The Narcissist’s Double Standard
Honourable Dr. Sina.
Lest you misunderstand me, I would like to clarify that I’m just a layman and not a Muslim or a Muslim sympathizer. I also admit that I could not found much time to go through it thoroughly, but some question from your statement, confused me. May be you’ve answered it somewhere here or elsewhere, but I would like to ask you straightway. I’ll be obliged, If you or any of your associate could answer me.
1-Sir, in your assertion you dubbed Prophet Mohammed a narcissist. But as I know, he ordered his followers to donate as much possible to poor mass. How a narcissist could ask to donate or one who claims himself to be a god’s messenger and shows kindness with such order could be a narcissist?
Narcissists are full of good advices for others. However, what they preach is not what they practice. For example, Muhammad prohibited steeling and ordered the hand of the thief to be chopped, yet he raided and looted entire populations. He told his early followers that they should not be slaves to their masters, but obey only God. But he reduced tens of thousands of people into slavery. He said women should guard their chastity. Yet he raped women captured in wars even though they were married. Muhammad is a perfect example of a narcissist who lives by double standard. A man is great to the extent that his words and his deeds coincide. Those who preach others to do good while they do evil are not good people.
2. In his time women are usually kept in house as family property. So if he just have practiced the normal process of that age, how could he be held responsible as a misogynist?
This argument consists of a lie and a fallacy. Women in Muhammad’s time had a lot more rights than after him. Before marrying Muhammad, Khadijah was a wealthy merchant. She had many men working for her. Arabs had female deities – daughters of Allah, which Muhammad thought is degrading to him, and said, “What? For you sons and for Allah daughters? This is indeed an unfair division.” (Q. 53:19-23)
At the time of Muhammad there was a prophetess named Sijjah who had many followers from her own tribe. Also right after his death a young woman named Salma led an army against Muslims. She was defeated through Khalid ibn Walid’s treachery. That coward wounded the camel of Salma and when her camel fell to the ground he fell on her and slew her. In the history of Islam we don’t find any woman rising to prominence and leadership after that.
The fallacy consists in claiming that Muhammad was practicing the tradition of the people of his time and hence he is not to be blamed. Muhammad claimed he came to set an example and told others to emulate him. By following the bad practices of the people whom he called ignorant he sanctioned those practices and now Muslims follow them all over the world and for all the times. If he was a prophet of God he should have led a life different from those of his people. Instead of setting a good example, he became the follower of the ignorant people and then told everyone to follow him. Consequently, Muslims everywhere and for all times will be following the evil practices of the Quraish. It is amazing that 1.3 billion Muslims are so brain dead that not one of them thinks about this patent irony. WhyJesus did not follow the evil practice of the people of his time?
3. Can a mad man be followed by so many people over the ages? Are all men for such a long time become insane?
There have been many mad men who swayed millions. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Khomeini, Kim Jong Ill, Genghis Khan, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Sai Baba, the Founder of Heaven’s Gate, Marshall Applewhite are just a few examples. In fact most leaders of humanity were insane. Their insanity was not obvious to the people arountd them. Take a look at Obama. This man is also a narcissist, and yet he was voted by the vast majorit of Americans and everyone in the world swooned for him. In the same way that peopel were fooled by Obama, they were fooled by Muhammad. Most people are nto rational. The majority of mankind are silly and do silly things most of the time. Obama is just as dangerous as all those people I named. He can’t commit mass murder, not because he is incapable of it, but because narcissists operate in their milieu and do only what they think they can get away with it. In America he can’t commit major crimes, but he has committed many fellonies like identity theft for which he can be jailed. He is as fraudulent and as evil as all those crimianl leaders I named. Yet the majority of people can’t see through his mask. The same was true about other narcissists, including Muhammad.
Narcissists are convincing and very persuasive. They can fool multitudes. You never know they are insane until it is late and the damage is done.
4. He ordered capital punishment, like death by stoning to perpetrators of adultery and other sex related crimes. How could you brand him for similar offences?
I already answered this question. I don’t brand him of these crimes. They are reported by his companions and written by his biographers.
Again see my response to question 1. What narcissists preach and what they do are very different.
5. He ordered severe punishments to other crimes (stealing, looting, murder etc) as well, like amputation, beheading etc. how will you explain this contradiction.
Pl. make it clear that I’m not challenging you as a scholar. It’s just a confusion I want to get rid off.
Waiting for your early reply.
With best of wishes,
I answered this question already. For more explanation please read my book, Understanding Muhammad. The sixth edition will be released in August and it will be available in all bookstores.
Not necessarily, U may be right in many things but not on this matter. If he wanted to destroy America, he would have ordered the attack on Iran's nuke facillities right away. When under attack, Iran would surely missle all the Saudi oil fields to spite the US. This would caused great turmoils to the world industries n businesses n also to US economy. He had shown restrain in ordering sanctions only so far.
He deemed it necessary save the collapsing US economy. America only played a small part in Libya, as Obama wanted to save money. It is sheer stupidity to carry on the war in Afghanistan, which proved to be a bottomless pit for American money n blood. Now the US soldiers had poked the hornet nest (burning Quran ) so get the hell out of there fast ! Another Vietnam war n this time the Taliban are the “ North Vietnamese “ ?
So, how is increasing the debt exponentially supposed to fix it? And as for unnecessary wars, what do you call Libya? But, this is not the place for discourse in American politics, so I'll leave off there
Obama is not the problem. The debt-ridden economy of the US was.. He is doing a good job in fixing it n refrain from going to wars n unnecessary expenditures. All the previous presidents had squandered trillions of USD to fight unneccessary n wreckless wars n to prop up corrupt n bloody regimes. He had slowed down this endless bleeding of US money n blood. The poor Americans have him to thank. What is so wrong with him ???
“I am the punishment of God…If you had not committed great sins, God would not have sent a punishment like me upon you.”
“The greatest happiness is to scatter your enemy, to drive him before you, to see his cities reduced to ashes, to see those who love him shrouded in tears, and to gather into your bosom his wives and daughters.”
“A man’s greatest work is to break his enemies, to drive them before him, to take from them all the things that have been theirs, to hear the weeping of those who cherished them.”
The famous quotes of Genghis Khan (1162-1227 ), the greatest conqueror from Centrel Asia to Eastern Europe.
hitler's germany was not a dictatorship in the 1930's when he was elected.
your argument is false.
Please read this through to understand the atmoshpere mohammad created.
We all have put mohammad in a high pedestal of prophethood due to our imagination while He belongs to this list.
This is the atmoshpere of lunacy that surrounded muhammad and this is what he has perpetrated amongs the muslims. We Indians imagine our muslims rulers having ruled just like the hindu kings ruled i.e. Holding courts, giving fair judgements, foreseeing construction of various public benefitting plans etc. But in reality they were dope addicts who plundered the nearby states and cities for their meals even. Their days were filled with butchering innocents and planning for savagery.
The usage of big words in the Quran and Sirat Rasul allah and in the Indian history books have glossed over mohammad's and these rulers actual mental state as deranged maniacs. Now, since mohammad is the role model for all male muslims, guess what should they turn themselves into in the name of allah to enter paradise ?
That the founder of Islam might be considered to have been a psychopathic narcissist is perhaps not unreasonable. One can easily couple this behavior with his hatred of Jews, since narcissists can be considered image-chasing abusive wannabes (for real). Mohammad claimed to be the latest and last recipient of G-d's revelation, thus displacing Jews from a similar position (even though the Quran acknowledges Jews and Torah). In his proclaimed role of superiority, Mohammad proceeded to slaughter the Jewish tribes and settlements of Arabia. Any casual reading of the Quran and Hadith will show the reader just how abusive Mohammad was.
Glad it helped.
Thank you John. This was the answer I was looking for.
Muslims are able to deceive other Muslims about science because most of their audience is not knowledgeable about science.
I think after the Scientific Revealation got started,most Muslims has been away from it.Even now the science is being foolishly described among the Muslims to prove Koran authentic.These ridiculous efforts are not going to work for many days.The Islamic scholars who are trying to shape it a peaceful form even they themselve also believe in peace,it will not work because Islamic Prophet himself did not have a peaceful life and most of his orders reflects the wars and violence.
Mafia leaders in Italy, in Latin America or elsewhere often show a lot of charity. For instance, Pablo Escobar.
Quote from Wikipedia:
"Escobar was responsible for the construction of many hospitals, schools and churches in western Colombia, which gained him popularity inside the local Roman Catholic Church. He worked hard to cultivate his 'Robin Hood' image, and frequently distributed money to the poor through housing projects and other civic activities, which gained him notable popularity among the poor. The population of Medellín often helped Escobar by serving as lookouts, hiding information from the authorities, or doing whatever else they could do to protect him."
Would anyone doubt that that Escobar was a violent felon and a narcissist despite of those good deeds?
I appreciate your comments, but why are you more concerned about insulting the Islamic world than defeating the totalitarian threat that is today's equivalent to Nazism and Communism?
You ought to get up to speed with the free download at ShariaTheThreat.com
You will recognize a lot of respected names in national security in the book's authors. The download link is near the bottom of the page, you don't have to buy it.
You ought to consider reading Dr. Sina's book too. It will help you understand Muslim psychology better than anything else out there.
You are right. My language was casual and sloppy. I probably should have said a lot of us, or some such thing. People like yourself who had watched him were aware, and while I read a little before the election, I didn't see anything alarming in the materials I was exposed to. I did, however, have a sharp friend who knew Obama's background and what he was up to and told me about it before the election. Since then the information has gradually come out and I have learned what he is up to. Of course I didn't vote for him anyway. Even if he was a decent guy, I would have voted Republican anyway.
I'm not trying to be insulting … but you are 'part of the problem.'
You are perpetuating the thought that America's political RIGHT (conservatives and Tea Party) want to destroy/kill/ bury with the pigs 1.2 billion (or so) Muslims. This is simply not true.
What is true: The Right wants to be rid of, yes, kill even, the Radical Muslims who support carrying suicide bombs by children into crowded market places or impose their self-serving strict religious beliefs fellow Muslims or other countries with different religious beliefs.
Just as here in America I want radicals who bomb police stations and blow up Oklahoma Federal Buildings caught (or killed, to be perfectly truthful) before the act.
Your ideas that America, and especially the Republicans, want to develop a "clear cult plan to form an alliance of civilized nations against Muslim world and destroy Islam" is clearly 'your' cult plan to divide the people of the world. Is this an intelligence test to see if we can see through your words and see the divisiveness of your words … or did you think we are just stupid and will accept your conclusion that America and its allies want to 'destroy Islam.' You are an insult to the Islamic world and I pray they see through you smoke screen of hate and deceit.
And one last point: The liberal left has no use for the Constitution of the United States of America. They are continually trying to change its meaning to become more self-serving to their socialist ideals. Yes, Obama and the radial left are somewhat held in check by the constitution.
And if case you live in a cave, Obama is, and has been, trying to destroy the economy of the U.S. and bring it down to the level of a 3rd World Nation so the playing field is level. This is comparable to destroying the health of a healthy person so we can all be sick and weak. How does that help the health of the sick and weak? It doesn't … but the sick and weak mind of Obama and the radical Leftists cannot understand that.
John, not all of "We" were not fooled by Obama. He came from life long racially charged background, the latest of which was 'ACORN.' He was not the MLK type of leader, but the socialist/communist type of leader intent on radically changing America, not improving America. This is the lie that he presented to America and 50+% of the American voters believed it He presented "Hope and Change" but NO PLAN. To this date, as you say, he has presented NO PLAN that I have seen. He is incapable of presenting a plan because of the many 'radical' divisions he represents. No matter which way he turns, he is offending one of the radical groups he represents. This is why the Congress was unable to pass a budget in late 2010. No matter what they passed in terms of spending, they were going to offend one or more of their political support groups. Not passing any kind of budget allowed Congress to return 'home' free of any need to answer questions of why they voted as they did.
And he was not 'unknown' to those of us who saw beyond the 'color of his skin.' We saw what he represented in terms of He clearly represented the ideals of liberalism, was a friend of unions, and appealed to those who were, and are, dependent on government for a variety of reasons.
Grover Norquist has infected the conservative movement with dhimmitude. In fact, he was the one that sold Bush the "Islam is a Religion of Peace" line. It's an uphill battle. Some are aware like Allen West, John Bolton, Michelle Bachman and others. In fact, the Tea Party just connected with Tom Trento as a security advisor. He is a big name in counter-jihad.
Don't be ridiculous. How many times has Dr. Sina offered his book for free? He cares about Muslims getting the information, not his profit, which is $2 per book. He also authorizes direct bulk printing from the printer. I don't know that he gets any money from that.
We were all fooled by Obama. He came into the presidential race as a virtual unknown and was promoted by the leftists as a messiah with no discussion of policy or substance. His presidency to this day is marked by attitude and posturing rather than policy. Several books have revealed Obama's true nature. Stanley Kurtz' book, Radical in Chief, exposes Obama's communism and discusses Stealth Socialism. Pamela Geller's book, Post-American Presidency, discusses Obama's war on America, and another good read is "The Roots of Obama's Rage".
You haven't been keeping track of how many laws Obama has disregarded and with Eric Holder in his pocket, no one is doing anything about it.
buy my book … buy my book … buy my book
Even if Obama is a narcissist and is a most dangerous person he cannot behave like Muhammad because his political power is constrained by the constitution of USA within the purview of which he can exercise his power as president of USA. But he can do harm to the civil society by facilitating Muslims take strong positions in politics and his administration of USA but only for a short period, that is, another 1 year or 5 years if he is reelected as president.
But who will succeed is most important. Do the Republicans have clear cult plan to form an alliance of civilized nations against Muslim world and destroy Islam?
Please listen to this radio interview
Obama is a disturbed man. He is a sick individual and as such extremely dangerous. Like Muhammd this man has fooled the most gullible people. He is a narcissist. You must know what this means to fully understand this person.
Hello Mr. Sina,
My political knowledge is very little, thats why I don't get involved. But can you tell me
why is this dislike for President Obama?
Although I don't know much about politics, as I said, but I feel that Obama is one of
the greatest presidents of the U.S. I think that he is tactful, wise, knows how to deal with
problems, the country looks in good shape since he took power….he is empathatic with a notable charisma, and I think that he feels with the poor.
Are you very rich, Mr. Sina?
I like most of your writings, but your opinion about Obama is not my favorite.
I have been puzzled by some of the contradictions in Muhammad's actions and doings. According to accepted Hadiths like Bukhari and the rest, Muhammad had slaves and even endorsed the practice of having slaves for his people. He also said freeing a slave is a virtuous thing to do and expiates sins. All of that put together makes sense, by that I mean, slavery was a normalized institution with manumission as a part of it.
Now, in Bukhari Volume 3, Book 34, Number 430, Muhammad says: "Allah says, 'I will be against three persons on the Day of Resurrection: … One who sells a free person (as a slave) and eats the price… " And here I am puzzled. Who is a 'free person' according to Allah and Muhammad? Is it only people who belong to their religion and tribe? What's the explanation of this hadith? I can't find anything on this and Abul Ala Mawdudi seems to have taken this hadith as his fundamental argument to say that Islam does not allow slavery. Is he right in saying so?
Mr. Sina, could you shed some light on that? If you have written any article on it, please guide me to it. Looking forward to your new book!
All cult leaders make rules for their gullible followers not for them. Muhammad is a perfect example.