Last Blog Update from Blackmore: His Response to REASON INFUSION

As I noted in my last response, the videos that I was in the middle of responding to have been deleted and replaced with another video titled "REASON INFUSION HOW I CAN BE MUSLIM AND BLACK".

My participation in this discussion on Islam and slavery is over. After this response from Blackmore to his new video, there will be no more further updates concerning REASON INFUSION posted on my blog.

From the FFI Forum (visit this thread for all future updates):

Just received this video from REASONINFUSION.

He said that he is satisfied that Muhammad was born into a society that already had slavery. Well by this he confirms what I already said and that is that Islam is nothing more than the habits norms and values of a primitive 7th century Arab desert tribe. They had slavery, and so does Islam. They held pilgrimage to Mecca, muslims also do. They walked seven times around the Kaaba, muslims also do. They preformed circumcision, muslims still do. They beat women, muslims still do. They had sex with children, muslims also do. The list is endless. Muhammad let the people as much as he could keep their old (polytheistic) habits. To join Islam they hardly had to give up or change anything of what they were accustomed to. This was to make the transfer from their old polytheistic believes to Islam as smooth as possible. No one had to free their slaves! So you may ask what new did Muhammad bring? What came with Islam in existence that wasn’t already there? What was so revolutionary about Islam?

REASONINFUSION you are completely brainwashed. You forgive Muhammad of keeping slaves because he was born into a society that already had slavery. And because of Muhammad today’s muslims still do and muslims always will do. But, where is Allah in this story? Wasn’t Muhammad only the transmitter of Allah's laws and rules? You make it look like Muhammad was the decisionmaker in Islam instead of Allah.

And again, 300 years of western slavery is the object of your irritation. Even if that’s hundreds years gone. Don’t you see REASONINFUSION that you do not have any argument to defend Islam with? This is shooting with blanks. Because with words anything can be said you are just saying something. Doesn’t the Islam, the Quran or hadith, provide you with anything better than accusing others of something that muslims still do but the others don’t?

And than REASONINFUSION gives a little summary of Islamic texts made by slave owners to make them look good. The laws of a country should be based on the Quran and the hadith is what muslims are saying. I wonder what would happen to a slave if this becomes the law of a country: Bukhari volume 7, #132 "Narrated Zam'a, "The prophet said, "None of you should flog his wife as he flogs a slave and then have sexual intercourse with her in the last part of the day."" So REASONINFUSION you want laws based on this example of Muhammad. All Muhammad’s words and deeds are perfect right?

To make Islam look good REASONINFUSION, and basically all muslims, do magnify the slightest acts of Muhammad which can be considered good, like letting go a slave, to enormous proportions. While at the same time huge achievements of others, like a total ban and total prohibition of slavery, are belittled as trash.

At 5.25 REASONINFUSION starts saying, complaining, that according to the bible black people’s destiny is slavery. Well there are quit a few Islamic scholar who agree with the bible:

[Blacks are] people who are by their very nature slaves. Quoted in “Blasphemy Before God: The Darkness of Racism In Muslim Culture” by Adam Misbah aI-Haqq

Therefore, the Negro nation are, as a rule, submissive to slavery, because [Negroes] have little [that is essentially] human and have attributes that are quite similar to those of dumb animals, as we have stated." Ibn Khaldun, Muqaddimah, 14th century

Blacks] are ugly and misshapen, because they live in a hot country."Ibn Qutaybah (828-889)

"[inhabitants of sub-Saharan African countries] are people distant from the standards of humanity" "Their nature is that of wild animals..."Hudud al-`alam, 982 AD

"beyond [known peoples of black West Africa] to the south there is no civilization in the proper sense. There are only humans who are closer to dumb animals than to rational beings. They live in thickets and caves, and eat herbs and unprepared grain. They frequently eat each other. They cannot be considered human beings." Ibn Khaldun, Muqaddimah

So REASONINFUSION is following a religion that doesn’t even see blacks as human. How low go you go? How indoctrinated can you be?

At the end REASONINFUSION tells that he is Muslim because he believes in one god. That’s an absurd reason! Why should the world have been created by one god? What’s the logics behind this? Why can’t there be four of five gods who have done the job? Why is one god the most logical?

And he says Islam is a monotheistic religion. Well it’s full of polytheistic rituals like offering animals, walking around a cube, pilgrimage, Ramadan, praying in a certain direction, praying at certain times, the honoring dead objects like a stone, kissing that stone, give mystical value to astronomical appearances like sun-eclipses and shooting stars, and so on. This is pure polytheism. These are the same habits and rituals the pre-Islamic Arabs also used to do and perform! REASONINFUSION, how do you explain this?

REASONINFUSION never explains why he prefers a culture that always had slavery and always will have, above a culture that invents slavery and later on abandons it. And would he, if he had lived over a 1000 years, that would be in the year 3012, still defend Islam with a the 300 years of western caused slavery? Would it still be a good argument? And if it isn’t why is it now?

REASONINFUSION’s defense of Islamic slavery is that Muhammad grew up in a culture that already kept slaves. I'd already bring the question up about almighty merciful and justful Allah. It seems that there is nothing in his message that goes against the whishes norms and values of the 7th century Arabs. Basically all Allah did was confirming that the Arabs did a great job so far. So that brings up the question of why Allah felt the need for sending the Arabs a message by messenger. If they were already doing alright what’s the purpose for his message? Wouldn’t it be way better to contact a messenger in a un-Islamic culture? I’m sure that in those days close to the pre-history there must have been cultures that didn’t beat women, didn’t have sex with children, didn’t keep slaves, didn’t have forces marriages, didn’t commit stoning, didn’t do circumcisions, and so on. To people who are not acquainted with these habits it would be useful to send a message. It beats me why Allah chose for a different route. And it beats REASONINFUSION to, he's not gonna answer this question.

For my response to REASON INFUSION's "challenge" that was originally appended as an update here, go to this page. For Blackmore's responses, go here.