Pat Buchanan on Why Sarbani and his Hank Thread are Retarded

[Sarbani]

[MENTION=19435]Iblis_Efreetzai[/MENTION]

1. The video was just to demonstrate blind belief. Not every criticism of Islam has to be a long documentary. Keep using these tactics of picking on semantics to avoid actually stating the difference between that religion and Islam.

2. I didn't say it being in the 7th century made it automatically worse. I gave examples (slavery, child marriage, etc.). I thought it was obvious we have better laws and customs today than we did 1400 years ago, but Muslims see this as a debatable matter.

Since you haven't taken either side, which era had better laws/customs: the 21st century or the 7th?

3. If I was doing this to appease Whites, then why do I support Muslim separatists in the Philippines/Thailand and why do I support Black Lives Matter? Simply seeing the modern Western world in a better image than the modern Islamic world doesn't mean you have an inferiority complex towards them. After all, you live in the West as opposed to a Muslim country.

4. Jesus spoke Aramaic yet knowing how to read/write Aramaic isn't relevant to Christianity. Christians don't use Aramaic names unless they're ethnic Arameans. Praying in Aramaic or Hebrew isn't either a requirement in Christianity like praying in Arabic is for Islam. Christianity puts much less of an emphasis on a certain ethnicity's language/culture than Islam does.

English has become the global lingua franca, what a silly comparison.

Also, lol at quoting people to help you out when you get backed into a corner. Two of those barely even debate here, Manzareh is getting the same treatment as you in another thread, and Barakzai has already been traumatized by the non-religious folk of this forum so he won't be here for a while.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

The thread was to highlight blind faith. Just like how you know that Hinduism, Christianity, etc. are false beliefs, I extend the same opinion to Islam.

The video I linked shows how there was a guy (Karl) who made wild claims without giving proof and people just blindly trusted him because he claimed to be the messenger of God (Hank). Similarly, Muhammad made wild claims (riding Buraq to heaven, meeting angels, splitting the moon) and people blindly trusted him without giving proof because he claimed to be the messenger of God.



Basically, the nonsense that Pat Buchanan spouted here is "Follow any religion, just don't become irreligious. Follow a religion where head-hunting is promoted as long as you're not an atheist because atheists aren't in touch with civilization/culture".



Lol, they are not a reaction to militant secularism but created by half delusional and half power hungry dictator wannabes to control the masses (in the case of Islam at least).

Laughable. Decades of Mubarak and now Sisi and the Shah of Iran as well as hundreds of other tin pot handicapped mental nitwits including Najibullah were the definition of "delusional" and "power hungry." Only the crypto minority faction like yourself would be so imbecilic as to think anything otherwise when even the Western world is beginning to own up to the fact that these religious militants are responding to their foreign policy though instead of humanely altering trajectory they are now asserting the "might makes right" doctrine instead.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

[MENTION=17856]Sarbani[/MENTION]

1) ....You lost me on semantics bit, what does that have to do with this? I never mentioned anything about semantics.

Regardless, this makes the video a straw-man as it overlooks the philosophical underpinnings of religion, since you claim it's a response to Islam in particular.

2.) Giving examples doesn't qualify as anything except an appeal to novelty since you haven't shown any reason why those examples hold true as a moral standard except that they're modern. Still an appeal to Novelty.

you're just rewording your original argument.

Note: I'm not claiming they are false, I'm claiming you haven't demonstrated their Truth.

3.) "If I was doing this to appease Whites, then why do I support Muslim separatists in the Philippines/Thailand and why do I support Black Lives Matter?"

My explanation would be that because it's a Hip-trendy White people thing to do among Young White Liberals to seem "Enlightened".

Sort of like when I see Indian girls try to do "Yoga" taking ridiculous photos of themselves, just like white girls do on Instagram. Similar social phenomena exists with Third World Atheists and Leftists.

4.) And that's one reason why Christianity is rife with textual discrepancies because the original Aramaic texts were abandoned for Greek texts. This is also why fragments of Aramaic texts we have show something dramatically different than the Greek texts.

You've actually AFFIRMED my point here. Textual integrity is CRUCIAL.

5.) "English has become the global lingua franca, what a silly comparison"

And Arabic is the Lingua Franca of Islamic Scholarship......comparison stays.


Sarbani, I've made you revert to back peddling, trying to reword and rephrase things to seem cogent when it's their internal premise that's flawed., I don't need any help, just want others to see how dispatching an Atheist is done. You're a novice as far as I'm concerned.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Muslim logic:

Convert to Christianity --> European wannabe (Correct - laden with inferiority complex as well)
Leave religion --> European wannabe (No. More often mentally unstable and lashing out at someone religious who gave them a righteous set of beat downs as a kid lol)
Convert to the Arabocentric religion Islam --> Following the righteous path (what a dumb quote. A religion that was taken up by the Turks in short duration and associated with the Sultans, and even the Mongol hordes is hardly Arabocentric. Thats just more worthless retarded thought farts emanating from that minority crypto failed commie become democrat lately brain of yours)

x

[BarakzaiAbdali]

[MENTION=17856]Sarbani[/MENTION]

1.) The video is inaccurate because it fails to demonstrate any nuance that we can assess from the philosophy of religion For example, Mysticism or the Islamic equivalent, Sufism.

2.) I never commented either way. I merely said your argument is a logical fallacy. You're committing another logical fallacy, to assume that I'm arguing the opposite, An Appeal to Antiquity. Challenging the logical merits of a position does not mean supporting the opposite position. You committed what might be described as a Converse Error to suggest that.

3.) You very seldom have 100% of anything, nor did I give any percentage values. I merely gave an overall profile such that we can trace this trend back to certain attitudes that have less to do with reason and more to do with psychological concerns, hence why there's a tendency to grasp on to emotional affirmation like "The Cult of Hank" thing, rather than cogent responses to Islam. Sam Harris pulls this hat trick quite a bit, but he tries to package it with SUPERFICIAL appeals to reason, but completely lacks rigor.

In your case I am at least somewhat right, because you pulled the "Islam is wrong, because Modern" angle, defining what's "modern" in accord to what is prevalent within White cultural spheres. Which suggests a sense of inadequacy.

4.) If we take the historical narrative as accurate, Since Islam went against the prevailing cultural mores of the Arabs, then no it wouldn't. If you argue that it's "Arab culture" because it eventually became the predominant cultural and social vehicle among Arabs, then this is an Anarchonism (arguing something ad-hoc, after the fact). And it's easily falsiiable since it eventually became a predominant cultural and social vehicle of many cultures, and thus wouldn't be an exclusive property of Arabs. The point fails either way

The fact that the liturgical and legal language of Islam is Arabic can be explained by the notion of maintaining textual continuity and authenticity as a linga franca. Having a standardized language for certain types of communication is no different than when STEM textbooks written in English and people have to learn English to acquire accurately acquire information from it, because certain specialized terminology were developed in it. Surely this wouldn't be Anglocentrism.


[MENTION=1772]BarakzaiAbdali[/MENTION]
[MENTION=1547]khushal[/MENTION]
[MENTION=1753]Manzareh[/MENTION]
[MENTION=18842]History of Pashtuns[/MENTION]

feel free to add your input.

Even empirically his thought process is beyond retarded. It took generations for the Arabs to await the Brits with promises of freedom from the Turks and the Sultan.

Lol. An Arabocentric religious doctrine would have certainly rallied the disparate patches of the Muslim world to help reseat the Arab Caliphate yet the exact opposite happened. Even in our regions Ahmad Shah Abdali corresponded with the Turkish Caliph as the leader of the Muslim world, not the mufti of Makkah.

The guys are hilarious. They tried this narrative in the 1980s when they donned their feminine red hats and it fell flat on its face.

Furthermore, the fear they have of Arabic literacy in the rest of the Muslim world is paradoxical to their idiothope. Lol. An informed Muslim world that understood its texts would be far less likely to feel subordinate to any Arabic speakers or simply take marching orders from them.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

[MENTION=1772]BarakzaiAbdali[/MENTION] yeah he's all over the place

His Modernity argument basically follows as such "Islam is wrong, because examples of currently accepted Norms of Modern Moral views"" Which is basically another form of Appeal to Novelty.

I'm not saying those examples are necessarily wrong; but his REASONING is DEFINITELY wonky. Something can't be false because We currently accept certain standards. Those standards are always subject to change. In 100 years, slavery could come back because of need to have controlled labor due to energy and resource shortages. Hence it might be deemed "wrong" to not have slavery since that could cause our species to die out. Who knows what could happen and what might create a paradigm shift of moral views.

This guy is an amateur. he can't think beyond the surface.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

[MENTION=1772]BarakzaiAbdali[/MENTION] yeah he's all over the place

His Modernity argument basically follows as such "Islam is wrong, because examples of currently accepted Norms of Modern Moral views"" Which is basically another form of Appeal to Novelty.

I'm not saying those examples are necessarily wrong; but his REASONING is DEFINITELY wonky. Something can't be false because We currently accept certain standards. Those standards are always subject to change. In 100 years, slavery could come back because of need to have controlled labor due to energy and resource shortages. Hence it might be deemed "wrong" to not have slavery since that could cause our species to die out. Who knows what could happen and what might create a paradigm shift of moral views.

This guy is an amateur. he can't think beyond the surface.

Yeah agreed. Often, its agenda driven - thats why. Sometimes if you investigate these folks' connections, family back ground, political affiliations, and sect you figure out what motivates them. A perfect example of this is writer Mohammad Taqi. He makes it seem as if he is the de facto voice for literary Pashtuns in the public realm but a close look from people who personally went to school with him reveals that he is an atheist Marxist and his family is shiite. Therefore, any hint of sunni ascendancy is an anathema to him and them. Little do they realize that the plight of minorities have actually worsened due to their tactics and crypto statuses and is bound to cause blow back.

[khushal]

@Sarbani

1.) The video is inaccurate because it fails to demonstrate any nuance that we can assess from the philosophy of religion For example, Mysticism or the Islamic equivalent, Sufism.

2.) I never commented either way. I merely said your argument is a logical fallacy. You're committing another logical fallacy, to assume that I'm arguing the opposite, An Appeal to Antiquity. Challenging the logical merits of a position does not mean supporting the opposite position. You committed what might be described as a Converse Error to suggest that.

3.) You very seldom have 100% of anything, nor did I give any percentage values. I merely gave an overall profile such that we can trace this trend back to certain attitudes that have less to do with reason and more to do with psychological concerns, hence why there's a tendency to grasp on to emotional affirmation like "The Cult of Hank" thing, rather than cogent responses to Islam. Sam Harris pulls this hat trick quite a bit, but he tries to package it with SUPERFICIAL appeals to reason, but completely lacks rigor.

In your case I am at least somewhat right, because you pulled the "Islam is wrong, because Modern" angle, defining what's "modern" in accord to what is prevalent within White cultural spheres. Which suggests a sense of inadequacy.

4.) If we take the historical narrative as accurate, Since Islam went against the prevailing cultural mores of the Arabs, then no it wouldn't. If you argue that it's "Arab culture" because it eventually became the predominant cultural and social vehicle among Arabs, then this is an Anarchonism (arguing something ad-hoc, after the fact). And it's easily falsiiable since it eventually became a predominant cultural and social vehicle of many cultures, and thus wouldn't be an exclusive property of Arabs. The point fails either way

The fact that the liturgical and legal language of Islam is Arabic can be explained by the notion of maintaining textual continuity and authenticity as a linga franca. Having a standardized language for certain types of communication is no different than when STEM textbooks written in English and people have to learn English to acquire accurately acquire information from it, because certain specialized terminology were developed in it. Surely this wouldn't be Anglocentrism.


@BarakzaiAbdali
@khushal
@Manzareh
@History of Pashtuns

feel free to add your input.

Your 100% correct. The Arab centrism narrative comes from Attaturk. The plan is to completely wipe out the Arabic script thereby wiping out people's history since most historical documents are in Arabic script ie Persian, Turkish, Urdu languages. If people cant read their languages in Arabic script, they can not read their historical documents thereby people like Sarbani can invent new histories that support their own new narratives. Replaying Attaturk's game that he played in Turkey.

[khushal]

@Sarbani

4.) And that's one reason why Christianity is rife with textual discrepancies because the original Aramaic texts were abandoned for Greek texts. This is also why fragments of Aramaic texts we have show something dramatically different than the Greek texts.

You've actually AFFIRMED my point here. Textual integrity is CRUCIAL.

5.) "English has become the global lingua franca, what a silly comparison"

And Arabic is the Lingua Franca of Islamic Scholarship......comparison stays.
.

The bible has many different authors from seperate eras from different languages supporting different narratives. Sarbani types wants the same thing to happen to the Quran since the Quran in its original Arabic script is an obstacle to his own false narrative.

[Golden]

I ask these USA based self hater Sarbani etc types, are you guys prepared for upcoming ban on muslims? So much for freedom and justice. How will you prove you're not muslim? By ****ting on Quran?

[Damir9000]

I ask these USA based self hater Sarbani etc types, are you guys prepared for upcoming ban on muslims? So much for freedom and justice. How will you prove you're not muslim? By ****ting on Quran?

Ban on muslims? lol

[Damir9000]

in Any academic field, regardless of the status, it's a standard practice to check their work, this is true in all sciences as well Humanties such as Law

did you check the work of these Sheikhs?

Why?
Are there black listed Sheikhs or ones you don't like?

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Why?
Are there black listed Sheikhs or ones you don't like?

You side stepped my question; did you check the work of the Sheikhs you watched or listened to?

[Damir9000]

You side stepped my question; did you check the work of the Sheikhs you watched or listened to?

No, I didn't.

But why I would I do so when they explain it very clearly in their videos?

So...Why?
Are there black listed Sheikhs or ones you don't like?
People that I shouldnt listen to?

[Damir9000]

I ask these USA based self hater Sarbani etc types, are you guys prepared for upcoming ban on muslims? So much for freedom and justice. How will you prove you're not muslim? By ****ting on Quran?

How will we prove we're not muslims?

well...

1) Eat pork
2) Drink Beer
3) Draw Muhammad on the quran
4) Rip pages off the Quran and use them as Toilet paper.

I think this will be a good test. Why do you think? Is it foolproof enough?

But then again, Why would we need to prove were not muslims anymore?