Don’t Blame the Rats
by Swedish Ex-Socialist
I received a lot of comments on my previous article, “Socialists on Ice”.
A ‘Moderat’ (Swedish ruling party) posted lots of replies in defense of Multiculturalism and the current political agenda in Sweden (and the rest of Europe, except Hungary). I understand his position, and I would like to reach out with a helping hand to him and other politically correct people all over the world. I realize that GoV is not the main source of information for my intended audience, but if The New York Times wants to print this you’re welcome to do so.
I am not in favor of Socialism or Multiculturalism any longer, but I was not long ago. This article is about my experience of that transition.
When I went to school we had history lessons about the Black Death that killed one third of the population in the cities of medieval Europe. A flea carried the disease and the rats spread the fleas to humans.
I finished school (with excellent grades), became employed, started a family, and was happy…
I went to the zoo with my kids and we watched the crocodiles, monkeys, and snakes. And then I noticed the rats. What really hit me was the sign that stated that the rats came to Sweden during the mid-19th century.
When I subscribed to the Discovery Channel, I zapped into some debate about the plague in England, and the remarks were the same ‘There were no rats at that time’.
Someone might argue that rats spread other diseases, although they didn’t cause the plague. That’s not the point! I revived false information during my education!
That’s the real plague.
For most citizens of Europe, the U.S.A., Canada, Japan and lots of other nations, education is the second-biggest investment in your life. The biggest would be your children. You might spent about twenty years in schools, and although most of it is free or subsidized, it’s a major investment in your identity and self esteem.
Who would want to throw that away just because some rats were wrongly accused of spreading plague?
I did not.
There were lots of other flaws in my education, but one thing I became certain of was that you could learn things just by reading books.
In search of a philosophical position, or just of curiosity, I read the book Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance (pdf version here). It’s worth reading, but if I had put my conclusion in a sentence it would be: “You can acquire new knowledge by observation.”
Whatever knowledge you acquire is great, so long as it doesn’t challenge your previous knowledge. But what if it does? What if you have to unlearn something that you worked hard to learn?
Don’t worry! I’ve been there, done that, got the t-shirt.
If you learned false information and did it well, you’re not a bad person. You could relearn it just as easily.
I was stuck in my old false knowledge too long, I admit that.
There was the WTC on 9/11 in 2001 and the Muhammad cartoons in Denmark.
The one that opened my mind was Lars Vilks’ roundabout dog (see also: The Modoggie Archives). This was another experience where the news did not fit the facts.
Then I met the greatest teacher I had in non-science classes, Robert Spencer . In reality he’s not my teacher, but when I read his books The Infidel’s Guide to the Koran and Stealth Jihad, as well as watching his video-clips, there was a presence.
He told me things I didn’t like.
I said, “I don’t believe you!”
He replied, “Don’t take my word for it; check other sources.” And he provided the references to them.
I suspected he was quoting the Koran out of context so I read all of it.
There was no other context.
The Koran promotes theft, murder and other abuse. The part about religion is mostly the afterlife, which is the reward you get for slaying infidels.
I was not able to keep this new knowledge to myself so I started to share it with friends and family. They said, “You’re a racist.”
I said, “It’s not my point of view; it’s the holy book of Islam.”
Then they said, “There are bad things in other religions, too.”
I replied, “Tell me one bad thing Jesus said.” (I’ve read the Bible, too.)
They responded, “The Swedes didn’t help the Jews during World War Two.”
I replied, “Raoul Wallenberg did help 100,000 Jews in Hungary, and at least 8,000 Danish Jews were saved in 1943.”
They responded, “Everybody should be free to worship whatever god…”
I replied, “Does that include a Muslim who wants to convert to Christianity? Does it include Jews in Malmö?” ( I provide some news from Sweden’s greatest blog, or from my own site .)
They said, “You’re a racist.”
This goes on and on. I lose friends but find new ones.
Some previous friends come back, after about two months.
They pick up the discussion where they left off, but now I am regarded as an authority on the subject. They have done some homework and are eager to contribute to the common wisdom of mankind.
It’s hard to change your mind. You need to be brave and take the time to relearn.
It’s worth it: you get rid of the burden of false knowledge and go on with your life without blaming the rats.
Previous posts by Swedish Ex-Socialist:
| 2012 | Jan | 28 | When is a Swede not a Swede? | |||
| Feb | 2 | Socialists on Ice |
34 comments:
"I replied, 'Tell me one bad thing Jesus said.' (I’ve read the Bible, too.)"
Luke 19:27:
"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring them hither, and slay them before me."
Anonymous @ 11:36 am --
I let your comment stand, even though it is disingenuous and dishonest.
One of the most frequent techniques used by people who don't like Christians is to portray Jesus as warlike and violent. This purpose is best accomplished by quoting not the Christ Himself, but characters within His parables.
This is an interesting approach, since the criticism most often leveled at those who quote violent verses from the Koran is that "the verses are taken out of context". Perhaps this is considered just desserts for us, to quote a character in a parable out of its context, as if the words were directly spoken by Jesus as an instruction to His disciples.
You brood of vipers!
The verse you quoted was spoken by the rich man in the parable of the minae. The complete text of the parable (Luke 11-27, in more modern English) is below:
Parable of Money Usage
11 While they were listening to these things, Jesus went on to tell a parable, because He was near Jerusalem, and they supposed that the kingdom of God was going to appear immediately. 12 So He said, “A nobleman went to a distant country to receive a kingdom for himself, and then return. 13 And he called ten of his slaves, and gave them ten minas and said to them, ‘Do business with this until I come back.’ 14 But his citizens hated him and sent a delegation after him, saying, ‘We do not want this man to reign over us.’ 15 When he returned, after receiving the kingdom, he ordered that these slaves, to whom he had given the money, be called to him so that he might know what business they had done. 16 The first appeared, saying, ‘Master, your mina has made ten minas more.’ 17 And he said to him, ‘Well done, good slave, because you have been faithful in a very little thing, you are to be in authority over ten cities.’ 18 The second came, saying, ‘Your mina, master, has made five minas.’ 19 And he said to him also, ‘And you are to be over five cities.’ 20 Another came, saying, ‘Master, here is your mina, which I kept put away in a handkerchief; 21 for I was afraid of you, because you are an exacting man; you take up what you did not lay down and reap what you did not sow.’ 22 He *said to him, ‘By your own words I will judge you, you worthless slave. Did you know that I am an exacting man, taking up what I did not lay down and reaping what I did not sow? 23 Then why did you not put my money in the bank, and having come, I would have collected it with interest?’ 24 Then he said to the bystanders, ‘Take the mina away from him and give it to the one who has the ten minas.’ 25 And they said to him, ‘Master, he has ten minas already.’ 26 I tell you that to everyone who has, more shall be given, but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away. 27 But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence.”
Just a minor point:
It is the now largely extinct black rat (Rattus rattus) that was thought to be a major spreader of the black plague.
The now ubiquitous and dominant rat, the brown rat (Rattus norvegicus) displaced the black rat in the late 18th/19th century in the Scandinavian countries.
Don't blame the brown rats.
@Anonymous
You're being racist!
-el gato
Those who equivocate Christianity with the blood and guts of Islam and it's murderous founder are stupid and petty to say the least.
Jesus never killed a single person nor did he rape, lie or steal. You cannot say this about Islam's founder. In regards to the religions there is no comparison. Muslim nations are intolerant hell holes where there is no freedom of expression nor of religion. They are certainly no liberal paradise.
In regards to the article by the ex-socialist. The responses he got from his friends and associates are spot on. I had gotten similar responses from Liberals when I brought up Islam. No debate, no real discussion, just canned replies, most of which included either labeling me a racist or xenophobe.
A man is not to be faulted for believing a lie, but there is no hope for the man that rejects the truth.
Yes, that is not very important, brown or black or even grey, when we all know a RAT by any other name would STILL be as vile a creature ever created.
Thanks for the info anyway,
Great point there on taking Jesus' words out of context!!
BRAVO for calling that OTHER anonymous out!! GREAT jOB.
Great site by the way. I will be back!
"I replied, “Raoul Wallenberg did help 100,000 Jews in Hungary, and at least 8,000 Danish Jews were saved in 1943.”
Two of those Hungarian Jews were my step-father's mother and his step-father. My step-father, then a young teen, was hidden in Northern Yugoslavia with Lutheran relatives of his father.
Racist?
No, but I AM Norwegian, so I feel responsibility to stand up to Rattus norvegicus. :-)
How to effectively talk with muslims, leftists and deluded ones about islam and avoid their misleading arguments: http://www.politicalislam.com/pdf/WebSitePDF/CanWeTalk.pdf
A very good document.
The article writer has certainly nailed the now general reluctance by individuals, when confronted by the truth about their 'modern' education, to step outside their comfort zone for even a few minutes to listen to another version of history that has been deliberately suppressed by their 'educators'.
Like the German youth following the Second World War, who had been raised on a diet of National Socialism and were in the midst of watching their comfort zone fall apart, the truth can hit some like a sledgehammer between the eyes while others will just refuse to accept the new order and remain unconvinced that what they were taught was wrong.
I have always been prepared to put up not shut up when it comes to opening the eyes of those who wish to not see. I have had some success and I have had some failures, but I will continue to try to open those closed minds that now come with a 'modern' education, so long as God allows me to breathe.
@Anonymous
Re: Rats and Racism.
Oh, so you are one of those far-right nationists, ay?
How disgusting.....
-el gato
Swedish ex-socialist: please do not forget to thumb through the Sira (Mohammed's life). It's available on the internet as PDF. The quran devotes only a 9% of text to violence/jihad, whereas the Sira devotes a staggering 67% of text to it. Mohammed averaged an event of violence every six weeks for the last nine years of his life.
Good essays. Keep the spirit ;)
Before 9/11 I ignored most left/right political discussions and knew essentially nothing about Islam.
After 9/11 I began reading a large number of books on Islam. I also began talking with my friends and family about what I had found.
My conservative friends and family were interested in my findings on Islam. My liberal friends and family have been stone cold rude if I try to bring the subject of Islam up.
On a number of occasions, when Islamic terror attacks have made the news (like Mumbai) I have made comments about the Islamic theological basis for the attack. One liberal family member has routinely tried to shut me up with the expression: “It’s just like the Christians”.
Leftist (and so called progressives) live in a dream world of “mike check” conformity. They have simply allowed their rigid ideology to keep them from using reason when addressing issues outside of their orthodoxy.
The good news – there seems to be the beginning of an awakening to the reality of Islam. GOV keep up the good work.
Bob Smith
http://islamsfatalflaw.blogspot.com
Bib Smith nailed the Leftist mindset IMO.
Oddly enough when Muzzie loving Liberals such as the anti-fas have recently encountered the ugly, violent Muslim, they have no idea how to respond. These fools better hope the Muzzies don't get into power in Europe or they'll be the first ones robbed and then slaughtered. Because the way the Muslims view them, they are down there with apostates and atheists.
My friends (middle/leftish mainly) seem to believe what I say but then quickly change topics or even ask me to shut up in social situations because it's all too depressing. I can understand: when one feels there is no hope anyway, there seems little point in discussion. If the demographics are true and sharia law will take over by sheer numbers and violence against reformists, it's all over for western values and basic human rights.
For most people who do see how bad sharia can be the options are:
1.Don't believe that sharia is the future of many western countries because islam will become moderate or most muslims truly secular.
2. Believe that the demographics won't be so extreme: muslim birth rates will quickly adjust to non-muslim ones in western countries and immigration from muslim countries will tail off.
3. Don't reproduce - let other people's children and grandchildren take the consequences.
4. Just try not to think about it.
For each of these options there are things even a fairly leftish person could do. For 1: curtail funding to religious schools and religious institutions and boost freedom of speech and enforcement against death threats so that muslim reformers have a chance. For 2: encourage muslim women's education and job options, so that smaller families become the norm. For 3: Don't have children and feel happy if you didn't want a family anyway. And 4: pretty easy for most people. So I guess this is the option most will take.
Loved this article. Easy Read! Kept me going on to the nest sentence. Your blog site draws the smartest writers. And it draws idiots like the one who quoted the proverb that Jesus told--but just quoted a line from it. Poor tactics from the hordes of islamic apologists pouring out of the stinking madrassas...(and I wish that my damned spell checker would stop flagging when I spell that "i" word without capitalizing it.....
A further note about the Rattus norvegicus, they come from China. Of course, the Rattus rattus also originated outside of Europe, but they were present during the Black Plague and carry fleas.
Some modern scientists assert that, while the Rattus rattus may have contributed to endemic infestation of cities with fleas (which actually spread the blood-borne pathogen associated with the Black Plague), it may have been primarily human travelers who spread the disease from one city to the next. But given the role of rats (of whatever sort) in contributing to poor hygiene in human populations, I'm willing to let the accusation of helping to spread the plague stand.
A note on the controversy concerning Jesus' words, it is interesting how very different the response is when one quotes Jesus out-of-context. Then, the matter is settled easily by pointing out the actual context, which is easily verified by almost anyone (particularly in the modern age). Why don't defenders of Islam do the same when the words of Mohammad are taken out of context?
There are two, and neither of them speaks well of Islam. Firstly, it is very difficult to verify the context because Islam does not like to make the Quran and other sources fully available to non-Muslims. Second, once the context is examined, there is almost never any extenuating circumstance for the sayings that were "taken out of context."
Still, I do prefer to keep my opposition specific to acts Jihad rather than extending it to Islam as a whole. Historically, when external Jihad is made infeasible, Islam ceases to practice it. Muslims are not true martyrs like the Christians spontaneously willing to die for their private religious conscience. The structured social support Jihad receives (and requires) is contingent upon the perception among the Islamic leadership that it is a viable strategy for accomplishing worldly conquest, and always has been.
Islam can be tamed, if one does not reward the violent expressions to which it may be prone. While it does matter what the various traditional sources say, few Muslims really have a through grounding in them or would be motivated to sacrifice their lives for Islam without overt structured indoctrination towards such acts.
Chiu Chun-Ling.
Great article! There are two teachers that showed me the light. One being Robert Spencer as well. The truth about Mohammed was the first of his books that I read. You can read it and take Robert's word solely on it, or you can do your own research. Either way you'll arrive at the same conclusion. Mohammed was an evil sociopathic warlord. His religion, Islam, I learnt through reading two books by Ayaan Hirsi Ali; Nomad and Infidel.
The word racist or Islamophobe won't hold back the tide of truth forever.
Chiu: "While it does matter what the various traditional sources say, few Muslims really have a through grounding in them or would be motivated to sacrifice their lives for Islam without overt structured indoctrination towards such acts."
Two sweeping generalizations about Muslims.
Ya got a source for either?!
"Still, I do prefer to keep my opposition specific to acts Jihad rather than extending it to Islam as a whole."
"Islam can be tamed...."
Do you consider forced girlhood clitorectomies, forced child marriage, forced cousin marriage, temporary prostitution marriage, polygamy, child molestation of boys and girls, beatings of women and children, domestic and wild animal abuse, massive public street prayers, halal food preparation, imposition of burqas, catcalling of Western women as whores, jihad gang rape, jizya collected via welfare benefits and lack of tax payment, arbitration according to Sharia Law tenets, street riots, honor killing, etc., to be Jihad - or Islam as a whole?
What part of Islam is so positive to the West that the West should allow the introduction of Muslims or Sharia Law in any instance?
Egghead
Chiu:
Thanks from further info on the rats.
From what I've heard, the species name "norvegicus" was assigned to the creature in the late 18th century, upon the popular misconception that they came from Norway. Norwegian ships in the 18th and 19th century were infamous for their low quality&hygienic standards; this being effects of the competitive policy of Norwegian ship-owners who minimized maintenance costs in order to undercut their competitors. The Dutch word "plimzoller" was a derogatory word used on the Norwegian merchant fleet at that time.
Egghead: you're right.
"Islam can be tamed"
Wow, sounds like saying that Islam can be made "moderate", or even turned into a "religion of peace"...
In the beginning, Islam was a complete failure. Mohamed preached Islam for 13 years (meccan period) but got just 150 people to believe him. Then he turned to politics and war (medinan period). He called it Jihad, and in 10 years time he had all of Arabia under his rule. No enemy was left in Arabia when he passed away. Mohamed the warlord is the perfect Muslim; everything in Islam is based upon him, and every muslim wants to follow his example.
Taming Islam would be like trying to make fire burn cold. A "tamed" islam is no more Islam.
What I find most useful when talking to PC infected people about islam is not quoting the koran, because this tends to sway the discussion onto the thin ice of parables and metaphores but pointing to mohammads biography. There is no way that anyone can accuse you of misunderstanding a scripture and its licentia poetica when you call upon actual episodes from muhommad's life. These include his decapitating of captives, having sex with a 9 y.o. Aisha, destroying whole towns and settlements, sending murderers to slay poets (in my opinion a clear precedent to today's forcing censorship and fighting free speech by the muslim community). There is no way you can understand these actual events as metaphores and therefore out of context. Your opponent can argue that the times were different and other social rules applied - but that's a weak argument since muslims see muhammads deeds as perfect in a universal and timeless way.
Certainly accounts of Mohammad's life diverge significantly in tone from the biographies of many other major religious figures. I am still less concerned with what Islam was in the past than what it will be in the future.
Of course, there is an odd general tendency to use the existence of criminal activity to argue that we should ignore the actual crimes and concentrate on "root causes" of crime. I find this baffling. The "root cause" of most crime is not punishing criminals for their crimes, often out of a desire to address some "root cause" of the crime.
News flash, criminals aren't heroes. They do what they do in the expectation (rational or not) that it will benefit them. If you make it clear that it will not benefit them (by ensuring that crime is punished rather than rewarded and by publishing the facts to counter criminal propaganda), they will tend to stop committing crimes.
Jihadists are criminals, not heroes. They act as they do because they are heavily propagandized to believe it will benefit them and the propaganda exists because it is profitable to certain persons. Anyone that needs a source on this has not even tried looking at the evidence of how Muslims become "radicalized" by exactly the same sorts of process that are used to brainwash people into participating in any other kind of crime. There are no examples of Muslim extremists who came to their beliefs through an introspective process rather than being programmed by external stimuli.
This means that you can eliminate the benefits to the programmers by not rewarding them for promoting Jihad, and they will lose the motive (and ability) to continue programming new recruits.
Chiu Chun-Ling.
Thank you, Swedish Ex-Socialist for this post.
I've had and continue to have similar realisations about what knowledge is.
To put it shortly; I've realised, that I only know that which I have first-hand experience of. Everything else is more or less credible suggestions of what may be.
Chiu: You said that "...few Muslims really have a through grounding in [what the various traditional sources say]...."
Ya got a source for this? Nope!
You also said that "...few Muslims...would be motivated to sacrifice their lives for Islam without overt structured indoctrination towards such acts."
Ya got a source for this? Nah!
One the one hand, you are saying that "Islam can be tamed," and on the other hand, you're saying that Islam is the indoctrinator for acts of Jihad. Which is it?!
Let's see, would child molesters molest children without Islam?! Well, yes, they would indeed!
But, Islam provides a nice handy dandy Sharia Law legal defense called child marriage, forced marriage, cousin marriage, temporary marriage, polygamy, and easy divorce for men who molest to divorce one wife and take the next wife.
All that - and we have NOT even discussed Jihad yet.
Oh yes, Muslims are absolutely and thoroughly grounded in the various traditional sources of Islam that give those Muslim men permission via Sharia Law to abuse, torture, and murder everyone else at will!
Egghead
I'm afraid that, given the widespread illiteracy and poverty of the Muslim world, I'm going to have to ask for a source on the assertion that most Muslims really have a through grounding in their religion's scriptures, or are at least readily able to read and interpret them for themselves.
I also would like to see a citation supporting a widespread pattern of individual Muslims coming to a realization of their duty to wage violent Jihad after private meditation on the meaning of their religion, without being in contact with known promoters of violent Jihad.
Is Catholicism innately given to witch-hunts and purges of heretics? Or are you asserting that these things never happened? Source please!
Chiu Chun-Ling.
Chiu: If YOU make the initial assertion, then YOU are the one who needs to back it up instead of simply proclaiming the assertion to be fact.
Illiterate Muslims learn the Koran and other Islamic documents the same way that all illiterate people learn - via oral lessons - usually via imams.
Muslims around the world practice Islam with a great consistency with Islamic texts and each other.
Muslims cannot interpret ANYTHING for themselves. That's the point of being slaves of Allah. Any new interpretation of Islam is called apostasy and merits an ummah-wide death sentence at will against the apostate - which is WHY Islam will NEVER be moderated or tamed.
Egghead
Islam will never be moderate or tamed because of the very principles it lays upon.
As we all now, all muslim have to fulfill their obligations according to the five pillars (Shahada, Zakat, prayer, the Hajj and the Ramadan). But few know that there is a "plus one" pillar, that is, a sixth pillar. This pillar is Jihad. Muslims can accomplish their obligations according to the five pillars, but this doesn't mean that they are granted a green card to heaven. Jihad is incumbent upon all muslims without exception. All muslims are supposed to participate in Jihad, which can be done not only with the sword, but also with the mouth (f.ex. using taqiyya to deceive the infidels), with a pen (books depicting islam as a religion of peace), and with money (f.ex. the saudis sponsoring islamic activities in the USA). Jihad was Mohammed's greatest invention. It made him successful. Jihad is a misunderstood word. Most jihad is done with money and persuasion, not violence. It is jihad that fills Washington DC with money to buy influence. It is jihad that causes our textbooks in our schools to never mention
anything negative about Islam.
An islam without jihad is no islam, because Islam's only way of spreading is through Jihad, either openly aggressive or by stealth. Otherwise it would be the failure it already had been in Mecca when Mohammed began to preach it.
Islam begins with Mohammed and ends with Mohammed. Islam has not changed for 1400 years. The Quran is the same, The Hadiths are the same, The Sira is the same. The message is also the same: sura 4,84 says "Then fight in Allah´s cause - Thou art held responsible only for thyself - and rouse the believers. It may be that Allah will restrain the fury of the Unbelievers; for Allah is the strongest in might and in punishment." Or sura 9,23: "O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him."
Islam is a political system disguised as a religion, and its only goal is to impose itself by force and conquer.
Source: politicalislam.com
Thank you for admitting that my assertions did not actually need any citation.
Why you persist in asking for sources on facts that are not in dispute is beyond me. But given that I usually use your own eventual comments to verify that a point is not actually being disputed, it is a very minor annoyance.
Not too many centuries past, any new interpretation of Christianity was called heresy and merited a death sentence throughout the Catholic world against the heretic - which is WHY Christianity will NEVER be moderated or tamed.
Oh, wait....
Well, perhaps your own brand of white theocratic collectivism will never be tamed, eh?
Chiu Chun-Ling.
Islam has not advanced culturally past the 7th century, but it is a significant error to say that it has not changed. After all, it changed dramatically during Mohammad's own life and in accordance with his situation.
Islam has always been able to practice Jihad as a contemplative metaphor whenever conditions for actual advance of Islam into new lands was unfavorable. This is a historical reality. When Islam probes for weaknesses and finds none, it is content to wait for a better opportunity.
The real problem we're now facing isn't Islam at all, but other, more explicitly collectivist ideologies that seek to use Islam as a cat's paw to drain the strength and moral vision of the West. They are the ones that insist on the false dilemma of submission to Islam or abandonment of the principle of a free society.
The answer to the dilemma is easy to see once you realize that a free society isn't based on group rights or collective guilt, but on individual freedom and personal responsibility. There is no reason to accord Muslims group rights or collective guilt if we are willing to leave everyone individually free and hold them personally accountable for their own actions.
The idea that the only way to resist Jihad is to abandon the essential principles of Western Civilization is a pernicious lie based on the failed theory of collectivism. I realize that there are those who would try to influence the Counter-Jihad to adopt the ideas of collectivism, though the reasons are not always clear. I would think that sabotage would be the only reason to encourage the Counter-Jihad to adopt collectivism rather than individualism. But perhaps there are those with insufficient mental capacity to understand the scope of historical proof that collectivism doesn't work.
Or perhaps there are some people that just cannot abide the idea of personal responsibility. Why that would be is an interesting question.
Chiu Chun-Ling.
Chiu: "While it does matter what the various traditional sources say, few Muslims really have a through grounding in them or would be motivated to sacrifice their lives for Islam without overt structured indoctrination towards such acts."
Two sweeping generalizations about Muslims that STILL require a source.
Your claim that the majority of Muslims misunderstand their own religion demeans Muslims who ARE very aware of their religion and its obligations - AND fits with the Muslim apologists who claim that only a small minority of Muslims are radicals who might be violent or murderous.
"Thank you for admitting that my assertions did not actually need any citation."
Wrong. I think that many of your sweeping generalizations about Muslims require sources to back up your opinions which you state as fact. You confuse new readers, and you should stop.
"But given that I usually use your own eventual comments to verify that a point is not actually being disputed, it is a very minor annoyance."
First of all, I dispute many of your contentions. Second of all, your one man admiration society makes you sound conceited and pompous.
When you compare Christianity and Islam, you are comparing apples and oranges. Pure good Jesus is the polar opposite of pure evil Mohammed which is WHY Christianity was tamed - and Islam will NOT be.
ABROGATION is the Muslim idea that only the end of Mohammed's life counts, so it is irrelevant that Islam changes during Mohammed's life. Islam is the Islam of the end of Mohammed's life. Period.
Egghead
As you said, "Muslims cannot interpret ANYTHING for themselves. That's the point of being slaves of Allah. Any new interpretation of Islam is called apostasy and merits an ummah-wide death sentence at will against the apostate". This means that they are not well-grounded, which would entail being able to critically examine the meaning of Islam for themselves (that is, having a personal understanding sufficient to support an independent opinion). It also means that they are heavily indoctrinated.
Well, why are you still insisting I provide sources for "my" assertions when you cannot help but agree with them? Are you afraid that if you accept something that doesn't have a source, you'll be held accountable for your own opinion? Fine, I'm the source. At the last day, look to God and say "But Chiu said so!" and you'll be let off the hook for having believed it.
Actually, this might be true. There are times that I think God created the universe just to injure my dignity.
Chiu Chun-Ling.
Post a Comment