Bye-bye.

LOL. Whatever. I’m not even going to read this.

We ban whomever we choose. If you don’t like the policies here, go somewhere else. It’s that simple.

How is it you know who is or isn’t banned, Mr. Born Yesterday?

It’s unfortunate that you can’t grasp a point no matter how many times or in how many different ways the same point is repeated.

That’s like saying American law is “vague” and can be defined by what Americans do rather than by what American law actually says. By that logic, murder is permitted or perhaps even prescribed in America law because there are Americans who commit murder and always have been. Does that make sense to you?

It’s nearly impossible to get any impartial data on the so-called “Arab slave trade” because people like you are focused on demonizing Islam, not finding and expressing truth. Regardless, Islamic doctrine is Islamic doctrine, and it says what is says. Arab and Muslim behavior does NOT CHANGE the doctrine. To drive home the point since you seem rather dim witted, if every single Muslim on planet earth started eating pork, Islamic doctrine WOULD STILL PROHIBIT PORK.

If you do not like Islam, don’t become a Muslim. That’s your sphere of influence and nothing more. Muslims don’t need your approval, and you will NEVER put an end to Islam or any other religion. You just have to learn to live with that.

Now leave here. You’re not on topic, or on mission, and you’ve long ago worn out your welcome.

Alistair John wrote: “As there is no hard evidence for the existence of Mohammed as a real historical figure and we are dealing with myths and fairy tales and ‘histories’ written long after the events they claim to have taken place that is a moot point. The real point is that your friend Mo is a bloodthirsty figure in Islamic texts and traditions.”

There’s as much hard evidence for the existence of Muhammad as there is for any other person in ancient history. Your assertion to the contrary places you squarely in company of atheist crackpots like Tom Holland and Christian crackpots like Robert Spencer. Prof. J. Mark Nicovich wrote an excellent review–Muhammad: Man or Myth?–of Spencer’s book and the Muhammad-was-a-myth-argument:

“In recent decades it has become common in certain circles—often academic, sometimes popular—to challenge the historicity of famous figures and seminal events. The most well-known expression of this trend can be seen in those circles, skeptical and sometimes openly atheistic, that have taken the “search for the historical Jesus” to an extreme, calling into question whether a historical Jesus existed at all. . . .

“Much like those skeptical and atheist critiques of the historicity of Jesus, Spencer’s arguments about Muhammad hinge upon a serious reevaluation of the earliest sources of Islam. (I do not mean to imply that Mr. Spencer is an atheist or agnostic; from what I understand, he is an avowed Catholic. I only intend to note that his methodology is quite similar to those used by those atheist and agnostic critics of early Christianity.) His coverage of those sources is, laudably, quite comprehensive, making use of relevant textual, archaeological, epigraphic, and numismatic evidence. Yet the problem with Spencer’s approach is not the sources that he uses, but how he goes about using them.

http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/1497/muhammad_man_or_myth.aspx

There’s an irony about your newfound skepticism of Muhammad’s existence that’s lost on you because you’re ignorant of the subject. Prof. Nicovich didn’t mention him in his review, but the person who initially claimed that Muhammad didn’t exist was the Russian atheist polemicist Liustian Klimovich. Klimovich was a card-carrying member of the League of Militant Atheists, the group that I mentioned in my previous comment that was responsible for the murder of millions of Muslims. You claim that atheism is simply an absence of a belief in the divine, yet your beliefs about history, politics, ethics, epistemology, etc., constantly mirrors those of other atheists.

Alistair John wrote: “I have never attempted to defend individual atheists, except from what I believe to be a false representation of their position. If they are immoral they are immoral. Atheism has nothing to do with morality, it has nothing to do with anything other than a lack of belief in the divine.”

Atheism has a lot to do with purported morality. Atheists constantly tout their supposedly superior atheist morality over Islamic morality on issues like war, sexuality, etc.. Harris’ ethical positions flow from his atheism. And atheist ethicists like Peter Singer and Michel Onfray would probably be shocked to hear that atheism has nothing to do with morality and that they’re engaged in a discipline that doesn’t exist.

Alistair John wrote: “The point I was making is that Jesus as presented in the Bible is not a martial figure, his talk of ‘swords’ is largely metaphorical (although that is more than enough for some Christians to legitimise violence) and doesn’t have a record of bloodshed and slaughter to his name, unlike Mo.”

Jesus’ talk of swords wasn’t “metaphorical”. The sword that one of Jesus’ disciples, Simon Peter, used to cut off the ear of one of Jesus’ enemies in John 18:10 wasn’t “metaphorical”.

Alistair John wrote: “And yet many Islamic texts speak of Mo’s slaves.”

Except for the most authoritative and only contemporaneous text, the Quran. Sucks for you and your argument, doesn’t it?

Alistair John wrote: “Don’t be silly. You cannot compare the fictional accounts of a largely fictional character with the real reports of known historical figures. Even if he was a liberator and not a slave owner, he was one man and slavery thrived throughout the Islamic world for centuries.”

I can and did compare a known historical figure like Muhammad to other historical figures. And he may have been just one man, but he is the obvious choice to look at to determine how a true Muslim would behave in any given circumstance.

Alistair John wrote: “However, there were far fewer atheists at that point, certainly far less openly atheist people and I am unaware of an atheist led pro-slavery movement either. although there were Christian supporters of slavery.”

That’s not the reason you can’t name any atheist abolitionists or atheist-led abolition movements. It’s because then, as now, many atheists simply don’t find anything morally objectionable about slavery. They only feign offense to slavery when engaging in anti-Muslim and anti-Islamic polemic.

Alistair John wrote: “Can you show me, other than the mythical figure of Mohammed, a large abolitionist movement in the Islamic world?”

There have been numerous abolitionist movements in the “Islamic” world inspired by the historical figure Muhammad:

“An International Muslim Abolitionist Movement (IMAM) was even created to provide education about the strong and clear anti-slavery aspects of Islam.

“Islamic scholars note the Qur’an teaches against slavery and encourages emancipation of slaves. (See the Qur’an for these references, e.g., 4:92, 5:89, 58:3, 90:13, 24:33, 9:60, 2:177, 2:221, 4:25, 4:36.)”

http://www.stoppingslavery.org/faith-traditions-against-slavery.html

“In the late 1950s, Yemen signed the Convention on the Prevention of the Slave Trade. Before that, the Islamic prophet Muhammad encouraged manumission of slaves, even if one had to purchase them first. On many occasions, Muhammad’s companions, at his direction, freed slaves in abundance. Muhammad personally freed 63 slaves, and his wife Aisha freed 67. In total his household and friends freed 39,237 slaves.”

http://nationalyemen.com/2014/09/06/slavery-in-yemen-a-shocking-truth/

Alistair John wrote: “That is most ludicrous point you have made so far. Everyone living in rich ex-slaving states is to some extent the beneficiary of the legacy of slavery, including the descendants of slaves. And if Dawkins inherited money that once came from slavery that has nothing to do with him personally. Everyone in Britain who had anything to do with slavery has been dead for a very long time. Unless Dawkins is advocating for slavery currently you have no argument. He is not his ancestors and that is just a pathetic attempt to smear him.”

What’s ludicrous is your claim that everyone in Western countries is a beneficiary of slavery including the descendants of slaves. This may come as a surprise to you, but everyone in the West didn’t inherit million dollar estates made on the backs of African slaves, especially not the descendants of African slaves. I can personally vouch for that, being a descendant of African slaves. I have slave owners in my family tree too, but they didn’t leave me a million dollar estate. You apparently adhere to the Niall Ferguson school of atheist historiography which claims that Africans somehow benefited from brutal European slavery and colonialism:

“The moral simplification urge is an extraordinarily powerful one, especially in this country, where imperial guilt can lead to self-flagellation,” he explains. “And it leads to very simplistic judgments. The rulers of western Africa prior to the European empires were not running some kind of scout camp. They were engaged in the slave trade. They showed zero sign of developing the country’s economic resources. Did Senegal ultimately benefit from French rule? Yes, it’s clear. And the counterfactual idea that somehow the indigenous rulers would have been more successful in economic development doesn’t have any credibility at all.”

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2011/feb/20/niall-ferguson-interview-civilization

Incorrect. Islam got rid of every single of slavery except captives in war. At the time, what were they supposed to do with war captives who no longer had anywhere to go? Slaughter them? That was common back then. Leave them to starve? If they had just rounded them up, slaughtered them all and dumped them in ditch, then we could say Islam go rid of slavery 100%, but that would not have been superior solution.

Islamic doctrine says that slaves have to be treated well and have the same level of food, clothing, etc as their master, and the prophet and his companions freed 10s of thousands of slaves.

Muslims do often fail to live up to their doctrine, but that’s their failure. It changes nothing in terms of what Islam is, just as Americans breaking American law does not change what America law actually is. The idea the West came around earlier on the matter of slavery is false. Islam addressed the matter 1400 years ago.

Whatever, dude.

I would say the stubbornness and arrogance are yours. Anyone who presumes to know what ‘spiritual work’ someone they don’t know has to do is arrogance personified. Not believing in something for which there is not one shred of evidence is not stubborn. It is the opposite of stubborn. I don’t refuse to believe I simply cannot believe. What is stubborn is believing without evidence. Religious people call such stubbornness faith.

Even if I did believe in your god I could do little but despise him. My views about the god of the Torah, Bible and Quran are similar to Stephen Fry’s in his recent brush with ludicrous blasphemy laws in Ireland. Any god who created the world as it is, with all its huge amount of undeserved suffering is a monster. A god who demands you love, honour and obey him for presiding over such a world is a demented egotist. Any god who casts ‘sinners’ into eternal damnation is a vile sadist.

When I watched my mother slowly die of cancer it came to me more powerfully than ever just how disgusting any creator figure necessarily has to be. Satan, by comparison, seems the moral figure. How could anyone be anything but a rebel in the face of such divine cruelty? There is scarcely one part of the morality of the Abrahamic faiths I can sympathise with as a vegan pacificist. More than that, much of it is bigoted, violent, oppressive and hateful. So much that is truly evil in the world has its source in religion.

I appreciate your sincerity, but even if I believed I would look for moral guidance from every other source than your imaginary friend as portrayed in the Abrahamic texts.

I think God has his/hers/its work cut out with me.

Peace to you too.

Still avoiding the Adam and Eve and the universal ideology of atheism points I see.

“Atheism is whatever atheists do and say (just as Islam is whatever Muslims do and say, according to you).”

No, atheism still remains the lack of belief in the divine. There are different form of atheist thought just as there are sects of Islam.

“Atheism doesn’t need something that is shared by all atheists.”

Yes, it does, if it is to have any meaning at all as a word. If it is something other than the lack of belief in the divine then atheists have nothing in common whatsoever. The word is there to define something specific and remarkably simple.

“Just as Islam doesn’t need something that is shared by all Muslims , according to you”.

No, various Muslims do share some things in common. Atheists share nothing other than their lack of belief.

“Do you ever read the piffle you write before you post it, Alistair? If there’s an “exception,” then there is nothing in “common among all the various Muslims.”

The piffle is always yours. I deal with observable reality, not a list of sheep and goats. I look at the people who call themselves Muslim who often differ from one another enormously. I don’t divide them into ‘real’ or ‘faux’ Muslims.

“Your definition of Islam and Muslim is literally meaningless! A Muslim could literally believe in anything and still be considered a Muslim. And because you think that Islam is “whatever Muslims say and do,” Islam could literally be anything!”

Not quite anything. But it does allow for enormous variation, which is notable in most religions, most of all in Christianity. It is even noticeable in secular ideologies such as feminism, where adherents can appear to have almost nothing in common beyond the vaguest intentions. That is just how it is, whether you recognise that or not.

“No, you really can’t be a philosopher or theologian and not come into contact with evidence of one’s beliefs. Depending on the beliefs, the quality of the evidence may be good or bad. but providing evidence and arguments for one’s beliefs is the nature of the philosophical and theological enterprise.”

Name the evidence behind any theology whatsoever. Name the evidence behind Nietzsche’s concept of the superman or Schopenhauer’s belief in life after death.

“And, yes, you can be a scientist and have no recourse to evidence for your beliefs.”

Of course, anyone can venture any opinion or entertain any belief on any subject they like, whether or not they are a scientist. That doesn’t make their opinion science. Science is science not the random opinions of random scientists. Science requires evidence and proof.

“No, you wouldn’t settle for any form of evidence. Atheists don’t reject God’s existence because of a lack of evidence, they reject God simply because they don’t want to accept God’s existence. As Jean-Paul Sartre said, even if there was proof God existed, it would still be necessary to reject Him.”

No, I see no evidence for the existence of God because there is none. If I had evidence of God I wouldn’t be able not to believe in him/her/it. My desires, either way, have nothing to do with the case.

If knew God did exist I would certainly be of the Devil’s party. I should imagine that might be what Sartre meant, although I’m not an expert on French existentialists by any means. A creator who made the world as it is deserves nothing but hatred.

“Dismissing the divine entirely is the nature of atheism.”

Not really, it is just not believing in something for which there is no evidence. It is not currently possible to prove the non-existence of the divine and may never be. Some atheists may claim the divine cannot existent. However, in reality, we are all agnostics in point of logic.

“As the Quran says: “. . . .Thus, no matter what kind of proof they see, they cannot believe. Thus, when they come to argue with you, the disbelievers say, ‘These are tales from the past.’”

It would be much more credible if the Quran could show hard evidence. They are indeed tales from the past, like Cinderella. Why is there a need for faith? I don’t need to have faith in the existence of the sky or the government. I know they are there. Why am I required by your religion to have faith in something for which there is no evidence to dictate my actions and morals?

“The question is not whether the Quran justifies violence “in some circumstances” like self-defense, but whether wanton violence is “condoned in the Quran against enemies of Islam,” the same way some atheists condone wanton violence against Muslims with “bad intentions” and “dangerous ideas”. I cited verses from the Quran that showed that violence was only permitted in self-defense, not simply against perceived “enemies of Islam” in an ideological sense.”

Yes, you cherry picked verses from the Quran. I don’t condone violence against anyone. If some atheists do that is nothing to do with me.

“In atheist countries like China, religious people have a secondary status and are subjected to discriminatory policies, but people aren’t rushing to become atheists. Instead, China has seen an surge in conversion from atheism to religions, including Islam.”

China is not a free country and you have no knowledge what amount of the Chinese are atheists or not.

“Why would people in “Islamic” countries convert to a religion that discriminates against them?”

What religion would that be?

In stark contrast, many Muslims throughout history, inspired by Muhammad’s example, have led abolitionist movements and have spoken out about the immoral and un-Islamic nature of slavery:

“God did not grant rulers the right to enslave, to rob or to kill their own populations. He rather commanded them, by contrast, to protect them, as rulers have been created to serve their peoples not the other way around.”

–Shaykh Nasir al-Din al-Daymani [Mauritanian slave rebellion leader. d. 1674]

“. . . .in the beginning it [slavery] existed like other Pre-Islamic customs which were not repealed all at once. It [Islam], however, prohibited the making of new slaves, and for the slaves still present many regulations were fixed with this in view that bit by bit they should be released.”

–Sayyid Ahmad Khan [1817-1898]

“. . . .the basic assumption in regard to the human species is freedom and lack of any case for being enslaved. Whoever maintains the opposite is opposing the basic principle. . . .

“How then can a man who has scruples about his religion permit himself to buy something of this nature? How too can he allow himself to take their women as concubines considering that this involves entering upon a sexual liaison of doubtful legality. . . .

“Worse than that, in these days, the evil-doers and those who flout Allah, kidnap freeborn children in the qaba’il, villages, and cities of the Maghrib and sell them openly in the markets without anyone showing resentment or being angered on behalf of the religion. . . .”

–Shaykh Ahmad ibn Khalid al-Nasiri [1834-1897]

“. . . .the abolition of slavery is according to the spirit of the Koran, to Mohammedan tradition, and Mohammedan dogma.”

–Shaykh Muhammad Abduh [1849-1905]

“. . . .it was quit simply the greatest evil in the history of humanity. The Quran had forbidden all further enslavement and had commanded that all existing slaves be freed.”

–Shaykh Musa Jarullah Bigiyev [1875-1948]

As for your claim that Muhammad married women who were “suspiciously young,” that’s just one of the many things that atheists like you believe for which there is no evidence. I pointed this out to another atheist who made the same claim on this website:

https://disqus.com/home/discussion/loonwatch/polish_magazine_8220the_islamic_rape_of_europe8221/#comment-2551212683

By the way, even if the tales about the age of Muhammad’s wife were true, do you really think I’d let atheist degenerates lecture me about morality? When the atheist degenerate Roman Polanski had sex with his “suspiciously young” girlfriend, he was defended and sheltered by his fellow atheists, like the French philosopher Alain Finkielkraut (who is known for his Islamophobic beliefs). And of course the English biologist, Richard Dawkins, has stated that there is nothing wrong with a little “mild pedophilia”:

“Richard Dawkins defends “mild pedophilia,” says it does not cause “lasting harm””

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/10/richard_dawkins_defends_mild_pedophilia_says_it_does_not_cause_lasting_harm/

“Richard Dawkins Defends ‘Mild’ Pedophilia, Again and Again”

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/09/richard-dawkins-defends-mild-pedophilia-again-and-again/311230/

Alistair John wrote: “And there is little point cherry picking verses from the Quran. I can easily pick less savoury verses in response. The self contradiction within the Quran is notorious as it is with contradiction between the Old and New Testaments.”

Knock yourself out! It’ll just become apparent that you don’t know what you’re talking about and that you’re the one cherry-picking verses.

Alistair John wrote: “I have read much of the Quran and what it is says is not hard to find.”

You haven’t read jack! You’re the one who said that you were too impatient to sift through the Quran, remember?

Alistair John wrote: “In reality you ran away from this argument a long time ago, as you have constantly refused to speak about Adam and Eve and a universal ideology of atheism. Your moral and intellectual cowardice is so blatant and pathetic I wonder how you justify it to yourself. You do not win an argue by dodging from questions you cannot answer. And everyone who reads this can see how you refused to answer them over and over again.”

I’m not going to keep following you down these rabbit holes, Alistair. I have neither the time nor the patience to do so. You can unilaterally declare victory in this debate if it makes you feel better, but I’ll leave it to the people reading this to determine who has the stronger argument(s).

Tommy’s in jail and now this guy. Yknow Islamophobia have a lot to do with criminals.

this is their response :/

I think it has to do with the “Skinhead” subculture.

“A skinhead is a member of a subculture that originated among working class youths in London, England in the 1960s and then soon spread to other parts of the United Kingdom, and later to other countries around the world. Named for their close-cropped or shaven heads, the first skinheads were greatly influenced by West Indian (specifically Jamaican) rude boys and British mods, in terms of fashion, music and lifestyle.[1] Originally, the skinhead subculture was mainly based on those elements, not politics or race, in fact many British Skinheads during the 1960s were Black.”[sic]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinhead

So as a think-tank Quilliam gets to make recommendations based on ‘research’ as to who fits their ‘islamist’ (i.e. whoever does not agree with our view about how faith should be expressed and faith-related (mainly public-inclined) thoughts one could have). And the quality and legitimacy of this group is based on what? Being a formal think-tank – the bureaucratic setup, with suits, a website, and other professional monikers – i guess gives it some superficial legitimacy. More legitimacy could come from their ideas/articles/events being engaged/attend-to by people of note from the muslim and other communities, which would give further force to their overall goals.

Hmm.. Loonwatch guys, you should make a think-tank, perhaps call it “Muslim Media Monitor”, where media includes internet stuff. This blog that you have could be the ‘informal/popular’ face/front, and on top of that you can get people to write articles, and think-tanky recommendations to the government and ofted and whatnot.

Ready and raring to go!

There’d be nothing wrong with it imo, as they do great work and are constantly the targets of right-wing fanatics (like Spencer who throw out the flimsy unindicted co-conspirator blah blah) however it’s important to point out the obvious: LW is independent of any org.

Maybe someone from loonwatch exposed. They were talking about you.

“Quilliam claim that his involvement with them has so far been limited to “mentoring” — including attending classes on Islam and “theological reform”.

In other words, anti-Islam brainwashing and propaganda training.

“Quilliam has managed to facilitate the defection of the founder and leader of the EDL, Tommy Robinson (real name Stephen Yaxley), and his right-hand man and co-founder Kevin Carroll from their movement…..We have offered to support these defections and are currently seeking to raise funds for the costs associated with supporting Tommy Robinson while he transitions away from his current financial dependency on the EDL, with a long term view of helping him reconsider his strategy and tactics under our long-term guidance. Due to the nature of this unprecedented news, we have been coordinating this transition and all costs associated to it without a budget.”

In other words, we are paying a boatload of money for these renowned hate whores, and they are snug on our leash now, completely dependent on us. Don’t worry, we are planning on putting these desperate bitches to work for our hate cause until we get your money’s worth — and then some — over the “long term”.

Great article again, Jai.