[ExI] Ketman

[painlord2k at libero.it]

Il 13/04/2009 7.19, Rafal Smigrodzki ha scritto:

> ### Do you realize that your post is literally incoherent? You start
> out by arguing that in principle you cannot tell the difference
> between nice Muslims and asshole Muslims (which, if true, could be a
> reason to treat them all alike) but then you justify this claim by
> quoting persons who actually were able to tell the difference ("many
> undercover reporters"). So which is it?

It is that "first hand" it is impossible or very difficult to differ the
nice and the asshole. You need to look at them one by one, research what
they did, what they say in English (or Italian or any other languages of
kafir) and what they tell in Arabic to their "brothers".

It is like to know that a cargo full of lemons have 0.01% of them
poisoned with a LD50 of arsenic (lethal dose 50% of the times). What do
you do? Check all the oranges, one by one? Trash them all? Make lemonade
with all of them so the poison is diluted?

I can think Suad Sbai is trustable, like was Magdi Allam (before
becoming Christian) because their life is know and what they stand for
is know to all by their words and deeds (practically their deeds are so
against mainstream Islam that we could regard them as wine bottles with
a "vinegar" label) . But the Muslim down the street
I don't know what he think, what he would do given the chance to avoid
retaliation or if he "rediscover" his faith, because I have not the time
to test them for twenty years and assess the risks.

> This reminds me of the Jewish question. I mean, all reasonable
> people know that Jews use Christian baby blood to make matzoh,

Is this because I like to eat matzoh? ;-P

> and especially Jewesses eat a lot of it when they lay their eggs.
> Sure, there could be a non-blood-sucking Jew or two, but how do we
> tell the difference? They all stick together, so we really have to
> gas them. Or else Christian babies will continue to get snatched away
> and eaten! Do you want Christian babies to be eaten?

Well, in Italy, Ariel Toaff (son of the most famous italian Rabbi
(1920-2005) Elio Toaff) wrote a book about ritual homicides by Jews
(Pasque di sangue. Ebrei d’Europa e omicidi rituali (il Mulino, Bologna
2007) where he tell us that for a few centuries, in the middle age,
there was a not so small group of Jews that really did it, maybe, sometimes.

Outrage from fellow Jews and from Christians followed.

http://www.cesnur.org/2007/mi_toaff.htm

> Toaff thus able to discuss the issue we do not waste a row despite
> its large volume, from 28 May 1247, when the first bull on the theme
>  of Pope Innocent IV (1195-1254), the ratio of the Holy Office of
> 1759, there eight of pontifical documents which Popes have made claim
> to investigate the matter and have concluded that these allegations
> "very false";, "stupid" and "incredible" (so the Blessed Pope Gregory
> X, 1210-1276, in His bull, 7 October 1272). In 1706, against a
> resurgence of the blood accusation in Poland, the Holy Office had
> explicitly authorized the chief rabbi of Rome, Tranquillo Vita Corcos
> (1660-1730), published a critical study on the subject, and had sent
> the Polish bishops. Here there is also a warning to Catholics that
> anti-Jewish enthusiastic wanted to Toaff's book, which should
> acknowledge that it dramatically wrong, the ordinary teaching of a
> theory of many Popes.

So could happen that the same people that we say were misunderstood
could misunderstood themselves and agree with the misunderstanders.

We can not police and we are not expected to police the Muslims to
differentiate the good and the evils. This is their duty. They can do it
much better than us.
What I would expect from them is a clear, unequivocal, take of distances
from the people advocating violence against kafir, apostates, Jihad,
Shaaria and so on.

Here a piece that argue that Islam is not Good or Evil, it is both.
First peaceful (Mecca), then Violent (Medina).
http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/refuting-counter-terrorism-dhimmitude/

> But we all know that what is meant is that moderate Muslims speak
> nicely and we are not afraid of them. They mean a Meccan Muslim when
> they use the word "moderate." Let's tackle his claim that the
> moderate Muslims are not silent. They may not be silent in dealing
> with kafirs, but they are silent in dealing with Medinan Muslims.
> Why? Two reasons. Medina was violent and most people are afraid of
> violence. That is the reason violence works. But there is a second
> reason. Remember that the Medinan jihadic Koran is better than the
> Meccan version. Medina trumps Mecca and Muslims know this.

> Mohammed preached the religion of Islam in Mecca for 13 years and
> gained 150 followers. Then Mohammed moved to Medina and became a
> politician and warrior. In 10 years time he annihilated the Jews of
> Medina, who were half of the town's citizens. Then he turned to
> attacking all kafirs. In the last 9 years of his life he was involved
> in a violent event every 6 weeks, on the average. He died without a
> single enemy left in Arabia.




Mirco