.

                1. It isn’t aping.

                  I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt.

              2. Stop insulting apes, Bill.

      2. AC, I love ya, but your first two paragraphs really aren’t true. Yes, there CAN be legal penalties for dissent. They are not often exercised except in very overt cases (which is bad, still and is something for which they should be held to account).

        The reality of daily life in some of the Gulf States is quite different from how you suppose, though there are bits of truth in what you say.

          1. This does nothing to debunk my point, which is that “the reality of daily life in some of the Gulf States (yes, including the UAE) is quite different from how you suppose”.

            There CAN be legal penalties for dissent. I mentioned that. I’ve been there when there have been trials regarding such. Those generally exist outside the norm. They still need to be held to account on those, and I applaud HRW for doing so.

    4. I fail to see how their laws are relevant to their sending of aid workers or their contributions to the ICRC and other relief efforts.

      It’s as if you’ve launched a giant non sequitur!

      1. They’re relevant to the premise of the article.

        1. Can you explain to me how, citing the passages in particular you object to? Because the article seems like a pretty milquetoast explanation that Muslim charities and Muslim states have done quite an admirable job of providing aid to those in need.

          1. The premise of the article is that good Muslims are all around because look at these charitable efforts. But the same countries sending charity run tyrannical governments using pretty mainstream intepretations of Islam. It undercuts the premise of the article if the “good” Muslims will stone you or jail you for homosexuality or bad speech. Few people will see one act of kindness making someone “good” when weighed against the bad.

            1. First, it seems that you are entangling the efforts of “good Muslims” with the governments their leaders run.

              Second, you seem to be under the impression that these tyrannical governments are truly chosen by the ruled in any sense. It’s true that many of the people revere and even LOVE their tyrannical leaders, but that’s for a specific set of cultural reasons more than anything. Much of the cultures of the Arabian Peninsula are barely a half-century from literally wandering the Empty Quarter, squabbling among rival tribes. Security and stability are MASSIVELY prized notions, and these tyrannical leaders provide that. That’s going to take time to break.

              Third, the tyranny largely extends to fellow Muslims on an everyday basis. Non-Muslims get a HUGE amount of latitude. I’ve been there for long stretches. It’s very, very different than is commonly portrayed. Yes, they bring some serious medieval punishment when they do, but it’s fairly notable when it happens for a reason. They also run basically two distinct justice systems, one for Muslims and one for non-Muslims. I’ll give you a guess as to which is more lenient.

              Fourth, if they punish homosexuality brutally, they certainly let a massive shit-ton of it go unmolested as a matter of course. They go through periodic crackdowns to “set an example”, but it’s amazing how open much of it is.

              That arbitrariness is a big problem, but these are young nations in the modern sense. Things will evolve.

              1. Timon, I think the problem is that, insofar as these governments are theocracies (to varying degrees), their law derives from an abhorrent primary source material. I agree with you that not every thief has a hand and a foot taken as a matter of course but the underlying justification for such punishment – Islam – is recognized in those nations as valid. It’s not. It’s repugnant.

                1. I don’t know what that has to do with the validity of charity.

                  1. Sorry, that should have been limited to your comment about “entangling the efforts of good Muslims with the governments their leaders run.” If a government is the laws that it enforces and if those laws are based upon the texts of a revealed religion that most major scholars of said religion maintain must be interpreted literally, then isn’t the “good Muslim” just as culpable as the leaders of government? I just don’t see how – barring a second revelatory figure with reformist teachings – fundamentalist Islam can be reconciled with classical liberal values.

                    I don’t take issue with your point about the validity of the charity.

                    1. I just don’t see how – barring a second revelatory figure with reformist teachings – fundamentalist Islam can be reconciled with classical liberal values.

                      Hans Hoppe wrote some good stuff about the compatibility of different major religions to the production and accumulation of wealth. Islam got the second worst rating right after Hindu.

                    2. Well, it’s an interesting question. Even “good Muslims” (in the pious sense) can run afoul of the laws based on those texts. Paradoxically, the leaders of these countries are usually quite significantly more liberal than their pious subjects, yet they are significantly more tyrannical than someone caught up in the web would certainly like.

                      Also, “good Muslims”, like “good Catholics” are actually pretty hard to find. Where they care a great deal about whether or not you stop what you’re doing for the call to prayer, for example, they have extra-legal religious police to enforce piety. Where they don’t have these entities, things are significantly different than is supposed. This includes the UAE, though societal pressures keep the tyrannical leaders in charge and we see what we see in the HRW reports, etc.

                      This is significantly different in a place like Turkey, where the societal pressures are completely different and the nation is significantly older (even if the Republic itself is young). There are “bad Muslims” all OVER Turkey. In fact, I’d wager that in Ankara, at least 50%, if not well above are “bad” in the impious sense. The call is almost universally ignored, drinking is encouraged, etc. 98% of the country is Muslim. The country is officially a secular republic. In the cities, it’s apparent. There’s a strong undercurrent of Kemalist socialism still there, but the social side of that society is moving toward classical liberalism despite Erdogan’s efforts.

                2. Also, the “primary source material” in large part comes from pre-Islamic pagan traditions that some branches of Islam in the area co-opted. Sound familiar?

                  Certainly there are damning passages in the Quran and hadith. There are also contradictory (though many Muslims would disagree that that is possible) passages.

      2. Dictatorships sending aid workers to sad places. How comforting. I wonder how many slivers of self-righteous bullshit this adds to the conscience of the tyrants that manage hell havens? It also pays a slight dividend on the world stage I have to cynically imagine.

        1. Chavez sent heating oil to poor people in New England. I guess that makes what he did to Venezuela alright in Hinkle’s mind.

        2. Do those sad places not need aid workers?

          Come on.

          In any case, not all Muslim states are created equally, and not even all Gulf States are created equally. There is no doubt that the UAE, for example, is politically is a theocratic absolute monarchy. It also is a very strangely liberal place. Paradoxically, it’s more liberal for non-Muslims than it is for Muslims in almost every case (notable exception: proselytizing), unless you’re part of the elite subset of Emiritis.

          A big part of this is a SOCIETAL problem, that likely reaches back to the pre-Islamic days, combined with a huge amount of Subcontinental migrants: a very strong social stratification based on ethnicity and wealth that gives India’s caste system a real run.

          Being a non-Muslim, Western, white (to a lesser extent, an obviously Western black) person gets you a huge amount of latitude, in some ways even more than in certain jurisdictions in the US – and I’m only slightly exaggerating. It certainly gets you more latitude than a Pakistani Muslim (unless he somehow is a businessman of high repute).

          It’s a pretty complicated part of the world, and it’s not just about brutally punishing being an infidel (as I’ve said, infidels get it quite good) or even espousing some infidel ideas.

  4. And this is particularly noteworthy because Nepal is a majority Buddhist country, and muslims hate them some hindus and buddhists what with their multiple gods, statues and all that.

    1. Yeah, there’s also that little fact.

  5. In general, I hear a _lot_ more left-ish people hand-wringing about all the broad-brush muslim-hate they are convinced is out there, than I hear right-ish people declaring all muslims are turrists. Most of the right-leaning people I know are very well aware that extremists are a minority of muslims.

  6. This one’s a real doozie, even for Barton Hinkle.

    Less commendably, there are questions about the links between certain Islamic philanthropic groups and terrorist organizations. Moreover, Muslim charities tend to gravitate toward Muslims in need, such as Syrian refugees and Palestinians in Gaza; they direct much of their attention to Muslim countries such as Lebanon and Yemen. Perhaps Christian and Jewish aid groups do much the same; perhaps not. If not, perhaps there are reasons for such a focus, such as the level of need and a lack of support from other faiths.

    Sure. I think we all remember that time the Jehovah’s Witnesses tied charitable aid to terrorist organizations after a “lack of support from other faiths”.

    The point here isn’t that one Abrahamic religion’s charitable efforts are better than another’s. The point is simply that they all try.

    In the game of religiously-based charity, they all get a trophy. Even if one of the participants keeps paying for bombs and bullets instead of bread…

    1. Perhaps Christian and Jewish aid groups do much the same; perhaps not.

      I am pretty sure they do. Regardless, if they don’t that would be an easy thing to verify. Yet, Hinkle didn’t bother to do that and instead commits the soft slander of implication. That whole paragraph is just appalling. If you want to make claims about the differences in Christian and Muslim charities, go figure out what those differences are and write about them. That would be worth reading. You tell me what that paragraph says other than “Muslims help other Muslims and that might be due to Christians not helping Muslims but I don’t know”. Maybe it is due to the fact that Muslims are really aliens in disguise too. The whole paragraph is Hinkle admitting he is either too lazy to make his case or too mendacious to admit it can’t be made.

      1. I’d be extremely surprised if Christian or Jewish charitable aid organizations were found to be part of a support system for terrorists (a la Hamas or Hezbollah), and even more benign forms of sectarianism — particularly in the case of Jewish charitable aid — are fairly rare.

        1. Yes. And I would be equally surprised if Christian charities didn’t do aid in Muslim countries. Lets go to the google for a moment.

          A single search for “Christian Charity work in Muslim Nations” produces a ton of examples of such things. The first hit is a 2006 NYT article entitled “Christian Charities uneasy Role in the Muslim World, which I don’t like because Reason won’t accept NYT links. It says the following.

          Christian groups are providing health care, education and disaster relief in many Muslim nations, and the U.S. Agency for International Development has awarded about $53 million from 2001 to 2005 to fund projects by Christians in Pakistan, Indonesia and Afghanistan. Both the aid organizations and the U.S. government hope the projects will sow good will in a region growing increasingly wary of the West.

          But Hinkle can’t be bothered to see if Christian charities do any aid in Muslim countries.

        2. Would you be surprised if a Christian non-profit were supporting, say, a law to criminalize sodomy in Uganda or anti-gay laws in Russia? I guess it’s not terrorism…

          1. If they are, get off your ass and show where they are and who is doing it. Otherwise shut the fuck up and stop wasting our time. Beyond that, no, its not terrorism so who gives a fuck?

            1. So, let’s put your spine where your big mouth is. If I show Christian non-profits supporting such efforts in Uganda and Russia then you promise to leave take your RedTony self off H&R for the next week. If I can’t provide it, I’ll do the same.

              I’m confident I can stick by my claims, are you?

              1. I don’t know that they are not. They might be. That is why I am asking you. If they are, please show us. If you can’t, then shut the fuck up. I am not claiming you are wrong. I am asking you to show me proof and exactly who is doing this.

                So there is nothing to bet about.

              2. So I guess it is safe to assume you pulled that claim out of your ass and have no proof it is true? If it is, we are still waiting to see the proof of it.

          2. Would you be surprised if a Christian non-profit were supporting, say, a law to criminalize sodomy in Uganda or anti-gay laws in Russia?

            No, because unlike you I actually pay attention to what’s going on in the world beyond newsclip-level analysis. (I also pay attention to the difference between charities — which don’t participate in such things — and non-profits — which shouldn’t but do.)

            I find both of those laws absolutely appalling, but seeing as how I have perspective I can both see the difference in kind (laws against specific acts committed by small numbers of people vs. sectarian violence directed at large populations of civilians) and degree (Sectarian terrorism in the context of places like Nigeria, Iraq and Lebanon involving mass deaths, rapes, and incredible hardship against both the heathen and the heretic). I also see that the only countries in Africa where gay rights are respected worth a damn are majority Christian (such as S Africa, the regional leader in such matters) or animist or a mix of both.

            1. If you’re playing the game of ‘do more Muslim charities support efforts that are worse than more Christian charities do’ then of course you win. My only point is that Christian non-profits have and currently can be found supporting bad things too. That doesn’t absolve either group doing these things of course, but I think it shows it’s not some exclusive thing.

    2. Isn’t the ‘focus’ in the last sentence the focus on Muslims in need and not the ‘links between certain’ Muslim charities and terrorism?

  7. Which is not to say that Islam has no dark side. The version imposed by tyrannical governments abroad is often astoundingly misogynistic, outrageously homophobic (most of the countries that impose capital punishment for homosexual acts are Islamic) and intolerably barbaric. Then again, you could say much the same about parts of the Christian U.S. not so long ago. And perhaps some Christians today.

    I’d fucking love to see a single example of any US state that was ever anywhere near the level of modern-day Saudi Arabia (current holder of the holiest site in Islam). Hell, the Papal States were never that bad during any part of their existence.

    Seriously. This is Facebook post-worthy level of analysis.

    Most of us realize almost no person can be defined solely by the worst thing he or she ever did. And if that is true for solitary individuals, then it surely must hold true for entire religions.

    “Sure, he was an axe murderer but what about those poems he wrote in prison? Such an artful soul.”

    1. The worst thing you could say about the US is slavery obviously. And the fact that Puritans burned a few people at the stake for things like witchcraft. Those things were all well in the past. To call anything going on the US today even close to what is happening in Saudi Arabia is appallingly stupid and insulting. What the hell is wrong with these people?

    2. Depends on what he means by ‘not so long ago.’ It wasn’t that long ago that blacks in the South were rather systemtically put into convict lease systems that were pretty barbaric. It wasn’t that long ago that homosexuals were arrested and pushed into mental asylums in fairly large numbers. I guess you could say ‘well, at least they weren’t beheaded’ but that hardly seems motivation for much of a moral victory lap.

      1. It wasn’t that long ago that blacks in the South were rather systemtically put into convict lease systems that were pretty barbaric. It wasn’t that long ago that homosexuals were arrested and pushed into mental asylums in fairly large numbers. I guess you could say ‘well, at least they weren’t beheaded’ but that hardly seems motivation for much of a moral victory lap.

        And if homosexuality were the only issue of importance (are we still supposed to pretend that’s true?), you might have a point — though not much of one, since a possibility of being put into a mental asylum is significantly greater than that of being beheaded for an accusation of such, as opponents of the death penalty argue.

        It is not, and on the entire spectrum of issues ranging from treatment of women to religious freedoms, there has never been a time when the US was ever as bad as the Islamic world. The fact that we have due process and a legal system apart from sectarian concerns is, by itself, a categorically huge distinction. The fact that the “nice” Islamic countries aren’t even at the level of 18th-century US is a salient fact.

        As for convicts in the South, I don’t think you even want to go into the history of prisons and slavery in the Gulf States.

        1. You see trouser, we were once intolerant of gays so that makes it totally okay for the UAE to make it a crime for a Muslim to convert to another religion.

        2. “there has never been a time when the US was ever as bad as the Islamic world”

          Are you saying never as bad in our history as the Islamic world now? Because I’m not sure, for at least a huge chunk of the population, that today’s Jordan is worse than the slavery period in, say, South Carolina.

          1. And I’m sure that life in Maoist China wasn’t as bad as living during the Neolithic. So what? The salient distinctions are on matters where religion is dictating policy, not some pathetic pissing contest between who has the better quality of life or even better secular policy at a given time.

            The bad policy which exists in the Muslim world qua Islam is much, much worse than that which has existed in the US qua Christianity — and always has been.

            Quit being a mendacious cunt.

            1. See, for a minute I thought you were going to back off and say ‘the real point is that today the Muslim world is much worse generally.’ I’d happily agree there. But then you have to go ‘The bad policy which exists in the Muslim world qua Islam is much, much worse than that which has existed in the US qua Christianity — and always has been.’ and that leads me right back to my comment you were replying to, that it’s easy to think of times in US history where practices (religiously endorsed to boot) made for a worse reality than existence in parts of the ME today.

              1. that leads me right back to my comment you were replying to, that it’s easy to think of times in US history where practices (religiously endorsed to boot) made for a worse reality than existence in parts of the ME today

                You are so dense, that it is impossible to have a conversation with you about this issue — but yes, this would be the main point as it pertains to religiously-motivated policy.

                Slavery in the US was not a religiously-motivated policy. Priests and clerics were not the ones demanding its imposition; businessmen and the planter class were the ones who motivated this change. Arguing that it is because some Southern preachers justified it, is on the same shaky ground as arguing that pro-gay marriage is a religiously-motivated policy because Presbyterian USA endorses such.

                1. We’ve seen this from you before, you’ve got a non-falsifiable position where the many instances where slavery was justified and touted on religious grounds are hand waved away as cover ups for business and non-religious interests but of course none of the bad Muslim behavior for which religious justifications are offered are like that, they are all authentic religiously motivated.

                  1. Completely inaccurate characterization of my viewpoint.

                    Female genital mutilation is not in any way justified by Islam. In my laymen opinion, neither is suicide bombing. They are in no sense fundamental to the religion and, in the case of the latter, actually contradict core teaching of Islam regarding self-harm. Those would be at least two “bad” things in the Islamic world which, from my perspective, are not the result of Islam.

                    Discriminatory structures against non-believers, sectarian violence, and many if not most of the features associated with the modern-day evils of Islam are in fact to be found in the religious tradition — and unless, as is the case with rabbinical Judaism, there is a new source of religious authority and tradition by which to change the standard orthodox view (and thus become essentially a new religion), they will remain. And it is completely fair to point these out and criticize these aspects, especially in light of all of the people who will bend over backwards to say that Muslims and their religious tradition is interchangeable with our own merely because good Muslims exist.

      2. “The family of the codebreaker Alan Turing will visit Downing Street on Monday to demand the government pardons 49,000 other men persecuted like him for their homosexuality.

        Turing, whose work cracking the German military codes was vital to the British war effort against Nazi Germany, was convicted in 1952 of gross indecency with a 19-year-old man, was chemically castrated, and two years later died from cyanide poisoning in an apparent suicide.”

        http://www.theguardian.com/sci…..osexuality

        1. That was seventy years ago you fucking half wit. And as Trouser points out above, there is more to civil rights than gays. Moreover, Turing would have probably already been dead had been a Muslim living in one of the Gulf States.

          1. So, they’d kill him, the West castrated him and he committed suicide.

            We’re #1!!!!

            1. Which part of “that was 70 years ago” do you not understand? That wouldn’t happen today. And indeed, even at its worst, the UK nor America never executed people for being homosexuals. The middle east always has and still in some places does.

              1. Did you not understand the ‘not so long ago’ part of the original quote we’re talking about John?

              2. And who even cares about history in this case. If Muslim countries want to interact with the rest of the civilized world in any manner, they should conform to the norms of the countries that are calling the shots. That means not pointing fingers at things the west did decades ago.

                1. I’m fine with the statement that Muslim countries, in general, have more problems than any Christian countries today. But I think what some of our conservatives here really want to say is that Islam is inherently worse and therefore is at any point worse.

    3. Apparently, you could get life sentence in Idaho for sodomy. I don’t know if I would pick a life sentence or a death penalty, but anyway, its pretty harsh.

  8. Yet nearly 1.6 billion people?almost a quarter of the world’s population?are Muslim, which makes the maniacal sadists of Islamic terror a minute minority.

    Yes a tiny minority of them actually pull the trigger. While majorities and substantial minorities support their terror.

    The version imposed by tyrannical governments abroad is often astoundingly misogynistic, outrageously homophobic (most of the countries that impose capital punishment for homosexual acts are Islamic) and intolerably barbaric.

    You would have us believe that when given the choice, Muslim electorates don’t elect such governments? They don’t support their theocracies and genocidal overlords?

    For every murder committed during the Crusades,

    The Crusades were a response to Islamic invaders who were marching through the Mediterraean to conquer, enslave and forcibly convert. The Crusades were to be sure a misdeed, but they’re not a valid response to modern criticisms of the widespread support for jihad that exists within the Islamic societies.

    Muslims are moderate insofar as they are unIslamic in their practices and beliefs.

    1. And Christians and Jews are moderate insofar as they are unChristian or Jewish in their practices and beliefs, one could just as easily say.

      1. Yep. Though not all religions are created equal. Some are inherently worse than others, while yet others have terrible doctrines and precepts but have a more enlightened culture of practitioners that has eroded the worst aspects of the religion.

        1. Have you ever considered that perhaps practicioners giving modifying interpretations to Scripture is a natural part of most religion and therefore moderate doesn’t necessarily mean ‘un’ whatever faith we’re talking about?

          1. Modifying interpretations are only valid to the extent that they are justified by a fair reading of the text and context — not all interpretations are created equal.

            Where the governing impulse of “moderate” faith is to mediate between faith and the prevailing norms of the society they are a part of, it’s fair to say that interpretations coming from this impulse are less likely to be fair readings of the text and more likely to be cultural interpolations — which is to say, less true to the faith.

            1. So for most of their history Jews who have refrained from stoning adulterers and the like have been allowing cultural norms to usurp their faith?

              1. So for most of their history Jews who have refrained from stoning adulterers and the like have been allowing cultural norms to usurp their faith?

                Not if they’re rabbinical Jews who hold the oral Torah and Talmud at the same level as the written Torah, and who mediate their judgement of what constitutes Torah through rabbinical rulings.

                And anyone who knows anything about Judaism is aware that rabbinical Judaism of the sort which emerged after the diaspora is a different animal altogether from second-temple Judaism, to say nothing of Judaism during the Biblical period. Your criticism is on the same lines as asking whether Christians who don’t offer animal sacrifices are “more moderate”: the question is incoherent on the grounds that the religious tradition in question itself has resolved this question as a result of its beliefs.

                1. That’s kind of my point, developing traditions and ‘supplemental scriptures’ such as the Talmud or the Haddith is kind of what religions do. When people use these to moderate passages in ‘original’ Scripture they’re not being ‘un’ Jewish, Muslim or whatever.

          2. Have you ever considered that perhaps practicioners giving modifying interpretations to Scripture is a natural part of most religion and therefore moderate doesn’t necessarily mean ‘un’ whatever faith we’re talking about?

            What jihadis are doing is not revisionist Islam. And if you knew anything about Muhammed, Islam’s principal inventor, you’d know how absurd it would be to call Islam a religion of peace. I guess it’s a shame Ghengis Khan didn’t establish his own religion in the way of Muhammed, or we’d have two such religions of peace.

      2. Jesus was a warrior, so anyone who tries to follow his lead will be a warrior. And anyone who turns the other cheek is being unchristian according to stuff I made up.

    2. Hinkle is a great example of an ignorant Westerner who has never actually known any Muslims. If he had, he would know that Muslims often think very differently than we do and have completely different views of government and civil liberties. The typical Egyptian or Iraqi is totally fine with Islam being the state religion and things like homosexuality and proselytizing or Muslims converting to another religion being punishable by death or life in prison. It is not that they are not on a personal level nice people. They often are. That is just what they believe.

      1. John, you probably should be careful as to what you characterize as “typical” if you REALLY claim to know a breadth of Muslims.

        Your second sentence isn’t necessarily incorrect, either, as far as it goes. But it only really applies to the extent that these societies are monolithic. Very populous nations and/or ones with huge expat communities often are composed of a colossal range of opinions on those very subjects. Get 10 Turks in a room and talk politics and you’ll get 12 different opinions. I’ve very nearly literally been in one of those situations directly. Egypt is so populous that it can’t be very different, and there are loads of Egyptian expats for a reason (they don’t have the views you ascribe, often).

        Also, we all know that what we profess to believe doesn’t always (or “almost never”) comport with what we do. That’s a universal human tendency.

        1. He knows Muslims timon, he’s killed them in war!

          1. No Bo, I have lived in the Middle East and not just Iraq.

          2. Shut the fuck up, Bo.

        2. I think you can make generalizations about society. The typical American will tell you that there should not be a state religion, people should have freedom of speech and we should have a Democracy. No one would ever consider such a claim to be controversial.

          I have met a good number of both Iraqis and Egyptians in my life. And in my opinion it is fair to say that every single one of them considered it right and just for Islam to be the state religion and for conversion and proselytizing and homosexuality to be treated as serious crimes. Indeed, outside of Israel and Lebanon, that is the case in every country in the Middle East. That is not by accident or against the public will. Sure those places are dictatorships. But not everything a dictatorship does is against the popular will.

          1. “The typical American will tell you that there should not be a state religion”

            Are we talking the average Republican 😉

            “A majority of Republicans favor establishing Christianity as the national religion according to a disturbing new poll released today”

            http://www.patheos.com/blogs/p…..z3YiPruKSl

            1. “people should have freedom of speech”
              Or average Democrat?

              51% of Democrats support criminalizing hate speech

              http://hotair.com/archives/201…..te-speech/

              1. They would still say they support free speech. And even people who say this is a “Christian nation”, whatever that is, would never support banning other religions or resorting to anything like the oppressive measures that Islamic countries resort to.

                Try again.

                1. John, I’ve heard plenty say they’d ban Islam in particular. Whether or not they actually mean it when the rubber meets the road is another matter.

          2. John, I think there’s a difference between asking the questions in the abstract, devoid of much context, asking the person to consider first principles, and asking how they actually observe the rules themselves.

            Also, asking people about what standards OTHERS should abide by (again, in the abstract) is a different set of questions than ones designed to ferret out the real actions of that individual.

            1. That is a reaction to the war and 911. They didn’t think that before 911 and would stop thinking it if the war with Muslim countries ever stopped.

  9. What is the point of this article?

  10. Most of us realize almost no person can be defined solely by the worst thing he or she ever did.

    But fuck one goat…

  11. What annoys me most about both sides of this debate is that neither side looks at Muslims as people and tries to understand them as human beings. Both sides views Muslims as these cardboard cutouts that play into whatever morality play is going on. One side sees all Muslims as terrorists and the other side like Hinkle pretends most of them are free thinking westerners. Both views are ridiculous and at odds with the truth.

    Let me give you an example of the way actual Muslims are. I have a friend who is an Arab Muslim from Ramallah. He lives in the US as an openly gay man with a live in boyfriend. His family back in Ramallah would if I showed up there tomorrow, by virtue of my being friends with their son, welcome me into their home as an honored guest in a way very few if any Americans would do.

    1. And that is not just because their culture would make them feel obligated to do so. No, they would welcome me in a genuine way that is rarely found in America. Arabs are just that way and Middle Eastern culture in some ways superior to ours. At the same time, only his mother knows that he is gay. If he ever went back there and told his the rest of his family he was gay, there is a decent chance his father and brothers would kill him. It is not certain they would but it is enough of a possibility he would never consider doing it. If nothing else, his being gay would bring all kinds of shame and social stigmatization onto his family.

      His family are certainly not terrorists. They are hard working honest people who would welcome an American Christian into their homes as one of their own by virtue of his being friends with their son. Are they good Muslims or bad Muslims? Hell I don’t know. Whatever they are, they are most certainly different and hold views which are totally opposite to my views or the views of anyone on this board.

      1. Exactly this. Plenty of people get this when it comes to Christianity: people mediate their faith and their lives in a variety of different ways, and tend to be very unique in the way they do so. But doing so does not necessarily imply that they don’t take their faith seriously.

        But with Islam, we get either this bizarre idea that Islam is the only thing that gets people in the Middle East out of bed, or (even more improbably) that Islam is exactly the same as our own faith and imputes the same beliefs and behaviors to its adherents as Christianity does.

        1. I think part of it is that people in this country have become so secular they have lost the ability to understand religion and how people take it seriously. Since they neither understand nor take religions seriously, they can’t understand how anyone else could either. So they look at Muslims and think “well they don’t really believe that” or “they are only going with the crowd in a different environment they would be different.” Ah no. they do believe that and they take their beliefs seriously.

          1. Except the “mediation” you speak of is plainly visible when, say, Muslims immigrate to America. In some respects “going with the crowd” and “take their beliefs seriously” are the same thing. Religious beliefs don’t spring into one’s head out of nowhere – they are constantly reinforced by the crowd.

            1. Sure they do. That is why if you are going to have large numbers of Muslim immigrants, you need a strong and confident culture that encourages and enforces assimilation. Multiculturalism is a very dangerous thing when you have large numbers of immigrants from a truly alien culture. Tell Muslims that their culture and customs are equal to ours and they are under no obligation to change them when they come here and they are likely to follow your advice. Then you have an alien culture that will use the freedom you give it to destroy freedom in general. This is what is happening in parts of Europe.

      2. If he ever went back there and told his the rest of his family he was gay, there is a decent chance his father and brothers would kill him. It is not certain they would but it is enough of a possibility he would never consider doing it. If nothing else, his being gay would bring all kinds of shame and social stigmatization onto his family.

        His family are certainly not terrorists.

        Of course they’re not all terrorists but the problem with their culture is essentially what you touched on here; there’s a very real chance he’d be murdered by his own family to protect some barbaric form of honor. Islamic terrorism is incubated within that sort of culture and more generally Islam promotes those anachronistic norms.

        Look at the statistics for Muslim opinion polls. Large majorities of them across the middle east and elsewhere support death to apostates, stoning adulterers to death and honor killings et cetera. Now I think we can all agree that such positions qualify as extremism, but those extreme positions are not extreme within Islam owing to their commonness. The only exceptions in Muslim majority countries where you could say those positions are only held by only a tiny minority of Muslims are Islamic countries in the Balkans and former Soviet republics.

        1. A lot of it is Arab culture. Arabia was not an enlightened place before Islam. So a lot of the things that go on there are part of an older culture that has nothing really to do with Islam. Latin America and the US are both “Christian” but their cultures are entirely different. The same is true of Islamic nations. The culture in Bosnia or Uzbekistan is not the same as it is in Egypt.

          Ultimately, most Muslims wherever they are from take their religion very seriously and are not interested in living in a secular pluralistic society. What annoys me most about Americans sometimes is that often the people who claim to be the most tolerant and cosmopolitan are the ones who have the least understanding of other cultures and take those cultures the least seriously. They look at culture like pop kistch rather than what it is, which is often a genuinely different way of looking at the world.

          1. A lot of it is Arab culture. Arabia was not an enlightened place before Islam.

            And that culture produced Islam which served to morally codify those norms of the unenlightened.I never said national or ethno-linguistic cultures don’t exert influence over practitioners, in fact I specifically pointed to that fact.

            The culture in Bosnia or Uzbekistan is not the same as it is in Egypt.

            Correct and Bosnia and Uzbekistan were made Islamic in different ways by different conquerors. But the trends are clear and do transcend beyond the Arabs. You couldn’t exactly call Indonesian, Nepalese, Pakistani or Indian an ‘enlightened’ bunch of Muslims either. Though there is scant polling data available from Iran I’m going to make a rather safe bet that their society is filled to the brim with barbaric beliefs as well.

            1. Ultimately, most Muslims wherever they are from take their religion very seriously and are not interested in living in a secular pluralistic society.

              The seriousness with which a Muslim takes his religion is directly proportional to the likelihood that particular Muslim would qualify as an extremist.

              What annoys me most about Americans sometimes is that often the people who claim to be the most tolerant and cosmopolitan are the ones who have the least understanding of other cultures and take those cultures the least seriously.

              I won’t sing the praise of the tolerance nazis but in defense of ‘culturally ignorant’ Americans and Europeans… it’s fair to say their even less tolerant fore-bearers managed to build the most prosperous and undeniably tolerant societies in history. Some of us imbued with the Enlightenment values discovered and rediscovered by the lionshare of the greatest philosophical minds to ever live, really do speak with some authority regarding another culture’s intolerance and barbarity.

              1. Free Society,

                Taking a culture seriously doesn’t necessarily mean you tolerate it. In fact, it may make you a lot less tolerant of it because you understand what it really is. Our problem is not “tolerance”. Our problem is people like Hinkle who can’t understand other cultures and view them as just garb rather than genuinely different ways of thinking.

                The Nazis are actually a good example of what I am talking about. People tolerated and refused to stand up to Hitler because they didn’t take him seriously. They told themselves he didn’t mean what he said and was just playing to the crowd. No, he meant every word of what he said.

                1. Our problem is not “tolerance”.

                  I would argue that tolerance is precisely what Islam does not deserve. Of late, Western Europe in particular has been rather overly-tolerant towards their ever increasingly Muslim immigrant population. Tolerance has a place and that place is not reserved for those who would do harm, as I’m sure you agree.

                  People tolerated and refused to stand up to Hitler because they didn’t take him seriously.

                  When I say western civilization basically wrote the book on tolerance, that’s not what I meant by tolerance. I meant that your friend, were he and all of his family practicing and living in a western culture, he would not be so likely to endure the impending threat of death for being gay.

                  Persians are not Arabs

                  I mentioned them right after listing a number of other non-Arab countries….

                  They didn’t take over because they had anything like majority support.

                  I’m aware they weren’t elected. And yet it’s more likely that Mullah’s would take over Iran than it is that they would take over Australia or Portugal, yeah? If Iranian culture was as incompatible with it’s leadership as the Australians, Americans or Danish cultures would be, they could not exist. There is without any doubt, a critical mass of support for these Islamic regimes everywhere they exist, and they need not be majorities. Just sizable and powerful minorities.

            2. If you polled the general population of Iran, I would bet they would be much more enlightened than any of the other countries you mention. Persians are not Arabs and are pretty enlightened generally. The problem in Iran is that a bunch of lunatics have taken over the country. The full truth of the Iranian revolution is rarely told. The Mullahs didn’t take over until 1983. The first post revolution President was Boni Sadr, who was a westernized moderate. Basically, the nuts took over because they had the guns and the will and the moderates were feckless cowards too afraid to stop them. They didn’t take over because they had anything like majority support.

    2. And his family is about typical from what I have seen in the Middle East. They are not terrorists and do not want to blow themselves up to establish the world Caliphate or get to heaven by killing the Infidel. At the same time, they have no desire to live in a secular pluralistic society like ours. The would never consent to their own country becoming such and if they came to America and had the power would happily transform it into something more to their liking.

      What that means to how we should deal with Muslims and Muslim nations is certainly up for the debate. Whatever it means, it is none the less the truth. It is a truth we need to start facing. It is just as idiotic to think most Muslims are really secular democrats waiting for a chance at freedom as it is to think most of them are fanatical terrorists.

      1. John, you spent a lot of effort and thought into this, and then you go and say there’s only one other side and they “all do x,y,z” in relation to Muslims.

        Why do you undermine your own arguments so often like that?

        I also think your notion that “Muslims” as a monolith “take their beliefs seriously” is nothing close to universal. Do Muslim cultures on the whole act more piously and express themselves in pious terms more frequently than secular ones? Absolutely. But that’s just an aggregation.

        You flirt with understanding nuance and degrees of difference among members of a culture, then retreat in the very same argument to absolutes and bi-polar paradigms

        1. Because the truth is what it is. Do you know what the first clause they put in the Iraqi Constitution was? That Iraq was an Islamic nation. That was the one thing they could all agree on. Just because you can’t say something about every single member of a religion or culture doesn’t mean you can’t make generalizations at all.

          Middle Eastern Muslims as a group have no desire to live in a secular Republic like ours. It is funny to hear Reason arguing that point because the people who seem to least understand that are the dreaded NEOCONs. People like Paul Wolfowitz were convinced that the people of Iraq and Afghanistan would want to create a Western Democracy if only we showed them the way. Ah, no they didn’t and don’t.

          1. John, the fact that they put that in the Iraqi constitution has fuck-all to do with the validity of your generalization.

            1. So the fact that when given a chance the country almost uniformly wanted the Constitution to proclaim it to be an Islamic state doesn’t mean that Iraqis didn’t want a secular Republic? Really? It totally supports my generalization.

              1. 1. Elections in that part of the world are notorious for boycotts. Was this a referendum like that?
                2. My challenging of your assertion does not itself generate an assertion from me that you perceive is the opposite. (in other words, I never contended that)

      2. if they came to America and had the power would happily transform it into something more to their liking

        I live in a neighborhood full of Egyptians and the vast majority of the ones under about 40 are indistiguishable in public appearance and behavior from any other Americans. I am not seeing this craving to transform America that you’re postulating, and if it’s there seething beneath the surface they’re doing a damn good job hiding it.

        1. Usually, thought not always, it’s the 20-30 year old group that is most willing to “transform America”. All the other age groups have too much to lose, plus they have first-generation idealism.

          1. It should be noted that it’s usually the 20-30 year old 2ND generation group. First generation (people who came on the boat with their parents) still tend to shy away from that. I think after the 2nd generation, you usually move toward fuller assimilation.

            1. I think after the 2nd generation, you usually move toward fuller assimilation.

              And yet in every western country polled, the younger Muslims are likely to have more extremist views than their parents and grand parents. That includes no only increased support for particular acts of Islamic terrorism but some hardline social policy as well.

              1. 1. That’s almost always the 2nd generation, after which things calm down.
                2. I’m referring specifically to the US, where Muslims are well-integrated, rather than told they are French and then shoved into a modern-day ghetto.

                1. I should clarify that in well-established communities, the 3rd generation is usually quite pacific.

                  Where TWO generations (parents and grandparents) immigrated simultaneously, the third familial generation serves as the 2nd generation American, i.e. the first generation either born or raised primarily in the US.

                2. The meme of Muslims in a ghetto has more to do with the failing socialist run economy and pervasive welfare state. And of course the Muslims own volition. I reckon they’re still better off than they were in the ME and put up with lower violent crime rates. Even if French society is bigoted against Muslims, that society still treats those Muslims better than the society they moved away from.

                  All that aside, which generation of immigrant they are doesn’t seem to matter. Younger Muslims skew more extreme than their parents.
                  Pew Research (2007):
                  26% of younger Muslims in America believe suicide bombings are justified.
                  35% of young Muslims in Britain believe suicide bombings are justified (24% overall).
                  42% of young Muslims in France believe suicide bombings are justified (35% overall).
                  22% of young Muslims in Germany believe suicide bombings are justified.(13% overall).
                  29% of young Muslims in Spain believe suicide bombings are justified.(25% overall).
                  http://pewresearch.org/assets/…..df#page=60

                  1. None of that data you present says anything about which generation of immigrant believes what.

                    1. Actually no. There’s all kinds of data here that you couldn’t possibly have read.

                      http://pewresearch.org/files/o…..df#page=21

        2. So if someone came to them and said “I am going to make America into an Islamic state that outlawed homosexuality and such, they wouldn’t support that? I bet they would. I don’t think you know your neighbors very well. Just because they are not actively pursuing such an end, doesn’t mean they wouldn’t if they thought such a thing could happen.

    3. Hello John,

      Please ask your gay Muslim friend if he, as a Muslim, upholds Muhammed as his moral standard bearer.

      Ask him if he thinks murder, decapitation, hand and foot amputation, torture, mutilation, rape, child marriage, kidnapping, slavery, sex slavery, lying, looting and stealing, ransom, terror and genocide are a proper foundation for any human civilization.

      If he says no, which any decent human being would say, ask him if he understands that these psychopathic crimes are the sunnah of Muhammed, and that in rejecting them he rejects Muhammed.

      Then ask him if he understands that any Muslim who rejects Muhammed is an apostate subject to the sharia death penalty.

      ~ The Infidel Alliance

  12. I’ll just leave this here:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ry3NzkAOo3s

    synopsis: pick any group that calls for and does violence, and you will find that the vast majority of the group’s members are non-violent.

  13. While one may argue the ‘good Muslim/bad Muslim’ debate, one truth, one fact about all Muslims cannot be debated:

    ALL Muslims by definition, from the friendly Muslim down the street to the ISIS savages, deign fealty to a psychopathic criminal & uphold his criminality as the basis of their Islamic morality. That psychopathic criminal is none other than the founder & ‘holy’ prophet of Islam, Muhammed.

    As recorded by Muslims in their own Islamic texts, Muhammed was by any objective standard a gran mal megalomaniac & classic psychopath. He was a mass murderer, a human slaver, a slave trafficker, a serial rapist, a sex slaver, a child rapist, a brutal torturer, a bloodthirsty decapitator, a sadistic torturer, a perfidious liar, a sick hand and foot hacking amputator, a looting stealing thief, an abusive misogynist, an intolerant supremacist bigot, a genocidist & self proclaimed terrorist.

    Muhammed was the absolute worst model for humanity, yet his teachings, mandates and personal examples form the foundation of individual Muslim consciousness and Islamic civilizational consciousness.

    Every morbidity that afflicts the Islamic world, and the murder & oppression inflicted upon the non-Islamic world by the supplicants of Islam can be laid directly at the feet of Muhammed.

    Until this Meccan Charles Manson, this Arabian Adolf Hitler – Muhammed – is exposed & rejected, the world & all humanity will continue to suffer from Islamic savagery.

    ~ The Infidel Alliance

  14. It is a widely believed tenet of Islam, that any Muslim who leaves for another religion is an apostate who deserves death. What kind of non-evil organization has that rule?

    It is a very widely believed tenet of Islam, that they deserve to rule the world. And that democratic government is an offense against God.

    There is more. I am so sick of hearing that Muslims are no more evil than Jews or Christians. I would certainly agree there are good people from within the Muslim population, but they are doing so because of one particular interpretation of what should be respected within the Koran and hadiths. And Muslims of other interpretations are very numerous, and shall we say “activist” in trying to destroy other points of view?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.