Tuesday, 24 November 2015

To Scott Adams From Dave Sim

Dear Scott,

I'm a Huge DILBERT fan!  Sandeep Atwal gave me your post as a digital file and I thought you might be interested in a response from a cartoonist who was an atheist until age 40 and who now gives equal weight and observance to Judaism, Christianity and Islam.  

Global Gender War

Posted November 17th, 2015 @ 10:07am in #ISIS #daesh

I wonder if the discussion of so-called radical Islam is disguising the fact that male-dominated societies are at war with female-dominated countries. Correct me if I’m wrong, but Islam doesn’t look so dangerous in countries where women can vote. 

Consider the United States.

When I go to dinner, I expect the server to take my date’s order first. I expect the server to deliver her meal first. I expect to pay the check. I expect to be the designated driver, or at least manage the transportation for the evening. And on the way out, I will hold the door for her, then open the door to the car.

When we get home, access to sex is strictly controlled by the woman. If the woman has additional preferences in terms of temperature, beverages, and whatnot, the man generally complies. If I fall in love and want to propose, I am expected to do so on my knees, to set the tone for the rest of the marriage.

Personally, I don’t go on dates. So the story above is just an example. But if I go to dinner with a female business associate, the story usually plays out the same way. The difference is that she might pick up the check if we are talking business, and the night ends earlier.

I finally decided that I shouldn't go out on dates unless I was interested in getting married -- which I'm not -- because that's what women go out on dates for: looking for Mr. Right.  So the only thing that works is dating women who you think of as potential wives.  Anything else is just "whore-mongering" and "whore-mongering" is never going to end happily.  Not because of anything that women are doing wrong but because "whore-mongering" itself is wrong.   

I won’t reopen the discussion of gender pay imbalance in this post. I’ll just summarize by saying that well-informed feminists don’t see much gender discrimination in the data. So if you think women in the United States are paid less for the same work, please take it up with well-informed feminists. I’m just reporting what they say.

The emphasis seems to have shifted to the number of female executives and women sitting on corporate boards (roughly 19%).  Since we went right past numerical parity on campus and are now sitting at 70% to 30% in favour of women, I think it extremely unlikely that women will EVER stop at numerical parity in any context where they say that's their only interest.  Caveat emptor.

Women have made an issue of the fact that men talk over women in meetings. In my experience, that’s true. But for full context, I interrupt anyone who talks too long without adding enough value. If most of my victims turn out to be women, I am still assumed to be the problem in this situation, not the talkers. The alternative interpretation of the situation – that women are more verbal than men – is never discussed as a contributing factor to interruptions. Can you imagine a situation where – on average – the people who talk the most do NOT get interrupted the most? I don’t know if the amount of talking each person does is related to the amount of interrupting they experience, or if there is a gender difference to it, but it seems like a reasonable hypothesis. My point is that men are assumed guilty in this country. We don’t even explore their alibis. (And watch the reaction to even bringing up the topic.)

Freudian slip there, calling them "alibis" instead of reasons.  :)

Two situations I see here:  1) women explain things differently and usually at greater length because they want to explain their subject exhaustively while also avoiding bruising anyone's feelings through inconsiderate phraseology 2)  Men tend to distill what they have to say to, as you say, "adding value".  Figure out what you're going to do so you can start doing it.    

If they aren't "adding value" to the discussion, men tend to just listen until they have something to add.  If you're right in your assessment, I think women in the workforce need to develop these sorts of distillation abilities:  Here's An Idea. Period.  And I would agree that NOT interrupting people who just like to talk isn't a valid option or you're just going to have interminable meetings that never lead to anything but "further study".  Which would certainly explain the nature of politics and industry since women got the right to vote 100 years ago.    :)

Now compare our matriarchy (that we pretend is a patriarchy) with the situation in DAESH-held territory. That’s what a male-dominated society looks like. It isn’t pretty. The top-ranked men have multiple wives and the low-ranked men either have no access to women, or they have sex with captured slaves.

I don't think the men of ISIS are obsessed with sex.  I think that's seeing a Muslim context through North American eyes because North American men ARE obsessed with sex or -- rather -- with whacking off to online porn and mistaking the latter for the former.  Personally, I haven't masturbated since 2003 and haven't missed it.  

I think the men of ISIS, like all Muslims, are centrally concerned with submitting to God's will and doing what they think God wants them to do.  I'm not God so I have no idea if they are or not. The will of God in Judaism, Christianity and Islam -- relative to women -- involves marriage and fatherhood instead of fornication, adultery, whoredom and masturbation.  It would be unusual for a good Muslim to rape a captive "if she wishes to preserve her modesty" as it says in the Koran on that very subject.  I'm not saying it doesn't happen -- the Boko Haram abductions are a glaring example -- I'm just saying that I think it would be unusual.

Of course, that leaves aside revenge questions.  ISIS is mostly made up of Saddam Hussein's Sunni military who doubtless experienced Shia backlash when Iraq was overturned by the US invasion and who are now, in turn, wreaking vengeance upon the Shiites behind that backlash.  Muslims have very long memories.  The fact that they still call us Crusaders a thousand years later speaks volumes.   

"Access to women" is a G7 concept.  In a Muslim context, you have only married women (unaccessible) and unmarried women (unaccessible except through legitimate means: like family-approved courtship).  Wives and potential wives.  A Muslim man isn't going to want to be seen as a whoremonger or a fornicator or an adulterer because that a) would indict him in the sight of God and b) would rule him out as a potential husband.  Particularly Islamists like those in ISIS and al-Qaeda.  

While I’m being politically incorrect, let me describe to you the mind of a teenage boy. Our frontal lobes aren’t complete. We don’t imagine the future. Our bodies want sex more than we want to stay alive. Literally. Lonely boys tend to be suicidal when the odds of future female companionship are low. 

So if you are wondering how men become cold-blooded killers, it isn’t religion that is doing it. If you put me in that situation, I can say with confidence I would sign up for suicide bomb duty. And I’m not even a believer. Men like hugging better than they like killing. But if you take away my access to hugging, I will probably start killing, just to feel something. I’m designed that way. I’m a normal boy. And I make no apology for it.

You can usually get as much HUGGING as you want in North America if you're a good feminist.  What you aren't going to get is sex.  And even if you could, the sex wouldn't make you happy because you're not designed THAT way: to be a whoremonger.  You're designed, by God presumably, to be a good husband and a good father.  

If you whack off too much, it's just like any other addiction.  You need more and more explicit and perverse subject matter to get the same "high" and eventually it just becomes another boring habit like channel-surfing. As the feminist singer eloquently put it, "If it makes you happy, then why are you so sad?"   

I definitely think that's a problem for G7 men: having far more of a "relationship" with porn-sites than with actual women.  Or, more pertinently, than with God.

Now consider the controversy over the Syrian immigrants. The photos show mostly men of fighting age. No one cares about adult men, so a 1% chance of a hidden terrorist in the group – who might someday kill women and children – is unacceptable. I have twice blogged on the idea of siphoning out the women and small kids from the Caliphate and leaving millions of innocent adult men to suffer and die. I don’t recall anyone complaining about leaving millions of innocent adult males to horrible suffering. In this country, any solution to a problem that involves killing millions of adult men is automatically on the table.

Yes, indeed. It's also a feminist suggestion which is not unusual in a thoroughly feminized context like the G7.  The idea being that Muslim women and small kids can be converted to our way of thinking and that Muslim men are the ONLY problem. 

"No one cares about adult men…"  God does.  But, I agree, He's the ONLY one in our society who does.     

It would seem to me a better idea to "siphon" out the Christians from Syria since they're genuinely being victimized. 

You want a linguistic kill shot to end DAESH recruiting? I don’t have the details worked out, but perhaps something along the lines of…

If you kill infidels, you will be rewarded with virgins in heaven. But if you kill your own leaders today – the ones holding the leash on your balls – you can have access to women tomorrow. And tomorrow is sooner.

Teens aren’t good at planning ahead. 

Again, I don't think "access to women" in the sense that you mean is what's available to men, generally, in the G7, apart from prostitutes and on-line porn and it's hard to imagine those holding much appeal for your average Muslim man (or G7 man either: except in a temporary, misguided and unsatisfying "any port in a storm" sense).  The Houris -- "ever virgins, dear to their spouses"  "the large-eyed ones with modest, refraining glances" -- aren't really the point, per se.  The fact that they're a reward FROM GOD is the point.   

"Access" to western women -- particularly the extremely limited "access" on offer -- just wouldn't be in the same category.

Anyway, I do want to applaud you for your outspokenness since you have such a RICHLY DESERVED high profile in the Real World of newspaper syndication.  Actually saying what you think -- as you're no doubt finding out -- takes real guts in our Feminist Theocracy. 


Dave Sim 


Barry Deutsch said...

A few quick facts that are relevant to this discussion:

1) In both the US and Canada, about 57-59% of college students are female, not 70%. The US department of education projections predict that in 2023 (the furthest year they project to), 59% of college students will be women.

(In the US, colleges commonly practice affirmative action to help male applicants - so men are more likely to be admitted with lower SAT scores and lower grades. I don't have a problem with this.)

2) Most Syrian refugees are female. And of the male refugees, most are underage.

3) Most empirical studies on sex differences in talking have found that women and men talk about the same, or men talk slightly more.

For instance, linguists Deborah James and Janice Drakich reviewed the academic studies in their article "Understanding Gender Differences in Amount of Talk," and found "the widely held belief that women talk more than men is unsupported in the literature. Of the studies reviewed that examined mixed-sex interaction, the majority found either that men talked more than women, or that there was no difference between men & women in amount of talk."

The graphs here (on the blog of an academic linguist) are useful because, unlike journal articles, they're not hidden behind a paywall. As you can see, on average men talk more, but the difference is so small that it's probably imperceptible in average conversation.

However, studies do consistently find that women are interrupted more - by both men and women. Women interrupt men relatively rarely.

Ethan Burns said...

That was interesting. I think Dave is probably right on the 'linguistic kill shot' thing. If you're going to try reasoning with people it should be from the direction of what they value, namely God's will, rather than trying to reduce their values down to what we assume motivates them. For example I believe there's a rule in the Quran, Dave might remember it better than me, that forbids enforcing its teachings upon foreign peoples if it violates the law of their land. Although from what I've heard there might be contradictory ideas in the Hadith.

Anonymous said...

Interesting to see a debate between two different strains of sexism. More examples of how Dave doesn't accurately perceive reality. He doesn't perceive women accurately, he doesn't perceive men accurately -- he doesn't even perceive himself accurately. Dave was not an atheist until age 40. In his 20s, he was talking about how "there was something out there" -- which position is not an atheist one. I think Dave defines atheism as "belief in the One True God".

-- Damian

Erick said...

I am not sure what is more sad; Dave being ignorant of the truth or willfully ignoring the truth to fits his narrative.
I will give one overwhelming example and let it be:
Dave said " I don't think the men of ISIS are obsessed with sex. "

"I think the men of ISIS, like all Muslims, are centrally concerned with submitting to God's will and doing what they think God wants them to do." "It would be unusual for a good Muslim to rape a captive "if she wishes to preserve her modesty" as it says in the Koran on that very subject. I'm not saying it doesn't happen -- the Boko Haram abductions are a glaring example -- I'm just saying that I think it would be unusual."

"Of course, that leaves aside revenge questions. ISIS is mostly made up of Saddam Hussein's Sunni military who doubtless experienced Shia backlash when Iraq was overturned by the US invasion and who are now, in turn, wreaking vengeance upon the Shiites behind that backlash. Muslims have very long memories."

I simply ask you to read about The Yazidi People and how ISIS rapes and enslaves the young girls and women and they are NOT Sunni.

Erick said...

the above should have said "To fit his narrative"
Please, anyone who cares enough to know the truth simply google Yazidi and ISIS.

Dave, if you are not aware of the truth that is still no shield for someone of your unquestioned intellect. If you are aware, then you know no shame and nothing I could say would possibly convince you otherwise.

Erick said...

One last correction, I meant to say the Yazidi people are NOT Shia or Sunni.

James said...

I don't understand why Dave assumes everyone who purports to be a Muslim is devout and actually keeps with the values they pretend to hold dear. He talks a lot about how the men don't want to be whore-mongers, they want to be good husbands and fathers but its a weird assumption to make, that teenagers in Islamic countries aren't biologically wired to want sex as much as they do in any other country. I would think that the fact they're murdering people nonstop would be an indication that maybe their interpretation of their religion is flawed since in general Islam, Christianity and Judaism all frown on killing. Unless Frank Miller was right anyway and Islam really is some evil religion that encourages murder of all infidels. I don't think Dave believes that though since he believes in all three Abrahamic religions.

So why on earth would these men who clearly are just repurposing scripture to justify their atrocities care about being good husbands and fathers? Why would a murderer shy away from rape? I wish I understood your mindset Dave, you seem to just ignore anything that doesn't agree with your bias. Its a sin a lot of people are guilty of but most of them don't present themselves as being the only sane man left in a society gone crazy.

Erick said...

The Yazidi girls and young women who are systematically raped and enslaved by ISIS - the same ISIS that Dave seems to imply are 'only seeking revenge on Shiites' are not Shia or Sunni. As if that would be any justification at all.

al roney said...

These guys aren't killing innocent people because they're horny.

That's, er, whacked.

Unless you can point me to a study somewhere.anywhere, there's ZERO evidence that horny guys are more prone to violence. And rape isn't about getting one's rocks off, it's about subjugation. It's a violent tool. So, that ain't the same.

While I don't agree with Dave on all his points, he's closer to the mark than Adams is on this - these murderers are motivated by something stronger than lust. MUCH STRONGER.

You simply can't project your Western mind and/or ideology onto ISIS or you'll never understand what motivates them.

Erick said...

every war no matter who fights it, no matter what religion or what motives, brings out the worst behavior in the (generally) men who fight it.
Rape a a weapon is as old as war itself. It is dehumanizing and degrading and no culture or religion or movement is above employing it as a weapon. ISIS has deployed it against the Yazidi, young girls and by that I mean documented abuse of girls as young as 10, and reported abuse of girls even younger. Rape is a weapon, but it in the case of ISIS, it is also a means of providing men who live in repressive societies a means of fulfilling their sexual fantasies and perverted desires against a peoples they do not consider worthy. Which because of the way they have perverted their so called beliefs, allows them to victimize with supposed impunity. After-all if the young girls they are raping are not even considered worthy of respect as humans -because of their religion, then these ISIS fighters have no fear of eternal retribution.

Dave and whoever else reads this, you need to educate yourselves on what ISIS truly is and what they are doing. Your knee jerk defense of ISIS simply because they operate under the banner of Islam is disturbing to say the least

al roney said...

Erick - Who here is defending ISIS?

Certainly Dave isn't, nor anyone else that's responded here.

Michael said...

Late to the Party but here is a link to the referenced post for context.

Erick said...

Al roney,
by Dave either being naively unaware or simply denying the truth of what ISIS is and has been doing; the systematic rape and enslavement of Yazidi girls, let alone whatever Shia they may encounter - which he seems to characterize in an off hand manner as simply 'revenge', it serves to treat and absolve ISIS as just some group of Islam believing soldiers who are simply 'submitting to Gods will'. That the rape of children could ever be considered 'God's will' by any sane individual is perversion to the extreme.

I am by no means saying that Dave believes or shares their ideology, in fact it would truly shock me to my core if he did. But people have been fooled before by groups who say one thing and do another. And when he says "I think the men of ISIS, like all Muslims, are centrally concerned with submitting to God's will and doing what they think God wants them to do." - while they rape children as part of their perversion of Islam, he is either dismissing documented proof of their crimes or is woefully ignorant.
Either way, his words constitute a defense of ISIS's brand of Islam against a large community of Islamic leaders am Imams who have condemned ISIS in part because of their perverted practices of raping children and women because they do not deem they worthy and thus they believe they can skirt the tenets of Islam that would never tolerate such behavior.

Here is a link, if this does not work simply google Yazidi girls and Imams condemning ISIS. Dave's words are below


"I think the men of ISIS, like all Muslims, are centrally concerned with submitting to God's will and doing what they think God wants them to do." "It would be unusual for a good Muslim to rape a captive "if she wishes to preserve her modesty" as it says in the Koran on that very subject. I'm not saying it doesn't happen -- the Boko Haram abductions are a glaring example -- I'm just saying that I think it would be unusual."

"Of course, that leaves aside revenge questions. ISIS is mostly made up of Saddam Hussein's Sunni military who doubtless experienced Shia backlash when Iraq was overturned by the US invasion and who are now, in turn, wreaking vengeance upon the Shiites behind that backlash. Muslims have very long memories."

I do not want to start any online arguments, and I have no intention of trying to sway Dave's or anyone else's beliefs. But when I see dave or anyone else say that ISIS men are 'submitting to Gods will' when children are being raped, i will strongly point out how wrong they are, and try to show them proof of such to back that up.

Dave is a lot of things, but as i have said on another post i do not think he is harmful nor would he ever harm anyone, but I do believe in this instance he is either woefully misguided and misinformed or he has become something else which would be very disturbing

Barry Deutsch said...

On another subject:

Probably folks have already considered and rejected this idea, but just in case: Have you thought of adding desktop wallpapers as a low-ball reward level for future Kickstarters? Similar to the postcard idea, except that they would be a solely digital reward.

I have dozens of wallpapers that my computer chooses from at random, and at least six of them are Cerebus related - usually just art from the comic. (Here's my favorite one: http://amptoons.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/cerebus-panels.jpg ).

Erick said...

moving on lets just ignore that particular gorilla

al roney said...

Erick - the problem may be,(As I'm really not in Dave's, Adams', or ISIS' heads, that your pulling that quote from Dave and, pardon the expression, blowing it up into a more sweeping generalization - that all of what ISIS is doing is okay because they believe it's part of God's will and that somehow makes it excusable.

It's certainly possible, in my mind, that this is a bit more of a stew, rather than just a case of sick murderous thugs intentionally perverting religion as an excuse to murder and rape. I believe they are also propelled by real "faith", along with the tribalistic elements that are part and parcel to that part of the world and culture.

They may in fact believe, or BELIEVE, that they are on a Holy mission/Jihad, one in which the ends justifies the means - and that includes rape, murder, and anything else that we, as civilized humanistic beings consider abhorrent.

It's not as if these holy books - Bible, Torah, Koran - are filled with nothing but peace and love - hardly.

I get that your passionate and sensitive to the idea that anyone would be excusing ISIS for their horrific acts, and I'm with you on that. However, understanding all their motivations - beyond the atrocities - is, I think important in finding the best path to defeat them.


Erick said...

Al Roney,
thank you for the thoughtful reply.
No, I do not think I am blowing up Dave's comments to more than what they are. I - and more importantly for purpose of this discussion, Islamic leaders and Imams worldwide have condemned ISIS and their perversion of Islam, almost exclusively due to the caliphates emphasis on the sexual subjugation of the children of the Yazidi.
This is not a stew, this is not a few individuals within ISIS, this is the published (On ISIS's own website) core belief of ISIS.

I found your use of the words 'passionate and sensitive' given the oft stated views of Mr. Sim, to be particularly humorous. Thanks for the laugh.

They may indeed believe that they are on a holy mission. Some anti-abortionists professing the Christian faith believe it is their holy mission to kill abortion doctors.

But I would argue that clear minded, mainstream Christian's who may abhor abortion do not think the same.

The same holds true for clear minded members of the Islamic faith vs ISIS.

Just because ISIS may claim they are good practitioners of the Islamic faith does not make it so.

And for Dave or anyone else who does not know their background and what they do, or simply chooses to ignore it, to then provide cover by saying:

"I think the men of ISIS, like all Muslims, are centrally concerned with submitting to God's will and doing what they think God wants them to do. I'm not God so I have no idea if they are or not. The will of God in Judaism, Christianity and Islam -- relative to women -- involves marriage and fatherhood instead of fornication, adultery, whoredom and masturbation. It would be unusual for a good Muslim to rape a captive "if she wishes to preserve her modesty" as it says in the Koran on that very subject. I'm not saying it doesn't happen -- the Boko Haram abductions are a glaring example -- I'm just saying that I think it would be unusual."

Well that is giving them the cover and defense of the 'good Muslim', which by their own proclamations on their websites and documents concerning their sexual abuse of young girls, they most certainly do not deserve. You do not have to be 'God' to know the difference between right and wrong. The sexual abuse of young girls (documented as young as age 10) which is a core belief of ISIS (if you do not believe me then just look up ISIS and their beliefs regarding Yazidi), should be proof enough to any rational human being that ISIS is not in any way shape or fashion a 'good Muslim'.

Did I say Dave defends all of their actions? No. And i do not believe that. In fact I pointed out very strongly that i do not believe that Dave is supporter of ISIS nor of their ideology.

But I also said that people have been fooled before into believing what a group says as opposed to what it actually does.

Dave, as anyone who has read his work can attest, is highly intelligent and keeps abreast of world events. So for him to not know about the treatment of the Yazidi girls by ISIS would be startling.

Not impossible, but startling. So either hie is woefully ignorant and misinformed about ISIS - which would explain if not excuse the above quote, or he did know about it and still said it anyway.

Jim Sheridan said...

Dave's ideas in this post are convoluted. As has been pointed out in the first and last posts above, he plays fast and loose with facts here to suit his own ideas. Even rational people can rationalize, but boy, Dave does so much better when discussing cartooning.

Jim Sheridan

Lee Thacker said...

The other terrible thing about the recent Beirut and Paris attacks (apart form the indiscriminate MURDER of ‘innocent’ people by a group who are, to me, clearly psychotic) is the fact that now the Far Right (UKIP and the British National Party in the UK) have even more ammunition to turn people against ALL Muslims. I expected a civil war after 9/11. I even moved out of the predominantly Muslim area I was living in at the time. Fortunately I was wrong. Unfortunately, the majority of conversation I’ve been hearing on a daily basis since the Paris attacks has been overtly racist. Organised religion has ALWAYS killed people ‘in the name of God’. I believe in God. I pray twice a day. I do not follow ANY organised religion. I do not force my views on others. This does not make me any better or worse than anybody else. I strive to be kind, forgiving, loving, helpful, charitable and honest, not based on any religious doctrine but on how I would like to be treated myself. This may seem naïve, but it’s how I want to live my life. I should NOT have to worry about someone blowing me up or shooting me because they think differently to me.

al roney said...


The trouble is, if we assume they are "psychotic" we really aren't getting to the severity of the problem or what ISIS is. An ingrained belief system is far more troubling than a bunch of psychos in my opinion.

As Erick (I think) and I have both said (Erick unfortunately missing my point when I say "stew", meaning it's a type of tribalisitic-psychotic-religiosity as opposed to just one THING that motivates them) ISIS isn't crazy - this is what they do - it's their belief system. Call it a perversion, a delusion, or what have you - but these guys are serious and believe themselves justified. It may appear psychotic, (seriously, blowing oneself up for any "cause"?) but it's not that simple.

(I think Dave's attempt to compare/contrast them with "good" Muslims was/is part of the misunderstanding. I also think Erick's comparison to Christians who kill abortion doctors is a bit off as well as that's only happened 4 times in US history - so rare that it can be labeled the act of "psycho" as opposed to religious fervor).

Sad that you expected a civil war post 9-11 though. Who were you afraid of exactly? You say you moved out of a Muslim area? If you had no fear from Muslims, why do that?

It's a numbers game. If Muslims were all terrorists (heck, if even 10-percent were), we'd all be dead already - after all we're talking about more than 20-percent of the entire world's population. Personally, and statistically, I'd be more concerned about getting killed in car crash than in a terrorist attack.

We focus on this stuff because it's scary (the terror in terrorism), and then we get all irrational in response - stripping away civil liberties under the guise of safety, pitting one faith against the other and on and on...

Erick said...

Al Roney,

No, I think my analogy is accurate. The actual numbers of abortion healthcare workers killed is comparatively small, the actual number of abortion healthcare workers who have been assaulted and those that have had unsuccessful attempts made on their lives is considerably higher. There are several groups of like minded individuals who loudly profess their Christianity alongside their willingness to commit and in quite a number of cases actually carry-out violence on abortion healthcare workers.

I do not think ISIS is a bunch of crazed individuals. They are a very dangerous and methodical group. But their ideology, whatever cloak of religiosity that they try to use, enshrines a doctrine of rape which is antithetical to the tenets of Islam.

I do not think we are on opposites sides here,in act I think we pretty much agree. But Dave has either grossly misinformed views on ISIS or is deliberately ignoring of the actions of ISIS.

This is not an attempt on my part to create an argument. Dave opened this political door with his complete lack of understanding of what ISIS is and does, or his complete indifference to such.

That I could not let go unanswered regardless my feelings on his other views or my admiration for Cerebus - which is why i am on this particular site, to celebrate the work and only the work.

Erick said...

Before I forget let me wish all who are reading this a very happy Turkey day!

al roney said...


Sorry, but your analogy of Christians killing or attempting to kill abortion providers just isn't apples-to-apples. And I'm not one to defend one religion over another (I'm agnostic and not an adherent to any faith) as I'm more concerned about who is going to kill me, my family, friends or my neighbors (you too!).

I've simply a lot less to fear from those sporting the "Christian" banner.

I can pull a bunch of stats - the thousands killed, maimed (or raped) in the last couple of decades under the Muhammad banner versus those killed under the Christ banner, but what's the point?

Today Muslims have a much larger PR problem. Is it fair to the majority of adherents to Islam (including Dave) that aren't killing, raping or blowing things up? Nope.

Again, even as a New Yorker - I'm not in fear of terrorism, I'm more worried about the reactions or overreactions, especially those borne out of fear instead of rational thought. Too much blood and freedom has been lost due to that insanity already.

I'll leave it at us generally agreeing and wishing you a Happy Thanksgiving too!

Anonymous said...

Actually, Al, you've a lot more to fear from Christian terrorists than Muslim terrorists. In your country, right-wing nutjobs have killed twice as many people since 2001 than Islamic nutjobs. The problem is that humans generally are lousy at estimating risk. In my country, I'm more likely to be killed by a moose than by a terrorist, but anti-moose bigotry isn't in the daily papers.

-- Damian

al roney said...


Are you leaving out what happened on 9-11? Globally? Let alone the number of close-calls and broken plots? If so, that's a weak starting point. Seriously, lopping off our generations Pearl Harbor Day in an attempt to score points in the tiresome R versus L battle is really lame (if that's where your coming from).

Plus, Christians are hardly all "right wing" in the U.S. Not even close. It's not 1950 anymore. I'll bet in almost every Christian church the message is to take in those refugees as it's the "Christian" thing to do, and to not judge others based on the evil acts of just a few.

Now, if you're talking about whether I'm more likely to be killed by someone who self-identifies as Christian as opposed to Muslim in my own country then yes, you'd be accurate - there's sheer numbers at play there. And, where I live, it would likely be a white male too.

That's just demo-graphical probability. Of course if I truck on over to the Middle Eastern lands, then that would radically change too.

Thing is, I'm talking about killing "in the name of ones God" here. Not beefs with neighbors, police, the government, parents, school-children, ex-wives or anything else.

Holy War my man. Jihad or bust!

It's very unlikely that I'll be killed by someone yelling "For Jesus Christ!" while they put a bullet in my head.

Something else to consider: Islam would (if we're to continue with overly simplistic ideological definitions) certainly fall to the right of Christianity, wouldn't it?

I'd venture to say that many Muslims would find, or already do find, Christians in America to be shockingly left of center.

Anyway, as someone who is agnostic and leans libertarian I've been subjected to nonsense from both so-called "sides".

It's actually nice not belonging to any of these clubs.

Just like the moose in your country.

Michael said...

The following is from ISIS/ISIL's propeganda magazine, DABIQ issue 9. The Article is titled Slave-Girls Or Prostitutes?

Saby (taking slaves through war) is a great prophetic Sunnah containing many divine wisdoms and religious bene ts, regardless of whether or not the people are aware of this. The Sīrah is a witness to our Prophet’s (sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) raiding of the ku ār. He would kill their men and enslave their children and women. The raids of the beloved Prophet (sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) convey this to us. Ask the tribes of Banī al-Mustaliq, Banī Quraydhah, and Hawāzin about this.

After all this and after the sun of the Khilāfah radiated once again, and the winds of victory and consolidation blew, and the Islamic State, by the grace of its Lord alone, brought out the Islamic punishments and rulings of the Sharī’ah from the darkness of books and papers, and we truly lived them after they were buried for centuries... After all this, the ramblers dare to extend their tongues with false rumors and accusations so as to disfigure the great shar’ī ruling and pure prophetic Sunnah titled “saby”? After all this, saby becomes fornication and tasarrī (taking a slave-girl as a concubine) becomes rape? If only we’d heard these falsehoods from the ku ār who are ignorant of our religion. Instead we hear it from those associated with our Ummah, those whose names are Muhammad, Ibrāhīm, and ‘Alī! So I say in astonishment: Are our people awake or asleep? But what really alarmed me was that some of the Islamic State supporters (may Allah forgive them) rushed to defend the Islamic State – may its honor persist and may Allah expand its territory – after the kā r media touched upon the State’s capture of the Yazīdī women. So the supporters started denying the matter as if the soldiers of the Khilāfah had committed a mistake or evil.

Or did you and your supporters think we were joking on the day we announced the Khilāfah upon the prophetic methodology? I swear by my Lord, it is certainly Khilāfah, as certain as your ability to speak, see, and hear. It is Khilāfah with everything it contains of honor and pride for the Muslim and humiliation and degradation for the kā r. Our Prophet (sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said, as narrated by Ibn ‘Umar (radiyallāhu ‘anhumā), “I was sent with the sword before the Hour so that Allah alone is worshipped without partners. And my provision was placed beneath the shade of my spear. And humiliation and degradation was made for those who oppose my command” [Reported by Imām Ahmad].

As for those who rebuked the Khilāfah’s soldiers for saby, then this is not surprising at all, for they themselves are those who crippled the obligation of jihād with false suspicions and crooked arguments. ey are the same beards and their sheep-like followers. Why should we criticize them now? Isn’t it suficient for us to know of their sinful sitting back that has bloated their potbellies and increased their weakness abundantly?

They said one day that there’s no jihād, then a group of believers established – with Allah’s strength alone – the Khilāfah upon the prophetic methodology. Today they say no to saby, while some slave-girls in our State are now pregnant and some of them have even been set free for Allah’s sake and got married in the courts of the Islamic State after becoming Muslims and practicing Islam well.

Michael said...

Rather, let me add to the heartache of the spiteful. Indeed, from the slave-girls are those that after saby turned into hard-working, diligent seekers of knowledge after she found in Islam what she couldn’t nd in kufr, despite the slogans of “freedom” and “equality.” Indeed it is our pure Islam, which upraises every lowly-one and puts an end to every deficiency.

So whoever thinks that the ultimate aim of saby is pleasure, then he is a mistaken ignoramus. Otherwise, why did the Sharī’ah urge kindness towards slaves as well as good treatment of them even if they are ku ār whom Allah humiliated by making them into slaves owned by the people of Islam. Yet He (subhānah) made their liberation from the lands of kufr a way for their salvation and guidance towards the straight path.

Yes, this is our – as they allege – “savage” Islam, ordering us with kindness even towards slaves. This is demanded even if they were to remain upon their kufr. And I swear by Allah, I haven’t heard of nor seen anyone in the Islamic State who coerced his slave-girl to accept Islam. On the contrary, I saw all of those who accepted Islam had done so voluntarily, not against their will. Once she bears witness that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah and begins performing what has been prescribed for her of rites, then we say, “Come and be welcomed.” As for her heart, then we defer it to Allah (ta’ālā).

Erick said...

Thanks for posting that Michael,
I hope it shows the uneducated the truth about ISIS and makes it harder for those who deny the truth to hide from it.

Anonymous said...

Back to the original post: It's disheartening to see grown men spend so much time talking about what women are thinking, which is what the first chunk of Adams's original and Sim's response do. As a grown man myself, I've tried to learn better.

Just as it's silly for Adams to continue his post by explaining what Muslims think. It all demonstrates an incredible lack of understanding that different people have different experiences.