Tuesday, April 17, 2018

The Truth, the Half Truth & the Kirby

Kirb Brimstone - @M. Rasheed... For you my friend. [VIDEO] How Muhammad Ali Was Deceived by Islam

Muhammad Rasheed - Oh.

I thought you were tagging me to show that you finally responded to that thread you promised that you weren't going to abandon. Instead I see you've tagged me in more nonsense.


Kirb Brimstone - You watch the video? NO. So how do you know it's non-sense?

I'll respond when I have time. In the meantime See above.

My gift to you.

Muhammad Rasheed - Because everything you tag me in is nonsense (except for ONCE, but it was a very noble cause), and the "deceived by islam" part is inherently nonsense, and your entire opinion of religion -- especially tied to anything you've tagged me in -- is nonsense. Oh, and your position in the thread you abandoned, that you swore you wouldn't abandon, was un-defendable nonsense, hence why you abandoned it.

Any more questions?

Kirb Brimstone - @M. Rasheed... Nah your responses are non-sense. You're prophet is obviously false.

Watch the video.

Muhammad Rasheed - Don't tag me in anymore of this nonsense.

Kirb Brimstone - @M. Rasheed... See you on the thread.

Muhammad Rasheed - To do what?

Kirb Brimstone - When I respond. I never forgot about the thread.

Kirb Brimstone - I just have life.

Kirb Brimstone - Islam is false.

Muhammad Rasheed - More nonsense?

You are false. Grow up.

Muhammad Rasheed - My favorite part is how you believe you're going to convert me to the white supremacist's version of Western Christianity by insulting my belief system like a sociopath.

Good luck!

Adam Thompson - Is “un-defendable” the same as indefensible?

Muhammad Rasheed - Kirb wrote: "I never forgot about the thread. I just have life."

Is this really the excuse you want to use considering you're the one that tagged me in all of these vids as you try to pull me into these discussions? You always initiate them and when I respond suddenly you "have a life" and are too busy to defend your own position.

Right. 😏

Michael Daniels - I watched it. His main points were Muhammed was white, both Muhammed and Ali owned black slaves, and Cassius Clay was a great hardcore abolitionist who was at least partially responsible for the Emanicipation Proclamation.

The guy made some grat points, but he was such an unfunny deuchebag I almost gave up halfway through.

Muhammad Rasheed - Ah. Thanks for confirming that this was something Kirb had posted before in one of the many threads he's abandoned.

Muhammad Rasheed - I'm curious as to what you're using to discern whether the guy's points were "grat" or not, considering the following quote from him seems to sum up both you and Kirb pretty well when it comes to this topic:

When we don't know history--when we become ignorant of history--there will always be someone waiting to step in and take advantage of our ignorance. ~David Wood

Michael Daniels - @M. Rasheed... when did I confirm that? I have no idea if he's ever posted it before. And are you jumping on typos now as some type of dig? Clearly I know how to spell great, and you knew the word that was meant. Is this type of assholery really necessary?

Muhammad Rasheed - 1) You confirmed it when you described what was in it.

2) Yes, but it was just a light dig. That Adam Thompson dude, who responded under my comment above, meant it as his entire argument apparently.

3) Sometimes that type of assholery is necessary if only for the comedy factor and to lighten a mood.

Michael Daniels - @M. Rasheed.... Do you refute any of the major points the guy made as put forth above. I already stipulated the guy's a dick, so no need pointing that out.

Muhammad Rasheed - Of course I refute them. He made his points from a place of shallow, xenophobic ignorance of the willful sort. An outsider, who only pretends to be an expert on the material, disingenuously using the phrase "Islam's most trusted sources" while ignorantly or willfully ignoring the complexity of the body of hadith and what they have gone through over the centuries cannot be taken at his word.

Muhammad Rasheed - His audience is composed of people exactly like you and Kirb, who already casually dismiss Al-Islam out of hand, and have zero interest in the nuances of its complex extra-scriptural literature.

Michael Daniels - So, just so I'm clear, in your mountain of research

1) Muhammed wasn't white.

2) Muhammad and Ali did not own black slaves

3) The original Cassius Clay was not a hardcore abolitionist.

(Btw....if you hold to #3 you lose all credibility as this is an area of history I am very well versed in and can site numerous sources.)

Muhammad Rasheed - 1) Exactly.

2) Exactly. The prophet perfectly reflected the instructions of the Qur'an, in how God wanted us to use the institution of slavery. And Ali was number four of the rightly-guided Caliphs that reflected the prophet's behavior regarding the Qur'an.

3.) I don't care about that part. I don't care about celebrating a white man over behavior/deeds that should have been received as just basic human decency. You're asking the wrong one to feel bad about Muhammad not wanting to be named after a white man.

(btw... You have no credibility on the topic of Islam. Ever.)

Michael Daniels - 1) What is your source stating he was other than white when so many other sources say that he was? Why is your source better.

2) How does that add up to either of them "not" owning black slaves. How are you not contradicting yourself by saying this.

3) What you care about is immaterial to the question which was whether or not you refuted the original dude's assertion that Cassius Clay was an abolitionis.

(I never claimed to be an expert on Islam, nor am I one on Hinduism or Shinto, or any other false religion. I know exactly what I need to know...primarily that they are all paths to destruction, and therefore inherently Satanic.)

Muhammad Rasheed - 1) The same old, vast body of literature that Woods quoted from. Some of the quotes are more authentic than others, some were more accurately interpreted into English, while some are just false and were invented during a period when politically corrupt sultanates were trying to manipulate and/or being manipulated by the 'mullah class' for various purposes.

2) I'm not contradicting myself, you just don't have any knowledge of the material to use to reference my comment to. You're just referencing it to the falsehood you believe you know about the faith. The prophet had one slave, who he freed upon receiving his prophethood commission from God, and promptly adopted as his son. The Qur'an doesn't encourage slave taking at all, but instead lists "freeing the slave" as one of the great good deeds a believer can perform. So when I say that "The prophet perfectly reflected the instructions of the Qur'an" and that Ali, the fourth rightly-guided Caliph of Al-Islam reflected his prophet's behavior, there is no contradiction except in the mind of those who love falsehood more that clear truth.

3) What you care about lacks interest to me. I'm refuting the claims about Islam. The champ changing his name because he didn't care to be named after a family of white enslavers--whether one of them came to his senses and decided to try to be something close to human or not--isn't the most important point. I agree with Ali. The hell with those people.

(you admit to not knowing about the faith, but you proudly proclaim that the uncritical, uninformed pieces you did manage to retain are enough to justify your habit of blasphemy against Abraham's God and His prophets. Interesting.)

Michael Daniels - 1) The sources you're citing claim Muhammed was white. If he wasn't what color was he and where does it say that?

2) Those same sources claim Muhammed and Ali owned black slaves. Please site the source that says otherwise and explain why it's a better source. The contradiction seems to be what the Quran says versus how Muhammed lived his life. This makes sense as he was not perfect as Jesus is.

3) Now you're exposing your own ignorance. He wasn't named after a family he was named after a specific person, a person who championed the cause of defeating slavery.

(You keep trying to make this about me when in fact it's about information and its credibility. My knowledge is not what's at issue here. Itsthe hypocrisy of your stated beliefs and its so-called prophet.)

Muhammad Rasheed - 1) The sources are vast and say a lot of things, much of it contradictory, which is why the learned Muslims do not treat the body of hadith literature as holy, or even above the Qur'an as some were trained to do. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and his family were Black people.

2.) The hadith sources that claim Muhammad and Ali kept slaves after Islam were false. That many of them emphasize the 'Black race' of those slaves also reflect falsehood, as both of these types were written after the slave trade was brought back after nearly being wiped out completely in the Muslim world. These later hadiths added to the body were not religious literature, but political propaganda to patronize the merchants, the same as what goes on today when corporatists have favor with politicians. The invention of hadiths is what it looked like when the political class happened to belong to a theocracy.

3) "Clay" was the family name of that guy, and it was also the name of the individual. So what? He wasn't worthy of naming a Black child after him just because he decided to stand out from the evil crowd and be a basic-level decent human.

(It is about you and your knowledge, since your position is a fundamentally uninformed one as you willfully allow Woods to step in and take advantage of your ignorance. You don't even have a base to pushback against me with, and you admit you don't care enough about my religion to even try. By definition that means you lack credibility and are wasting my time.)

Michael Daniels - My base is Yahweh, Creator of the universe, and His definitive, uncorrupted word, the Holy Bible. If you look back at this discussion I only claimed not to be an expert on Islam (I don't consider you one either btw) I only wanted your perspective on what the video poster said. It took you numerous posts to finally give me a half assed answer. You still didn't give any sources. One would think, if you were soooo concerned about your time you would have answered succinctly in the first reply. If the tables were turned and you asked me about the Holy Spirit inspired Bible I would have probably quoted you chapter and verse and sited all extraBiblical and historical sources had I used them.

Muhammad Rasheed - 1) We've established long ago that your base is not YHWH, Lord of the worlds, but instead your base is the quasi-pagan pauline doctrine of Western Christianity. Your secondary base in this context is a firm rejection of Al-Islam, with a conspicuous lack of even a mustard seed worth of study into the faith. We've been having these arguments for quite a while now, and if you haven't bothered to look any of it up at this point, it's clear you never will. It should go without saying that makes you a poor debate partner on that topic.

2) You admitted you lacked knowledge about Islam and then you immediately began pushing back as to what was or wasn't true within it's historical literature. That's the proud performance of a fool. Your proclaiming to a dedicated adherent to the faith that is learned on the subject that he isn't an expert from your position of deliberate ignorance makes you a fool x2.

3) I gave you may perspective.

4) Because your proudly deliberate ignorance about Islam makes you unworthy of the effort to pretend you are a real debate partner. Should you somehow make the effort to pull out my kit worth it while I have the time, then I may have done so if only for my own amusement, or for the benefit of anyone who may be reading the thread. Years of experience in M. Rasheed vs Deacon arguments proves you often lacking in that regard.

5) If the tables were turned, I would have critiqued your responses from my base of study into your faith, re-interpreted your scripture from what you babbled to align it to the One God's ACTUAL message, and patiently explained why the tainted ideology that used to be the pure faith you believe to be is now wrong, as I usually do when we argue from the other direction. Then you would say you were sleepy, had to go off to bed and then abandon the thread.


Michael Daniels - I only abandon threads because there is only so much of your bullshit and incoherent gibberish that I can take for an extended period of time. The fact is, despite your useless blustering you know less about the Bible and the Christian faith than I do about your false religion.

I was not attempting to be a debate partner with your scaggly ass. There's no debate. I don't have to debate the truth of the Gospel message. I'm not looking to score some meaningless points when someone makes a typo. I only wanted your take on the video. You said you didn't watch it so I took the time to provide you with the main points and my assessment of the dude's character. But you want to turn every fucking conversation we have into a silly ass pissing contest. There's a saying coined by a great Biblical Man/God you hate so much for the truth He supplied "Do not cast your pearls before swine." Well Mo, you don't eat pig, but you're really starting to resemble one.....Shalom

Muhammad Rasheed - You abandon threads because, like Kirby, your arguments are weak and you have problems defending your positions because of poor and surface-level research. In the case of Christianity, your research consists of a pre-packaged folio of arguments and indoctrination tracts full of cherry-picked verses that were connected for you in an ideological series. You don't know how to think for yourself within that topic, yet you think you "know" your religion because you can verbatim recite these pre-packaged tracts on cue.

I gave you my take on the video. You then pushed back on it from your base of literally nothing at all. Naturally I find it difficult to consider that an attempt at debating while you complained that I didn't bother to throw my heavy guns at you. lol For what? You don't care anyway, remember?

I told Kirb after this last song-n-dance of his that I wasn't being pulled into his consistent nonsense anymore, so I didn't even click on the thing. You were kind enough to tell me what was in it, so I had seen it before when he posted it in a previous thread.

I didn't turn this into a 'pissing contest,' Deac. You don't know anything about Islam except that you reject it out of hand, but you went on and on talking about how "grat" Woods' points were. That was not only fundamentally foolish of you, but it was also a demonstration of you picking a fight with me, not I with you. Note that you even started off being high-strung and defensive when all I did was acknowledge that you confirmed with your description that I did see the clip before.

Michael wrote: "There's a saying coined by a great Biblical Man/God you hate so much..."

Considering I wouldn't be a Muslim if I didn't love Jesus and accept his message as truth, is this a proud example of you knowing more about Islam than I do about the twisted version of God's message you're supposed to believe in?

Try harder. lol

Michael Daniels - You just reminded me of another reason debating with you is annoying....You outright lie. If you can say anything you want true or false to make a point and I'm bound to only say the truth that should put you at a disadvantage....and yet you lose every time, how ironic. Case in point...please show me where I went on and on about how grat the guys points were besides one offhanded comment. You can't because it was an outright lie. And how do you turn that one innocuous comment into me picking a fight with you. I said mean things about the poster of the video not about you. I only asked for information which you never actually provided.

This discussion was never a debate about whether Islam is an authentic religion, supported by God. The door's was closed on that debate a long time ago...It isn't. When Jesus proclaimed "It is finished!" He meant right there on the cross not five hundred years later when some bloodthirsty, slaveowning conman had his say.

And you may actually love Jesus but not the Biblical one who called Himself the Son of the Living God, the one who claimed to be the I Am and participated in the creation of the universe, the Savior of all mankind. You love some guy who is the second most important prophet to the con man.

Muhammad Rasheed - 1.) Calling the prophet a "bloodthirsty, slaveowning conman" is a demonstration of you outright lying. Saying you are "bound to only say the truth" is also an outright lie by you. Saying I "lose everytime" in our arguments is another outright lie by you. Your claims that you believed Woods' point were 'grat' as only an "offhanded comment" was yet another lie by you.

2.) The act of praising Woods' points as "grat" just because you want them to be true was a hostile act that you performed with Kirb against me. You lacked the knowledge (or the desire to attain the knowledge) that would confirm the guy's claims, yet you just "This is GRAT!" for no other reason but to antagonize me. Claims that you weren't trying to pick a fight with me were outright lies btw.

3.) By its nature, a religious argument between two different adherents over one of their beliefs is an authentication argument.

4.) There is only one Christ Jesus, son of Mary (peace be upon him). This is the very same Nazarene man who was conceived within his mother's womb without the seed of a human male. THAT guy. That's the one I love, whose message I accept as truth, and who will rebuke you firmly as a stranger on The Last Day should you dare run up to him hoping he will save you from the Fire you court whenever you allow your pride to blaspheme within these discussions. Be forewarned and repent.

5.) There is no such thing as "the second most important prophet" since they all performed the same duty (see: BELIEF IN THE PROPHETS). Is this yet another example of you knowing more about Islam than I do?

Try harder.

See Also:

The Return of Kirb Brimstone

RESPONSE - Former Muslim Turned Christian Conversion Tale

Breaking Down Liberalism with Charles Mills

Logos Your Way & I Goes Mine

The Truth About "Islamic" Slavery

Debunking the Debunking: Yes, the GOP is Racist

Deep Space Exploration - Planet #1818: Kirby's World

Killing Blacks For Fun & Profit

Kirb Drops the Gauntlet of Challenge! (again)

No comments:

Post a Comment