What islam thinks of liberals...

what islam thinks of liberals...

What islam thinks of progressives...

what iSlam thinks of progressives...

The absurdity of religion

There is one inherent absurdity of believing in one, and only one, religion.

If there is one true religion, then the rest are false. Ergo, all other not-religions are heresy.

Any religion that is not your religion is not-religion because it is not your one true religion.


Therefore, the odds are your religion is heresy since it is outnumbered by many others.

The set of all not-religions is the set including all not-your religions and your religion.  So Christianity is included in the set not-Buddhism. The negation of your religion is the rest of the Venn diagram.  

But how does any one find out which is true?

'

Islam is a Trojan Horse Ideology

+General Michael Flynn is in hot water for warning about islam; but he's not wrong on his analysis.

All the Abrahamic religions have fire and brimstone commandments authorizing bloodshed, slaving, sacrifice, and unique rights for pious believers. They can all be turned into a weaponized ideology. He wasn't wrong. While liberals/progressives become offended at the idea of evil intent generic or stereotyped to be a whole group, the problem is radical adherents get to live and hide in the religion because they can question the faith of more moderate members. By rebuking moderates, they are neutralized from real criticism and the extremists continue using the goodwill of others.

Moderate islamists cannot complain about stereotyping them with extremists, for they agree to follow the religion, more or less, with radicals. When islamists do not get their way in mainstream life, they are allowed to turn to become a religious scoundrel and exploit the poisons of religious belief against society.

Trump / Putin Alliance to take on Islam

As Russians endorse Trump's policy speech more than Americans do, and Putin favours a willing partner,  it is entirely possible that this is the moment that radical Islam has a true enemy; one that isn't half-hearted in approach and merciless in response to savagery.  The USA hoped for a real partner in Europe, and perhaps it has an ally in the form of a former enemy.


As the proxy backers in the Middle East, all sides would be put on notice.

If so, Saudi Arabia and Iran must consider long and hard how they operate in the future. 

Modern society cannot coexist with radical Islam.

Modern society  cannot coexist with radical Islam. There is no such thing as moderate Islam. There are Islamists and those that will soon be persecuted by  Islamists.

The fact that DAESH killed Muslims in this attack is because they are not true Muslims: only in-denial half believers.

Every time society tries to be reasonable, the other side is not bound to do or think the same. For Islam,  there is no accommodation, only stalemate on the way to final victory. Those that are moderate Islamists are in denial.

Society should stop kidding itself there's a peaceful solution.

If this isn't the case then why the rush to suicide bombers? This is one attack that ISIS will never take credit for because it will galvanize Turkey against them.

And if this attack is from ISIS then why does the media ignore this reality yet give honest and smart Ben Carson more problems for pointing these facts out? HE'S BEEN RIGHT ALL ALONG BUT THAT'S NOT A CONTROVERSY.

He's not the first one to use stupid ideas to market to the American people.

Adam Johnson's misappointed "self-victimization"

Adam Johnson wrote a barely-coherent but required length smearing of Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins;  he posits the argument that these liberals are not understood and appreciated by left-wingers because of some flaw they hold in their opinions. He titled it:

Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins just don’t get it: The real reason(s) progressives can’t stand them

 The pair still can't understand why their self-victimization shtick plays so poorly on the left. We have some idea

                          Bill Maher                     Richard Dawkins                    


Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins are left wing / liberal people that speak out on many issues and you can guess that they come down where you would expect; but they operate on the assumption that people are thinking, acting, individuals that are part of the community and should operate like other free and responsible people. This leads to a rift between what should be equally-liberal people that Adam Johnson calls "progressives" - who tend to allow people to compensate for history.

Adam Johnson wrote:

 Bill Maher and his good friend, Richard Dawkins, sat down on his show Real Time Friday night for the fifth time in almost eight seasons. Their discussion, per usual, was an agreeable, tedious mix of self-victimization and indignation about why so many on the left – specifically the Twitter left – think their obsession with “radical Islam” makes them bigots.

http://www.salon.com/2015/10/06/why_so_many_liberals_just_cant_stand_richard_dawkins_and_bill_maher_partner/
...

 Secondly, this position is dripping with libertarian false equivalency. The “I criticize all religions equally” is the close cousin to “I criticize all races equally” — a principle that sounds cute in theory but wilfully ignores the burden of history and imperialism.

This is where Adam runs off the track.  The whole notion of "the burden of history and imperialism" as the reason why some groups of people need to be given allowance for their actions that justifies un-liberal treatment.  There may be reasons why some people are repressed and unfairly treated, but they are still individuals with rights and responsibilities as good people doing good.

This allowance for exceptional treatment is in itself unfair. This is not free and fair; it is biased fairness.  WE can't keep treating people as if they are still slaves or victims. They MUST be accountable for their actions.

And this "the burden of history and imperialism" excuse is exactly the way apologists ignore accountability and distract reaction when groups should take responsibility and change.

Let me give you two examples that Bill Maher would treat equally. They also demonstrate the same slanted liberalism;

On the Sandy Hook shooting tragedy, the NRA responded:
Wayne La Pierre, President of the NRA:

LAPIERRE: Like most Americans, we were shocked by what happened. Like all Americans, we’ve been discussing all of the various options that are available to protect our children, and at this point we would like to share our thinking with you.

...

The truth is, that our society is populated by an unknown number of genuine monsters. People that are so deranged, so evil, so possessed by voices and driven by demons, that no sane person can every possibly comprehend them. They walk among us every single day, and does anybody really believe that the next Adam Lanza isn’t planning his attack on a school, he’s already identified at this very moment?  
 ....
Rather than face -- rather than face their own moral failings the media demonize lawful gun owners, amplify their cries for more laws, and fill the national media with misinformation and dishonest thinking that only delay meaningful action, and all but guarantee that the next atrocity is only a news cycle away.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/remarks-from-the-nra-press-conference-on-sandy-hook-school-shooting-delivered-on-dec-21-2012-transcript/2012/12/21/bd1841fe-4b88-11e2-a6a6-aabac85e8036_story.html

  Key Tactics:

• We condemn the attack, we are not associated with the attack.   
• Crazy people are not the same as gun owners.
• Gun owners victimized by collective reference to gun-using killers.
• The media is to blame for not properly representing the issues.

Here is how Bill Maher takes on the NRA, which get applauded:

On the Charlie Hebdo massacre: Reza Aslan an Islamic apologist.

Reza Aslan blames Charlie Hebdo massacre on France’s “inability to tolerate multiculturalism”

ASLAN: Well, first of all, let's be clear that every single organization, major organization, Muslim organization throughout the world and in the United States, every prominent individual, be it political or religious leaders, everyone has condemned, not just this attack, but every attack that occurs in the name of Islam. Anyone who keeps saying that we need to hear the moderate voice of Islam, why aren't Muslims denouncing these violent attacks, doesn't own Google. But that said, I do think that we do need to do a better job of providing a counter-narrative. What really I think puts an obstacle in the way is opinions like Ayaan [Hirsi Ali]'s and so many others in the political and the media mainstream who continue to say that 1.7 billion people are responsible for the actions of these extremists. That doesn't help the fight against radicalism. The answer to Islamic violence is Islamic peace. The answer to Islamic bigotry is Islamic pluralism, and so that's why I put the onus on the Muslim community, but I also recognize that that work is being done, that the voice of condemnation is deafening and if you don't hear it you're not listening.

http://mediamatters.org/video/2015/01/11/reza-aslan-anyone-who-asks-why-muslims-arent-de/202086



Key Tactics:

• We condemn the attack, we are not associated with the attack.   
• Extremist Muslims are not the same as Muslims.
• Muslims victimized by collective reference to gun-using Muslims.
• The media is to blame for not properly representing the issues. 

Here is how Bill Maher takes on radical Islam and Charlie Hebdo:

It is not #BillMaher and #RichardDawkins that are in denial about self-victimization; it is the left wing deniers that people use the same tactics they shun from the NRA to avoid responsibility for changing the conditions within which members are able to act. Groups are responsible for normative behaviour in the group.  If suicide bomber Hindus started killing masses, you can be sure Bill Maher would not shy away from objecting.

The whole notion of "self-victimization" is the problem that avoids looking at the real problem that the gun culture and the Muslim culture embrace ideas and practices that are dangerous to outsiders and society has a reason and a right to be concerned about both. Equally.

Self-victimization is a tactic to gain enlightened self-interest: stopping people from changing a group by exposing the problems.

Progressives need to look in the mirror and ask themselves; do they believe people are free to act for good? Do they need to be held accountable for their actions?  If you can't demand this of Muslims, then don't demand it of the NRA.

CNN's Haroon Moghul is just as bigoted as #DonaldTrump

Bigot is defined as:


bigot ‎(plural bigots)

1. (derogatory) One who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.

   Don't call me a bigot. That's extremely rude!

2. One who is strongly partial to one's own group (e.g. religion, race, gender, political party, etc.) and is intolerant of those who differ.

In his opinion piece, mainly because it is as much conjecture about Donald Trump as Trump himself espouses, he demonstrates his own bigotry.


He writes:

It doesn't matter if Donald Trump said we should look into getting rid of Muslims, or terrorist training camps, because, to a worrying number of Americans, these appear to be the same.

They've learned this from people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who preaches that Muslims are either extremists or in denial, and Glenn Beck, who preaches that Muslims are either extremists or in denial, and so on.

Except that, if Mr. Haroon Moghul is staunchly of the opinion that Muslims are normal people and not in denial about Islam, then he too is 1) obstinately devoted to his opinion (i.e. in denial ) and 2) strongly partial to one's own group in assuming ALL Muslims are ordinary normal people. He provides no proof of his statements either, and he cannot evade suicide bombers, ISIS sympathizers, and terrorist attacks committed by Muslims inside the USA that amount to more than zero Muslims are not normal ordinary people.

He states about Trump:

Thank God for Freudian slips that clarify. See, Trump's questioner began by saying, "We have a problem in this country. It's called Muslims." He did not say "jihadists," "terrorists," "extremists," or anything of the kind. He called our President a Muslim, which is not true; note, however, that he did not call Obama a Muslim and a terrorist, because it is safe to assume that in his mind, every Muslim is a terrorist.

If Donald Trump can't claim all Muslims are terrorists, then how do you get to deny extremists are Muslim? By calling a jihadist a jihadist literally means "One who participates in a jihad" and a jihad means  "A holy war undertaken by Muslims". Mr. Haroon Moghul is in pure denial.

Without recognizing there are problems in Islam, without accepting facts that are patently obvious to anyone, Mr. Haroon Moghul too is ignoring the same reality as Trump. So how is his opinion better?

He is too a bigot, against people that speak out against Islam, as much as Donald Trump is a bigot.

Having an opinion that is against Islam is acceptable under the law, so there never was a mistake made in pointing out Islam has problems.

Radical Islamists should be exported to the caliphate

The caliphate has provided the west with a unique opportunity to export all radical Islam adherents unto the caliphate.

If they are brave enough to take up arms for Islam then they should be allowed to fulfill that desire. That is the definition of freedom. They should be free to live in a state they want. Since these values are incompatible with freedom from religion then they should be sent to the caliphate so they can live the way they want and we are free from their religious dogma.

We should not be stopping them from going, we should stop them from returning.

Any Islamic extremist caught advocating, plotting, conducting terror in the west should be transported to the caliphate border and dropped off. If that is what they believe then that is where they should live.

George Bush was facile, but Islam has always been at war with itself.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5f/Bushduck.PNG/220px-Bushduck.PNG

George Bush may not have realized the quagmire he was heading the American military into in Iraq, but it is also facile to say that tensions would not have erupted between the Shia and Sunni. They hated America before America invaded.  But they also hate each other and kill more of their kind than America did. George Bush is not the initiator of the Islamic violence. He might have been the catalyst.

Iranian gunboats attacked ships leaving the United Arab Emirates. Yemeni rebels are fighting pro-Saudi forces while also yelling "Death to America.". Syrians and Iraqis are fighting each other along sectarian lines.

Islam the so-called "religion of peace" is itself the architect for ongoing generational war.

Bill Maher: The Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations

Bill Maher stabbed Liberal people metaphorically for the cloudiness in their views on freedom and respect. Bill Maher plays no favorites and is willing to take on any flawed position.  Islam. Religion. Bigots. Fox News.

Despite what Fox News claims, he is not so much left wing as pro-reason and anti-emotion.

The liberal defenders of Islam claim that people that are able to pick up a gun and shoot people, like the two wanna be jihadis that drove from Phoenix to Garland Texas to shoot a hall full of people,  must be defended against word attack because they might get offended. To suggest you can't make fun of silly ideas is itself laughable.

Maher calls it the soft bigotry of low expectations. He is calling out the Ben Affleck's of the world that treat Muslims like useless people that can't defend themselves or take a joke.  Anyone that can strap on a suicide vest needs no defense in any circumstance in any situation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9pntZQN-rLw

The point of freedom is not to stop anyone from offending others, no matter what threat of violence might ensue. The point of freedom is that we all understand that we live in a fair and civil society that let's people have offensive opinions WITHOUT the threat of violence for it.

This is why normal rational people are afraid of Muslims

It isn't Islamophobia. It isn't racism.  It isn't your grammar, your diction, or your upbringing.

It's the fact a Muslim might turn around and attack people at gunpoint or knifepoint and that's allowed by Islam towards normal rational people without provocation that is more than concerning. I pointed it out in this post here.

It's that they can live a normal life, and lie to us all, and unleash evil that is justification to make any rational person concerned.

This is no different than being concerned about people in any other group that advocated violence - like a Montana militia, or a radical Christian sect, or a Mexican cartel or whatever. For any stereotype there is a kernel truth underlining the assumptions towards a group.

How can any Infidel trust an agreement with Iran?

While President Obama is hell bent on a nuclear deal with Iran he forgets the subtle moral imperative of Islam that makes a real deal impossible.

From an Islam Explanation website: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/011-taqiyya.htm

Question: Are Muslims permitted to lie?

Summary Answer: Muslim scholars teach that Muslims should generally be truthful to each other, unless the purpose of lying is to "smooth over differences." There are two forms of lying to non-believers that are permitted under certain circumstances, taqiyya and kitman. These circumstances are typically those that advance the cause Islam - in some cases by gaining the trust of non-believers  in order to draw out their vulnerability and defeat them.

This is the problem: under any circumstance a religious leader of Islam can lie to anyone that is not a Muslim, to break any agreement, to deceive any party, all in the furtherance of Islam.

There is no greater justification for Iran to renege on a deal than to gain nuclear weapons.  So any deal is a very temporary and unrealistic thing.

This is why we as society need to attenuate religion's influence, it is anti-civilization through it's death cult for god mentality.

Shoe-bomber Richard Reid is a human robot...

 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/74/Richard_reid_1.jpg/230px-Richard_reid_1.jpg


If anyone needed a prime examplar of a semi-autonomous human being, this guy

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/shoe-bomber-has-tactical-regrets-over-failed-american-airlines-plot-n296396


failed shoe bomber Richard Reid, who tried to blow up a plane full of innocent people, is a great example.

In the above linked story, he explains himself:

"I admit many people would dispute that and disagree with me on that point," the British-born Reid, 41, wrote.

"However, at the same time I also believe that it wasn't supposed to happen, not because it was displeasing to God … rather because it was not either my time to die nor that of those on the plane with me, and he had other plans for me which include my staying in prison and other matters which I may not be aware of as of yet." 

The only explanation he has as to why he failed was that god wanted it so, not there might not be a god, not that god was displeased, or any other credible explanation.

The researcher corresponding with him (Dr. Kimberly Mehlman-Orozco) asked if he had any regrets about trying to commit mass murder. His response suggests he wishes he had planned the attack better.

Further from the article

Mehlman-Orozco, who runs a non-profit called the Justitia Institute and has written to several convicted terrorists, said the letter shows how once terrorists are radicalized, they cling to their twisted interpretation of Islam, even after more than a decade in isolation.

"It withstands the cost versus the benefit, it withstands the will to live, it withstands years in the toughest prison in America," she said.

Richard Reid was programmed to follow a short set of instructions, never to question the reason why, nor the reality of the situation, nor to pity the people he might have killed, nor have empathy for anyone else his programming masters declare as enemy.


With all that time to think, his only answer is no, he got the plan wrong, but everything else is god's plan.

This is why pernicious Islam can't be saved...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/raed-jasser-accused-of-train-plot-urged-co-accused-to-stay-
invisible-1.2946486

The minds of extremists, Islamic extremists, are the primary example of why religion gives people rights to act immorally where no self-justification existed.  
The barbarism against mankind manifests itself as a death cult where every infidel is ready for death with no provocation and without justification. Even believers are suspect and their death is acceptable if they are not pious enough. One jihadist on trial is caught explaining,

"Islam is a monster, is a beast," Jaser is heard saying on one intercepted conversation. "Islam is a very powerful weapon, OK, and if it's in the right hands...then you can bulldoze the whole world."

"Islam is here to conquer," he is heard saying. "There is no live and let live in Islam."

and anyone that declares themselves Muslim might be a two-faced backstabber - literally.  The accused went onto to explain his deception,

"We are in a war," he is heard saying. "The war is deception ok, so you need to play certain parts."

Jaser goes on to explain that he is one person around his wife, another around his co-workers, and a different one in front of Esseghaier and the undercover agent.

"But inside, inside I'm very comfortable," he is heard saying. "My heart is very happy."

 The rules of Islam allow this ill treatment including deception, and horrific evil in the name of religion is the result. Explain why anyone could justify this reasoning as an atheist?

Descent into madness...ISIS needs to disappear.

Killing an innocent bound man, without the means to defend himself, is the bitter end of sanity.  There must be no end unless everyone of those rabid dogs is hunted down and slaughtered.  Savagery deserves no more than savagery. 

If all your religion can demonstrate is cutting off innocent people's heads...

then you really don't have much to offer, do you?