So you admit that assassin Mohammad married a 6 year old and screwed her when she was 9 lunar years (or 8.5 solar years) old.

So what do you have to say about Islam that claims Mohammad is the “perfect example of a human being” and that “Mohammad must be emulated till eternity by all of humanity”.

It is so silly to compare Mohammad, supposedly someone who could talk to this superstitious BS called Angel Gabriel and could ride on winged horses, and whom all mortals should emulate at the risk of beheading, that this assassin is compared to some guy in Delaware who could have married an 8 year old a century ago. Even comparing to Isaac is silly – as Isaac is not the perfect human being which I would have to emulate or lose my head.

Your defense of the indefensible is so pathetic.

If Mohammad was such a divine and perfect person, and the rest of eternity must emulate him or have their heads chopped off, and he could talk to Angles, he should have known better not to screw 8 year olds. All he had to do is ask his stupid Angel.

But of course your moral relativism comes in handy when defending a megalomaniac charlatan and an assassin mass murderer and torturer.

What do you have to say about Mohammad assassinating his detractors and torturing folks to reveal the location of their assets?

Are you going to claim that torture was sanctioned in Delaware a 100 years ago, and thus the PERFECT human being was oh so welcome to torture people he wanted to steal from?

It is amazing how retarded and fanatic some Muslim posters are. I am glad that I am an ex-Muslim and can hold my head high.

Islam is a superstition and is the product of a combination of tribalism, mental ill health, opportunism, theft, justification of violence (and sexual abuse), heresay, ignorance, confidence tricks, politics, cultural necessity, accident, errors of reporting and irrational confidence in sensory artefact. Thus, it is unfit to be a foundation for the establishment of a civil society. (The same goes for any other religion/superstition.)

The root of the problem is in the method of perception, and interpretation of, reality of those who contributed to the belief system, and those who practise it. If one considers religions/superstitions collectively one notices that though there are a myriad differences between religions, past and present, they all share one fundamental attribute: a fallacious method for the interpretation of reality.

Consider the scientific method:
That involves millions of the best minds available to humanity passing trillions of hours in careful observation, measurement and analysis of every facet of reality perceptible to man or machine over a period, conservatively, of 3 millennia. That work is then peer reviewed and published for all other scientists to inspect. It isn’t accepted until it is cross referenced and can proven replicable and, even then, each successive generation of students is encouraged both to learn it and, during the most fertile period of human intellectual capability (15 to 24 years), to try to make a name for themselves by picking a hole in it. Only once it has survived two or three generation of that level of rigorous investigation is it considered fact. Yet, even then, it never rises to the status of unquestionable. It is simple defined as successively more improbable that it is wrong as corroborative evidence builds up.

Now why is that? There’s a simple answer: confidence. That perpetual invitation to question the body of work we call science is based on confidence in it’s quality. Research has travelled though time, though minds, through cultures and through politics and no matter where, or when, it was done it has proved consistent. Babylonian mathematicians were respected by Greek mathematicians, who in turn are respected by Indian, and Russian and American and Chinese mathematicians.

A good method: one consistent result.

Consider the religious method:
The founders of various religions have invariably looked around them and used their eyes to perceive their environment and commented on that. Yet there isn’t a single religion that looked at the eye itself to consider what it was capable of perceiving and, thus, what it wasn’t. Flowers are often cited in religious texts, in the contexts of gardens and ‘god’ created beauty, yet no religion ever took the time to seriously consider the work it claimed as that of its ‘god’. Many insects perceive the ultraviolet spectrum of light, while humans cannot. Until science made sensors to perceive ultra-violet light no one knew of the markings that evolved on the petals of flowers that act like runway lights, guiding insects over the pollen laden sigma, thus using those insects to produce more viable seed. Religion had adopted a lazy, fairy tale explanation… pretty decorations… god gave you a pretty world.

Not only is this lack intellectual rigour repeated endlessly by the various religions it demonstrates a stunning lack of curiosity for the work of their supposed creator. It’s akin to someone claiming to be an expert on the music of Mozart while disinterested in learning to read music.

The religious method has often involved sensory deprivation: fasting, wandering in a desert, sitting in a hole, not talking, crawling into caves, taking drugs and starvation. Naturally one only has to look at the plethora of fantastic creation myths to understand the utter incompetence of that method. Try it out: hold your breath for a while until oxygen deprivation sets in… you’ll see stars. No not real ones… god isn’t spinning stars around your head… your brain is malfunctioning.

Religions get around the problem of convincing people of their lazy and fanciful interpretations of reality in a number of ways: they indoctrinate the young (consider the famous, and unnerving, Jesuit maxim: “Give me the child until he is seven and I will show you the man.”) ; they try to take control of education and censor it in part or full (madrasahs and the blowing up of girls schools in Pakistan are examples); they use violence, threats of violence and the inculcation of fear (Catholic death cult; Islamic prohibition of apostasy); they make false virtues out of not questioning (Doubting Thomas) but get themselves in a logical twist when having to advise caution with regard to ‘false prophets’ and ‘devils’… so the advise becomes: question everything but never me; they take on political power and policing, often indulging in public summary ‘justice’ to rule by terror (the Taliban: beheadings; Spanish Inquisition: Ducking stool/Waterboarding) ).

Now compare that authoritarian denial of the right to question, the extreme anxiety over education, the prohibition of other lines of thought and the enormous variability of religions, with the confidence and consistency of science.

Islam is unfit for purpose (as are all religions/superstitions) because it is the result of a method which is unfit for purpose. Islam is more violent currently than other religions because it currently has more political power. All religions become violent when they achieve political power. Buddhism, which is a marginal religion because of its high philosophical content, is an exception… though in Japan in its Shinto form showed itself more than capable. Any false explanation of reality is going to get itself in a mess. Errors become compounded. Mistakes have to be justified. Indignation has then to be suppressed. A status quo develops. Poverty, ignorance and opportunism become the natural allies of false realities. Intelligence, independence, creativity and bravery has to be repressed.

Oscar Wilde put the relationship between science and religion thus:
Science is the record of dead religions.

I put it as follows:
A empiricist is someone who in the presence of doubt does some research.
A religious believer is someone who in the presence of doubt eats an albino.

I am hoping that this very precision belies
the working of a brilliant intellect.

And so I ask respect, with respect: “what is
the core of Islamic ideology, and how
is it corrupt?”

respect wrote:
“Islamic ideology is rotten to the core”
not
“Islam is rotten to the core”

With respect to respect, s/he at least took the trouble to be precise.

I wouldn’t call them a fool, rather that they have
misunderstood.

But this is a diversion into contextual predicate
logic, like so many other blog discussions,
and rather boring.

I’m more interested, like respect, in the core
of Islam. How is it rotten?

Respect?

Yes but in addition to that, it is also an *Islamic* ideology. Hence it is possible and correct to say Islamic ideology, HT for example, is rotten to the core.

Now, coming back to respect’s commet: “The Islamic ideology is rotten to the core”. I really am curious. Respect, can you please share and demonstrate how Islamic ideology is rotten to the core.

This is why one can say “Islamic ideology” to represent HT’s ideas which, although grossly simplifying ideas which advocate the use of extremism and violence to achieve their aims, are based on and around Islamic religious doctrine.

And this is why the term “Islamist” is useful to distinguish and describe Islamic political ideologies from mainstream belief.

He said “Islamic ideology is rotten to the core”, not HT’s ideology is corrupt. Do you see the difference? (Or are you saying that HT’s ideology is the core of Islam?)

My question stands:
What is rotten about the Islamic idealogy?

The Islamic ideology is rotten to the core

I admire penetrative minds that can get to the core of things. Please share your analysis. What is rotten about the Islamic idealogy?

I don’t see “Old Peculier” and “kafuruk” denouncing Richard II of England, that scion of the monarchy, who married a 7 year old girl. The simple fact is that times change and sensibilities change. What was acceptable 1400 years ago or 700 years is not acceptable now. Personally, I can’t see why this understanding is such a rare commodity. Although I can see how it would fail to sell newspapers.

http://www.thedigitalfolklife.org/childmarriage.htm

in 1396, Richard II of England was joined in marriage to young Isabel of France, who had been 7 years old when their engagement was announced the previous year in Paris. Not only was there no uproar; there was considerable happiness expressed over the assumed probability that this marriage would end the Hundred Years War then in one of its periodic states of truce between the two kingdoms. Peace was to be ensured by joining together this man and this little girl in marriage.

It is quite depressing when leftist westerners make a fetish out of Mohammed and Islam, and claim Islamic atrocities to be strictly the work of evil individuals only. The Islamic ideology is rotten to the core, but of course the illiberal leftists have abandoned enlightenment for fascism and authoritarianism.

A former Muslim and now a proud kafir.

And the reason Nick Griffin wants white people to “marry in” is because he wants their children and grandchildren to be white.

as i keep saying, there is a practical issue here. there is no shortage of white people in the world, as people keep pointing out. on the other hand, the jewish population has a bit of a demographic issue, partly because so many of us were murdered a generation or so ago and partly because of intermarriage which has had a disproportionate effect on the baby boomers. the only people trying to rectify this by huge amounts of procreation are the ultra-orthodox and, in terms of general population balance, i don’t think having 9-10 kids is a sustainable thing to do in the long term.

Both you and Griffin want to divide the world into two kinds of people, the in-group, and outsiders.

not at all. what you are choosing for some reason to ignore is the rather important word “why”. anyone is welcome to join my group as long as they play by the rules, we just don’t go and seek out converts. i love the fact that there are vast numbers of differing groups. they are at liberty to do as they please as long as they are not trying to convert *us*. moreover, being or becoming a jew confers obligations, not rights.

the essential difference (as if you didn’t know) is that nick griffin wishes to disparage, disadvantage and discriminate against people who are not in his group, whereas i, like yourself, am perfectly happy for people to just be people. i’m not suggesting deporting non-jews, nor am i suggesting that we be given special access to jobs, public funds and government support. i may not approve of mixed marriages on principle, but i do my level best not to discriminate against people who intermarry or who are the results of intermarriage; i would be somewhat short on friends and family if i did. i may think that it’s selfish, overly individualistic and shows a lack of consideration for the needs of the community, (baby boomers, d’ye see) but i have no power to make them do otherwise, nor do i seek that power, nor would i approve of such a power being exercised, it being a violation of our fundamental – and, lest we forget, religious – belief in free will. i seek only to make the best of the situation but that doesn’t mean i have to approve of it. nonetheless, i would by far prefer to look at ways to bring the results of intermarriage back in-house – again, unlike nick griffin.

I think Nick Griffin is a xenophobe and a bigot. Why should I think any differently about you?

given the level of insight that you’ve displayed in your analysis of my position and the fact that you don’t know me at all, yet are keen to jump to disparaging conclusions, i don’t know why i should care.

@isy:

The thing I don’t get is why Muslim-bigots differentiate between Islam and other religions? Didn’t Isac marry Rivka when she was 3 (or 14)?

if you read the link you posted, it should be obvious that no, he didn’t. i don’t know any 3-year olds that are capable of taking a herd of camels to be watered – check the text. the reason there’s a dispute here is because the sages disapprove even of betrothals (which are unconsummated) before the couple are adults. in any case someone who is betrothed as a minor without her consent (by, say her father) has the absolute, inalienable right to repudiate it upon reaching adulthood – BEFORE the actual marriage takes place or is consummated. the only argument we have is about how early she can do the repudiation, given that minors are also considered to be capable of deciding things for themselves to some degree. incidentally, someone who is betrothed as a minor and then repudiates it upon attaining adulthood even before the actual marriage takes place, is entitled to an alimony pay-off and essentially becomes an independent adult – unbeholden to her father even though she may have never left his house. from one point of view, this might count as a 2,000+ year-old form of emancipation from undue parental duress. either way, it is far more progressive than one might expect.

b’shalom

bananabrain