polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 10
th, 2015 at 6:48pm:
Soren wrote on Jul 10
th, 2015 at 6:04pm:
Gandy,
None of these discussions are about honey or sex slaves - these are just the angles of the much more important question - was Mohammed a good man or a bad man.
Are his 'revelations' believable or are they nonsense.
If only.
All of you think Muhammad was evil incarnate, and that his revelation is nonsense - especially Baron. If it was just left at that then there would be no issue. But this is just yet another chapter in the long book of "tell the muslim what he believes". Baron's entire raisen d'etre here is to prove that muslims are compelled by the very tenets of Islam to be murderous bastards; and therefore the only true and honest muslims are the murderous bastards, and the rest of us are false muslims. Thats what I object to - to be continually labelled a liar and arrogantly throwing my efforts to stand up for a peaceful and tolerant Islam back in my face. Especially when it is based on blatant lies - as it is here.
Humour me S - go back through Baron's posts and even in a debate about what you clearly dismiss as complete nonsense - you couldn't possibly fail to notice the logical fallacies and downright absurdities he resorts to to prop up a completely untenable position. And when you appreciate the blatant dishonesty of his argument, you'll understand how I find it a bit rich when you jump in and assert that the discussion is not even about those dishonest arguments! Of course its about the dishonesty - and every time you and other slightly more sane people implicitly apologise for such dishonesty, we lose the opportunity for an honest and rational discussion.
Your argument here is just another version of your 'the ends (smearing Islam) justifies the means (telling porky pies).
I have to make a confession here, G. I never would have become a Muslim.apologist if it wasn’t for all the knucklehead porkies. I’m not a Muslim. I’m not even remotely persuaded by Islam. I am, however, quite partial to the old boy’s stated values - the Enlightenment, Western liberalism, the rule of law, human rights, etc, etc, etc. I’m also a fan of that rather old-fashioned empiricist notion of reality. I don’t hold with the latest postmodern belief that porkies are the new truth.
This is where I depart from FD, Y, OB et al. They are quite happy to chirp away about huge porkie pies, but when you expose them, they’re always rather cranky. As a rather passe old modernist, I’d actually like to see the truth dished up, as uncomfortable as it may well be. Not only do FD, Y, OB et al love porkies about the Muselman, they hold it as a right to espouse them. FD calls this Freeeeedom, the old boy calls it intelligence and integrity. Y’s happy to quote a psalm or something out of Leviticus.
It’s for this very reason I became a devout Muslim appeaser. It has nothing to do with Islam itself, it’s all about the Western tradition. FD, Y, OB et al, you see, want this turned into a flag we fight behind - a flag that erodes the very foundation of the Western tradition itself. FD’ s happy to abandon the Western tradition simply to get the Muselman. For Y, it’s about Judgement Day and the impending end of the world. For the old boy, it’s about keeping the tinted races at bay. You know, white man’s burden. They all want to end the most basic human rights overturned to get the Muselman. They all want the rule of law twisted to exclude the Muselman (and his apologists). They want facts and evidence overturned to present the very opposite of what things say and mean. They change your words around and play dumb. And on a grander scale, they do this with propaganda. The UK Daily Mail is a great source of this sort of misinformation, and they love it.
If I could get into.this, I’d probably be rallying against the Muselman too. Once, FD was in the exact same position as me. He decided to turn his back on Western values and go with the porkies. I can’t bring myself to.make this leap of faith.
I’ve tried too. Every time I get some evidence on how dastardly Islam is, different evidence is presented that puts it in perspective. This is what we, in the West, call telling two sides of a story. To go with the knuckleheads, I’d have to completely ignore the other side, and I’d have to make up porkues to explain my view. I’d have to call others Pakistani Bastards and c nts, I’d have to tell them to go to hell, and I’d have to chase them around twisting their words and demanding answers to ridiculous questions.
It all sounds too hard. If you ask me, being a Muslim apologist is much easier.
Karnal would you react the same way if everyone suddenly started giving Nazis a hard time?
Forum
Pages: 
did Muhammed err? (Read 16506 times)
