”Pete Rottier PhD vs. Ali Sina; Part II”
This article is a question posed to Dr. Pete Rottier, who in our previous debate claimed that my accusations against Muhammad are baseless.
Dear Dr. Rottier,
It was a pleasure to debate with you and thank you for participating in the comments section and answering our readers. The last message you posted raised several questions. Because of their importance I am opening a new page. You wrote,
“I never attempted to defend the indefensible–namely terrorism.”
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.
You wrote: “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.
Hitler admired Islam for this very reason. This is what he said, “You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness….”5 (A. Speer, Inside the Third Reich, pp. 142-143)
You wrote: “Someone asked if I saw the Qur’an as a primary source–no. It could be with some historical projects but I am a historian of modern
How you perceive the Qur’an is irrelevant. The Qur’an is recognized by Muslims as the verbatim word of God. Therefore, it accepts no alterations.
You wrote: 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 Qur’an, one is obliged to submit to radical Muslims because they are the ones who have the Qur’an on their side.
You wrote: “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 Qur’an 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.
You wrote: “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 is then you are a terrorist.
You wrote: “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. As long as Muslims believe in Islam, there can be no reform. Every attempt to reform Islam has and will fail.
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?
I don’t think we even came close to understand each other. I do not understand what makes the leftists tick and what to make of their double standards in regards to Islam. Why you keep telling us we should not paint all the Muslims with the same brush and do not accept our word when we say we are against Islam and not the Muslims?
We explained our position clearly. We are against Islam for the same reason that we are against Nazism, communism or any nefarious doctrine that is based on hate. Sigmund Freud wrote, “It is always possible to bind together a considerable number of people in love, so long as there are other people left over to receive the manifestations of their aggressiveness” (Civilization and Its Discontents).
We do not see any line dividing mankind. We’re all one people and we are not going to listen to charlatans like Marx, Hitter and Muhammad to sunder us and to instill hatred in us.
We do not oppose Islam because it claims to be a religion. We oppose it because it is divisive and evil. Now I would like you to explain why you think criticizing a doctrine, whether good or evil, should not be allowed? The leftists have no problem criticizing Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, or any religion. Why they have no tolerance for the criticism of Islam?
The leftists are right-brain thinkers. As the result it is very difficult to establish a coherent dialogue with them. You have a PhD and are a university lecturer. You are the right person to talk to. I am sure you will be able to answer my questions rationally and without resorting to logical fallacies. I have a simple unanswered question. Why the lefties and the liberals welcome criticism of any faith, but get hot under their collar when someone criticizes Islam, and then attack that person accusing him/her of racism, intolerance, xenophobia, Islamophobia and what not?
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
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?
Yes, I know that many Jews are leftists. Who said all the Jews are smart? I do not believe in a super race and I know stupid people exist among all the races.
I have bad news for you. Ask the Iranian leftists who supported the Islamists during their revolution and see what they got out of that deal. Ask Maryam Namazi who is a commie what deal her group got after they helped Khomeini to power. Ms. Namazi is no longer under any delusion. She is now an ardent anti Islam activist. Maybe her experience as a comrade can bring some sense to American leftists.
I look forward to your response. This subject is important. It has baffled all of us conservatives, rationalists and left-brain thinkers. As a conservative, my brain is not structured the way the brain of an ideologue is. We conservatives have no ideology. The brain of an ideologue is already formed. It is structured and molded. The brain of a conservative is not. The difference can be likened to that of a solid and a liquid. Liquid follows the gravity. It’s fluid and can take any shape. Solids do not change form.
For example, if someone proposes something, I ponder on it and ask: Does it make sense? Does it work? Is it good? Can I and others benefit from it? Then, based on the answers, I decide whether I would adopt that proposition or not.
An ideologue thinks very differently. He thinks in accordance with his ideology. When faced with a dilemma, he asks: What my prophet, my guru, my leader, or my party says about this? Does it conform to the party line and/or my religion or it doesn’t? An ideologue does not make any value judgment. He wants to know to what extent this new idea conforms to his ideology. Instead of thinking, he consults his book of guidance for answers.
Erroneously the lefties call themselves ‘freethinkers.’ Nothing can be further from the truth. Denouncing religion, they have only changed their ideology, but they are not freethinkers.
You probably would argue that most Christians are conservatives. Good for them! At least in this case they are on the right side. As a matter of fact in one of my articles, The Illusion of Reformation in Islam I argued that it was the Christian reformation and its idea that Jesus had come to set man free that cultivated the seed of enlightenment, and gave rise to the notion of individual freedom, political freedom, and economic freedom.
Here is the irony. While Christianity is an ideology, the root of freethinking and therefore democracy is to be found in the discourse of liberation proposed by its reformers. Freethinking is the fruition of Christian reformation and not of Marxism as the leftists would have you believe. Leftist mentality is a rigid mentality that has nothing to do with freethinking. Conservative thinking is thinking without an ideology. It’s the natural way of thinking.
Now back to my question. Is there any truth to what Russell said? If not how can you explain the disinterest of the feminists in the plight of the women in Islamic countries? How can you explain the lack of interest of the Amnesty International, an organization dominated by leftists, to which you belong, in the rights of the minorities and apostates in Islamic countries, and why the same organization is so concerned about how
How do you explain these disparaging priorities? Why the leftists exercise this much double standards and duplicity when it comes to human rights? Why do they wreak havoc if a Muslim is denied to disregard the rules of the company where she works and decides to wear her veil of shame to thumb her nose at us, or stop in the middle of the work to pray, or refuse to serve alcohol in the restaurant that she works, but they are silent when Muslims burn churches in Islamic countries and kill Christians, Hindus and apostates? Why do you defend the Muslims to use tax funded universities and other public institutions for their payers, and decry schools that say Christian prayer? Why Amnesty International, civil libertarians, and other leftie and liberal dominated organizations don’t make a squeak when Islamic countries abuse the basic human rights of non-Muslims in their midst?
These are important questions that we the conservatives, who care more about human rights than an ideology, have been asking for eons. I am glad we have you here to answer these thorny questions.