Back by Popular Demand: DO NOT BLASPHEME!!

We return from the depths of Gamefaqs to demonstrate that, despite a lull in the action for the past several months, some moderators remain just as eager to clamp down on dissenting voices as ever. This time: opposition to the founder of Islam.

Is it just me? No, it's not. Many liberals on board 261 have already noticed that some people make a career out of smearing Christianity as the source of all problems, but criticism of Islam is severely lacking. Not only is there near total silence about it, but the far left goes out of its way to silence people who do speak up because not supporting a religion somehow makes you the same as a racist.

So I propose to the curious in those topics: the reason you don't see a liberal criticize Islam, at least on that board, is the same reason you don't see a lot of conservatives: the far left censors them. Offensive, hate crime, blasphemy, whatever you want to call it - it's just not allowed. Challenging any other religion besides Christianity is just mean. It's not fair. So you just can't do it.

Off to the source of my message. In a topic titled, "Prophet Muhammed warned us of ISIS" we were treated to a puff piece based off a Huffington Post writer's strange conspiracy theory, where Muhammed the all-knowing and kind philosopher knew ISIS was going to happen thousands of years later and he was so mad. He was mad because he knew they were just a bunch of fakers who would act like Muslims in their fasting, rituals, and so on, but were actually not doing what Islam demanded of them.

"The Quran would not go beyond their throats, meaning they wouldn't understand its essence at all, merely regurgitating it selectively. The Prophet then went on to describe these people as "the worst of the creation."

Meanwhile in reality, you might remember that Muhammed was famous for spreading belief in his cult through the sword. If he had a beef with ISIS today, it'd probably be a disagreement over how to kill the infidels. You might also recall that the two big sects of this great religion, the Sunni and Shia, arose not from religious disagreements but were an argument over which warlord got to take up the sword after Muhammed. A political struggle that has continued for centuries and with a lot more barbaric terror behind it than one group like ISIS can manage.

Here's my message:

2015-07-03 01:44:47: Prophet Muhammed warned us of ISIS
Mohammed was a butcher. He was talking down to moderate Muslims, not ISIS. He is describing people who do rituals but not the physical violence and conquering he stood for. Mohammed's definition of "heinous deeds" was probably being homosexual or a woman in public with no chaperone. He was fine with mass murder.

The towering intellect known as a volunteer video game forum moderator decided that this message warranted a suspension. Was my message history good? No, but you're gonna love why. The reason is that I had a prior warning on my account, which I appealed, which was reposted, after even a gamefaqs mod could see that it was not a violation. Yet due to the way gamefaqs operates, this warning remains attached to your account for a month no matter whether it got overturned or not. And no, you can't say anything in your defense because the idea is that you're so guilty and the mods are always so right, so there's no need.

To the administrator who's looking at this message, you might want to look at the following passages from the Koran:

2:191-193 - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing...but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful.   And fight them until there is no more Fitnah and worship is for Allah alone.  But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" - this means against Christians (who believe in the Trinity)

2:216 - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."

3:56 - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help." - "in this world" obviously means through the sword and historically has meant the "choice" at gunpoint of either forced conversion, strict taxation, or death for any non-Muslim.

4:74 - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward." - obviously jihad is not a lovey-dovey "internal struggle with faith" as moderates claim. It involves physical violence, either slaying others or being slain.

4:76 - "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah"

4:89 - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."

4:95 - "Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame, etc.), and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred in grades those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit (at home). Unto each, Allah has promised good (Paradise), but Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home) by a huge reward" - are you listening? This is in DIRECT CONTRADICTION to the claim that Muhammed would praise non-violence while supporting moderate Muslims, not the other way around.

5:33 - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement" - punishments like crucifixion are EXACTLY what ISIS has been doing.

8:12 - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

9:29 - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." - again, the choice of conversion, submission, or death.

These are just from the first ten verses. We could go on. This is Muhammed and his legacy, it cannot be denied.

You might also consider that Muhammed wasn't just talking about this stuff, he was waging war whenever he had the chance. "Peace" agreements to him were only temporary arrangements to survive; when his enemy was perceived as weak, or when he managed to build up enough forces for another challenge, he would take to the battlefield again (such as modern-day Hamas "truce" periods with Israel, even as they continue to call for its destruction and have only used the time of "peace" to get more rockets and kidnapping tunnels set up to kill Jews). The caliphate was meant to be a global Islamic state, where Muslims fought against everyone else until they won over the entire world. Just because they failed the first time, and are confined to extremist groups now, doesn't change what Muhammed wanted and doesn't make them any less of a threat. Especially when ISIS is now the richest terror group and is by its own admission looking to spread Muhammed's legacy with global conquest.

Who do you think Muhammed would reject as "regurgitating the Quran selectively" - the extremists carrying out all the things the book says about jihad? Or the moderate Muslims?

You might also want to look at how terror groups like Hamas frequently cite other hadiths such as the following:

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem)."

You might also want to examine how ISIS is following the earlier example of caliphate rulers and copying their methods. Abu Bakr, for example, was Muhammed's father-in-law and direct successor. His favorite punishment for homosexuals involved throwing them off tall buildings, a practice that ISIS picked up on. The leader of ISIS loves to refer to himself as Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi as well. In fact, we only wish Abu Bakr had been as merciful as ISIS. While ISIS merely does the first step and throws them off buildings, Bakr liked to follow that up with a stoning of the corpse just to make sure the message got across.

We say ISIS is backwards for a reason. It's not because they're inventing new ways to torture and kill people. It's because they're looking back on the punishments that Muhammed and his men doled out, and want to bring that brutality back.

But let's suppose you overlook these inconvenient facts and continue to disagree. Fine. But don't censor other people and tell them they can't have different opinions. Sharia law doesn't apply to gamefaqs, so please do us a favor and bugger off.

Cheerfully yours,

TaiIs82