The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum #5

=> Finally: The Reason Hitchens Dislkes Islam

Finally: The Reason Hitchens Dislkes Islam
Posted by pancho (Moderator) - Friday, May 20 2011, 12:29:03 (UTC)
from *** - *** - Windows XP - Safari
Website:
Website title:

...finally heard him articulate it in answer to a direct question from Sally Quinn...his answer? Because Islam claims to be the final revelation of the word and wishes of God and that after Islam there can be no more. Hell, you'd think Hitchens would at least be glad that Islam puts an end to the possibility of there being other, newer revealed truths....but why be so pissed because it claims to be the last? Didn't Judaism also claim to be the only right word of God? Just because it says it was the last word of God doesn't mean it didn't behave towards other Gods as if it WAS the only permissible religion...Christianity also is adamant that the Messiah for the entire world has come and warns people to beware of any later "false Messiahs"...isn't this the same as Islam saying it is the last word and people should not believe any future "false Prophets"?

Of all the complaints he could have against Islam, its claim to be the last revealed truth is what he despises about it most? Seems to me there's a little penis envy going on here...Hitch is angry that another religion, though he says he hates them all, has dared to usurp Christianity's place...as what, the ditziest of them all? Is that his beef...that Islam replaces Christianity, or gives it a good run for its money?

As an afterthought he next says that there is one valid definition of jihad that there can be no rest until the entire world has been converted to Islam...now you know that has to be bullshit...what he is implying is that old refrain , which he should know better than to utter, that Islam converts people by the sword...and, I guess, he sees the current situation in the Muslim world vs the West as Islam's attempt to violently convert Christians to Islam! I mean, come ON!. The man is well-read, he is articulate, and even he doesn't bother to give us one instance in history, certainly in the modern era, when Islamic armies marched out to fulfill Muhammad's supposed dictates...

Muslims are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan because they want to convert the world to Islam...? They are NOT fighting to protect themselves from occupying Christian armies and their real WMDs? They're fighting because Muhammad told them to go out and force people into Islam? And they have ALWAYS been doing this? Are you for real???

Once again we have the bizarre spectacle of this tired old indictment of Islam as a violently evangelical movement, whose followers have none the less completely ignored their Prophet's supposed call to arms on behalf of his religion...I mean who has been acting the part of violent Evangelicals? That would be the Christians, of course...but in their case they too apparently disobey their Messiah's most profound wishes by conducting endless wars, against Jews, against Christians and now against Muslims....of the two groups it seems BOTH are not obeying the commands of their Leader...but aren't we so relieved that Muslims apparently disobey Muhammad and aren't we saddened and don't we wish that Christians would OBEY their's?

Yes, Islam expects that one day people will recognize the truth of the Prophet's message...one day. But it also says that force must never be used to compel people to come to Islam....all that Muslims did which so angered the world was NOT put subject peoples to the sword but instead let them live and prosper and PAY A TAX! Christin armies never did that...they either killed everybody and stole everything or forced everyone to convert, on pain of death. History is replete with examples...yet Hitch offers nothing by way of evidence for his preposterous and tired accusations.

History shows that conquered peoples were given a CHOICE, which Christianity never gave, to either convert and avoid the jizya, or pay a most reasonable tax and then only able-bodied men of military age were subject to the jizya...where the hell is the harm in that? They even open a door for you to escape paying the jizya(and the truth is that Christians are really pissed because so many Christians, then as now, hated taxes and jumped at the chance to convert and save on taxes.....Hitch has other worries right now but I'd like to put this challenge to Dawkins or Sam Harris or anyone really: For the love of all that's sensible, stop just TELLING us that Islam is violent and violently evangelical, but give us EXAMPLES"! And, do NOT try to confuse the issue by turning every political act of rebellion and revolt into merely a command from the Prophet to conduct Jihad, a war for the purpose of forcibly converting people to Islam...that's a way of trivializing Islam and Muslims...like they are just stupidly and blindly following their dumb Prophet and in no way is anything they do as a result of what the West has done to them and is doing to them...like a woman is accused of being merely hysterical when she rebels against the whore/Mommy role dolled out to her for millenia.

Here, again, is the Armenian Syndrome at work. While Hitchens claims these recent upheavals and attacks in Islam are nothing more than obedience to the Prophet's wishes, he gives no example of when this was true...I mean in the last 300 years...where can he point to an example of Muslim armies, since the 1700s, marching out, thousands of miles from their own borders to put people to the sword unless they convert to Islam? Not one example offered? For that matter, when in the last 300 years did Muslim armies march thousands of miles from their borders to conduct ANY kind of war? Was there even a civil war of Muslim brother against Muslim brother, as in the United States?

He merely SAYS it is the case, and of course his interviewer lets him off the hook by not asking a follow-up question like the simple one I posed: "Give me ONE example".

Muslims have begun to fight back after decades and centuries of just taking it, taking it from foreigners and their own foreign-imposed and supported puppet governments and "princes". And because they have, and only for sound political reasons, they are being accused of ALWAYS having "fought", even to having converted people by the sword...and all of that just because they dared fight back, finally, against an aggressor religion and nations...and they would have fought back just the same against ANY religion or group of nations who did the same things Christianity and the West have been doing for centuries.

Hitch wants to make it all and only about religion and then paint Islam as the baddest religion, when it is about POLITICS, has nothing to do with religion...and has been long-overdue. Maybe that's what this all about...focusing on "all religions" as a way of distracting from the political realities that the Christian West has been raping and robbing and attacking oil-rich Muslim countries...that in order to keep the focus away from that simple truth, Western apologists, who are sincerely athiests, have none the less gone to work, politically, on behalf of their white governments to discredit Muslims as also political players, painting them instead with the broad, hysterical, brush of being mere "jihadists" and "terrorists", and not pissed off Revolutionaries!



---------------------


The full topic:



***



Powered by RedKernel V.S. Forum 1.2.b9