Yes, all Muslims are like that


Turks celebrate Paris attack


Turks boo and chant during moment of silence for Paris.

Not all Muslims will kill you, just as not all Christians will turn the other cheek, but if he will not kill you, he is not being a good Muslim. In this case, the no true scotsman fallacy is no fallacy, since killing infidels is required by the Koran. If he is not murdering innocents and raping children, does not take his religion very seriously.

41 Responses to “Yes, all Muslims are like that”

  1. Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

    Whenever controversial statements are made, it is very important to be precise.

    >If he is not murdering innocents and raping children, does not take his religion very seriously.
    Islam emerged as a conquering state religion, similar to Judaism, and unlike Christianity. However, unlike Judaism, Islam is universalist, and thus wants to conquer the world. Judaism just wants to conquer Israel.

    A good Muslim wants to wage war against the United States, France, et cetera. It is not clear whether terrorist attacks qualify as a legitimate form of Islamic holy war, because the Koran is not especially precise in defining “war” and distinguishing it from “murder”. However, the non-modern Muslims, who actually follow Islamic teaching on women, sex, diet, et cetera, consistently seem to approve of terrorism.

    Islamic teaching on how to conduct a war, is pretty similar to anything you’d get from the premodern world. Murdering civilians is standard. However, Islam focuses a great deal on the capture and sexual slavery of non-muslim women, which it celebrates.

    Islam prohibits sexual intercourse with prepubescent females. But permits marriage at any age. So I’m not sure about the “raping children” charge.

    • jim says:

      Islam prohibits sexual intercourse with prepubescent females.

      That depends on your definition of pubescent. Islam holds that they are pubescent at nine or so, three years before menarche, seven years before full fertility.

      That is a defensible position, since girls are often interested in sex, and capable of having and enjoying sex with adult males without injury, at nine or so. The problem is that not so much that it is children, as that it is rape, in that Muslims are permitted to coerce non Muslim females without the consent of their husbands or fathers – the problem lies in the Muslim duty to get non Muslim women at the expense of non Muslim males.

      Islamic teaching on how to conduct a war, is pretty similar to anything you’d get from the premodern world.

      Mohamed’s contemporaries did not think so.

      The Koran is, by seventh century standards, horrifyingly brutal and bloodthirsty. Compare, for example, the Goth conquest of Rome with any military operation carried out by Mohammed. Mohamed’s operations were terrorist. Gothic and Vandal operations were not.

      • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

        >in that Muslims are permitted to coerce non Muslim females without the consent of their husbands or fathers
        Then you probably should just say “raping” rather than “raping children”. Or maybe “raping women and children”.

        (I could also go on a tangent about the Islamic taste for catamites. But that’s a different subject, and not one clearly traceable to the Koran.)

        >Mohamed’s contemporaries did not think so.
        Specifically, which contemporaries? I didn’t think there was much written about Muhammad during his life, only centuries after he died. In fact, the Koran wasn’t written down until 20 years after his death.

        >The Koran is, by seventh century standards, horrifyingly brutal and bloodthirsty
        I’m not familiar with Gothic or Vandal war conduct. But the Koran is quite a bit nicer than the Old Testament. And nicer than Jesus acts in the Revelation of St. John of the Divine.

        • jim says:

          > > in that Muslims are permitted to coerce non Muslim females without the consent of their husbands or fathers

          > Then you probably should just say “raping” rather than “raping children”. Or maybe “raping women and children”.

          Because white Christian fathers are not allowed to exercise authority over their daughters, the targets of opportunity for Muslims tend to be on the young side. Also the law against sex with underage females seems to be enforced primarily on white middle class people. Everyone else gets a free pass.

        • jim says:

          >Mohamed’s contemporaries did not think [Mohammed was no worse than usual]

          Specifically, which contemporaries?

          Mohammed dies in 632. In 636 Muslims conquer a good chunk of Christendom, whereupon Christians immediately start writing highly critical accounts of his life and doings, which accounts closely resemble the accounts given in the Koran, though of course from a different perspective.

          Leftists are always denying the historical reality of famous religious leaders in order to justify rewriting the relevant religions – supposedly all religions, rightly understood, are progressivism.

          The proposition that all religions rightly understood are progressivism is more defensible if you claim the holy books were written centuries after the deaths of the relevant prophets.

          Thus the politically correct will always make this claim regardless of facts or evidence.

          The claim that Islamic State misunderstands Islam rests on the claim that the people who wrote the Koran and the Hadiths misunderstand Islam. Hence convenient to say that this stuff was not written down until centuries after the events.

          However the internal evidence indicates it was written down during Mohammed’s life – one document says one thing, when it was convenient to say that, and another document says the opposite thing, when it was no longer convenient to say that. If this stuff was written down after Mohammed’s life they would have retconned it into consistency. The only plausible explanation for the numerous direct contradictions is that Mohammed said one thing, wrote it down, published it widely, then when what he had previously said was no longer convenient, he said the other thing, wrote that down, and published it widely, after the fashion of the infamous communist party line.

    • peppermint says:

      If Judaism just wants to conquer Israel, why are there Jews subverting my country? Shouldn’t they be shooting pallies in their own country?

      • Eli says:

        I’m here for a similar reason you are here and not shooting up Muslims/gypsies or what have you in the place your grandparents are from.

      • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

        >why are there Jews subverting my country?
        There aren’t. Jews are no more subversive than (dot) Indians, Vietnamese, Gypsies or Irish Travelers. Obviously, people who are not in the dominant culture are, to a certain extent, subversive. But Jews are not uniquely subversive, only uniquely high-status and successful.

        • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

          I should also point out that the most successful Jews are also the most well integrated into American/Protestant culture.

  2. Black Crow says:

    White people are evil!

  3. Irving says:

    Jim,
    Islam doesn’t sanction indiscriminate killing. The reason for Islam’s violence is that it commands the conquest of non-Muslim territory and the subjugation of non-Muslims, whether they like it or not, to Islamic law. This is the root of the problem: it isn’t that Islam is violent but that it is, at heart, a political religion which demands the creation of a worldly kingdom. I think this is a crucial distinction to make given that Islam has historically been quite tolerant to non-Muslims in Islamic lands, and has really only been unduly harsh to them in times of war whether with them or with outsiders who, for example, professed the same religion that those non-Muslim minorities did. (It is even asserted by this Russian Orthodox bishop here that Ottoman rule was actually better for certain South Slavic Christians than was rule by the Greeks: http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/82574.htm )

    As for pedophilia, Islam doesn’t sanction or condemn it. That it is rife in the Middle East is simply because it is a tradition with very deep roots and which goes back to pre-Islamic times. To the extent that Islam has payed attention to it at all, however, it has been to quash it, such as the Taliban did and continues to do in Afghanistan, especially because the people who engage in that sort of thing tend to be sodomites.

    On the other hand, there is considerable vagueness around the age at which it is permissible to marry and this vagueness is at times exploited by men wanting to have sex with six years olds. The root of the vagueness is that according to an hadith, Muhammed took a bride who was six but then didn’t have sex with her until she was nine. Being that there’s no indication as to why he refrained from consummating the marriage — more to the point, he never said that he held back for moral reasons — certain Muslim men will argue that marriage and sex with girls as young as six is permissible. But for what it’s worth, countless is the number of Islamic scholars who have tried to revise the hadith to make it say that the age of the girl at marriage and when she lost her virginity upwards, so it isn’t as if Muslims haven’t done anything to address this problem

    • jim says:

      Islam doesn’t sanction indiscriminate killing.

      Of course it sanctions indiscriminate killing. Mohammed does lots of indiscriminate killing, and urges his followers in no uncertain terms to do likewise. Once Mohammed moved to Medina, he immediately became a bandit, and shortly thereafter a terrorist.

      As for pedophilia, Islam doesn’t sanction or condemn it

      Mohammed marries a six year old, and immediately starts performing sexual acts on her, though not penis in vagina sex. At the age of nine, which is the earliest age at which you can do penis in vagina sex without injury, he proceeds to do so.

      Eight years old is defensible, though our culture does not tolerate it. Six years old is definitely pedophilia, and I would argue that girls should not undergo penis in vagina sex until menarche, which is age twelve. Anything between eight and twelve is pedophilia, and anything below eight is pedophilia of a most shocking and perverse kind.

      If you count sex before menarche (sex before age twelve) as pedophilia, then Islam definitely sanctions pedophilia. It also sanctions getting hold of infidel females by any means necessary and screwing them.

      • Irving says:

        >Of course it sanctions indiscriminate killing. Mohammed does lots of indiscriminate killing, and urges his followers in no uncertain terms to do likewise.

        Mohammed told his followers to conquer the world and to spread Islam, or else to subjugate non-Muslims to Islamic Law, everywhere. The idea was that those who resisted the spread of Islam and non-Muslims who lived in land conquered by Muslims but who refused to abide by Islamic law were to be killed. However, it would be impermissible to kill anyone who did not fall into either of the two aforementioned categories. How does any of this sanction indiscriminate killing? Worth noting, too, is that Muslims have more or less kept to Mohammed’s instructions in this matter throughout history. It isn’t by accident that until very recently Christians, Alawites (whose religion is essentially a mix of hyper-Shi’ism and Christianity) and Yazidis (whose religion is essentially a mix of Zoroastrianism and pagan devil-worship) have lived relatively peacefully in the Middle East for thousands of years.

        >Mohammed marries a six year old, and immediately starts performing sexual acts on her, though not penis in vagina sex.

        I assume you’re referring to “thighing”. There are some fraudulent quotes attributed to Ayatollah Khomeini saying that he sanctioned the practice floating around on the internet, and many people falsely base their view that “thighing” is allowed in Islam on those quotes. I can say for sure is that Ayatollah Khomeini NEVER sanctioned the practice. Nevertheless, there may be some sanction for the practice in other sources that I’m not familiar with. And in any case, my suspicion is that the practice or something like it is probably prevalent in places like Afghanistan or Pakistan, where that sort of thing has a long history.

        In the end, though, it is surely simplistic to say without any qualification that Islam sanctions pedophilia. The justifications for the practice aren’t so clear-cut. As well, Europeans are unique for having at some point in their history resolved to have an age of marriage much higher on average than anywhere else in the world. So its important that we not project European standards on the norms of pre-Islamic Arabia.

        • jim says:

          Mohammed told his followers to conquer the world and to spread Islam, or else to subjugate non-Muslims to Islamic Law, everywhere. The idea was that those who resisted the spread of Islam and non-Muslims who lived in land conquered by Muslims but who refused to abide by Islamic law were to be killed. However, it would be impermissible to kill anyone who did not fall into either of the two aforementioned categories. How does any of this sanction indiscriminate killing?

          Everything Islamic State does is clearly sanctioned by Islamic Law and reflects the personal example set by Mohammed, as for example his use of terrorism to interrupt Mecca’s trade and his large scale murder of women and children. Islamic State is, as was recently demonstrated in Paris, indiscriminate enough.

          It is surely simplistic to say without any qualification that Islam sanctions pedophilia.

          Without any qualification, Islam sanctions sex with girls before menarche, girls nine or older. That is pedophilia. I am fine with sex at menarche and after menarche, and the normal practice in most of the world throughout most of history was marriage shortly after menarche and shortly before peak fertility, women marrying in their early teens, a year or two after menarche. Nine years old has never been normal practice in most of the world.

          And in any case it is the rape and abduction bit that pisses me off, not the pedophilia bit – that Islam sanctions taking infidel women. We should kidnap their women for sexual purposes – preferably at menarche or shortly afterwards.

          And I guarantee that anyone who complains I advocate raping children as part of a program to eradicate Islam, will also say that Islam does not support raping children, that anyone who is horrified by this proposal to eradicate Islam slowly over time is totally unhorrified by Rotherham and Sweden

          • Irving says:

            What ISIS does is largely sanctioned by Islamic Law, but is it really the case that they are indiscriminately killing people? It is true that they kill captives and some of the civilians that are opposed to them, but all armies do this. However, ISIS seems uniquely ruthless in this case. (I could show you a picture of what appears to be a beheaded Syrian Christian toddler at this point, but I won’t.) Yet there is still a considerable Christian population living in their territories, even in Raqqa (their capital) of all places, whom they haven’t killed and whom they are taxing as their law requires. So its a mixed bag but I think to call their killing indiscriminate is a stretch.

            As far as I can tell, what really makes ISIS distinctive is that they’re willing to specifically target civilians in enemy lands. One gets the impression that if they had a nuke they would use it on a place like Paris. But then it isn’t clear that actions like these have the support of Islamic Law or that Mohammad did similar things in his lifetime. I suspect there is and that he did, but I’m sure a persuasive case can be made for the opposite position.

            Anyway, doesn’t pedophilia technically mean a sustained sexual interest in prepubescent children? From this point of view, given that the average age of puberty for girls is 8 to 13, I can imagine an Islamic scholar arguing that what Mohammad did was not puberty because he waited until his 6 year old bride was of age before having sex with her.

            You’re definitely right that Islam allows the raping of the wives and children of the infidels though. It is quite horrifying but true none the less.

            • jim says:

              From this point of view, given that the average age of puberty for girls is 8 to 13,

              Menarche is twelve or thirteen. Earlier than that is quite rare, and was rarer in the past.

              He he waited until his 6 year old bride was of age before having sex with her.

              He waited until she was physically capable of having penis in vagina sex without permanent injury – though I bet she could not walk a couple of days. Pubic hair appears about nine and is a reliable indicator that the girl can handle penis in vagina sex without permanent injury or psychological trauma. But is still going to hurt.

              This is typically three to four years before menarche.

          • peppermint says:

            “If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty under the Law is death on the spot”

            And note that Arabs, who raped the Persians, Pakis, Turks, and everyone else from the Mudslime world have nontrivial nigger admixture. They are accursed creatures of distant memory and if they can’t be put down humanely, they must still be put down. Breeding with them is the most perverted sex crime known. Maybe tie them up in a brothel with mandatory depo provera shots.

            Also, Jews have a bit of nigger in them. That’s where they get their laziness and irascibility.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            @Irving
            >but is it really the case that they are indiscriminately killing people?
            ISIS claimed responsibility for the recent Paris attacks. They are undoubtedly advocates and practitioners of indiscriminate killing.

            @Jim
            >Menarche is twelve or thirteen.
            It varies by race. If Aisha was black…

            Though if I recall my reading of the Koran, the virgins you get in heaven are White. Muhammad didn’t want no nigger harem.

            @Peppermint
            Are you on meth?

          • Irving says:

            Richard Nixon’s Ghost,

            The terror attack in France, horrific as it was, was not an example of indiscriminate killing. First of all, France is at war with ISIS and ISIS is at war with France. So ISIS showed discrimination when it chose Paris as its target. Moreover, it wasn’t as if ISIS just killed any civilian that they could find. Rather, they went to a concert where people listened to music (which is forbidden in Islam) and when they started shooting targeted the bar where people were drinking alcohol (which also is forbidden in Islam). All of this shows discrimination. I don’t know what their deal was with the restaurant, but the attack on the soccer match was clearly an attempt at assassinating Hollande, which also shows discrimination.

            Personally, I think that Muslim terrorists have an argument. I think that they’re hostility to the West, to Jews and to Persians, and to other groups, is in many ways justified. The solution to this problem though is to ban Islam and Muslims from places where they’ve a conflict of interests with the host population, such as in Paris. Hence, the responsibility for the Paris terrorist attack, as for most other terrorist attacks, is not with Muslims but with those who’ve allowed them into those places where the attacks happened in the first place.

            • jim says:

              The terror attack in France, horrific as it was, was not an example of indiscriminate killing.

              This rather like arguing that fucking nine year old girls is not pedophilia when Muslims do it, because they have hair on their pussies. The people that make that argument for Muslims fucking any girl with hair on her pussy, would be rightly horrified if I were to advocate fucking any girl with hair on her pussy, and the same people who say that the terror attack on France is not indiscriminate, will say that Israeli bombing is indiscriminate.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >France is at war with ISIS and ISIS is at war with France
            ISIS is in a self-declared war with the world. Literally, a war with every government in the world. Even Muslim governments, which they consider insufficiently Muslim.

            >it wasn’t as if ISIS just killed any civilian that they could find. Rather, they went to a concert where people listened to music (which is forbidden in Islam)

            If I am willing to commit terrorist actions against every location in the world, except for a single, specific Siberian house, I am technically “discriminating”. Technically.

            “Indiscriminate killing” means killing in a way that is not reasonably anticipated. If you only kill people who wear gold necklaces, then, aware of the potential for violence, (most) people will stop wearing gold necklaces. So nobody gets killed.

            However, the Paris attacks could not have been practically avoided by if the French were more cautious. ISIS would have killed them, regardless of whether they stopped listening to Music, or drinking Alcohol.

          • Irving says:

            Richard Nixon’s Ghost,

            You’re quite right, I used “indiscriminate” in an ambiguous way. What I meant though was that ISIS’ selection of targets is hardly indiscriminate in that it only targets those with whom it is at war, and it executes its attacks against those that it understands as its enemies in a way that is far from random.

            Nevertheless, I disagree that ISIS’ enemies haven’t had a part in provoking this war or that ISIS is at war with every government in the world. For example, it never attack Russians until Putin intervened on the part of Assad. On the other hand, I doubt that they’ll be initiating a conflict with Bolivia anytime soon.

    • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

      >The reason for Islam’s violence is that it commands the conquest of non-Muslim territory and the subjugation of non-Muslims

      And defining the term “Muslim” is a tricky task. The founder(s) of Saudi Arabia didn’t think Arabs were Muslims. And ISIS doesn’t think that Iraq is Muslim. Both of these are due to very purist definition of the word “Muslim”.

      Practically, the idea of constant holy war against infidels, while letting everybody define “infidels” his own way is a recipe for constant conflict. And “constant conflict” is a pretty good description of Muslims in the Middle East and Europe.

      • jim says:

        Practically, the idea of constant holy war against infidels, while letting everybody define “infidels” his own way is a recipe for constant conflict. And “constant conflict” is a pretty good description of Muslims in the Middle East and Europe.

        Islam is a religion that seriously needs to be eradicated by fire and steel: Apply the same prescription to Islam as it applies to all other religions. Muslims are conquered, made second class, subject to serious legal and social disadvantages, including the removal of females from the religion by various means that sexually gratify non Muslim males. You need an official belief system absolutely incompatible with Islam, and only adherents to the official religion can have any high status role in society.

        Note that our efforts to suppress Islamic state in Europe are rendered stupid and ineffectual by treating wartime enemies as peacetime criminals. It is not illegal to support Islamic State or preach its doctrines, and it is not illegal for someone supporting Islamic State and preaching its doctrines to buy guns. So, to deny members of Islamic State the dangerous and inconvenient rights of citizens, France proceeds to strip all citizens of rights.

        Which will in practice mean that all citizens except members of Islamic State lose their rights, because Islamophobia.

    • B says:

      >The reason for Islam’s violence is that it commands the conquest of non-Muslim territory and the subjugation of non-Muslims, whether they like it or not, to Islamic law.

      And then upon conquering and subjugating, Muslims live peacefully with each other. Wait, no. Never mind, they kill each other like flies.

      >Islam has historically been quite tolerant to non-Muslims in Islamic lands

      For sure. For instance, the mass murder of Jews by Muhammad after the Battle of the Trench, the Yemenite Jewish community being forced to stand naked in the sun for three days to convince them of the Truth of Islam, then exiled to the badlands where a third of them died, only to be brought back when the Arabs realized that without the Jews, they couldn’t have an economy or manufactured goods (the Exile of Mawza) demonstrates the deep tolerance of Muslims. Also the forced conversion of the Persian Jews, the Almohad persecution of Jews, the forced conversion of the Nuristanis, the treatment of the Hindus, all of these are signs of good will and tolerance.

      • peppermint says:

        Knowing the Jews, the Muzzies probably just didn’t pay them in full up front for the weapons they were buying, and the Jews were all like oy vey, die sufferink, it’s anuda shoah, why do they persecute us so?

        • B says:

          Great comment. Think when you get sold for a catamite in the IS slave market, your owner will let you post here?

        • jim says:

          With great regularity, Jews get murdered for extending credit, and one the people they extended credit to was Mohammed.

          Whining about debts owed to Jews is envy and covetousness. Yes, Jews do lots of bad stuff, and B has a little list which substantially agrees with my somewhat larger list, but lending people money at interest is not one of them.

      • Irving says:

        B,

        >And then upon conquering and subjugating, Muslims live peacefully with each other. Wait, no. Never mind, they kill each other like flies.

        But they don’t really kill each other like flies today and they haven’t historically (at least not to the extent that Christians have). And even these days, despite all of the talk of intra-Islamic violence, what is really going on is a revolt on the part of Sunnis who mostly identify as Arabs against their oppressors who are largely not Arab and who are largely not Sunnis. I don’t say this to defend these people but simply to point out that there is in fact a real conflict of interests between the Sunnis and the Shi’ites (who are largely not Arab), Persians, Jews, etc.

        As well, I never meant to say that Muslims are so tolerant of non-Muslims living in Islamic territory that there aren’t any individual instances of their acting in a contrary way. What I really meant is that they haven’t shown themselves to be unusually intolerant. And in any case, while it is true that they’ve oppressed Jews, it is worth noting that the only population groups in the world haven’t a history of Jew hatred or a history of oppressing Jews are those who’ve never really encountered Jews in the first place. given this, it isn’t fair to single Muslims out.

        • jim says:

          But they don’t really kill each other like flies today and they haven’t historically (at least not to the extent that Christians have).

          Oh come on.

          Christians have had holy wars with each other every once in a while. Muslims have had war, near war, and not quite peace with each other continuously since Mohammed died. Even when they are at peace, it is like a truce in Beirut.

          And if you look at the wars between Islam and the Christians, it is the Oslo accords all over again, again and again and again. Christians win, Muslims refuse to make peace. Victorious Christians seeking peace make unilateral concessions. Muslims pocket the concessions and ask for more. Then they attack again. Christians fight, win, then make further concessions, for example the Peace of Vasvár in 1664. For thirteen hundred years Christians have been continually seeking peace with Islam, Muslims have been continually refusing to make peace.

          Another example, the Barbary coast wars: Muslims attack peaceful white Americans, enslave them, demand tribute from America to stop taking slaves. America makes war. Wins. Muslims refuse to make peace. America pays tribute. Muslims attack peaceful white Americans again, enslave them again, demand increased tribute. America makes war again, wins again, again Muslims refuse to make peace. Rinse and repeat.

          As well, I never meant to say that Muslims are so tolerant of non-Muslims living in Islamic territory that there aren’t any individual instances of their acting in a contrary way. What I really meant is that they haven’t shown themselves to be unusually intolerant

          Oh come on.

          This shit has been going on for 1300 years.

          • Irving says:

            Jim,
            I never said that Muslims are not violent. I merely insist that there is no positive injunction in Islam that Muslims shalt enslave or kill the infidel at all costs. The problem stems from the fact that Muslims are commanded to expand their territories until they have conquered the entire world. Clearly there is going to be resistance to that by non-Muslims, such that there will be recourse to violence. I admit that this may in the end be a meaningless distinction but I think its worth pointing out none the less.

            To elaborate on the point I made about Christians, I would point out that such events as the sacking of Constantinople, the crusades launched by the Catholic West against Orthodox Russia, the atrocities committed by Protestants vs Catholics and Catholics vs Protestants during the Reformation, the 30 Years War, the American Civil War and the 2 World Wars (which were essentially civil wars between European Christians), and so on, are unprecedented in Islam.

            • jim says:

              I never said that Muslims are not violent. I merely insist that there is no positive injunction in Islam that Muslims shalt enslave or kill the infidel at all costs.

              Yes there is a positive injunction that Muslims shall enslave or kill the infidel even if the cost is terribly high.

              If not every Muslim acts on this injunction, there is over a thousand years of history showing that by and large, most of them do act on this injunction sooner or later.

              I would point out that such events as the sacking of Constantinople, the crusades launched by the Catholic West against Orthodox Russia, the atrocities committed by Protestants vs Catholics and Catholics vs Protestants during the Reformation, the 30 Years War, the American Civil War and the 2 World Wars (which were essentially civil wars between European Christians), and so on, are unprecedented in Islam.

              Oh come on. The worst of the Christian holy wars between Christians was the thirty years war, four hundred years ago. The current Syrian conflict is more horrifyingly brutal than that, and Muslims have had something similar or worse every few decades for over a thousand years. Christians have had one thirty years war four hundred years ago. Muslims have had something like the thirty years war running in one part of Dar al Islam or another pretty much continually since the beginning of Islam.

          • Irving says:

            It is positively commanded to Muslims that they hate the infidels, that they not feel bad or sympathize with them in anything, that they not marry them or eat their meat (except that Christian and Jewish wives and meat is permitted), etc. Also, they are told to conquer infidel territory and subjugate infidels to Islamic law. Never is it said, however, that Muslims must enslave or kill all infidels. There is one passage in the Quran I think which says that Muslims should fight the infidels until there is no “fitna” (which can anything from dissension, to distress, to conflict), which taken by itself is ambiguous and could be interpreted to mean enslave or kill all infidels. But its always historically been interpreted as an order to bring the world under Islamic law, and that’s it.

            >”The worst of the Christian holy wars…”

            I agree that the worst of these was the 30 Years War. But this was never about intra-Christian or intra-Muslim holy wars. This was about the ability of Muslims to live together peaceably as compared to Christians. And on the latter, the Muslims have been superior to Christians, at least European Christians, historically.

            • jim says:

              This was about the ability of Muslims to live together peaceably as compared to Christians. And on the latter, the Muslims have been superior to Christians, at least European Christians, historically.

              That is just nuts. Beirut and Syria are normal for Muslims. There has been something like that going pretty much continuously for thirteen hundred years, as for example the Iran Iraq war. Sunni and Shia have never been at peace. Alawites have been on the edge of being genocided their entire existence. Shia have recently rescinded their genocide position on Alawites, but that is just to poke the Sunnis – pretty soon it will be back genocide.

              Peace between Christians is normal. There is never peace between Sunnis and Shias, only truces or conquest.

        • Irving says:

          I haven’t heard anything about the Shi’ites ever wanting to genocide the Alawites, though I’ll take your word for it, but for what its worth the Alawite religion isn’t Islamic so much as its a syncretic mix of hyper-Shi’ism and crypto-Christian which, for obvious reasons, they’ve tried to hide from outsiders until about 70 or 80 years ago when hiding it was no longer possible. And Shi’ite Islam has similarly dubious Islamic credentials: what is it, really, except an odd combination of a brand of Persian mysticism which has its roots in pre-Islamic Iran and extremely heterodox interpretations of the Quran and Islamic history which has led to doctrines which at least arguably conflict with monotheism such as imamology and the like? The point here is to say that isn’t clear to me that Sunni-Shi’ite or Sunni-Alawite fighting counts as intra-Muslim conflict. But even if it did, and I’ll accept for the sake of argument that it did, it is only recently that these ancient rivalries have erupted into military conflict. The only other examples of this are when the Ottomans (Sunni) and Safavids (Shi’ite) would war with one another, and those wars were hardly as bloody as anything Christians in Europe were doing to one another at that time.

          In the end, there are far more examples of Muslims oppressing and even genociding non-Muslims than there are them doing the same to each other, and the same can’t be said for Christians.

          • jim says:

            The point here is to say that isn’t clear to me that Sunni-Shi’ite or Sunni-Alawite fighting counts as intra-Muslim conflict.

            Observe the Sunni Islamic State burning a Sunni Jordanian pilot alive. Intra Islamic enough for you? Plus, of course, every Sunni militia in Syria is fighting every other Sunni militia in Syria.

            But even if it did, and I’ll accept for the sake of argument that it did, it is only recently that these ancient rivalries have erupted into military conflict.

            The most recent Califate was founded by Osman, founder of the Ottoman empire. He was bin Laden type figure, more a gang leader and religious fanatic than a monarch. His power, and the power of his sons, slowly increased from the thirteen hundreds to eighteen hundreds. So during all that time, the time that they were expanding their empire, they were continually at war with Muslims. The only time Muslims have generally been at peace with Muslims was when they were under western colonial dominion, the period from the French conquest of the Barbary coast in 1830 to French retreat from Algeria in 1962.

            As soon as Muslims were no longer subject to Christian colonial domination, they immediately returned to killing each other as they had been doing before 1830, and have been at it ever since.

            But even if it did, and I’ll accept for the sake of argument that it did, it is only recently that these ancient rivalries have erupted into military conflict.

            Muslim has been continuously at war with Muslim, or near war with fellow Muslims with many acts of terror, except for the short period 1830 to 1962 when they were subject to Christian dominion.

            The only way to restore peace to the middle east is to restore Christian dominion over Muslims – though I suppose B would suggest that Jewish dominion would also work. Jewish dominion is, however, for obvious reasons, likely to be less well tolerated than Christian dominion.

          • Irving says:

            Jim,
            I’ve observed the Sunni Islamic State and I’ve seen the video of them burning the Jordanian pilot to death. But so what? That pilot bombed them first. Were I in ISIS’ shoes I would have killed him as well, though not on camera and not by setting him on fire. And yes, Sunni militias are fighting one another in Syria, but the entire point that I’ve been making is that until the present day, conflicts like the one happening in Syria today haven’t happened in the Muslim world. And even the Syrian conflict, with its quarter million dead out of a Syrian population of about 25 million, isn’t as bad the 30 Years War where proportions are concerned.

            What I do know of the Ottomans is that there was constant jockeying for power among them and that murder was the favored means for one person or faction to defeat their rival or rivals. That said, that the political elites in the Ottoman Empire used violence against one another to get their way doesn’t mean that they qualify as an example of Muslims being exceptionally cruel to one another as compared to the intra-religious cruelty manifested in other religious groups, especially Christianity.

            Finally, I think much of the problems of the Muslim world today have to do with non-Muslims (i.e. Christians, Jews and secular atheist nationalists) and Muslims with dubious credibility as Muslims (i.e. Shi’ites and Alawites) trying to lord it over Muslims. The solution has to be to let Muslims sort out their problems independently while not allowing their problems to spread outside of their areas through, for example, mass immigration. Christian rule over them, even if desirable, is no longer even possible given that the Christians in that region are more or less gone by this point (thanks to America and their “partners” in the region) and there are no more Christian countries elsewhere able and willing to colonize the place. As well, if and when the Jews try and take over Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Egypt as they plan to, the current situation will just get much, much worse, especially because by then they’ll probably have the bomb.

            • jim says:

              I’ve observed the Sunni Islamic State and I’ve seen the video of them burning the Jordanian pilot to death. But so what? That pilot bombed them first. Were I in ISIS’ shoes I would have killed him as well, though not on camera and not by setting him on fire. And yes, Sunni militias are fighting one another in Syria, but the entire point that I’ve been making is that until the present day, conflicts like the one happening in Syria today haven’t happened in the Muslim world.

              Conflicts like the one happening today in Syria were continual except during the period of Christian domination from 1830 to 1962, for example Algerian civil war, the three Yemeni civil wars, the troubles in Beirut, the Iran Iraq war, and so on and so forth.

              Finally, I think much of the problems of the Muslim world today have to do with non-Muslims (i.e. Christians, Jews and secular atheist nationalists) and Muslims with dubious credibility as Muslims (i.e. Shi’ites and Alawites) trying to lord it over Muslims.

              Syria was peaceful and prosperous when ruled by Christians. When briefly ruled by Sunnis, there was a chain of coups that eventually ended in Alawite rule. Syria was peaceful and prosperous when ruled by Alawites. Then came arab spring, with the democratic idea that the majority should rule, which in Syria meant Sunnis.

              The way the various Sunni factions in Syria are killing each other does not inspire high hopes for a Sunni ruled Syria.

          • peppermint says:

            constant murder and general low-trust shitskin behavior is what you expect form polygynous societies. It’s why only a moron would try polygyny with a White population.

  4. […] #NRx Best of the Week Honorable Mention☀. Also here are some videos showing Yes, all Muslims are like that. Or at least enough like that for exceptions to prove the […]

Leave a Reply