truth needs no defence 2

Submitted by the Grand Infidel of Kaffiristan (Australia), Oct 20, 2010 at 05:39

Mr Curmally invites me to refrain from further discussion:

"So grand infidel of kaffiristan are we going to continue or stop? I am for stopping because we are discussing everything except Duelling fatwas."

I had actually sent another reply to your 'last reply'; to me - but it appears it has been misplaced for some reason. Maybe I was not being politically correct enough.

We could talk about fatwas - but why beat around the bush?

The cause of fatwas is islam - so let's deal with the source. You've encountered a myriad of reasons by people on the site as they express their objections to the spread (or indeed, the continuation ) of islam. Just on this blog you've read from people both sexes, on every continent (possibly exclusig Antarctica - but who knows). They're atheists, agnostics and theists - Christians, Jews, Hindu's , probably some Sikhs, Buddhists, Bahai's, Baptists, Catholics, meditators, . They've given a whole raft of very different reasons from pedophilic activities of the 'prophet', to abuse of women, to the excesses of insane fanatics bent on destroying our cultures .

More often that not all these claims have been backed up by fact - whether that has been excerpts from your own 'holy' books - or video showing the insanity of muslims currently alive today - or the exploits of muslims from the recent and not so recent past.

The one thing I have to give you credit for is you have personally have not (yet) expressed anything against the Jews - which is a typical behaviour for the generic card-carrying muslim. It's almost obligatory to have if not a raging hatred, then at least a palpable bias against them. But for all we know - you too might be a raving anti-semite - we just haven't asked the right questions to press the right buttons. But muslims in general look down on anyone who is not a muslim -(the 100% Indonesian army demonstrating the ethics they've learned here as members of the Religion of Perpetual rage.)

You can rant and rave all you want about the superiority of your delusion. Sit their in your armchair plotting 'revenge' as much as you like, for as many generations as your imagination will allow. But ask yourself, in a quiet moment - what has actually been attacked? Allah (or is that Allat?).

God, truth?

Or is just another islamic ego having his/her bubble burst?

If you're experiencing truth then my (or anyone else's) vain attacks will just slide off as though your coated in teflon. If not, then you're experiencing non-truth.

Are you aware of the European fable - the Emperor and His Clothes? Muslim are very much like the Emperor - covering themselves with the emptiness of islam and congratulating each other on how fine they are doing.

But all it takes is the slightest criticism from 'outsiders' for them to fall back into a defensive stance (and play victim) - or an offensive one - where they plot to destroy the 'enemy'.

So - is everybody else wrong?

What is hard to fathom is why you insist on trying to defend the indefensible. You try to rationalise the disgusting behaviour of your 'prophet' to sensible people. Folk for whom it is impossible to buy into your story. It makes you look quite foolish - but foolishness is not your original nature. So do you experience (or have you at anytime experienced) cognitive dissonance in trying to rationalise your world - or are you beyond hope of ever being able to see the world from a non-islamic perspective?

'God' doesn't need to be defended. Ego (and collective ego) always tries its best - because the risk of exposure (to itself) threatens its very existence.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".