This situation has one local blogger so upset that he is calling on people to contact New Corporation (who Garofalo works for as a cast member of the series 24) and tell them that they are not happy with Garofalo expressing her opinions. In his post, zTruth states “Tell News Corporation and Fox Broadcasting Company your concern about the hate expressed by one of their employees on national TV. Be polite, of course.” The irony here is that much of what this blogger posts is hateful and could be viewed as bigoted (especially when it comes to Muslims), yet as soon as someone of the other political persuasion gives back the same type of garbage that he and people like Michael Savage spew on a daily basis, he is up in arms and ready to protest this person’s employer.
So this begs the question…how free is free speech? It seems to me that many conservatives are quite comfortable with the shenanigans of polemics like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh but as soon as someone like Garofalo or Keith Olberman expresses themselves in the same fashion, it is a disgrace and those individuals should be fired and shunned. Let me be absolutely clear about something here. The behavior of people like Coulter, Olberman, Limbaugh, and Garofalo sickens me when they go on their inane tirades that only amount to blaming all of the problems of the world on those they disagree with. I applaud these people for expressing their opinions but want to kick them for their horrible behavior. People on both the left and right are ridiculously guilty of condemning people when they say outrageous things that they disagree with while supporting those who say equally ridiculous things that they agree with. This is complete and total hypocrisy.
Overall Garofalo is someone that I do look up to and admire. She has tried to take on the Hollywood establishment and made some great films and done some hilarious stand up. That having been said I do not agree with everything that she says and I condemn hateful generalizations that do nothing more that incite a reaction.
One of the greatest things about America is our freedoms and liberty and freedom of speech is something that we must all cherish and protect. That does not mean that we should put up with bad and idiotic behavior, but we must do all that we can to protect this freedom. I think this was summed up best by Michael Douglas playing President Andrew Shepherd in The American President –
America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the "land of the free".
55 comments:
Good quote. Good movie. Good post.
In your examples of conservative hate mongers you left out Sean Hannity though.
America. Land of the free....but only for those you like.... @@
Indeed.
I find Hannity more annoying than anything else. And I wouldn't put him in the same league as Coulter or Savage, who I think are total hate-mongers. Hannity is just a Limbaugh wanna be who lacks any of Limbaugh's talents.
zTruth here, Dave. You claim much of what I write is hate - yet you offer not one example.
I have repeatedly asked if anyone can prove what I write about or refer to is in error to please provide me a link to a credible source and I will correct it immediately.
I ask that you back up your accusation with some facts or you risk your credibility as a blogger.
There is one element of "free speech" you seem to forget or leave out... there are results ... good and/or bad from speaking it.
Hollywood highschool dropouts are free to speak out on their ignorance and we are free to not support them in their other ventures with our money.
I don't see a problem here. Janean Garofolo exercised her right to free speech, as did the people who took exception to her opinions. If the producers of 24 have any cajones, they'll exercise their right to free speech and tell the complainers to shove off.
Free speech is only threatened when someone in the government threatens the speaker with some sort of coercive punishment.
Here's what I've noticed: if a conservative doesn't like what I say, I'm un-american; if a liberal doesn't like what I say, I'm a hatemonger.
But so far as I can tell, nobody on either side is (yet) proposing that I not be allowed to speak my opinions.
zTruth – Wow…over inflated self importance much? I will admit that I rarely read your blog because of the insidious and hate filled headlines that I see on BNN on a daily basis. It is pretty safe to say that, on the surface at least, you do not like Muslims and if you are not flat-out bigoted towards them you seem to at least harbor and great fear of them. As far as my “credibility as a blogger” is concerned I’m not worried about it. Unlike some I don’t have delusions of grandeur about what we as bloggers do. We are a bunch of wangs who talk noise on the computer. Some are respectful to those of differing views and some just talk shit. I know where I stand.
Red – There is a difference between not buying someone’s CD, DVD, or movie ticket and out right lobbying their employer in the hope of getting that person reprimanded or fired. You people seem to have no problems with the likes of Limbaugh and Coulter saying outlandish things but if a liberal does it you get up in arms and all offended. That is what I’d call a double standard.
The Other Dave – Point taken. As always you bring a breath of reasoned fresh air to the table. Thank you sir!
Name calling is not a proof source so your credibility is suffering, IMO. Furthermore, Dave, the truth is neither hateful or bigoted.
dave... and people are free to boycott Rush Limbaugh as I'm sure most lefties don't buy the products he endorses anyway... the left continually call radio stations and harass sponsors of Limbaugh to drop him. If you can't take the heat...
"It is pretty safe to say that, on the surface at least, you do not like Muslims and if you are not flat-out bigoted towards them you seem to at least harbor and great fear of them."
Dave, as a Muslim who represents a group of Muslims, I can tell you that it is pretty safe to say, and I mean it in the least offensive way possible, that your are full of shit. You don't seem to understand the difference between Muslims and Islamists, and until you do, you should refrain from discussing the subject if you don't want to embarrass yourself.
uhm...i'm lost on that last comment. why is Dave full of it? he is not the one talking crap about Muslims. he is referring to the blog by zTruth.
zTruth is talking crap about Islamists. Do you understand the difference between Muslims and Islamists?
Do "I" understand the difference? Absolutely. I know that there are followers of the religion that have completely taken its teachings out of context and made the rest of the Muslim world pay for their idiocy.
You are right in hinting that zTruth does not. But zTruth is a tool. Your earlier comment seemed like it was directed toward Dave (the author of this blog). If I misunderstood who your comment was directed to, I apologize.
The problem we find ourselves living in today though is that while not all Muslims are terrorists and this is a known fact (little know to some obviously) a very overwhelming majority of the worl'ds terrorists are Muslim.
There are certain groups of Muslims that have twisted the idea of Jihad and used it to fit their own political agenda and therein lies the problem. Anytime holy people attempt to politicize something instead of focus more on their faith itself, this is when problems occur.
Now I am not sure when the idea of jihad started to get so twisted (and that might be something worth doing a little research on now that i think about it) but the fact remains that because of the few, the many are seen as violent.
According to the litte bit that I have read in regards to the meaning of the word Jihad, I understand that according to Islamic law it is absolutely forbidden to kill women, children and non-combatants. If this is true and I have read this correctly then most, if not all, of the Muslim terrorist groups are violating their own flipping laws!!!
The problem with people like zTruth is that they take the actions of a very small majority of a group of religious people and base the entire religion on those actions. And sadly, to the majority of this population, that is okay and that is how a large number of people view followers of Islam in this way. But imagine if all Christians were measured up against those that bomb abotion clinics and kill doctors that perform them (I know there isn't so much of this anymore but you get my point).
Okay, that is all I have to say about it for now.
A. "Do "I" understand the difference? Absolutely."
B. "I know that there are followers of the religion that have completely taken its teachings out of context"
In "A" you state that you know what you're talking about while statement "B" proves that you have no clue.
"You are right in hinting that zTruth does not. But zTruth is a tool."
Actually I wasn't hinting anything about ZTruth. I was hinting that about Dave.
"There are certain groups of Muslims that have twisted the idea of Jihad"
What groups would those be and how exactly did they twist it?
"I understand that according to Islamic law it is absolutely forbidden to kill women, children and non-combatants."
With a few 'tiny' exceptions, i.e., women an children being infidels or Muslims violating Islamic laws. Then their murder is encouraged.
"The problem with people like zTruth is that they take the actions of a very small majority"
What does "small majority" means exactly?
"But imagine if all Christians were measured up against those that bomb abotion clinics and kill doctors that perform them"
Those Christians represent a tiny minority. Fundamentalist Muslims represent a clear majority.
I really have to start this off by going back on your comments about Dave. What exactly is it that you are saying about him? What is it that you have against what he is saying? Dave is not the Muslim-hating jerk? Why is HE full of it? If YOU are saying (and you did, word for word) that zTruth is talking crab about Islamists, what does that have to do with anything Dave has said. Dave is not defending him. How EXACTLY is he "full of shit?"
The groups that have twisted the teaching of the Qu'ran that I am referring to are extremist groups that kill innocent people because they THINK Allah told them to.
As far as Islamic law goes, your name alone seems to tell me that you have no respect for it and if that is the case you have no credibility in my eyes to be speaking about Islamic law, other than to tell me you don't follow it.
However, it is entirely possible that what I have read did not give me the entire picture so I pose a question to you. Is Islamic law based on the teachings of the Qu'ran or is Islamic law based on (for lack of a better term) misinterpretations and corruptions of the sacred text?
The comment about a small majority was a typo. I meant a small minority.
You are right though, that fundamentalist Muslim represent a clear majority. However, I have to ask, isn't a "fundamentalist Muslim" and some jerk off that goes around bombing buildings because, like I said, they think Allah told them they should, two totally different things? Is it not possible that a "fundamentalist" and an "extremist" are 2 different things?
So I checked out the link to that website and according to what I am looking at right now. The majority of Muslims do NOT think Sharia should be abolished. So this leads me back to the question on Islamic Law. Is it or is it not based on actual teachings in the Qu'ran or is it based on corruptions?
I am intrigued, however, by this idea of an Islamic Reform Movement. It is an interesting concept and I can see why there are people out there attempting this.
Out of curiosity, I went back and read some more of zTruth's blog and I have to admit that I might have been wrong about her.
It appears that she actually admires Muslims and most of her hate-monger attitude is toward the extremists.
I will be offering a sincere and heart felt apology on her blog as well as my own.
I can admit when I am wrong and in this case, I apparently was very wrong.
I guess while I am here, if you are reading this zTruth, I apologize for jumping to conclusions. Please forgive me.
Muslims Against Sharia -- I’ll bite, since I’m “full of shit” and all… What is the difference between as Islamist and a Muslim?
zTruth – If Steve (a.k.a. Otter) says that he has misinterpreted your stance on Muslims, then I will definitely have to give your blog some more attention. I have to admit that based on the headlines that you write and the people who constantly quote your blog, I got the impression that you were an anti-Muslim bigot. It appears that I was wrong and for that I am sorry.
Otter:
"I really have to start this off by going back on your comments about Dave. What exactly is it that you are saying about him?"
I'm saying that he has no clue what he is talking about, that's why he portrays zTruth as an anti-Muslim bigot. She is NOT anti-Muslim, she is anti-Islamist. Referring to an anti-Islamist as a bigot is the same as referring to anti-fascist as a bigot. Hating or fearing a group of people is not always bigotry.
"Dave is not the Muslim-hating jerk?"
No
"Why is HE full of it?"
Because he portrays zTruth as a Muslim-hating jerk, and she is not.
"The groups that have twisted the teaching of the Qu'ran that I am referring to are extremist groups that kill innocent people because they THINK Allah told them to."
Twisted? "kill them [infidels] wherever you find them" means exactly what it says. Extremist understanding is not twisted, it is literal, because the Koran is supposed to be a literal word of God. Extremists do EXACTLY what the Koran says, they don't twist anything. The fact that they ignore other passages is another story.
"As far as Islamic law goes, your name alone seems to tell me that you have no respect for it and if that is the case you have no credibility in my eyes to be speaking about Islamic law, other than to tell me you don't follow it."
Fair enough. However, despite the fact that we consider Sharia an abomination, I know what I'm talking about, you, on the other hand, not so much.
"However, it is entirely possible that what I have read did not give me the entire picture so I pose a question to you. Is Islamic law based on the teachings of the Qu'ran or is Islamic law based on (for lack of a better term) misinterpretations and corruptions of the sacred text?"
Sharia is absolutely based on the Koran, NOT its misinterpretations.
"I meant a small minority."
Our polls consistently show about two thirds of Muslim responders holding extremist views. "Small minority" is a PC myth.
"However, I have to ask, isn't a "fundamentalist Muslim" and some jerk off that goes around bombing buildings because, like I said, they think Allah told them they should, two totally different things?"
You tell me. Is someone who uses terrorism to achieve Islamic world domination really all that different from someone who uses politics to achieve Islamic world domination and provides financial or moral support for the former? Their tactics may be different, but their strategy is the same. Muslim Brotherhood has not engaged directly in terrorist acts for the last few decades, but EVERY Sunni terrorist group came out of Muslim Brotherhood.
"The majority of Muslims do NOT think Sharia should be abolished."
That is true. The same majority that thinks that Islam should be a dominant religion, or that it is OK to target civilians, or that terrorism is an acceptable tactic, or that Muslims who leave Islam should be punished/killed, or that men should have more nights than women and Muslims should have more rights than infidels. That's because majority of Muslims ARE extremists/fundamentalists."It appears that she actually admires Muslims and most of her hate-monger attitude is toward the extremists."
It is always advisable to go to primary source rather than rely on secondary sources that may be distorted by hidden agenda.
Dave:
"What is the difference between as Islamist and a Muslim?"
Islamist is someone who has a religious obligation to strive for Islamic supremacism; Muslim is someone who believes in Islam. Not all Muslims are Islamists. We devised a definition of a moderate (anti-Islamist) Muslim. I hope it clears all misconceptions about the subject.
"Fair enough. However, despite the fact that we consider Sharia an abomination, I know what I'm talking about, you, on the other hand, not so much."
I am willing to admit that I know less than I think I did. However, why is Sharia considerd an abomination?
"Our polls consistently show about two thirds of Muslim responders holding extremist views. "Small minority" is a PC myth."
This is interesting. So what you are saying is that, in fact, the extremists are the majority and NOT the minority and that peace-loving Muslims are, in fact, the minority?
"It is always advisable to go to primary source rather than rely on secondary sources that may be distorted by hidden agenda."
Fair enough. The only problem I have with this is how am I know that I am dealing with a 100% absolute non-biased source?
I have to say though I find this website of your most interesting and I especially like this link you posted on the Definition of a Moderate Muslim.
Thanks for clearing things up.
"why is Sharia considerd an abomination?"
How else would you describe honorcide, stoning real and perceived adulterers, child marriages, subjugation of women an non-Muslims, and all other wonderful things brought to us by Sharia?
"So what you are saying is that, in fact, the extremists are the majority and NOT the minority and that peace-loving Muslims are, in fact, the minority?"
Unfortunately, this seems to be the case.
"The only problem I have with this is how am I know that I am dealing with a 100% absolute non-biased source?"
That was not the point. You were making a judgment about zTruth based on someone else's statement about zTruth while you could make that judgment based of zTruth's own statements.
"Thanks for clearing things up."
My pleasure. The best way to fight Islamic supremacism is through education.
"How else would you describe honorcide, stoning real and perceived adulterers, child marriages, subjugation of women an non-Muslims, and all other wonderful things brought to us by Sharia?"
Okay I would use the word abomination in that case.
I guess what I am having trouble understanding at this point MAS is that if Sharia comes from the Qur'an, and people that follow the teachings in the Qur'an (moderate OR extremist), how does a Muslim not agree with Sharia.
I guess another way to ask the question would be if a lot of the things that these extremist groups are doing are condoned by the Qur'an, how does one (as a moderate Muslim) follow it's teachings?
I'm not asking to play devil's advocate here, I am just flat out honestly confused and need some clarification.
Please read our manifesto. We believe that the modern version of the Koran could not have possibly come from God for a simple reason that Koran contains contradictions and God is infallible.
So I have to ask, at the risk of sounding like a complete idiot. If a person proclaims to be a Muslim, but does not follow the teaching of the Koran. Than what does said Muslim follow?
No one could possibly follow ALL the teachings of the Koran due to contradictions contained therein. Fundamentalist Muslims choose to follow SOME of the teaching, moderate Muslims choose to follow the others. You CANNOT respect human life and kill infidels at the same time.
Oh I completely understand that but what I am asking and what I do not understand is why would you follow a book that has contradictions in it at all? Why pick and choose? Why not just not follow it at all?
The same question can be asked of followers of the Bible.
"why would you follow a book that has contradictions in it at all?"
We're not goingto discard our religion just because someone distorted our Holy Book; we're goingto fix it!
Okay. I get you. So you are saying that the Qur'an in its present form is not what it was supposed to be.
Pretty much.
I was wondering how you would respond to some of the things on this website.
Myths about IslamIn particular, myth #5, 6 and 7.
Just looking for another view.
Thanks
And I'd like to get your take on myth # 1, Muslims Against Sharia.
Otter,
"Terrorism cannot be justified under any valid interpretation of the Islamic faith."
How would you interpret "kill them [infidels] wherever you find them" other than the call for genocide?
"Muslim leaders and scholars do speak out against terrorism in all its forms"
Which leaders? Bin Laden, the most popular Muslim alive? I haven't seen too many Wahhabi leaders and scholars speaking out against terrorism.
"Islam is intolerant of other faiths"
3.118: O you who believe! do not take for intimate friends from among others than your own people; they do not fall short of inflicting loss upon you; they love what distresses you; vehement hatred has already appeared from out of their mouths, and what their breasts conceal is greater still
4.144: O you who believe! do not take the unbelievers for friends rather than the believers
5.51: O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends
"Islam promotes "jihad" to spread Islam by the sword and kill all unbelievers"
9.5 slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush
Dave,
Are you trying to prove how full of shit you are?
MAS, I am extremely dissapointed in you.
Dave asked an honest question. He wanted to know what your take on myth #1 was and you respond with insults.
How is it that asking you an honest question comes off to you as someone being full of shit?
Now, into the meat of this comment.
I did a little of my own research into some things. I told you earlier that I do NOT like non-biased sources and to be completely honest with you, something about you stunk of hidden agenda. So I decided to check things out for myself.
Went out and got some books about Islamic Fundamentalism and went out and got a copy of the Qur'an itself. In addition, I went to some other Muslim sources (people that is) and asked them a question or two (or three or four or five, etc...)
And you want to know what I found out? I found out that in trying to prove that Dave and I were so "full of shit" or going on about how we "have no clue" you only proven a couple of things to me. That I was right about some things and that it is you yourself that are actually the one that is full of it.
Let me explain further.
You have used in these comments on at least two ocassions the verse in the Koran that states "kill them [infidels] wherever you find them......" And in this latest comment you have asked me how I would interpret it. Well, if I just took those particular words as you are doing completely out of context, I would interpret them to say, yup that means they hate all non-Muslims. However, I am not an idiot contrary to what you might think and don't take everything at face value. I research and find out what something is talking about and in the case of this verse I went straight to the source itself (along with some commentaries by Muslim scholars) And guess what I did find?
First, I found that the word infidel itself it NOT in either of the versions of the Qur'an I looked at! You're just making that crap up! Wow!
Second, I found that I was correct in saying that this verse is misinterpreted by extremists and used out of context by them to promote killing non-Muslims. And how is it misinterpreted? They only quote this one line that you are quoting!
Here is the ACTUAL verse (by the way, interesting that in all of the Qur'an quotes you used, this is the only one in which you did not reference what chapter and verse it was):
Qur'an 2:190-195:
"Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loves not transgressors. And kill them wherever you catch them and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for persecution and oppression are worse than slaughter.......Allah loveth those who do good."
This verse is talking about self-defense!!! You are quote one tiny little fragment of a larger verse to suit your own agenda, You are just as bad as the extremists who do the same thing. But don't feel too bad, there are many Christians out there that do the same thing with their Holy Book.
Now to respond to some of your comments here:
In response to your referencing 4:144. While I do applaud you for quote most of that verse, I have to point out that this one verse is part of a larger chapter that is talking about hypocrites. It is referring to those who (and I am quoting the Qur'an itself here) "believe then disbelieve, again believe and again disbelieve...." 4:137. Chapter 4:135-146 is completely about hypocrites. It is not talking about people of other religious faiths!
In the case of 5:51. I have had a bit of a time with this one and am still working on it. I will get back to you.
Now, in the case of 9:5. This is a good one too. Only problem is they are talking about those idolaters that made war with the Muslim people after making a treaty with them. These people made a treaty with the Muslims and then broke the treaty. Again, talking about self-defense.
So while I understand your need to push your agenda against Sharia, it does not help your cause to lie and take your own holy text out of context. But I guess it really doesn't matter to you though. I forgot, you think that Qur'an is corrupt and needs to be rewritten anyway. @@
First, our sincere apologies to Dave. The legitimate question was misread as to "Muslims Against Sharia is a myth." That's what happens when you assume something about an individual instead of carefully reading what he actually wrote. There is no excuse for that.
For the record, we completely agree with the definition. "Allah" simply means "God." "Allah" is not the name of God, it's an Arabic pronunciation of the word "God."
"First, I found that the word infidel itself it NOT in either of the versions of the Qur'an I looked at! You're just making that crap up! Wow!"
The word used in the Koran is "unbeliever." What do you think it means, Einstein?
"This verse is talking about self-defense!!!"
You are an ignorant fool who fell for Gihadi propaganda. "Fight in the cause of God" means fighting to establish Islamic supremacy - until "God's religion [Islam] is made victorious over all other religions." Anyone who opposes it, commits offenses against Islam, therefore fighting them is self-defense. However, even if you were right about 2.191, what about 9.5, which is basically the same, but without even the pretense of 2.191?
[9:1] An ultimatum is herein issued from GOD and His messenger to the idol worshipers who enter into a treaty with you.
[9:2] Therefore, roam the earth freely for four months, and know that you cannot escape from GOD, and that GOD humiliates the disbelievers.
[9:3] A proclamation is herein issued from GOD and His messenger to all the people on the great day of pilgrimage, that GOD has disowned the idol worshipers, and so did His messenger. Thus, if you repent, it would be better for you. But if you turn away, then know that you can never escape from GOD. Promise those who disbelieve a painful retribution.
[9:4] If the idol worshipers sign a peace treaty with you, and do not violate it, nor band together with others against you, you shall fulfill your treaty with them until the expiration date. GOD loves the righteous.
[9:5] Once the Sacred Months are past, you may kill the idol worshipers when you encounter them, punish them, and resist every move they make. If they repent and observe the Contact Prayers and give the obligatory charity, you shall let them go. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.
[9:6] If one of the idol worshipers sought safe passage with you, you shall grant him safe passage, so that he can hear the word of GOD, then send him back to his place of security. That is because they are people who do not know.I'd like to see how you strain your feeble mind to qualify that as self-defense. Do you think bin Laden thinks of himself as an aggressor? Absolutely not. He DEFENDS Muslim countries from Jews and Crusaders. That's why he is the most popular Muslim alive.
"Now, in the case of 9:5. This is a good one too. Only problem is they are talking about those idolaters that made war with the Muslim people after making a treaty with them. These people made a treaty with the Muslims and then broke the treaty. Again, talking about self-defense."
Idolaters broke the treaty? Seriously, could you be more of an idiot? Now you're just making things up, or, more likely, repeating what some other idiot made up. You can rationalize anything. One of the Ahadith says that on Judgment Day the trees and stones would say: "O Muslim, the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him." We interpret that as a call to genocide. You and Hitler would interpret it as self-defense.
As we might have mentioned before, you have no clue what you're talking about. You eat whatever shit Islamists serve you. We also mentioned that it is advisable to go to the original source. This is what Islamists say between themselves, it is quite different than what they tell to useful idiots like you.
MAS -- Thank you for the apology and the answer to my question.
That having been said, was it really necessary to rip into Otter in this way? He is a sincere and honest guy who has been asking questions and there is no reason to treat him in such an insulting manner.
Obviously there are MANY different was to interpret the Qur'an so it is entirely possible that both provided here are legitimate. I'm no expert on the subject by any stretch of the means but I have seen other religious text get interpreted in VASTLY different ways.
"was it really necessary to rip into Otter in this way?"
Absolutely. Islamists are nothing without their useful idiots. Without them, Osama would be blowing up camels in his cave instead of waging GLOBAL gihad.
"I have seen other religious text get interpreted in VASTLY different ways."
The Koran is different. It is supposed to be a literate word of God, and, therefore, is not open to interpretation.
MAS said: “The Koran is different. It is supposed to be a literate word of God, and, therefore, is not open to interpretation.”
Many Christians and Jews believe that the Bible is the literal word of God, so that argument seems to not hold up. Also you yourself do not see the Koran as the "literate word of God" so it is possible that others do not as well. Also once something is written and then read, the person doing the reading of the material brings his/her own biases and experiences to his/her interpretation of said material. That is just human nature.
MAS said: "Absolutely. Islamists are nothing without their useful idiots. Without them, Osama would be blowing up camels in his cave instead of waging GLOBAL gihad."
I'm sorry but I'm calling BS in this case. I know Otter and have known him for a long time. He is not an idiot so degrading this conversation into name calling does nothing to advance your cause. On top of that it is rude.
"Many Christians and Jews believe that the Bible is the literal word of God, so that argument seems to not hold up."
Really? Have you even read the Bible? Do you even know what the Gospels are? If you did, you wouldn't make this ridiculous claim.
"I'm sorry but I'm calling BS in this case. I know Otter and have known him for a long time."
Could you be more ignorant? "Idiot" has to do with "useful idiot" as much as "moron" has to do with "oxymoron." I feel like I'm have an argument with a couple of 5-year-olds.
Sorry Dave. I know what I told you this morning but I can't leave well enough alone..
Just to go on record.........
The literal definition of the word "infidel" is "a person that has NO religious faith."
"You are an ignorant fool who fell for Gihadi propaganda..."
I do not "fall" for any propaganda. That is precisely the reason I went out and researched things on my own.
"...what about 9:5.."
I thought I already talked about that. I am reading here on your comments exactly what I read the 1st and 2nd time.....this is talking about calling on Muslims to kill those who broke a treaty with them. This has nothing to do with randomly going out and killing nonbelievers. This is talking about self-defense. How did these "idol worshippers" break these treaties? That would be by invading the Muslim country. That IS self defense. I am not making this up. I have actually read history. Quite thoroughly in fact. So you calling me an idiot is hilarious.
I obviously have more of a clue about things then you seem to think. I do not "eat shit" that "Islamists serve" me. I don't talk to Islamists. I make all attempts to make sure that I am either talking to someone that does not have some hidden (or not so hidden agenda) or take what that person has to say and discern the crap from the good.
Your insults toward me and referring to Dave and I as a "couple of 5 year olds" not only (as Dave put it) do nothing to advance your cause but also makes you appears to be a complete douche bag. Which is really sad because in a lot of ways I agree with what your movement has to say. It's too bad you can't quit acting like a tool instead of having a mindful intelligent discussion.
Again, to Dave, I am sorry but I had to go there.
"The literal definition of the word "infidel" is "a person that has NO religious faith.""
The Arabic word kufar (kafir) that is used by Islamists is translated as "infidel." In Islamist lexicon it means non-Muslim or unbeliever.
"calling on Muslims to kill those who broke a treaty with them."
What treaty, you dummy?
"Your insults toward me and referring to Dave and I as a "couple of 5 year olds" not only (as Dave put it) do nothing to advance your cause"
Like I give a crap about advancing our cause among dumbasses like you. You think that "kill them [infidels] wherever you find them" is self defense.
"Which is really sad because in a lot of ways I agree with what your movement has to say."
I'd rather you didn't. Support from a dumbass makes us look bad.
"It's too bad you can't quit acting like a tool instead of having a mindful intelligent discussion."
How can you have an intelligent discussion with a dumbshit who interprets a call to genocide as self-defense?
Wow! Now who is acting like the 5 year old?
Obviously if you did NOT give a crap, you would not be wasting your time commenting on this blog trying to prove a point that does not need to be proven. You just said "The Arabic word kufar that is used by ISLAMISTS is translated as infidel. And in ISLAMIST lexicon it means non-Muslim or unbeliever."
Your words, not mine. The way I interpret what you just said is that the words kufar and infidel are used differently by Islamists than they are by the rest of the world. So you have only proven that it is they, the ISLAMISTS that are twisted words to suit their own needs.
"used by Islamists..." "....Islamist lexicon..." Who gives a shit what the Islamists think? They are flat out wrong. And why would you care what how the Islamists use a word or interpret a verse in the Qur'an? Aren't you against them? For someone that dislikes the Islamists so much you certainly seem to try and defend them quite a bit.
Oh well. Personally, I really don't care how you interpret the Qur'an. You can interpret the thing anyway you want it. You want to abolish the Qur'an or completely re-write it or whatever. That's fine. Do it. It has no affect on me because I don't follow its teachings anyway.
You want to get rid of Sharia. Fine. Preach against it. Talk all you want about how wrong it is. I agree. I think it is wrong and should be abolished. But again, it does not affect me. I do not live in a country where it is in effect.
I do, however, think that the Islam faith is a faith to be respected. I agree with a lot of what it says. I just take issues with certain aspects of its theology. Aspects that I will not bother getting into because (1) I don't feel like getting into any more arguments with someone whose only response to anything is insults and (2) because it is quite simply none of anyone's business buy my own. That sort of thing is between my Creator and I.
"Obviously if you did NOT give a crap, you would not be wasting your time commenting on this blog trying to prove a point that does not need to be proven."
My original reason for being here is to set the record straight about zTruth. I stayed here to expose useful idiots like you, who turned out to be real idiots.
"Who gives a shit what the Islamists think?"
According to our polls, majority (about 2/3) of Muslims are Islamists. Assuming our polls are wrong, the number is inflated by 100%, and in reality only 1/3 are Islamists, it still leaves hundreds of millions of people who are committed (to a various degree) to the goal of Islamic supremacism. Also, the facts that moderate Muslims have no financial support and radicals are swimming in petro-dollars (hence, vast majority of Muslim establishment in the West is radical) are very important. Therefore, we must give a shit what they think, not stick our heads up our asses and hope for change like you do.
"And why would you care what how the Islamists use a word or interpret a verse in the Qur'an?"
Because they are the ones who are educating new generations of Muslims. People like me don't seem to be able to educate even a couple of dumb infidels.
"For someone that dislikes the Islamists so much you certainly seem to try and defend them quite a bit."
I do not try to defend them, I try to expose them. However, I don't expect you to understand the difference.
"You want to get rid of Sharia. Fine. Preach against it. Talk all you want about how wrong it is. I agree. I think it is wrong and should be abolished. But again, it does not affect me. I do not live in a country where it is in effect."
If you removed your head out of your ass for just a second, you might have noticed how wrong you are. Sharia, like cancer, is creeping into Western societies. Some driver's license pictures are taken with niqab (face covered.) Some female civil servants (policewomen) wear hijab (hair covered) as a part of the uniform. Some taxi drivers refuse to transport dogs, alcohol, or people who are too drunk to drive themselves. There is a push to federalize some Islamic religious holidays. Holocaust education is being removed from school curriculum, because it offend Islamists. Muslim employees demand (and win) special privileges (separate prayer room, prayer breaks, refuse to handle pork, etc.) Islamists are legitimized by major Christian and Jewish groups, the government and the media. Etc., etc., etc. But a dumbass like you doesn't think it affects him. When one day you wake up in a Saudi Arabia-style society, it will be too late.
"That sort of thing is between my Creator and I."
This is what moderates think. Fundamentalists think quite differently.
MAS said: “Really? Have you even read the Bible? Do you even know what the Gospels are? If you did, you wouldn't make this ridiculous claim.”
First I didn’t say that I believed this, just that others do. The statement is not ridiculous. I personally know people who hold these opinions. And yes I have read the Bible and I know what the Gospels are.
I think that this “conversation” (and I use that term lightly considering how much it has degraded into childish name calling) has established a few things quite clearly.
1. I was wrong about zTruth, something for which I have apologized to her for and she has accepted.
2. The individual who goes by the name Muslim Against Sharia is incapable of having a conversation with someone who does not agree with or calls into question his/her points of view and stances. When questioned, MAS resorts to name calling. This is a shame because at one point this was an interesting discussion.
3. Muslim Against Sharia is someone who is pushing an agenda and doing so at any cost. While there may be parts of said agenda that I agree with, his/her tactics and intellectual dishonesty makes me ill.
More than anything else this whole event has made me sad. My good friend Otter was personally attacked and insulted for no good reason. What should have been a good discussion has turned into a complete waste of time.
"The statement is not ridiculous. I personally know people who hold these opinions."
That the Gospels are the word of God? Seriously? Not the words of Matthew, Luke, John, and Paul? Not the word about God rather than of God? Those people that you personally know, must be ignorant beyond the pale.
"I was wrong about zTruth, something for which I have apologized to her for and she has accepted."
Then I accomplished my goal.
"The individual who goes by the name Muslim Against Sharia is incapable of having a conversation with someone who does not agree with"
There is a difference between disagreement and making shit up, and you don't seem to understand that difference.
"intellectual dishonesty makes me ill."
Intellectual dishonesty? Could you be more full of shit? Calling your and Otter's BS is NOT intellectual dishonesty. If you're too dumb to comprehend simple concepts, it does not make me intellectually dishonest.
"My good friend Otter was personally attacked and insulted for no good reason."
I disagree. Display of stupidity or ignorance IS a good reason.
My point has been made.
Even though I think you have acted like an asshole MAS, I wish you the best of luck in all that you do. Hopefully you'll learn how to have a conversation like an adult.
You've also made my point. Ignorant whiny dumbasses worship style and don't give a shit about substance. Hopefully this has been a lesson for you and you'd learn the subject before discussing it.
On free speech... those on the left consider any and all dissent to be "hate mongering".... you can't criticize Obama without being called a racist, you can't defend the unborn without being called a woman hater, you can't support lower taxes and smaller government without being called a rich person who hates the poor.
Yet... it is those on the left who are constantly calling those on the right hateful names, (see General Petraeus) spreading hateful untrue rumors (see Sarah Palin) and spreading hate for all things conservative (see Barack H Obama).
The left reminds me of those dictators who call America evil while they slaughter and starve their own people... call the right extreme and hateful while they ram their extreme and hateful agenda down our throats....it's worse than hypocrisy.
Hannity, Coulter, Beck and Limbaugh are mild, polite and certainly honest compared to Maher, Letterman, Moyers, Carville, Begalla, Meadows, Stewart Smalley and company... not sure what planet you guys are living on.
As far as Islamic fascists are concerned, z truth is "on point" and it's got nothing to do with any hatred for any religion on her end.
-red
Red – I’m glad to see that you have come to the defense of Otter and I against some shameless personal attacks. Oh, wait…you haven’t. Figures.
Red said: “On free speech... those on the left consider any and all dissent to be "hate mongering"”
And the “right” considers any dissent un-American. Both positions are asinine.
Red said: “Yet... it is those on the left who are constantly calling those on the right hateful names, (see General Petraeus) spreading hateful untrue rumors (see Sarah Palin) and spreading hate for all things conservative (see Barack H Obama).”
The “right”, including yourself, is just as guilty of this garbage as the jackasses on the left.
Red said: “Hannity, Coulter, Beck and Limbaugh are mild, polite and certainly honest compared to Maher, Letterman, Moyers, Carville, Begalla, Meadows, Stewart Smalley and company... not sure what planet you guys are living on.”
This is a joke right? All of the aforementioned people are hacks of varying degrees. I would put Coulter, Hannity, Maher, and Carville in the top polemic tier of fools who spout nonsense just to sell books, ratings, or agendas.
At the end of the day both the “left” and the “right” are guilty as sin for the things that you have conveniently laid at the feet of the side that you happen to disagree with. It’s a great propaganda ridden talking point Red, but it is also incredibly intellectually dishonest.
MAS -- Again I wish you the best, but you have no idea what you are talking about where Otter or I are concerned. You do not know us and are making really stupid assumptions based on your incredibly biased take on this conversation. If you’d take the time to read other things that we have written you would see that neither he nor I are “ignorant whiny dumbasses” who “worship style and don't give a shit about substance.” Only someone with an extremist point of view would hold such a rigid and unyielding outlook on civil discourse. You remind me a lot of a certain anarchist/atheist that I know. He thinks that he is right about everything and everyone else is a moron. While I like the guy, he is as shortsighted as you are.
"you have no idea what you are talking about where Otter or I are concerned."
Let me make it easy for you. Otter claims that violence comes from misinterpretation of Islamic holy texts. That makes him a dumbshit. You defend Otter when he is called a dumbshit for being a dumbshit. That makes you just as dumb as Otter. Both of you attempt to discuss the subject you barely understand. Is that clear enough for you?
Neither of us said you weren't being clear. What we are saying is that you are wrong and incredibly biased and hold just as an extreme point of view as those who you "claim" be against.
Yes, I claim that the violence by Islamists comes from misinterpreting the text of the Qur'an. That is because I have actually read it and DO understand it. Have you? I am starting to seriously doubt it since you obviously don't think it is a valid religious document anyway. Is THAT clear enough for you?
Wait. I have to take something back that I just said.
I said that you were wrong. That is not the correct choice of words so I do apologize for saying that. I am not here to insult anyone, even though you are apparently.
I do not think you are wrong. I just think that you and I are interpreting the verses differently.
I view them as being misinterpreted based on (1) actually having read them myself and seeing where they could be misinterpreted, and (2) from the several other Muslim scholars that I have spoken to about these verses.
Strangely enough though, I have to ask that out of all of the other Muslims I have spoken to in regards to these verses (all moderates by the way, I don't even know any extremists) why your organization is the ONLY ONE that has said the Qur'an is corrupted and that these verses are not being misinterpreted? And I am not trying to be an arse about it, I am simply asking why is it that you guys are the only ones? Is your group the only group of moderate Muslims that are right?
"What we are saying is that you are wrong and incredibly biased and hold just as an extreme point of view as those who you "claim" be against."
That's because you're dumb and you have no idea what you're talking about.
"Yes, I claim that the violence by Islamists comes from misinterpreting the text of the Qur'an."
That's because you're dumb and you have no idea what you're talking about.
"That is because I have actually read it and DO understand it."
That is because not only you're dumb, but also arrogant.
"Have you?"
Not really. We just picked out these verses at random.
"Is THAT clear enough for you?"
You mean your stupidity and arrogance? It was clear to me a few posts ago.
"I just think that you and I are interpreting the verses differently."
We do not "interpret" the verses. We use the same "interpretation" as most of the Muslims. You need to understand the concept of Taqiyya. When Islamists speak, things intended for Muslim consumption are not always the same as things intended for infidel consumption. Yassir Arafat was a great example. If you read his English and Arabic speeches, you'd never believe they were made by the same person.
"why your organization is the ONLY ONE that has said the Qur'an is corrupted and that these verses are not being misinterpreted?"
1. Most Muslim scholars consider Bible corrupted, so why not the Koran.
2. Your Muslim friends are as ignorant as you are. There are quite a few Muslim scholars who floated this idea way before we were around.
"And I am not trying to be an arse about it, I am simply asking why is it that you guys are the only ones? Is your group the only group of moderate Muslims that are right?"
We're not. Look up the differences between Meccan and Medinan verses; you will understand the subject much better.
Arrogant? Me?..................
........................
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!!!!
That's good. Here pot. Meet Mr. Kettle.
Hahahahahahahahahah!!!!
Awww, that was fun. Thank you. LOL!
That was good. Oh wait, I'm sorry. Did you have something intelligence to say?
Nope. Didn't think so. I suggest you go back to cozying up to your extremist friends and try to stay out of intelligent conversations.
"Did you have something intelligence to say?"
1. Did you mean intelligent?
2. Did you read your comment before posting it, or were you frothing at the mouth so much, you spectacles fogged up and your keyboard shorted out?
Post a Comment