The following is my response to a comment recently left here by the Islamic blogger, Caliphate agitator, and my opponent, ‘Muhammed Ghazi’. His words are in italics with my responses following.
You may label me with anything you wanted to. It's understandable. As a Muslim, I forgive you for your sarcastic remarks on me. But let me make my stands clear for all of you regarding certain issues that AJ had mentioned in this post.
Wow, you forgive me? Just like that? Funny, I didn’t think the Mohammedans were all that focused on forgiveness, and all that stuff about turning the other cheek. There’s still that standing ‘kill’ order against Sir Salman Rushdie (since 1990) and those official Malaysian religious textbooks that call for any Muslim apostates (i.e. ex-Muslims) to be killed. Doesn’t sound very forgiving to me. I don’t think your meaning of ‘forgiveness’ matches what most everyone else knows it to mean.
1. I totally denounce bombings and killings of innocent public (sic), be it Muslim or non-Muslim. The struggle in the name of Islam (for the establishment of the rule of Islam in this world) should be done in intellectual and non-violent manner.
Your over-generalized, loophole-laden, specifics-free denunciation is meaningless. What exactly constitutes an ‘innocent’ or ‘innocent public’ (sic)? Mr. Ghazi doesn’t say. Presumably, to Mr. Ghazi’s line of thinking, a suicide bomber self-detonating in a nightclub full of, say, off-duty IDF personal is perfectly acceptable. Mr. Ghazi will also of course never get around to condemning any specific Islamic terrorist group or terrorist by name. This duplicitous behavior, called ‘taqiyya’ and permitted by Islamic ideology and jurisprudence, is a typical smokescreen from the followers of the prophet
2. For the so-called sectarian violence, we are working as hard as we can to re-unite the Sunnis and Shiites under the banner of Islam. Measures has (sic) been taken at various levels to reconcile the opposing sides.
Do tell, what ‘measures’ have been taken? Talk, my esteemed Muslim opponent, is cheap. Can a Shia mosque be built in
3. You are free to criticize Islam, BUT make sure that it is done in a good manner unlike what we saw in this blog. But, in my humble opinion, before we move on discussing about the peripheral issues concerning Islam, it would be wise that we discuss about the fundamental issues first.
Ah, a favorite word used by the silver-tongued apologists of Islam—the word ‘but’ (emphasis added above). Criticize Islam in a ‘good manner’, you say? You mean do the criticizing in whatever manner you proclaim to be acceptable? The exact meaning of ‘good manner’ is as slippery as a greased pig at a county fair. So, thanks but no thanks—I’m going to keep speaking truth to power, no matter how much it annoys you and your fellow jihadists.
The fundamental issue here is, and will continue to be, Islam’s inhumanity and anti-human philosophy. It’s an ideology my co-bloggers and I completely and utterly reject. And it’s the point we will keep hammering on and showing to all, here and elsewhere. I don’t expect you to agree with me on the peripherals or fundamentals or anything else. Tough luck--deal with it.
4. Regarding the leveling of churches and temples, I am opposed to such moves. If you study Islam neutrally (and not biased by your hatred & prejudice), you will find that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) prohibits the demolition of ritual sites (i.e. churches, temple, synagogue etc.).
Are you joking? Church, temple and synagogue destruction (or their outright ban) in the Islamic world is so engrained in the Muslim membrane, it’s virtually a spectator sport. Muslim destruction of holy sites that belong to other belief systems is a time-honored Islamic tradition that goes back 14 centuries. When a Hindu temple was most recently leveled in KL, in September 2008, on a typically razor-thin pretext, where were all the Muslims to protest this supposedly un-Islamic act? Oh, that’s right, there weren’t any.
It’s not just
“By their fruits ye shall know them,” goes the Biblical saying, meaning that the essential goodness of someone or something is determined not so much by words as by tangible results. Muslim deeds speak far more lucidly than the disingenuous words of apologists and prevaricators like Mr. Ghazi. The Muslim track record is a dismal 1400-year-long string of hatred, violence, destruction, intolerance, aggression, deception, and terror, all committed in the name of their prophet and god. Mr. Ghazi’s rhetorical flourishes cannot cover the stink that emanates from his faith. The truth cannot be hidden any more.