Debate with convert Donald Morgan Part 2

[...] In Is bin Laden Worried About his Relevance? Debate with convert Donald Morgan Part 2 Mar [...]

Well even when I was a muslim I always used to wonder that y did our prophet let the Taif people go. Allah should have made an example out of them. And if the reason to let these people go really was 'Maybe Allah will produce from their offspring ones who worship Him alone.’ then y the hell didn't he apply the same logic with the Jews or any other nation that he destroyed... Their children could have been the followers of Allah, even if not they themselves not accepted the faith... It is plain ridiculous that when the prophet didn't had any power then he says this : 'Maybe Allah will produce from their offspring ones who worship Him alone.’.... And the moment he gets power his tone changes to " Kill the infidels Destroy them all... "

*not = never accepted

I agree that moslems do not think even for a second, because, the moment they take time off from the evil of islam to think even for a second, they will desert islam.Simple.
The moscums are the stupidest lot I have come across.
I shall give you a small example. a 16 year old arab boy was being taught maths by my inlaw in Sodi barbaria. Mind you 16 year old willbe at least in 10th standard and O level.He was being assessed for his grasp of maths. He was given a small test of addition of fractions. 4.6 + 4.6 the answer he wrote is unbelieveable. His answer was mmmm take a guess i shal tell you in the end.This is the 10th standard appearing boy a few days away from exams.
The simple reason is the rapist pedophile mohammadmeramahalauda was also weak in every thing in life except sex! ta least he boasted.That also I am beginning to doubt following the narration of ayesha.She held and fondled the dik of the mohammad for a long time and nothing happened,the dik stayed floppy and leaky in the little hands of the child ayesha and she commented that the rasool had a remarkable control over his dik!
This means ayesha must have known how long one should fondle the dikky, before the stuff is ready and am not sure if there were other visitors to ayesha as well, in the absence of mohammad???
Lets us cut back to the boy's answer.Simple addition of 4.6 and 4.6 gives you a total of 8.12! It was inbelievable but true. Such is the stupidity of moslems, in particular arab moslems.

proudkafir,

Muslims are not anymore stupid than followers of other religions. They are human beings and have same kind of brain that followers of other religions have. Being intelligent or dumb is purely individual trait. You gave example of a Saudi kid in an attempt to prove that Muslims are stupid in general. Your example doesn't prove anything about Muslim brain. The only thing it suggests is that Saudis need a better education system. I go to college in America. I have been tutoring Maths to American college kids for over 2 years now. I have met many students who are as weak in Maths as that Saudi kid you describe. All those students follow Christianity. So should I suppose that Christians are also stupid? I know that these people are not stupid. I have seen some brilliant christian students in my computer science classes. The only thing America needs is a better education system, especially in Mathematics. I also know some Pakistani, Iranian and Palestinian Muslims who are very intelligent. In fact previous head of department of Mathematics in my college was an Arab. If you want to criticize something, criticize it on valid grounds. Dont just slander people simply because you dislike their ideology.

They also base their maths upon 9/11. If 19 muslims kill 3000 non muslims, how many non muslims did a muslim kill etc... the list is long...

The nine symptoms of narcissism definitely apply not only to Muhammad but also his followers.

1. An exaggerated sense of self-importance
He claimed to be the Seal of the Prophets.
They claim to be the best of creation.

2. Preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love.
He claimed to be a mercy to mankind
They claim they will soon rule the world.

3. Believes he is “special” and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
He claimed to be not only a prophet but the best of the prophets.
They claim Muslims should only befriend fellow Muslims.

4. Requires excessive admiration
He claimed he who obeys him obeys God.
They claim only they are worthy of respect.

5. Has a sense of entitlement
He claimed special privileges denied to his followers.
They claim special privileges from others wherever they live.

6. Selfishly takes advantage of others to achieve his own ends
His lust for his adopted son’s wife Zainab made Zaid divorce her so he could have her for himself.
They claim special human rights they deny to all others. Those who disagree are Muslim haters and racists.

7. Lacks empathy
When asked by one of his victims after the Battle of Badr what would happen to his little children, Muhammad said they would go to hellfire.
They claim Zakaat charity money should only be for fellow Muslims.

8. Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him
He felt that the only reason his critics did not accept him as a prophet was envy.
They claim the only reason others don’t accept Islam is envy.

9. Shows arrogant, haughty, patronizing, or contemptuous behaviors or attitudes
This is too easy and self-explanatory- need I say more?
They display the same traits all over the world towards infidels.

We know why this is so don't we? He is their eternal perfect role model.

Looks like this convert came on a high horse, but will leave on a donkey.....

Sina, could this incident quoted by Morgan be from the more tolerant Mecca phase of Mo's life? Because he was powerless, he could not do anything to these people? After all, he was producing tolerant quranic verses then. Maybe the syndrome worsened with age? Please reply as to which period of Mo's life is this incident is ascribed to.

came on high horse and went back on a burakh! after being kicked in the jaw and back side

The first thing people should ask themselves before converting to a religion is what is more important, a belief system or actions? Apparently most people, especially muslims emphasize too much on the faith system: Belief in Allah and muhammad. They do not even care whether they violate human rights or not as long as it is allah and muhammad. Now this donald morgan or whatever he call himself converted to a faith that ignores anything called basic human rights yet he is at peace with himself believing he is doing the right thing! He goes to the length of defending the person who is labeled among the historical violators of human rights for the sake of faith, worst the blind faith.

Islam is a blind faith. No one saw muhammad talking to Gabriel. Muhammad was even not a magician. David Blaine could have easily convinced the meccans without resorting to sword. The Old Testament even tell us how to identify false prophets when it says that a false prophet cannot predict the future events. Muhammad made it wrong in every attempt at predicting the future. Jesus goes far as to tell us the specifics that when a person comes and glorifies himself too much, you bet he is the false prophet. It is easy for a christian to know muhammad is a false prophet.

P.S. Shafee, you made an excellent analysis!

# 4.
Moslems are ceratinly stupid.1 billion moslems together have 5 nobel prizes ( and that too two of them considered kafirs by moslems a paki chap and Nagib Mofuz) and araft the useless terrorist got it because of jew!
Jews as a race and followers of judaiasm are more intelligent, as they 189 nobel prizes and are about 10 million!
There goes your theory that moslems are very bright.
the example I cited was just a sattirical example and are you a moslem by any chance/ were a moslem before?
i am quite aware that you can not take one example and generalise it.That would be stupid too, but that's in a different context.Here my intention is to link the blind faith moslems have in pimp allah and rapist pedophile mohammad, to the level of intelligence.I am not sure if you have woekd or onteracted in Middle east.An Average arab is just too stupid.An average builder in UK is equally stupid, an average burger flipper can not be very much more intelligent than them.But an average moslem is killin in the name of the evil islam and average joe is not ! that's the difference

Donald says: 'I will provide proof from the Quran and the Hadith that illustrate Muhammad’s character and that show he is not a narcissist (according to the DSM list).'
Then he supplies this story from the early period of Mo's life. Is this the proof!? Can Donald explain which parts of the story proves his point?

Also, one story does not make a crazy man normal. There is a non sequitur there some place!

When i say to Muslims that Mo killed so and so and so and so etc. etc.. and therefore was a warmaker and an assassin, They often come back with an argument with a story of when he met so and so and was insulted and he did not kill the person. Wow, he let someone live, how generous of Mo to let someone live. Nazi commanders of death camps went home at night and played nice happy families too; but that does not make them less of a murderer.

Sorry I meant to post this book link about the myth and that too a cunning deliberate myth about the aryan invasion claptrap of the maxmuller and other agents.we have a max muller bhavan! To add insult to injury and many a comrades visit this! The politics of history :
Aryan invasion theory and the subversion of scholarship more books like this

by Navaratna Srinivasa Rajaram

Donald Morgan said:

"Upon exiting the town of Ta’if, injured, humiliated and disgraced, the angel Gabriel came to him with an offer. Gabriel told Muhammad that if he wills it, he (Gabriel) will crush the town of Ta’if by bringing the 2 mountains at the opposite ends of the city together. Muhammad’s response to this offer was not the destruction of the city, he replied, saying ‘Maybe Allah will produce from their offspring ones who worship Him alone.’

Our readers should be made aware that this story is but yet another take on a biblical story regarding Abraham beginning in Gen 18:23 - 18:33. This is just another example of how the Quran is nothing but a ripoff of previous religious beliefs.

#10 proudchristian
Thanks for the compliment.

#8 unfortunate
This fanciful incident about Taif is from Muhammad's tolerant Meccan period. Muhammad, according to his own words in his Quran, never spoke to Gabriel after this visit but to these imaginary creatures the Jinns.The whole of Sura 72 describes his encounter when these Jinns heard him reciting verses from the Quran and crowded around him to hear more. Some even became Muslims. This is how he consoled himself after his treatment in Taif. It's all there, read Sura 72 for yourself and see. This also explains why Muslims like to inflate their actual numbers in the world - they also count the so-called Muslim Jinns.

After his later conquest of Mecca he returned to Taif with his army and laid siege to it. He failed then but won later.

To: Ali Ji

Dear brother, Greetings
I do see why you took this route in the analysis above. You are trying to put some sense into the mind of Mr. Morgan. I do need to add this: your claims about narcisscism follow the conditional form (the presense of five factors) to lead to a conclusion (presence or absence of the illness). In this sense we can symbolize it as:
If A (A being a combination of factors), then B (If A ..........> B)

As you know, a conditional statement will be false if and only if (iff) the antecedent (A) is true and the consequence (B) is false.

Mr. Morgan's analysis does not even qualify to claim any refutation to your claims here. His claim is that because Muhammad had the attribute J (for instance), then he is not a Narcissicist. His claim can by symbolised in the conditional statement:

If J, then "Not B" (or If J........> ~B)

Well, we are not talking about "Not B" (we are not talking about J either). Mr. Morgan missed the target completely. What he needs to do is take the stories in your accusations (i.e. the references Sina uses in his claims), and show us that Muhammad Narcissistic illnes (i.e. B) does not follow from that. This has not been shown by Mr. Morgan. Regretably, I believe Mr. Morgan has no training in Logic or Logical analysis. In fact, my suspicion is that he never took even a simple intro logic course in college. It is evident that he lacks any kind of logical relations in his thinking.
Ali, with all due respect, I ask that you close this debate soon brother. Mr. Morgan is not at your level of analytical ability. I really do not think it is fair for Mr. Morgan. Its one thing to debate scholars. Its another to deal with people who are not trained in this field. Respectfully yours, IK

Truly a Muslim's way of thinking is inverted, the Ta'if story of compassion from the prophet is at best a form of selective justice, so the children from Ta'if might go to heaven while the parents are doomed, did the man go there with a credible evidence or just words of mouth about him being a prophet.

How could they not consider such a preacher a crazy person who is trying to disorganise their religious and social settings? moreover, Mohammad's narcissistic character still stands regarding the Ta'if people because he had already prescribed HELL FIRE for anybody that doesn't agree with his claim to divinity which we all know is another way of saying HEY PEOPLE! LOVE ME OR DIE, so the Tai'if people are still going to hell forever for just disagreeing with a narcissist, but notice this: they didn't kill him, but he wants them in a place of everlasting torment, what a sadist.
.

I somehow feel that Ali should not have posted the pic of Donald Morgan's son on the previous article. I would not want that to happen to my son, I mean no matter what every father loves his kid and unlike Muslims we are not half crazed freaks.
So we can make as much fun of Morgan's stupidity as we like, his son's pic should never have been displayed in the first place.

# 8
Yes certainly. This is what he said when he was kicked out of the town disgracefully. Here he is taking a higher grounds and saying, I could have distroyed them but I didn't because I am such a forgiving person and thought that maybe even if they treat me so badly maybe their children will come to worship only Allah.

We know this is not true. Gabriel was a lie. If Gabriel was real and he could distroy the city why whould he not protect Muhammad from those stone? Why Muhammad did not regard the children of tens of other tribes that he later distroyed worthy of giving a chance to worship Allah and treated them so ruthlessly?

Anotehr question is, would God destroy an entire town with thousands of innocent people in it, many of whom never saw Muhammad comming or heard of him just because a few people of that town laughed at him and throw stones at him?

That is not how people envision God. But that kid of god filts perfectly the personality of a narcissist. Muhammad's god was his own alter ego and thereror he had his narcissistic qualities.

#11
proudkafir,

Ratio of population to the Nobel prize winner doesn't mean anything. I know many Hindus who are quite smart. Their population is around 800-900 million. How many Hindus have won the Nobel prize? I am sure the ratio is far lower than Jews. So does that mean Hindus are a lot dumber than Jews ? Obviously not. Ratio of population to Nobel prize depends on a lot of factors. Overall literacy rate and kind of research facilities are among two of them. Many Hindus in India, just like Muslims in many other countries don't have access to good education or research facilities that's why you don't see that many Muslim or Hindu Nobel laureate.

#19

Ali Sina you are right, its foolish to think that all merciful god will destroy an entire city just because few people in that city insulted prophet Mohammad. Prophet Mohammad was just a human being, it doesn't make sense that God will kill hundreds of innocent humans just because prophet Mohammad was insulted. Everyone should be equal in the eyes of God. Prophet Mohammad shouldn't be more important to god than other humans.

"Although I am able to prove that a vast majority of Ali Sina’s accusations are based on sources that are UNQUALIFIED and in the MINORITY, that does not mean that his chapter on narcissism is totally without professional, qualified sources."

Dude Ali Sina is a psychiatrist and in order to be a psychiatrist one must have their doctorate in that area and have training in psychology. Of course his chapter on narcissism have professional and qualified sources.

You on the other hand have no knowledge in the area of psychology or psychiatry, so what makes you think you can refute Ali Sina's accusations?

#20
Right ! Hindu is not a monolithic, single race, single religion, single book ( like the evil qrand and Bible) population. There are hindus ( when you consider the word hindu as only a geographical connotation and nothing else) who eat beef and there are people who eat rats in Bihar,They are called moosaharis.
Hence if these people " hindus" are included as an example of typical hindu, your arguement falls flat.
No two groups of people in India are similar, in size, shape, food habits, intelligence etc.This may apply to moslems as well.But you will not find a Hindu ( indian) killing in the name of rama/krishna etc, but you were finding before, will always find and continue to find the moscums, who kill in the name of allah the pimp.That's the only point.As regards Jews being bright, its just my personal observation.You can have a decent and intellectually stimulating conversation with jews, but never with moscums.Those who have left islam for good ( you still seem to carry the islamic baggage) are good human beings and rational people.It is possible to have a good conversation with them.I used to have an ex moslem and jew friend in UK ( both from iran) and I found both to be quite interesting people.
Not all hindus are similar and so not likely to be equally intelligent.Hence we have reservation system in India to help these mentally challenged population.Since the majority of Hindus belong to this category of reserved caste, the general intelligence of Hindus does come down.Be that as it may, still hindus are not killing innocents in the name of krishna unlike moscums.Am I correct?
The issue here is are moslems stupid enough to kill in the name of a pedophile and a pimp? The resounding yes would be the answer.In 1 billion moslems you do find bright name sake moslems.They are in minority.As stupidity rules the roost, the bright name sake moslems also get tarred with the same brush.

10 TERMS NOT TO USE WITH MUSLIMS - TOP
There's a big difference between what we say and what they hear.
Chris Seiple, Christian Science Monitor, 3/28/09

Arlington, Va. - In the course of my travels from the Middle East to Central Asia to Southeast Asia it has been my great privilege to meet and become friends with many devout Muslims. These friendships are defined by frank respect as we listen to each other; understand and agree on the what, why, and how of our disagreements, political and theological; and, most of all, deepen our points of commonality as a result.

I have learned much from my Muslim friends, foremost this: Political disagreements come and go, but genuine respect for each other, rooted in our respective faith traditions, does not. If there is no respect, there is no relationship, merely a transactional encounter that serves no one in the long term.

As President Obama considers his first speech in a Muslim majority country (he visits Turkey April 6-7), and as the US national security establishment reviews its foreign policy and public diplomacy, I want to share the advice given to me from dear Muslim friends worldwide regarding words and concepts that are not useful in building relationships with them. Obviously, we are not going to throw out all of these terms, nor should we. But we do need to be very careful about how we use them, and in what context.

1. "The Clash of Civilizations." Invariably, this kind of discussion ends up with us as the good guy and them as the bad guy. There is no clash of civilizations, only a clash between those who are for civilization, and those who are against it. Civilization has many characteristics but two are foundational: 1) It has no place for those who encourage, invite, and/or commit the murder of innocent civilians; and 2) It is defined by institutions that protect and promote both the minority and the transparent rule of law.

2. "Secular." The Muslim ear tends to hear "godless" with the pronunciation of this word. And a godless society is simply inconceivable to the vast majority of Muslims worldwide. Pluralism which encourages those with (and those without) a God-based worldview to have a welcomed and equal place in the public square is a much better word.

3. "Assimilation." This word suggests that the minority Muslim groups in North America and Europe need to look like the majority, Christian culture. Integration, on the other hand, suggests that all views, majority and minority, deserve equal respect as long as each is willing to be civil with one another amid the public square of a shared society.

4. "Reformation." Muslims know quite well, and have an opinion about, the battle taking place within Islam and what it means to be an orthodox and devout Muslim. They don't need to be insulted by suggesting they follow the Christian example of Martin Luther. Instead, ask how Muslims understand ijtihad, or reinterpretation, within their faith traditions and cultural communities.

5. "Jihadi." The jihad is an internal struggle first, a process of improving one's spiritual self-discipline and getting closer to God. The lesser jihad is external, validating "just war" when necessary. By calling the groups we are fighting "jihadis," we confirm their own and the worldwide Muslim public's perception that they are religious. They are not. They are terrorists, hirabists, who consistently violate the most fundamental teachings of the Holy Koran and mainstream Islamic scholars and imams. (More)

6. "Moderate." This ubiquitous term is meant politically but can be received theologically. If someone called me a "moderate Christian," I would be deeply offended. I believe in an Absolute who also commands me to love my neighbor. Similarly, it is not an oxymoron to be a mainstream Muslim who believes in an Absolute. A robust and civil pluralism must make room for the devout of all faiths, and none.

7. "Interfaith." This term conjures up images of watered-down, lowest common denominator statements that avoid the tough issues and are consequently irrelevant. "Multifaith" suggests that we name our deep and irreconcilable theological differences in order to work across them for practical effect – according to the very best of our faith traditions, much of which are values we share.

8. "Freedom." Unfortunately, "freedom," as expressed in American foreign policy, does not always seek to engage how the local community and culture understands it. Absent such an understanding, freedom can imply an unbound licentiousness. The balance between the freedom to something (liberty) and the freedom from something (security) is best understood in a conversation with the local context and, in particular, with the Muslims who live there. "Freedom" is best framed in the context of how they understand such things as peace, justice, honor, mercy, and compassion.

9. "Religious Freedom." Sadly, this term too often conveys the perception that American foreign policy is only worried about the freedom of Protestant evangelicals to proselytize and convert, disrupting the local culture and indigenous Christians. Although not true, I have found it better to define religious freedom as the promotion of respect and reconciliation with the other at the intersection of culture and the rule of law – sensitive to the former and consistent with the latter.

10. "Tolerance." Tolerance is not enough. Allowing for someone's existence, or behavior, doesn't build the necessary relationships of trust – across faiths and cultures – needed to tackle the complex and global challenges that our civilization faces. We need to be honest with and respect one another enough to name our differences and commonalities, according to the inherent dignity we each have as fellow creations of God called to walk together in peace and justice, mercy and compassion.

The above words and phrases will differ and change over the years, according to the cultural and ethnic context, and the (mis)perceptions that Muslims and non-Muslims have of one another. While that is to be expected, what counts most is the idea that we are earnestly trying to listen to and understand each other better; demonstrating respect as a result.

#20
proudkafir,

I dont understand why are u tellling me about the diversity of Hindu beliefs. I never asked or questioned it. I just pointed out that just like Muslims, ratio of hindu population to Nobel prize winners is far lower than Jews. So should we claim that Hindus are duumber than Muslims? What about Buddhists, Christians, Taoist , Shintos and African animists ? Should we consider that all of them are stupid if they have lower ratio of Nobel prize winners? You also claim that you can never have intellectual conversation with Muslims. I beg to differ. I have had numerous cordial conversations with Muslims. When I questioned them about the violent verses in the Koran, some of them got angry at me but there were those who remained friendly to me. They are not the evil you people make them out to be. Please be objective.

I was wondering how Donald Morgan is going to respond to Ali's question on why Gabriel didn't/couldn't save Muhammad from injuries. Trust me, this point will be the crux of the early phase of the debate. If Morgan is intelligent, it is going to create ripples in his mind, and will eventually quit Islam. I asked the same question to many of my Muslim friends in India. Usually, they are quick to respond. But with this one, they haven't responded at all. Truth hurts!!!!!!!!

[...] In Debate with convert Donald Morgan Part 2 Mar [...]

peace_lover, read this article below. Indians constitute only 1% of America's population. Yet, they were 20% of the total finalists. Indians work hard to earn their living and do not depend on dole money like Muslims. Figure out how many scientists of Indian origin work in NASA. What about IT sector. When the US government was planning to deny work visa to Indians in IT, Bill Gates opposed it vehemently. Correct your knowledge! Please note there is not even a single Indian Christian or Muslim in that list. What do you tell about this?

America's Indian whiz kids

March 30, 2009

Narendra Tallapragada, 17, Preya Shah, 17, and Nilesh Tripuraneni, 18, did America proud, placing fourth, eighth, and ninth respectively at the Intel Science Search, the country's most prestigious pre-college science competition, often dubbed the 'Junior Nobel' prize in science.
When the top 10 winners were announced at the black-tie gala banquet at the Andrew W Mellon Auditorium in downtown Washington, DC, a back to back first place win for Indian Americans -- after Shivani Sud from Durham, North Carolina won last year -- was not to be. But there were eight Indian Americans, the highest number ever, among the 40 finalists this year. That Indian Americans -- who make up less than 1 percent of America's population -- constituted 20 percent of the finalists underscored Indian children's dominance as the best and the brightest. With the more than 13 other finalists of Asian origin, that translates to over 50 percent of top young science minds from a population that is hardly 5 percent of the United States population.

Narendra, of Burke, Virginia, received a $25,000 scholarship for his project to find ways to simplify complex models of atomic and molecular interactions, with a goal one day to create 'mini-computers' that can be used, for instance, to create automatic insulin pumps inside diabetic patients or intelligent clothing that responds to temperature.

Preya, of Setauket, New York, received a $20,000 scholarship for designing and synthesizing a tumour-targeting drug for cancer treatment that represents a new approach to delivery of chemotherapy agents and possibly treatment of multi-drug resistant cancer without causing significant side effects.

Nilesh, of Fresno, California, also received a $20,000 scholarship, for formulating a set of hydrodynamic equations that may provide a potential method to better understand the first movements of the universe and could aid in the development of a quantum theory of gravity.

The winner of the $100,000 scholarship top prize this year was Eric Larson, 17, of Eugene, Oregon, for his research project classifying mathematical objects called fusion categories, describing these in unprecedented dimensions.

Let me put it differently.
To believe that the pimp allah sanctioned the rape of a 6 year old girl by a 55 year old floppy leaky dik mo needs an extraordinary degree of stupidity and I believe there are moslems almost a billion of them who not only believe this crap but also practice the same with glee. Hence I can not only conclude that pedophilia and stupidity both run concurrently amongst moslems!
Wife to be beaten if she does not obey! This rule to be followed by a large number of moslesm and this clearly shows the mentally deranged nature of moslems, who practice this.
Killin in the name of pimp allah and the pedo rapist mohammad, are also acts very dear to moslems.This shows a large number of moslems are stupid and violent as well.
All in all mosles\ms are stupid,violent and pedophile propogators.
Now have I made it clear? if you do not do or practice any of these things and do not worship the pedophile rapist, you are not a moslem any more!

Hi Marie # 24 & 25

Thanks for this. What, only 10 according to CSM article? There are 1000’s that I can think of. An easier question would be “What doesn’t offend these backward cavemen?”

#1 and #6......excellent observations!

All of us want a good pat on the back every now and then, but part of being a good human is to be humble.....is there anywhere in the koran that states one should be humble?

#31 When muslims would not agree to loot and kill for allah, muhammad ordered all of them to be burned alive.

I think they should change the name from Islam to Forcelam......everything is done by force with those idiots! Then again, doesn't Islam mean "submission?"

Shafee wrote:

Hi Marie # 24 & 25

Thanks for this. What, only 10 according to CSM article? There are 1000’s that I can think of. An easier question would be “What doesn’t offend these backward cavemen?”

There was only ten mentioned in the article because the author of the article is ignorant of Islam. This article also proves what I already knew about Islam, which is Muslims do not want to become part of Kafir societies, interfaith dialogue is a sham, there are no moderates, and exc.

#29
proudkafir,

Earlier you said that Muslims are stupid lot because their population to Nobel prize ratio is lower than Jews and their Maths is weak. That was the point I was trying to question. As far as following Mohammad is concerned, I believe there is plenty of debate about him. But remember, if you want to find flaws in scriptures and religions, you can do that to any religion except may be Jainism or Buddhism, not only Islam. I dont know much about Buddhism and Jainism so I cant say.

[...] Part 2 is here [...]

Here is my counter rebuttal to this section

Since this part is considerably shorter than part 1, I will organize the counter rebuttal this way:
1. My quotation from my original debate
2. Ali Sina’s response
3. My counter rebuttal
Donald Morgan

A REFERENCE WE CAN BOTH AGREE ON

Although I am able to prove that a vast majority of Ali Sina’s accusations are based on sources that are UNQUALIFIED and in the MINORITY, that does not mean that his chapter on narcissism is totally without professional, qualified sources. At the beginning of the chapter, on page 60, Ali Sina quotes the third and fourth editions of the Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual (DSM) 1994 when giving a brief explanation of what narcissism is. I am willing to accept this as being ‘authentic references’ but this does not prove Ali Sina’s contention because he only uses the information to render a brief definition of narcissism for his readers. I use the term ‘brief definition’ because Ali Sina has omitted some vital information contained in the manual (DSM) he references. If you visit http://www.halcyon.com/jmashmun/npd/dsm-iv.html you can read the full definition of narcissism as contained in the DSM, 1994. Here are some vital facts about narcissism, as defined by the DSM:

1. An exaggerated sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements) The writers of the DSM call this Grandiose: According to the DSM common conspicuous grandiose behaviors include expecting special treatment or admiration on the basis of claiming (a) to know important, powerful or famous people or (b) to be extraordinarily intelligent or talented. The DSM also says that the best way to see grandiose in a person is to see that person at work. They give the following example:

‘grandiosity is an aspect of narcissism that you may never catch on to unless you visit the narcissist’s home or workplace and see for yourself that others are involved and are pulling their share of the load and, more often than not, are also pulling the narcissist’s share as well.’

2. Preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love.
Narcissists cultivate solipsistic or “autistic” fantasies, which is to say that they live in their own little worlds (and react with affront when reality dares to intrude).

3. Believes he is “special” and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
Narcissists think that everyone who is not special and superior is worthless. By definition, normal, ordinary, and average aren’t special and superior, and so, to narcissists, they are worthless.

4. Requires excessive admiration
Excessive in two ways: they want praise, compliments, deference, and expressions of envy all the time, and they want to be told that everything they do is better than what others can do. Sincerity is not an issue here; all that matter are frequency and volume.

5. Has a sense of entitlement
They expect automatic compliance with their wishes or especially favorable treatment, such as thinking that they should always be able to go first and that other people should stop whatever they’re doing to do what the narcissists want, and may react with hurt or rage when these expectations are frustrated.

6. Selfishly takes advantage of others to achieve his own ends
Narcissists use other people to get what they want without caring about the cost to the other people.

7. Lacks empathy
They are unwilling to recognize or sympathize with other people’s feelings and needs. They “tune out” when other people want to talk about their own problems.

8. Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him

9. Shows arrogant, haughty, patronizing, or contemptuous behaviors or attitudes
Treats other people like dirt.

The writers of the DSM also say:
‘People with NPD won’t (or can’t) change their behavior even when it causes problems at work or when other people complain about the way they act, or when their behavior causes a lot of emotional distress to others or themselves.’

As you can see, the list I provide from the DSM and list Ali Sina provides are similar. I have added some things that Ali Sina has omitted from the DSM that are important issues. So since Ali Sina and myself agree that the list provided from Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual (DSM) 1994 is accurate, I will provide proof from the Quran and the Hadith that illustrate Muhammad’s character and that show he is not a narcissist (according to the DSM list).

Ali Sina says:

You complain why when quoting from DSM I did not quote the entire passages, but only their summary. Are you suggesting that the detailed description changes the meaning of the summary and I have been disingenuous by not quoting them? Give us one example please.

There are nine symptoms of narcissism. One is diagnosed as a narcissist if one has five of those symptoms. From the study of the biography of Muhammad we can see that he had all the nine symptoms. You did not disprove my diagnosis but object why I did not quote more from the DSM. There is no need for that. I quoted Vaknin who does a better job.

Is Dr. Vaknin’s description of narcissism different from that of DSM? If it is, you should tell us how. Otherwise your attack on him is ad hominem. Vaknin describes this disorder with exquisite clarity and richness of terminology. He has a journalistic background and has a mastery over words that make his flawless writings, literary masterpieces – an added bonus, a pleasure to read.
I know you are not a mental health professional, therefore your opinion on this subject is irrelevant. Do you know any mental health professional that disagrees with Vaknin’s definition of narcissism? Since every mental health professional familiar with his writings respects him, you better found another thing to attack in my writing.

My counter rebuttal:

You did indeed leave out an important aspect of the DSM. The DSM states the following:

‘People with NPD won’t (or can’t) change their behavior even when it causes problems at work or when other people complain about the way they act, or when their behavior causes a lot of emotional distress to others or themselves.’

This becomes an important factor when determining if a person suffers from NPD. You state that person needs only suffer from 5 out of the 9 symptoms, as listed by the DSM to considered one who suffers from NPD. I will agree with you on this point but that is NOT the whole picture. Not only does one have to suffer from at least 5 symptoms, they must demonstrate these symptoms as being perpetual in nature, not the ‘on/off’ way you want us to believe. If anyone were to look back at their lives, dissect it and look into instances in their past, everyone would be guilty of committing ALL of these symptoms, at some stage in their lives. All people would even be guilty of repeat offences. I ask you, Ali Sina, and your readers to reflect upon their past lives and I am certain that everyone has been guilty of ALL of the 9 symptoms, sometime in their lives. What separates us, from those who have NPD is that the symptoms are not perpetual. Example, there may be a time when you have treated someone like ‘dirt’. Who knows, maybe you had a bad day, or maybe you were under stress, or maybe that person was irritating. So if you treat this person like ‘dirt’ does that mean you lack or have no empathy? Of course not, it was an incident that happened in time. What distinguishes the one who suffers from NPD from the one who does not is perpetual symptom. A person with NPD always treats others like ‘dirt’. They always have a lack of or no empathy for people. Like the DSM says, ‘people with NPD won’t (or can’t) change their behavior’

This becomes an important factor because when we examine the life of Muhammad we see that these symptoms of NPD you say he has were NOT perpetual. You have purposely hidden this from your readers because you know that if we apply your logic, everyone on this planet could be branded as one who suffers from NPD, because we have All been guilty of the nine symptoms, at some time in our lives. You may be able to show us parts of Muhammad’s life that would match the symptoms of the DSM (I don’t believe you have) but unless you show us that Muhammad’s behavior was perpetual, then you have NO case. I have shown instances in Muhammad’s life where he did NOT fit the 9 symptoms in the DSM, so this shows that he did NOT suffer from NPD. Duality is non-present in those who suffer from NPD. If you have NPD you are either always demonstrating a lack of or no empathy, for example. You can’t show empathy and show no empathy at the same time. You show one or the other, depending on the situation, but a person suffering from NPD never shows empathy.

Once again you defend Sam Vaknin. Anyone who has read my fist counter rebuttal will have no choice, but to say that Sam Vaknin is unqualified, thus he should not be used as a viable reference source of information. As I also explained in my first counter rebuttal, anyone can read books on any subject, and write a book on that subject. Example, I could read a hundred books on the human body and how it works. When I was done reading, I could easily write a book, based on the information I read, but does this make me an authority on the subject of anatomy? Will medical doctors recommend my book and quote it when writing journals/ the answer is No because I am NOT a qualified medical practitioner. Sam Vaknin may have done his homework but that does NOT mean he is a qualified psychiatrist. Some of what he says may mirror the works of others in the field, but this means nothing. Ali Sina, I still await a reference from a qualified psychiatrist who backs Sam Vakin. So far, I have found none who will vouch for Sam Vaknin. In my opinion, and the opinions of others, which I already showed, Sam Vaknin is a fraud because he is not a qualified psychiatrist or one who studies mental disorders. I compared him to Frank W. Abagnale Jr, in my first counter rebuttal. Sam, like Frank, is nothing more than a con man, and apparently as good one, as he was able to fool the great Ali Sina into believing he was a qualified psychiatrist (this is sarcasm for those who do not know).

As for your claims, yes I am not a psychiatrist, but Ali Sina, neither are you! You are not an Islamic scholar either, but you seem to think you are an authority to speak on the subject. I find it funny that Ali Sina can inject his own opinions on NPD in his book, as I have shown in my debate, but then he says I am not a qualified psychiatrist. Ali Sina, you are NOT a qualified psychiatrist either, but yet again, you can inject your opinions on the subject of NPD in your book. You, like your friend Amaar Khan want your cake and eat it eat it too. You can’t have it both ways Ali Sina. If me being unqualified makes my statements irrelevant, then your opinions on NPD, in your book are also irrelevant, so remove them from your book!

Donald Morgan

EXAMPLES FROM THE LIFE OF MUHAMMAD
Let us now examine some aspects from the life of Muhammad that proves he did not suffer from NPD. The first story I would like to relate is Muhammad’s journey to the small town of Ta’if. Muhammad traveled to this small town to propagate the message of Islam to its inhabitants. At first he was welcomed by chiefs to promote Islam but after a while they saw the potential strain this religion would have on their relationship with the Arab clans of Makkah. They immediately called for expulsion of Muhammad from their town. As Muhammad was making his way through the streets of Ta’if he was mocked and stoned by the children. It is said that the blood gushed so profusely from his head, that it clotted his sandals to his feet. Upon exiting the town of Ta’if, injured, humiliated and disgraced, the angel Gabriel came to him with an offer. Gabriel told Muhammad that if he wills it, he (Gabriel) will crush the town of Ta’if by bringing the 2 mountains at the opposite ends of the city together. Muhammad’s response to this offer was not the destruction of the city, he replied, saying ‘Maybe Allah will produce from their offspring ones who worship Him alone.’

Ali Sina says:

Is this your evidence? This actually proves that Muhammad was a narcissist. Did anyone but Muhammad hear Gabriel making such an offer? How do we know that Muhammad did not make up this tale to soothe his wounded ego? Isn’t this a typical response of a child (all children have high doses of narcissism) when humiliated and cannot retaliate? Here we have a classic case of a narcissist response. He is beaten up and disgraced and he takes a high moral ground to assuage his injured pride.
Can you point out to a single incident where Gabriel destroyed a city or harmed anyone? No, there is none. All the destructions were made by Muhammad and his befooled marauding gang of thugs.
If Gabriel was able to sandwich a city between two mountains why he did not protect Muhammad from those stones that you say were hurled at him and wounded him? He could stop those stones hitting the prophet, couldn’t he? He could make them miss him, pulverize them before they reach him or convert them into cotton balls. These miracles would have been a lot easier than moving two mountains and they may have helped the people of Taif to see that Muhammad is really a prophet.
These are simple questions that if a Muslim dares to ask, he or she will come to see the fraud of Muhammad. Why Gabriel did not save Muhammad from humiliation? Tell us please in which instance Gabriel did anything that we can know he is real and not a figment of Muhammad’s hallucination. Which city he destroyed? Which man he killed?
Tell us why when Gabriel is so capable of moving two mountains to crush a city in between them, all the killings had to be done by the Muslims? Why convert ordinary people into bloodthirsty murderous beasts when if it had been Allah’s will to kill the kafirs he can without the help from humans? Or is it that Allah’s power is limited to deceiving people?
Wouldn’t it have been more impressive if Allah destroyed a city on his own without the intervention of a bunch of bloodthirsty believers after his prophet fixed the date of that its destruction? How can we know that those jihadis were not inspired by Satan? All their actions were satanic – raiding, looting, raping. Are these divine actions? Is God so helpless to depend on Muhammad’s gang of believers to do his dirty work? What is the difference between Allah and a mafia godfather? Both are helpless without their followers. Both commit their crimes through their proxies – men who become their devotees and do their biddings. Is this the kind of God you worship? Muslims are not worshipping God but Satan.

My counter rebuttal:

Whether or not anyone else saw Gabriel, in this instance is irrelevant. Once again you are trying to distract the readers and divert their attention to your tirade about Gabriel and if he ever destroyed a town before. How pathetic! I will entertain your weak attempt and diversion, to further prove you know little about Islam. First, Gabriel was not just a figment of Muhammad’s imagination. Others have seen him before. Here is one such story, of others seeing Gabriel from the Hadith:

‘'Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, there is that he said, "While we were sitting with the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless with him and grant him peace, one day a man came up to us whose clothes were extremely white, whose hair was extremely black, upon whom traces of travelling could not be seen, and whom none of us knew, until he sat down close to the Prophet, may Allah bless with him and grant him peace, so that he rested his knees upon his knees and placed his two hands upon his thighs and said, 'Muhammad, tell me about Islam.' The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless with him and grant him peace, said, 'Islam is that you witness that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and you establish the prayer, and you give the Zakat, and you fast Ramadan, and you perform the hajj of the House if you are able to take a way to it.' He said, 'You have told the truth,' and we were amazed at him asking him and [then] telling him that he told the truth. He said, 'Tell me about iman.' He said, 'That you affirm Allah, His angels, His books, His messengers, and the Last Day, and that you affirm the Decree, the good of it and the bad of it.' He said, 'You have told the truth.' He said, 'Tell me about ihsan.' He said, 'That you worship Allah as if you see Him, for if you don't see Him then truly He sees you.' He said, 'Tell me about the Hour.' He said, 'The one asked about it knows no more than the one asking.' He said, 'Then tell me about its tokens.' He said, 'That the female slave should give birth to her mistress, and you see poor, naked, barefoot shepherds of sheep and goats competing in making tall buildings.' He went away, and I remained some time. Then he asked, 'Umar, do you know who the questioner was?' I said, 'Allah and His Messenger know best.' He said, 'He was Jibril who came to you to teach you your deen' ( visit http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=7&ID=879&CATE=1 to see other stories of other people seeing Gabriel)
Secondly, As to why Gabriel did not intercede between the people of Ta’if and Muhammad; This is nothing more than a test Ali Sina. In many instances God could have intervened on behalf of his prophets but he did not. God could have done so for Moses, when dealing with Pharoe, or with Jesus, when dealing with the Jews and Romans. God did not intervene directly in these cases. This was nothing more than a test. With regards to Ta’if, the request made by Gabriel did not come until after Muhammad made the supplication, I mentioned in my rebuttal. When Muhammad made the Dua, Allah answered him by sending Gabriel. IF Muhamad did not make the Dua, Gabriel would not have come with this offer.

I do not know why you have asked me if Gabriel ever destroyed another town. To me, this is another weak attempt at diverting the readers’ attention to something that has not impact on the debate, in an attempt to wiggle out of the facts. No one knows if Gabriel is responsible for destroying another town, whether it be a Muslim, Christian or Jew, so why ask this question. Would it make a difference if he did nor didn’t? I think not.

Then you go on to say:
‘Wouldn’t it have been more impressive if Allah destroyed a city on his own without the intervention of a bunch of bloodthirsty believers after his prophet fixed the date of that its destruction?’

Once again, you illustrate your ignorance of religion Ali Sina. God could have come yes, but why didn’t he? The answer is that is God revealed himself to all of mankind, all of mankind would prostrate to him, no questions asked. But this is not the way god works in any religion. God requires us to have faith. If he shows us his existence, there is no faith, because we all know he exists. Faith is an intrinsic part of any faith Ali Sina and it is sad that you don’t realize that.

Then you decide to go on a tirade about Muslims following Satan and God. Is this the topic we are discussing here Ali Sina. I thought the topic was narcissism. Again, Ali Sina is trying to divert the attention of the readers to something that has NOTHING to do with this debate. What does looting and raping have to do with narcissism? Ali Sina, if you wish to debate with me about looting, raping, or whether the Muslims followed Satan and not God, then I am willing to accept your invitation, but please don’t try to lead the debate down another path. Don’t try to divert our attention to another subject that has nothing to do with what we are debating about. You love to throw out ‘red hearings’ Ali Sina and this is a predictable tactic. This is what desperate men do when they don’t have the answer.

Ali Sina says:

Muhammad said that Gabriel told him, Hey Muhammad, don’t sheath your sowrd. I and a host of angels are going to the Bani Quraiza to shake their fortress. Take your men and massacre them all those Jews. Allah has given their wealth to you and you can also choose a pritty girl for yourself to play with, wink, wink. However we don’t see anything happening to the fortress of Bani Quraiza, until Muhammd cuts the water to them. Their children cry because they are thirsty and they have no choice but to surrender. This leaves us wonder whether Muhammad lied about Gabriel destroying the city to make his foolish followers kill those hapless people and bring their booty to him. Let us say I claim to be a prophet and call upon my followers to raid a village, kill the men, take the women and children as slave and rob all their wealth, and I assure them that Gabriel and a large celestial cohort of angels are already there waiting for us to arrive. Don’t you think it is fair to ask, if Gabriel and his army are already there why can’t they win this war without our help?
Gabriel and the angels are all invisible. If I could become invisible I could bring down the biggest army of the world all by myself. Why Gabriel and an army of invisible angels could not do any harm to anyone and why it was always the saber rattling Muslims who had to do the killings? Doesn’t it look that Muhammad was lying?
If Muslims, instead of putting their heads on the ground and their butts pointed at sky all their lives, used their brains only for two minutes, they could see everything Muhammad said were lies. Alas their fear or thinking is so strong that they refuse to do it even for a second.
Muhammad once invited his opponents to a tournament of cursing to see which party is telling the truth by praying that the party that lies fall dead. Well, those curses never worked. Muhammad had to rely on his spies, on tricks, on treachery, and on sudden ambush to destroy his victims.
This story quoted by Donald is ridiculous.
This debate is long. It will be published in several parts. Please check again tomorrow for part III. It will get more interesting towards the end.

My counter rebuttal:

Ali Sina you have, once again, lied to your readers about the story of Bani Quraiza. It is true that Gabriel came to Muhammad about attacking this area. In the Hadith we read:

‘When the prophet returned from the battle of the trench and laid down his arms and took a bath Gabriel came to him while he (Gabriel) was shaking the dust of his head and said, “You have laid down the arms?” By Allah I have not laid them down. Go out to them (to attack them).” The prophet said, “Where?”. Gabriel pointed to Bani Quraiza. So Allah’s apostle went to them (Bani Quraiza to besiege them). They then surrendered to the prophet’s judgment but he directed them to Sa’d to give his verdict concerning them. Sa’d said “I give my judgment that their warriors should be killed, their children and women should be taken as captives, and their properties distributed” (Volume 5, book 59, number 448, as narrated by Aisha).’

You have lied though, where does Gabriel offer Muhammad a ‘pretty girl’ in the Hadith? This story in interesting because Muhammad did NOT order the execution of the people here; he sent them to be judged by Sa’d who gave the verdict. Another interesting aspect to this story is that the people of Bani Quraiza accepted this verdict. We read:

‘The people of (the tribe of) Quraiza agreed upon to accept the verdict of Sa’d…’ (Volume 5, number 447). If they were innocent and knew that they were going to executed or held as captives, they would have professed their innocence, since it would have been their last resort. They knew their fate but said nothing in defense.

You also lied about the concept of Gabriel shaking the fortresses of Bani Quraiza. If we look to Bukhari, volume 5, book 59, number 443, we read that Gabriel said he and a procession of Angels would ‘shake their forts and cast fear in their hearts’. This does NOT mean that Gabriel would destroy the town, like you say. It simply means that the angels would instill a sense of fear into the people’s hearts. It is not a literal shaking, until the fortresses collapse, as you claim Ali Sina, it’s metaphorical. You also lied about these people being hapless Ali Sina. Why did this order come to Muhammad from Gabriel? What did the people of Bani Quraiza do to receive a punishment like this? In short, they conspired with the pagan tribes of Makkah to have Muhammad and his family murdered. They amassed a huge arsenal, that would have used to fight the Muslims. They were indeed guilty of treason and espionage. By today’s standard if anyone is found guilty of treason or espionage, even in America, the punishment is death. If we have no problem with this in today’s society, why should we have a problem with it during the time of Muhammad?

The rest of your argument is ridiculous because it is nothing more than your opinion on a matter. There are no facts you bring to the table to back up your claims. Example, you say:

‘Muhammad once invited his opponents to a tournament of cursing to see which party is telling the truth by praying that the party that lies fall dead. Well, those curses never worked. Muhammad had to rely on his spies, on tricks, on treachery, and on sudden ambush to destroy his victims.’

Where is the reference for this story/ If you are going to assert stories then provide a reference so we can look and see if it says what you claim it says. So far, I have proven that you misquote, half quote and lie to prove your point. Why not give us the reference so we can see the truth of this for ourselves? What do you have to hide?

In conclusion I will say this, Ali Sina, you have missed the point of this story and I believe you did so on purpose. It is not whether or not Gabriel spoke to Muhammad, or if Gabriel is powerful he would have done so-and-so. Regardless of whether you believe Gabriel exists or not is not what I focused on here. It is the response of Muhammad to the offer that was given to him. If he suffered from NPD he would have asked for the destruction of Ta’if because they challenged his intelligence and authority. He was embarrassed and humiliated by these people, yet he asked that they be spared. This act shows us that he was not arrogant, haughty, patronizing, or contemptuous. He did not treat the people of Ta’if like ‘dirt’. He respected their right to live. (number 9 on the DSM list)

Part 3 coming soon…

[...] Crazy Christian Chain Emails...The Problem of the Minimalist Definition « Heidelblog...Debate with convert Donald Morgan Part 2 | Faith Freedom International...The True Nature of Beauty | EagleRockTalks...transformed narcissism « beauty. (t)ruth. [...]

Saadiq1977

You're right,a murderer,rapist & robber who also claims to be the ultimate prophet & divine messenger of god, does not sound like someone who suffers from narcissism.

Sounds like I suffer from sarcasm.