The Sira of Ibn Ishaq, containing Muhammad’s moderate decree to his followers to “[k]ill any Jew who comes under your power” (p. 369).
John Guardiano, seemingly determined to keep trying to prove without any proof his point about the existence of moderate Islam by conflating expansionist, genocidal jihad with Jewish self-defense, calling Muhammad (the man whom all Muslims by definition and without exception vow to emulate in word, deed, and thought per Sura 33:21) a caricature, and never once addressing the subject of Islam itself, now claims that Islam contains an “inherent truth” which he curiously won’t acknowledge, as David Forsmark noted.
Guardiano can’t acknowledge this inherent truth because doing so would necessarily make him (a) a Mohammedan and (b) certifiably retarded.
If you acknowledge Islam’s inherent truth then you’re a Mohammedan by definition. Its only “truth,” which purports itself to be self-evident using cyclical logic, is that there is no sky-troll but Allah (since, if there’s only one god it’s the one to whom Allah prays in Sura 17 when he’s not busy fellating the illiterate, mass-murdering, child-molesting career parasite to whom he answers) and Muhammad is his prophet.
That’s the Shahada, the declaration of one’s Mohammedan faith. One cannot acknowledge this truth without actually becoming a Mohammedan.
Since the non-basis of this “truth” relies upon cyclical logic, acknowledging it also makes one certifiably retarded because the primary determiner of functional mental retardation is a lack of logical faculties, which are an all-or-nothing thing; you either have them or you don’t, like depth perception. Furthermore, it’s not even a remotely coherent “truth” if Allah is the only god but he prays, presumably to another deity. The language of the Koran itself rules out the possibility of monotheism, since Allah is repeatedly referred to as being a member of a group. Islam’s “inherent truth” is utter nonsense which requires triplethink to comprehend.
I’m actually starting to question John’s logical faculties ever since he employed the relevance fallacy when he argued that because Dinesh D’Souza used to claim that moderate Islam exists, it does, even though D’Souza – sexist, Third Worldist creep that he is – now de facto admits that he was absolutely wrong. D’Souza also argued that “traditional societies” are superior to civilization and human rights without a making a single coherent argument to back it up. Is that true, John, just because D’Souza says so? Should women go back into purdah and enjoy absolutely no human or civil rights whatsoever? Because D’Souza says so, so it must be true.
Or maybe I’m all wrong and John was just referring to Islam’s “inherent truth” that 6 and 8 are the same number.
Here’s an idea, John: how about you try arguing whether moderate Islam exists using only authoritative Islamic texts and teachings like that ignorant, sloppy conservative Robert Spencer does with his breathtakingly extensive footnotes? Hey, maybe you could actually address the topic of Islam itself instead of dealing in Mohammedanology and Daniel Pipes’ arguments for moderate slavery. Because that’s the only way one could ever hypothetically prove the existence of moderate Islam.
Exit question: if a moderate Islam exists then why are Mohammedan females still by definition and without exception forced into sex slavery under threat of death? I’m referring, of course, to moderate slavery of the sort promoted by Daniel Pipes in his airtight defense of moderate Islam.