BC TERRORIST
Saved by @Alex1Powell

I've heard the claim "ISIS don't represent real Islam and anyone who thinks they do is an islamophobe" more times than I remember. So, I decided to write down why that statement really doesn't stop people from wanting to cut off Muslims socially and economically.

 For the sake of argument, let's assume that ISIS don't represent Islam.

ISIS do think they represent Islam, so according to the earlier said argument, ISIS are Islamophobes.
There are many other similar terrorist outfits ie groups who promote a version of Islam similar to that of ISIS. According to the earlier said argument, they're also Islamophobes.
There are recognized governments who carry out similar punishments in the name of Islam...yes, they're also now Islamophobes.

There are other Muslims who support above said groups and governments. They're also now Islamophobes.

Now, think about this.
How many Islamophobes are there within the muslim community itself if we go with the main premise?

There are millions of Muslims who have a favourable view of groups like ISIS, or don't show any unfavourable opinion openly.
There are many Muslims who think that suicide bombings are justified. There are many Muslims who think that apostates should be executed. There are many Muslims who think that critics of Islam should be punished, and so on.
Put all of this together and you'll find that, according to the above stated premise, the Muslim community has far more Islamophobes outside of it.
Also, not to mention that, according to the above said premise, Muslims who carry out physical attacks against non-Muslims, their property or their heritage, solely in the name of Islam, are also Islamophobes.
Ben Shapiro, in one of his videos show that the majority of the Muslims are radicals. If we go with the above said premise, we have to conclude that the majority of the muslim community are actually Islamophobes.

That leaves us with an important question :
How can we know an islamophobe apart from a practicing muslim BEFORE he carries out an islamophobic attack against us, our loved ones, our allies etc ?

As I said earlier, Ben Shapiro, in his video, proves than the majority of Muslims are radicalized according to a pew study.
So, here is the conclusion.

Premise 1. Most Muslims have a radical point of view about Islam
Premise 2. Only Islamophobes have a radical point of view about Islam

Conclusion : therefore, most Muslims are Islamophobes.

Now we have to wonder.
If most "Muslims" are actually Islamophobes, and one can't be both at the same time either, how truthful is the claim that there are over 1.8 billion Muslims?

Another thing. This also means that any "muslim" who meet in your life have an above 50% chance of being an islamophobe.
Obviously, it's not good to get along with Islamophobes, according to the very same people who say that those who associate ISIS with Islam are Islamophobes, so how can we make sure that we stay away from Islamophobes, without staying away from all who look like Muslims?
We can't.

As you see, if you think that ISIS represent Islam, you have to stay away from all Muslims, for your own safety.

If you think that ISIS don't represent Islam and anyone who thinks they do is an islamophobe, you have to stay away from all Muslims for your own safety.
Either way, you have to stay away from all Muslims for your own safety.

Yet another classic case of leftist dilemma, my friends.

However, it's not over yet. What about all the seemingly controversial material we find in the Islamic texts?
I said "seemingly" because according to the premise, they're not actually controversial. They just seem that way, right?

Now, let's put aside the quran for a while, even though we find such material there too. Let's look at the hadith for now.

Hadith basically go like this.
A wrote down that B said that C said that D said that E said that D said that G said that Muhammad did so and so.

Now, here's the thing. Many of these hadiths state that Muhammad did some very, very problematic things.
So, if we think that the hadith writer and his chain of narrators are all Muslims, and not Islamophobes, that makes Muhammad...an islamophobe!

If the greatest muslim who ever lived was an islamophobe, then there are no Muslims in the world today, and thus Islam is a goner.
However, if Muhammad wasn't an islamophobe, that means either the hadith writer, or one or more people in the chain of narration, was an islamophobe, or Islamophobes.

Then there's another problem. Why didn't Muslims have a problem with these early Islamophobes?
In fact, why don't Muslims have a problem with "muslim" Islamophobes to begin with? Why do Muslims have a problem only with the clearly non-Muslim Islamophobes?

Let's say that Muhammad was a muslim and that person D in the above said narration was an islamophobe.
Now, Muhammad said that the best Muslims are the ones in his generation, and two generations forward.

Going by this, we can't consider G or F or E to be the Islamophobe. So, let's assume he was D.
Now, we have to wonder. Why didn't C have a problem with D telling C something very, very problematic about Muhammad? Why didn't B or A or the hadith writer himself didn't have a problem with that statement?
Of course, you can make the case against C, B, A or the hadith writer as well.

Now we have to wonder. Why didn't Muslims have any problem with any of those early Islamophobes, even the ones within their own community?
Why did they start having a problem later on all of a sudden, especially after their spreading was radically slowed down?

Putting all of this together, I'd say that the new premise doesn't help Muslims at all.
Instead, it demonizes Muslims even further, by indirectly accusing them of promoting islamophobia.

Notice that I didn't even go into the quran interpretations, Muhammad's life story texts, or history of Islam etc etc. Believe me, it gets a lot worse if I do that.
To the Muslims who read this, how about you understand who your real enemies are, and reject them, instead of being angry with us for exposing your actual enemies? 😊
@threadreaderapp unroll

You May Also Like

John Hayward
John Hayward
@Doc_0
Funny, before the election I recall lefties muttering the caravan must have been a Trump setup because it made the open borders crowd look so bad. Why would the pro-migrant crowd engineer a crisis that played into Trump's hands? THIS is why. THESE are the "optics" they wanted.


This media manipulation effort was inspired by the success of the "kids in cages" freakout, a 100% Stalinist propaganda drive that required people to forget about Obama putting migrant children in cells. It worked, so now they want pics of Trump "gassing children on the border."

There's a heavy air of Pallywood around the whole thing as well. If the Palestinians can stage huge theatrical performances of victimhood with the willing cooperation of Western media, why shouldn't the migrant caravan organizers expect the same?

It's business as usual for Anarchy, Inc. - the worldwide shredding of national sovereignty to increase the power of transnational organizations and left-wing ideology. Many in the media are true believers. Others just cannot resist the narrative of "change" and "social justice."

The product sold by Anarchy, Inc. is victimhood. It always boils down to the same formula: once the existing order can be painted as oppressors and children as their victims, chaos wins and order loses. Look at the lefties shrieking in unison about "Trump gassing children" today.
POLITICS
GREG ISENBERG
GREG ISENBERG
@gregisenberg
Life is crazy. Today is a good day to stop and reflect

10 simple questions that CHANGED my life

(startup life, personal life)

Here they are:

Q: Can you really control that?

Smart people know what they can and cannot control

If you're living in the past, you're nostalgic
If you're living in the future, you're anxious
If you're living in the present, you're at peace

Q: Did you start today with a victory?

Starting every day with a victory sets you up to win

I don't care what it is:

- Make your bed
- Make a wonderful coffee
- Hug your wife or children

No such thing as a small win. It's a win!

You'll win more, if you start winning early

Q: What are you optimizing for?

#MFSA
1. Money
2. Freedom
3. Stability
4. Ability

The world rewards those who are focused

Perfectly prioritize

Are you being optimistic?

Guaranteed: more luck when you're optimistic
ALL , GENERAL
Advertisement
Vibhu Vashisth
Vibhu Vashisth
@VIBHU_Tweet
IT WAS RISHI KANADA WHO GAVE THE ATOMIC THEORY & TALKED ABOUT THE GRAVITY OF EARTH, 2600 YEARS BEFORE AN APPLE FELL IN FRONT OF NEWTON'S EYES:

Scientists of the modern world credit an English scientist John Dalton (1766 CE -1844 CE) for the Atomic Theory.


And this is because, most of us are not even aware of an ancient Indian Sage named Kanada, who was the first to formulate the theory of atoms, almost 2600 yrs before Dalton and talk about earth's gravity.


Rishi Kanada was born around 600 BCE in Dwarka, Gujarat and he was the son of a philosopher named Ulka. He was fascinated with the minute detailing of the things right from his childhood. Once, when he was very young, he accompanied his father on a journey to Prayaga.


He saw plentiful grains scattered along the path leading to the shore of river Ganga. It's a tradition in Hindu families to scatter the grains for the ants and birds to feed on them. Suddenly, an ant caught his attention, who was feeding on a rice grain.


He was mesmerised by this very fact that how a small grain of rice becomes food for the ant but to satisfy the hunger of a person so many grains are needed together. This incidence made him realize the importance of a single grain of rice.
ALL
katya adler
katya adler
@BBCkatyaadler
Again, at such a key moment in UK and at such high political levels, evidence of deep misunderstanding of EU: The PM is under pressure in some quarters to delay #Brexit vote to allow her first to “improve” deal in Brussels BUT EU is determined not to budge at this stage

2) All EU leaders watching tomorrow’s vote. Of course they want to avoid a no deal #Brexit BUT they feel the deal - so painfully negotiated between EU and UK - is too fresh to re-open. Clarifications, yes but fundamental renegotiations, no.

3) The EU’s international reputation as a tough deal-maker is at stake here too. If Brussels now suddenly “gives in” to U.K. on EU red lines (eg backstop) then that would weaken the EU’s reputation in future trade negotiations with other non EU countries

4) Also on backstop the EU is unlikely to cave in to favour a relationship with a leaving member state (UK) against the explicit wishes and ignoring the deep concerns of a continuing member: Ireland.

5) Both the EU and the PM signed up to a guarantee to protect the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. If either the U.K. or EU can leave the backstop unilaterally then this clearly is no longer a guarantee.
POLITICS
James Felton
James Felton
@JimMFelton
Butt plugs were originally sold as a miracle cure for headaches, acne, and insanity

Thread, article here and h/t: @qikipedia :
https://t.co/Ts84xnmWKJ


For a long time, medicine was pre-occupied with the question "can this be solved by putting something in the butt?"

Take, for example, tobacco smoke enemas, in which 18th Century physicians saw drowning victims and attempted to de-deadify them by blowing tobacco smoke up their rectums with a pipe.


Despite having no medical benefit whatsoever, the practice was popular, and enema kits lined the Thames like lifebelts, ready to be used as one final humiliation for somebody who was crap at swimming.

This practice ended sometime after 1800 when it became apparent that it didn't really work, given how the anus famously isn't really connected to the lungs, but doctors weren't quite finished with having a poke around in the old anus to see what happens just yet.
TECH