Ali Sina - Understanding the thinking of leftists

Uddrag af en debat med en venstreorienteret apologet:

Det røde er hvad den venstreorienterede apologet fremfører af standardapologi.
Ali Sina giver som sædvanlig, korte, præcise og nådeløse svar - råt for usødet.

"I don’t think we are on the same page yet. FFI is not blaming terrorism. Terrorism is just the tactic the jihadis use to promote Islam. We are blaming Islam.

The Nazis used Blitzkrieg. Blitzkrieg was only a war tactic and not the enemy. It is foolish to blame the tactic of the enemy and not blame the enemy. Likewise, it is foolhardy to blame terrorism and radical Islam and overlook the role of the ideology that is causing them.

If you still think the problem is Wahhabims, radical Islam, and terrorism, you confuse the symptom with the disease. We are against Islam, the religion of Muhammad. It is Islam that is behind all these terrorisms. We want to eradicate the disease, while you are focused on the symptom."

“In some periods of history the leaders of Islamic states used Islam to advocate expansion.”

That is because Islam was created as a tool for expansion and political power. Unlike other religions that focus on individual, his spirituality and salvation, Islam focuses on world domination. It’s a perfect ideology for anyone who wishes to manipulate the gullible masses and make them do his biddings.

The number one concern for reformers was to ‘correct’ the misinterpretation of the Qur’an and Hadith. They argued vehemently that veiling women, ignoring science, having a narrow, useless educational system were all really against the ‘true’ Islam. Their goal was modernization of their society.”

They can argue until the cows come home. Islam is very clear on all these subjects and there is no room for interpretation and reformation. Once one accepts the divinity of the Quran, one is obliged to submit to radical Muslims because they are the ones who have the Quran on their side.

“Islam and Muslims have always needed to adapt, just as other religions have.”

Yes, but they couldn’t and they can never do it because the Quran does not allow any adaptation. No amount of wishful thinking can change that. Even though a few delusional Muslim reformer wannabes say that they are going to do it, they are only pulling wool over the eyes of the gullible westerners. They know they are lying and the entire Muslim world derides at them too. The reformers of Islam are attention seekers. There can be no reform in Islam, in the way the westerners understand it. Islam has had already its reform and it is called Wahhabism.

“The fact that groups still use Islam to justify violence and immoral behavior is not a stain on Islam itself, but on those who commit these deeds.”

How come? If one’s holy book says slay the unbelievers, Jews are pigs, Christians are najis, don’t befriend them, they are worse than animals, God despises them, and they are fuel for hell, etc., how can one blame that believer who follows these teachings to the letter? It’s hypocrisy to tell someone, your religion is fine, but if you practice it then you are a terrorist.

“My one warning was to be careful of painting all Muslims with the same brush.”

Do you really think you have a better grasp of the problem than us? You seem to keep forgetting that you are talking to ex-Muslims and a large part of our kin is still Muslims. Don’t try to be more Catholic than the Pope, or in this case, more concerned about our people than us. That pretense sounds phony.

We are not blaming the Muslims for anything, except ignorance. We are blaming Islam. Our enemy is this evil ideology not its followers whom we see as its main victims.

We are fully aware of the tireless struggle of our people throughout these 1400 years for democracy, reform, rationality and modernity. Why none of these efforts succeeded? It’s because Islam does not allow any change. In the long run all reforms fail. There is no basis for freedom and democracy in Islamic thinking. Islam and democracy are mutually exclusive...

What surprises me is that you see nothing wrong with what Voltaire, Thomas Paine, and all the philosophers of enlightenment said about Christianity, but you do not want anyone to say the same about Islam. I do not understand this mentality.

Why the leftists welcome any criticism of Christianity, but they cannot tolerate criticism of Islam that is a thousand times worse? Why they defend the Islamists and want them have all the freedom to promote their doctrine of hate, under the guise of multiculturalism, (as if Islam is a culture) but they cannot tolerate the ex-Muslims to criticize it?...

Could it be that Bertrand Russell was right when he said there are similarities between Islam and bolshevism because both are totalitarian?

In The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism, published in 1920, Russell wrote,

“Bolshevism combines the characteristics of the French Revolution with those of the rise of Islam….Marx has taught that Communism is fatally predestined to come about; this produces a state of mind not unlike that of the early successors of Mahommet….Among religions, Bolshevism is to be reckoned with Mohammedanism rather than with Christianity and Buddhism. Christianity and Buddhism are primarily personal religions, with mystical doctrines and a love of contemplation. Mohammedanism and Bolshevism are practical, social, unspiritual, concerned to win the empire of this world”.

Is this not the reason for this inexplicable love affair between these two strange bedfellows? In their lifestyle, the liberals and the Muslims could not be farther apart. You love free sex, accept homosexuality, allegedly promote equality between genders, etc., while Islam stones adulterers and gays and regards women as chattel. As a matter of fact, once Muslims come to power, the very first people they will slay will be people like you. Only after they are done with you they will go after the followers of other faiths. Despite that, lefties and Muslims are bedfellows. The leftists of all variations, from International socialists (communists) to national socialists (Nazis) to the run of the mill socialists and liberals, like the Democrats in USA, the NDPs in Canada, and the Labours in UK, including the feminists, always back the Muslims.

There are many sites that attack Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, even the peaceful Bahai Faith, but you did not go there to stop them. You came here to defend the rag headed zombies and tell us why we should shut up and not offend the terrorists and other brain damaged Muslims. Why Pete? Was Russell right? Is it because in Muslims, the leftists see a reflection of their own image – another totalitarian fascistic group that hates the Jews and tries to divide mankind?

Ali Sina kan ikke holde sig fra at være polemisk, som her til sidst. Men det er et relevant spørgsmål, for der er mange ligheder mellem venstrefløjen og islam, og netop dem som ham polemisk nævner.
Omvendt er mange af venstrefløjens kæledægger netop noget af det første der ryger, og dem selv, sammen islamkritikere, hvis islamister får magten.

Det er virkeligt absurd, at man sådan fornægter realiteter og griber til den grad af kulturrelativisme.

Jeg er ikke fuldstændigt enig med Ali Sina. Jeg er enig på den måde, at den bedste løsning ville være hvis Islam ikke eksisterede, hvis alle muslimer forlod religionen.

Men omvendt regner jeg det ikke som en realistisk løsning, at muslimer i tide, forlader deres religion, så i den henseende er man nødt til at satse på reform hesten.

Men så skal man ikke udelukkende apologere, men lægge pres på Islam, for reformen kommer ikke uopfordret, det er ikke usandt, at wahhabismen er den reelle reform af Islam, og har koranen på sin side.

Bonus fra en anden debat med en Professor Wahid, som eksemplificerer problemet med at reformere Islam, og sætter muhammadtegning krisen i perspektiv:

No Muslim can ever think of, let alone telling, a derogatory word about Prophet Muhammad. Perhaps even you may be having second thought about what you are writing about him. My discussion so far was about the sunnah of Prophet Muhammad as to how he lived perfectly as the model of Islam in accordance with the Quran.

Kritik af terror som et middel kan diskuteres, selv om selv det er begrænset med fordømmelsen på det område.
Men målet om islam overhøjhed over verden kan ikke diskuteres på islamisk teologisk grundlag.
Heller ikke profetens status. Hvilket gør reform af religionen selv så umulig som den har været i 1400 år, og vi har ikke 1400 år mere til at gøre islam fredelig.
Uret tikker suverænt i retning af en mere, og igen, magtfuld islam, hvilket ikke bliver magt til en blid reformbevægelse.

Mere Bonus:

Islams svar på Habermas giver et opfindsomt svar på det muslimske dogma, at andre religioner ikke må bygge tilbedelses-steder under Islam. Men kun praktisere deres religion i privaten.

Dette er nemlig mainstream islamisk tænkning, og ikke kun en Saudi Arabisk opfindelse: