Wednesday, December 09, 2015

The Great Pumpkin of Islam

A “Peanuts” TV special in 1966 had Linus, the blanket-clinging tot in the cartoon series, concocting a kind of “religion” or “cult” around the Great Pumpkin rising out of a pumpkin patch on Halloween night. Linus spends that night in the pumpkin patch, to witness its appearance. It never manifests itself, neither in form nor in echo-chamber voice. Nor even as a burning pumpkin. Linus falls asleep, clutching his blanket. I guess. I was never a fan of the cartoon strip and I certainly didn’t watch the TV special. Story details can be read here.

In Islam, the Great Pumpkin can be likened to Allah, and Linus to Mohammad. The “prophet” imagined he was getting the Koran directly from Allah (the name of an already existing pagan god) via the angel Gabriel, and rode to Paradise on a horse sporting a woman’s head, but all that and more, if the Koran is to be taken literally as a record of true events, must have been the result of delirium, hallucinations, dehydration, starvation, or sunstroke. He was living in a cave near Mecca, ostensibly to meditate, but actually to escape the ridicule and wrath of his Meccan neighbors. One can imagine him passing his days subsisting on goat jerky and imbibing essence of distilled mimosa, or the local version of Kickapoo juice.

Of course, I don’t take any of it literally, the Koran and its companion texts too likely having been works-in-progress over centuries, cadging from the Christian, Judaic, Zoroastrian, and pagan religions and liturgies. Robert Spencer torpedoes the existence of Mohammad himself in his rigorously researched book, Did Muhammad Exist?:  An Inquiry into Islam’s Obscure Origns.  

In short, Allah was Mohammad’s Great Pumpkin. Or, if you prefer, his dancing, grand pink elephant, a deity greater than the Hindu Ganesha. Allah, who shares the metaphysical impossibility of all deities, together with the contradictory attributes of omniscience and omnipotence, has never manifested himself to Muslims or infidels, either. He is, to put it tactfully, reality-shy. He exists only in the delusional minds of those who wish to believe in such an entity. A figment of one’s mysticism-inebriated imagination can't be conjured into spatial existence no matter how earnestly or often one prays, hopes, or wishes.

A Facebook friend of mine, whom I shall refer to for security reasons as “Lois Lane,” conducted a four-year poll and survey of Muslims, largely over the Internet using an avatar or pseudonym to disguise her identity, testing Muslims’ knowledge of the Koran and the Hadith, an anecdotal compilation of Mohammad’s sayings and “exploits.” She compiled about 3,000 responses and reports some revealing information about our “peaceful” Muslim neighbors, friends, and overseas pals. She focused on asking them about whether or not they adhered to or agreed with the abrogating violent verses or with the earlier “peaceful” ones. Here is a handy, short explanation of those verses on YouTube, Three things you probably don't know about Islam.” Lois Lane wrote:

Three thousand sounds  like a lot, but over four years that's less than half a Muslim a day. Some days I'd have quite a few conversations, and during vacations, none. Almost all was done online and under screen names, so there was no reason for the Muslims to hide what they really thought. They came from all over the world. They had internet access, meaning access to other ideologies. I have to be careful with my identity as I get a lot of death threats.

I asked MANY Muslims about Islam, and one of my goals was to find out what they knew about Islam. At the start, I thought they would not know about Muhammed and what evil he did. But I learned that they DID know. I spoke to around 3,000 Muslims over the course of the last few years. I would ask them if they thought Muhammed was wrong to have sex with a 9-year-old child, have people slaughtered for making fun of him, own and trade slaves, sell women, and let his men mass rape women (and even join in), etc.

It turns out that the overwhelming majority of her Muslim respondents agreed with or endorsed the violent ones. And these were the “moderate, peaceful” ones. Lois relates that there are over 6,000 verses in the Koran that “pit Muslims against nonbelievers.” She added that the Koran “is complete garbage, poorly written, full of scientific nonsense and irrationality.”

The vast majority of Muslims did know about this (it is all documented in the Islamic Hadiths). They would make lame excuses, say that I was reading false Hadith, or rationalize. They are all taught to use the same responses. I would put a huge pile of evidence in front of them. NOT ONE would say that Muhammed was wrong/bad/evil to do such things. They would attack me. Muhammed was above judgment no matter what he did. I would ask them to post the verses since mine were wrong, according to them. No Muslim posted the verses.

No, I guess none of them would. It would be an act of self-incrimination, tantamount to forgetting to invoke the Fifth Amendment. But they remember to take the Fifth, and remain silent. Or become abusive, or threatening. Or perhaps they didn’t know where to find the verses. As many Christians and Jews are not intimately familiar with the key passages of the Bible and the Torah, and could not cite chapter and verse during a snap exam, many Muslims are not handily conversant in the Koran and its companion texts, either.

But, as Lois Lane learned, they are adept in erecting a brick wall of denial.

Another Internet pen pal, Linda, made this observation about Muslims getting angry when presented with the truth about their “prophet” and about Islam itself.

"It's not inflammatory to cite facts."

It is in Islam. That's something most people don't know about. Truth is not a defense if a Muslim accuses you of "insulting" Islam, because for a kafir to say something that makes a Muslim uncomfortable about the religion, is considered an insult even if it is true. 

Telling the truth to a Muslim can result in threats or even one’s death. This would explain those raucous demonstrations in London featuring mobs of wild-eyes, unphotogenic Muslims brandishing signs that proclaim “To hell with freedom of speech!” and “Behead those who insult Islam!” and so on ad nauseam. They prefer not to be reminded that they’re mostly intellect-deficient yahoos and boobs.

Lois Lane wrote:

The few other Muslims who claimed to know nothing, did know. When I presented my pile of evidence, not one said: "OMG, I had no idea!" like any good person would do. They would then pick up with the rationalizations and/or threats against me….

Muslims know how evil Islam is and they choose to follow it. Good people do not choose to follow evil ideologies.

A natural question to ask is: What is a Muslim’s concept of evil? The answer is simple: Anything that is un-Islamic. This includes man-made laws, other religions, infidel women and their “exposed meat,” non-halal food, insults to Mohammad and Islam, the mockery of same, not submitting to Islam, and books and columns that expose the utterly fantastic decrepitude of Islam.

I agree with that assessment 100%. What  person with a modicum of moral sense (or even self-respect) would remain a Muslim, let alone convert to Islam to become one? No one with any moral sense. No one with first-hand values. Muslims are ciphers. What I call the Borg, or the Walking Dead, or Pod People (re The Invasion of the Body Snatchers). They crave for some fictitious entity like Mohammad or Allah to give themselves to, to submit to, to sanction their existence, to let it make the decisions of what's right or wrong, to govern the content and courses of their lives. They are people who are completely empty inside, because they prefer some all-knowing and all-powerful force to fill the void, and to prescribe their values, which they won't need to think about, examine, or re-evaluate, because they’re ready-made, and anyway, it’s forbidden to question Allah’s wisdom or to look too closely at the origins, essence, purposes, and consequences of his commands.

Of all the religious adherents in existence, I regard Muslims as the most contemptible, despicable, and the most pathetic because they are not only self-made automatons – that is, automatons by choice – but they're taught and they believe that they're superior to everyone else. They, the empty vessels whose "souls" have been filled to the brim with ideological and religious arsenic, who slaughtered 130 people in Paris and fourteen in San Bernardino, are, by their corrupt measure of the “good,” regards themselves as the betters of all non-Muslims.

Lois Lane reveals more about her interactions with Muslims over the Internet:

Even the most moderate Muslim, the ones who [profess to] hate ISIS, firmly believe that all disbelievers deserve Allah's horrible torture for all eternity. Allah warned us and if we make the wrong choice, we need to roast. [Bracketed comment mine]

No Muslim will say that Muhammed was wrong to rape, have sex with a child, own and trade slaves, sell women, demand terrorism, have people slaughtered, etc. Not one Muslim would judge Muhammed as anything but a perfect example.

 The nicest Muslim will become hateful if asked the right questions. I cannot count the number of times Muslims threatened to slaughter me and my family.

 Muslims play dirty. They gang up to have people banned from forums if that person speaks against Islam. They lie often and well. If you prove them wrong, they will ignore your evidence and stick with the lie or go on to a new one.

I often hear people compare Muslims to Germans. That's a false analogy. The analogy should be to compare “moderate” Muslims to Nazis who have not yet killed any Jews.

These are the same “moderate” Muslims who struck in Paris, in San Bernardino, in Boston, and on 9/11. A “moderate” Muslim is as much an oxymoron as is a “moderate” Nazi or a “moderate” Communist. The Republicans, moreover, are just as responsible for the situation we've been in ever for decades now. For example. It was George W. Bush who just after 9/11 proclaimed that Islam was a "peaceful religion" that was "hijacked" by "militants." You may as well say that Nazism was a "peaceful" ideology that was "hijacked" by Hitler, or that Communism was a "peaceful" ideology that was "hijacked" by Lenin and Stalin, or that Shintoism was a "peaceful" religion "hijacked" by Tojo. Still, absurdities continued to pile up from both parties. Both parties officially refuse to recognize the nature and purposes of Islam,

For anyone interested in arguing with Muslims, Lois Lane has some recommended websites that deal with arguing with Muslims about the truth and falsehood of Islam.


http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Responses_to_Apologetics_-_Muhammad_and_Aisha
(Note: Wikiislam has been taken offline because of security issues with Muslims.)

The Great Pumpkin of Islam was carved out of the hallucinatory imagination of a certified imbecile, illiterate, brigand, rapist, murderer, and tyrant.

1 comment:

madmax said...

I don't know if you follow him, but Bill Warner is another excellent source of the study of Islam and what Muslims believe:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0Uu4XnRS1hiz3JCpNFIuUg/videos

This video is especially good:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlNAgvZfdLo


Lastly, I'm simultaneously heartened by Trump's proposal to halt Islamic immigration and disgusted by the reaction against it by mainstream Conservatives, libertarians and of course Objectivists. My god, this should have been done in 1993 and certainly in 2001. The egalitarian world we live in is insane. I have a hard time believing that Ayn Rand would have been on the side of moderate Muslims and "religious liberty" for "law abiding Muslims". But apparently believing in banning Islamic immigration makes you as evil as Hitler. Who knew?