How the Islamist Mindset Rationalizes — and Promotes — ‘Sex Sins’
 

The link: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/how-the...otes-sex-sins/


How the Islamist Mindset Rationalizes — and Promotes — ‘Sex Sins’

Almost anything is permissible if it can help advance the jihad.

March 1, 2010 - by Raymond Ibrahim

Is it inconsistent for Muslim “holy warriors” to engage in voyeuristic acts of lasciviousness? Because would-be jihadists and martyrs have been known to frequent strip bars — such as the 9/11 hijackers and Major Nidal Hasan, whose “late-night jiggle-joint carousing stands at odds with the picture of a devout Muslim” — many Americans have concluded that such men cannot be “true” Muslims, leading to the ubiquitous conviction that they are “hijacking Islam.”

In fact, Islamists rely on several rationalizations — doctrines, even — that make “jiggle-joint carousing” consistent with Muslim piety. Considering that Islamic law permits sex slaves (Koran 4:3), who can be kept topless by their masters, and makes sex one of the highest paradisiacal rewards, this should come as no great surprise. However, to elaborate:

First, the doctrine of taqiyya allows Muslims residing among infidels to deceive the latter by, among other things, behaving like infidels, e.g., frequenting strip bars: “Taqiyya [deception], even if committed without duress, does not lead to a state of infidelity — even if it leads to sin deserving of hellfire.”

In conjunction, the overarching Muslim principle that necessity makes that which is forbidden permissible goes a long way in helping Islamists validate their libidinous desires: “It is ‘necessary’ for me to be at this strip club so infidels come to believe that I’m just a regular bloke and not a soldier of Allah.” Indeed, sometimes the mere gratification of sexual urges is deemed a “necessity” that makes the forbidden permissible in Islam, as in this historical anecdote:

After conquering the Banu Mustaliq tribe in 628, Muhammad’s men deemed it “necessary” to rape their captive women (citing their wives’ absence and untended desires). However, they also wanted to sell these women for a profit, which posed complications, as copulating with them risked impregnating them. So they rationalized that ‘azl (coitus interruptus) would solve the problem and asked Muhammad. The prophet went one step further and offered a cosmic rationalization, dismissing coitus interruptus as unnecessary, “for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born” — that is, pullout or not, you cannot thwart Allah’s will, so don’t bother. (See here and here for more ‘azl quotes.)

Muhammad also maintained that death in the jihad not only blots out all sins — including sexual ones, a la voyeurism — but it actually gratifies them:

The martyr is special to Allah. He is forgiven [of all sins] from the first drop of blood [that he sheds]. He sees his throne in paradise, where he will be adorned in ornaments of faith. He will wed the ‘Aynhour [a.k.a. “voluptuous women”] and will not know the torments of the grave, and safeguards against the greater terror [hell]. … And he will copulate with 72 ‘Aynhour (see The Al Qaeda Reader, p. 143).

In light of this, how “un-Islamic” can it be for Islamists to gawk at nude, gyrating, infidel women — especially prior to “martyring” themselves in the jihad, which, as Muhammad said, blots out all their sins? This rationalization has precedents going back to the Middle Ages: Muslim groups like the Isma‘ilis created hidden “gardens of delight” swarming with voluptuous women, and, prior to sending their assassins on missions, would immerse them in these gardens, thereby giving these prototypical “suicide attackers” a foretaste of the sexual delights awaiting them in the afterlife. After this experience, the assassins would eagerly undertake any assignment simply to be “martyred” and return to the gardens of delight, which were based on “the description Muhammad gave of his paradise” (see Marco Polo’s 13th-century account).

Nor has this intersection between sex and violence subsided in the modern era. The Arabic satellite program Daring Question recently aired various clips of young jihadists giddily singing about their forthcoming deaths and subsequent sexual escapades in heaven. After documenting various anecdotes indicative of Islamist obsession with sex, human rights activist Magdi Khalil concluded that “absolutely everything [jihad, suicide operations, etc.] revolves around sex in heaven,” adding, “if you look at the whole of Islamic history, you come up with two words: sex and violence.”

Deceit, rationalizations, and a paradise that forgives the would-be martyr’s every sin — indeed, that satiates his hedonistic urges with 72 voluptuous women (which may only be raisins) — all help demonstrate how Muslims can be observant and simultaneously frequent strip clubs.

Yet there is one final explanation that requires an epistemic shift to appreciate fully: in Islam, legalism trumps morality, resulting in what Westerners may deem irreconcilable behavior among Muslims, that is, “hypocrisy.” As Daniel Pipes observed some three decades ago in his In the Path of God:

[There is] a basic contrast between the Christian and Islamic religions: the stress on ethics versus the stress on laws. Controls on sexual activity directly reflect this difference. The West restricts sex primarily by imbuing men and women with standards of morality. … Muslims, in contrast, depend on “external precautionary safeguards” [e.g., segregation, veiling] to restrain the sexes. … Rather than instill internalized ethical principles, Islam establishes physical boundaries to keep the sexes apart.

In this context, the problem is not Muslims frequenting strip clubs, but misplaced Western projections that assume religious piety is always synonymous with personal morality — a notion especially alien to legalistic Islamists whose entire epistemology begins and ends with the literal words of seventh-century Muhammad and his Koran.

And it is this slavishness that best explains Islamist behavior. For the same blind devotion to the literal mandates of Islam which encourages Islamists to lead lives of deceit also explains why Islamists are callous to human suffering, why they are desensitized to notions of human dignity and the cries of their raped victims, and, yes, why they cheerily forfeit their lives in exchange for a fleshy paradise. In all cases, Muhammad and his Allah said so — and that’s all that matters.

Interesting article. I would argue that the use of Taqiyya to deceive Infidels is a valid technique, but one thats truth is known only in the heart of the user. Most of what I have seen of Taqiyya is as justification to conduct acts that would generally not be permitted. But there are exceptions where Muslims use Taqiyya in a genuine manner in order to blend in. This could be as simple as not wearing the proper clothing or not praying five times a day in order to not draw attention. Most people (Muslim's and non Muslim's) can see through the lie of claiming Taqiyya as an excuse to visit strip joints, drink, etc.

As for the Quran being used to justify all evil acts....it can and often does. But if taken one sentence at a time the same could be said of nearly all religious scripture to include the Bible, and the Tanakh. I'm not saying that the totality of the Bible is in any way similar to the Quran, merely that due to the nature of scriptures there is much that can be taken out of context and twisted. Many have twisted Christianity and the Bible throughout time from the KKK to the Nazi's.

The ethics vs. law argument is a good one. I think this stems largely from the "if it is God's will" mentality for everything. There is a huge lack of personal accountability in most Islamic culture because of this (but again this is not the case with all Muslim's). This is why there societies enforce laws instead of relying on ethics and personal character as most western nations do.

My main point is that we should be careful to not take the stance of "all Muslim's are terrorists." This is a dismissive and dangerous way to think. Islam is a religion that is flawed, as are most for one reason or another, but it cannot be damned any more than the rest. From my experience I would argue that economic, social, and political issues set the table for extremism more readily than religion.

Just my thoughts.....

So I guess my happy thought of the day will be that I will never make a good Muslim. I have morals!!
AM

Although I'm not convinced by it, the article is thought-provoking. I don't understand why Christianity is pitted against Islam to make it seem superior, however. The article mentions the rape of captive women by Muhammad, but fails to mention the same thing is described and encouraged at times in the Bible as well. The same thing with slavery. The Bible also mentions "external precautionary safeguards" that women must adhere to. I would also say that "blind devotion" to "literal mandates" could describe one who believes in any religion or belief. That seems to be up to the individual. Wouldn't the crusaders be described as "callous to human suffering" also ?

I am not a Biblical scholar by any means so please forgive this question if it seems dumb but, where exactly in the Bible does it say it is ok to rape captives, or anyone for that matter? Killing is in there, fasting I've seen, even cutting the skin off of a groan (sic) man's penis right before going into battle (for you Old Testament fans out there) but I don't remember hearing anything about rape being ok.

~Aaron

Google Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael.

Deleted.

There are many bible passages where the Israelites are told to "take the women" for themselves. The 20th and 21st chapters of Deuteronomy are examples.

I meant that more to say that I didn't understand the author's justifications for doing it.

You got it backwards, Islam pits itself against every other religion and pagan on the face of the planet - it’s Islamic Law - all other religions are abrogated by Islam.

w4.1 THE FINALITY OF THE PROPHET’S MESSAGE (from a1.5)

(2) Previously revealed religions were valid in their own eras, as is attested to by many verses of the holy Koran, but were abrogated by the universal message of islam, as is equally attested to by many verses in the Koran…

…it is unbelief (kufr) to hold that the remnant cults now bearing the names of formerly valid religions, such as “Christianity” or “Judaism,”…

(3) islam is the final religion that allah most high will never lessen or abrogate until the last day.

(Pgs. 846-848 - The Reliance of the Traveler: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law)

What happens for the professing kufr you may ask?

o4.17 There is no indemnity obligatory for killing a non-muslim…
(see pgs 593-598 - The Reliance of the Traveler: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law)

http://www.amazon.com/Reliance-Trave.../dp/0915957728

It is difficult for any rational thinking human to imagine so much hatred could be the result of three works of fiction, all perversely claiming to tell the truth and professing a love of peace - astounding.

And so it goes...:(

Richard's jaded $.02 :munchin

Aww, now we've stirred the pot.

So, do you also believe the works of the Jewish historian Josephus to be fiction as well?

I said it before. But, I meant that I didn't understand the author's reasoning for doing so. I don't mind him criticizing any religion. But, why present one as if it's better ? Most religions are naturally pitted against each other as belief in one typically means rejection of the other.

Christianity is the final religion according to the Bible.

Many verses in the Bible call for unbelievers to be killed. Christianity has also been used to justify the murder or enslavement of large groups of people.

LJ19 - I think the point you are missing is that any religion can justify anything with select verses from their sacred texts.

I would ask you to identify any verse in the NEW Testament that calls for rape of women and children or the enslavement of non believers.

You need to seperate the action of men against that of the word in their sacred texts.

Thanks for your response afchic. But, that was the point I was making. If any religion can justify anything with select verses, one religion shouldn't be described as more "callous to human suffering" or more "desensitized to notions of human dignity."

Did Jesus ever speak out against slavery ?

WWJD
 

Regarding slavery, here's what Jesus said:

"If you want to be great, you must be the servant of all the others. And if you want to be first, you must be the slave of the rest. The Son of Man did not come to be a slave master, but a slave who will give his life to rescue many people." (Matthew 20:26-28, CEV)

"Whoever wants to be first among you must be the slave of everyone else." (Mark 10:44, NLT)

Indeed, the slavery Jesus and Paul spoke of is a very different type of slavery we know. The slavery they condoned is serving people with absolute selfless love, regardless what positions we are in: doctors, teachers, employers and employees, parents and children.

Jesus taught that the two most important commandments are 1) love God, and 2) love others as you love yourself: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength. The second is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these." (Mark 12:30-31, ASV)

Show me a similar passage in the Koran...which hasn't been abrogated...you won't find one. The muslim relgion is a made up fairy tale designed by a child molestor, liar and thief to justify his actions to his gullible followers.

You can make excuses for them if you want to. Be my guest, but don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.

I'm not trying to offend you. I don't have any preference for either religion. I know Jesus mentions a symbolic slavery. But Jesus doesn't ever condemn those who have slaves, and he never says physical slavery should end.

You think your religion is true, and theirs is a lie, I understand. Christianity hasn't always been tolerant, however, and some verses do support violence and slavery.

You fault Jesus for not speaking out against slavery.

Mohammad laid out specific rules for the taking and handling of slaves.

Do you consider those to be equivalent?

Okay...let's compare
 

The Koran covers quite a few different beliefs that the New Testament doesn't cover, like:

Qur’an 33.27 And He made you heirs to their land and their dwellings and their property, and (to) a land which you have not yet trodden, and Allah has power over all things.

Qur’an 21:44 Do they see Us advancing, gradually reducing the land (in their control), curtailing its borders on all sides? It is they who will be overcome.

Qur’an 9:123 “murder them and treat them harshly”

Qur’an 3.28 Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends rather than believers; and whoever does this, he shall have nothing of (the guardianship of) Allah, but you should guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully; and Allah makes you cautious of (retribution from) Himself; and to Allah is the eventual coming.

Qur’an 3:56 “As for those disbelieving infidels, I will punish them with a terrible agony in this world and the next. They have no one to help or save them.”

Qur’an 4.89 They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah’s way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.

Qur’an 5:51 “Muslims, do not make friends with any but your own people.”

Qur’an 5:72 “They are surely infidels who say; ‘God is the Christ, the Messiah, the son of Mary.”

Qur’an 8:12 cp. 8:60 “Instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers”; “smite above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them”

Qur’an 2:191 “...kill the disbelievers wherever we find them”

Qur’an 9.33 He it is Who sent His Apostle with guidance and the religion of truth, that He might cause it to prevail over all religions.

Qur’an 2:193 “And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah”

Qur’an 8:71 And if they intend to act unfaithfully towards you, so indeed they acted unfaithfully towards Allah before, but He GAVE YOU MASTERY OVER THEM

Qur’an 8:55 Surely the vilest of animals in Allah’s sight are those who disbelieve.

Qur’an 22:19-22 “fight and slay the Pagans, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem” “for them (the unbelievers) garments of fire shall be cut and there shall be poured over their heads boiling water whereby whatever is in their bowels and skin shall be dissolved and they will be punished with hooked iron rods”

Qur’an 48:13 Those who “believe not in Allah and His Messenger, He has prepared, for those who reject Allah, a Blazing Fire!”

Qur’an 3:54 “‘Lord, we believe in Your revelations (the Torah and Gospels) and follow this Apostle (Jesus). Enroll us among the witnesses.’ But the Christians contrived a plot and Allah did the same; but Allah’s plot was the best.”

Qur’an 8:12 “Your Lord inspired the angels with the message: ‘I will terrorize the unbelievers. Therefore smite them on their necks and every joint and incapacitate them. Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes.”

Qur’an 8:58 “If you apprehend treachery from any group on the part of a people (with whom you have a treaty), retaliate by breaking off (relations) with them. The infidels should not think they can bypass (Islamic law or the punishment of Allah). Surely they cannot escape.”

Qur’an 8:7 “Allah wished to confirm the truth by His words: ‘Wipe the infidels (non-Muslims) out to the last.’”

Qur’an 8:39 “So, fight them till all opposition ends and the only religion is Islam.”

Qur’an 8:59 “The infidels should not think that they can get away from us. Prepare against them whatever arms and weaponry you can muster so that you may terrorize them. They are your enemy and Allah’s enemy.”

Qur’an 8:60 “Prepare against them (non-Muslims) whatever arms and cavalry you can muster that you may strike terror in the enemies of Allah (non-Muslims), and others besides them not known to you. Whatever you spend in Allah’s Cause will be repaid in full, and no wrong will be done to you.”

Qur’an 8:7 “Allah wished to confirm the truth by His words: ‘Wipe the infidels (non-Muslims) out to the last.’”

Qur’an 4:101 “The unbelievers (non-Muslims) are your inveterate foe.”

Qur’an 8:60 “Prepare against them (non-Muslims) whatever arms and cavalry you can muster that you may strike terror in the enemies of Allah (non-Muslims), and others besides them not known to you. Whatever you spend in Allah’s Cause will be repaid in full, and no wrong will be done to you.”

Bukhari:V4B56N814 “There was a Christian who embraced Islam and he used to write the revelations for the Prophet. Later on he returned to Christianity again he used to say: ‘Muhammad knows nothing but what I have written for him.’”

Qur’an 9.28 O you who believe! the idolaters are nothing but unclean, so they shall not approach the Sacred Mosque (Mecca) after this year;

I could go on and on, but you get the point. When dealing with muslims the "Golden Rule" is do unto them before they do unto you. Don't believe that?
Take a trip to Yemen or Egypt or Iran and have a discussion about which relgion is correct. Bet you a quarter they cut your head off.

The bible also laid out specific rules for the taking and handling of slaves in the books of Exodus and Leviticus.

Moses also had provisions for divorce.
The Savior had something to say on the matter:

Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning."
Matthew 19:8 (NIV)

Once again, Old Testament vs New Testament. Christianity is based in deed on the new testament, and how Christ acted. Yes the Old Testament is important to Christians, but the New Testament is what we are all about.

What does Christ say about evil doers: "Offer the wicked man no resistance. On the contrary, if anyone hits you on the right cheek, offer him the other as well" (Matthew 5:38-39), Does the Koran have such a statement? Don't think so

Thats the biggest difference right there, the Qur'an encourages vengeance that can spark a blood feud that could last a couple generations. Have you ever seen anyone turn the other cheek for any occasion? I haven't, the same will go for governments just as it does with people. I think all religions in some way, are flawed by either being re-written or messed up from the start to fuel someone else's interests. What started the Crusades? I don't think God wanted anyone killing in his name, and for all we know the Pope said that to settle that land for Europe. Back in them days over in Jerusalem, I believe Muslims, Christians, Jews, and various sects got along better than they ever had in all the years of history, this was also seen in places like Toledo, Spain. Anyone can twist anything to their own interests, Islam is not a problem. There are drug addicted criminal types in Iraq/Afghanistan posing as "warriors of God" calling Jihad against us, and the underlings follow just like Crusaders. Ideology can go both ways, theres one or two things you might consider morale in the Qur'an *I haven't looked, but striking back when attacked seems to be all the rage in the real world* and in the Bible, there might be alot of good morales, but they will all have their flaws. So, I guess my message is, and I'm sure some will agree, don't make an enemy out of a religion. Not all Muslims are terrorists.

I respect the points that those who side with the author have made. Arguing about religion tends to get people worked up though, so I think we're best off agreeing to disagree.

What I believe is that Islam today represents a physical threat to all non-Islamic people, and Christianity does not.

Devilside, you might want to do some more reading on the Crusades, particularly the Moorish and Muslim invasions of Europe and the Christian efforts to repel them.

TR

I stand corrected, thanks for the info.

What I believe is that people are - for their own selfishly nefarious reasons - continuing to make use of some of the greatest popular works of fiction (which are little more than legendary hearsay, at best) to justify whatever drama, control or pain they can bequeath to their fellow man.

Personally, I find dramatic works such as "Inherit The Wind" much more to my liking, far more entertaining and thought provoking, and enormously enjoyable because they are far less likely to be made into something they aren't.

Richard's $.02 :munchin

I agree faith is unfortunately too easily manipulated, your post made me think of an old quote.

*

FWIW, I understand your point. I think 'critiques' of Islam would be more effective if they were offered from the perspective of Muslims. Many, if not most, belief systems can be dinged to death from an outsider's point of view and, arguably, can be dismissed by insiders.

IMO, asking repeatedly the questions: "Does your belief system really work for you? Are you happier for being a [fill in the blank]?" are ways to get people to talk about their own experiences, in their own terms.

Judge for yourself.

The papal bull issued by Pope Innocent II that sanctioned the Knights Templar as "defenders of the Catholic Church and assailants of Christ's foes" is available here. It is noteworthy that their freedom of action is not restricted to Muslims but also includes other Christians as well as pagans.

The papal bull issued by Pope Eugene III to start the second crusade is available here.

IMO, a point to remember is that the notion of 'crusading,' in practice, described military operations over a wide geographic area against diverse groups of peoples. As a leading scholar on the topic recently told a (presumably) attentive audience.
__________________________________________________ _________
* Jonathan Riley-Smith, The Crusades, Christianity, and Islam, the Bampton Lectures in America (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008), p. 9.

It could have been - IF - the book had also included experts holding views skeptical of the historicity of the New Testament.

Have you read - Challenging the Verdict: A Cross-Examination of Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ"?

I believe Jesus was a person - as was Mohammad and Davy Crockett - beyond that - :confused: - and so the legends go...

Richard's jaded $.02 :munchin

OK, since we're going to ignore Josephus, what exactly did the council of Nicea get wrong?

Corrupted and disputed - fictionalized components mixed with biased observation and editing as with other writings of discussion in this thread.

I don't understand the question - are you referring to their majority (but not all) agreement upon an acceptable corporate mission statement to present to their franchisees or the exile of those who disagreed with the majority or their handbook of standing operating procedures (Canon) or the agreement upon when to standardize their Easter celebrations or the decision related to the Meletian schism?

Since your question infers a belief the Council got nothing wrong - do you agree with Canon 3 of the Council's SOP?

Canon 3: All members of the clergy are forbidden to dwell with any woman, except a mother, sister, or aunt.

Richard

*

OK, here's the question. You stated that you doubted the reliability of the New Testament. The Council of Nicea compiled the New Testament. Tell us what they got wrong; i.e. what was wrong with their methodology, what facts did they rely upon that have since been proven incorrect, etc.

As to Josephus' writing: SOME people dispute that the entire portion regarding Christ was correct. Most maintain that at least some portion therein was correct. However, most if not all historians maintain that Josephus' discussion of James, Jesus' brother, was accurate. As Josephus was a Jewish, and not a Christian, historian, his only "bias" as you called it, should have been to include neither of these "Christians" within his historical account, or to at least have been derogatory to both. Do you agree or disagree?

Are there any other portions of Josephus' writings that you dispute? Does the fact that he was a historian that was Jewish make his Antiquities more or less accurate?

BTW, my earlier questions implied nothing. They were one-sentence questions intended to delve deeper into your blanket dismissals of the veracity of the world's three largest religions. Specifically, the intentions therein were to discern whether your dismissals were based upon logic and fact, versus the invective contained within your writings. Simply: you opined, not I. Back it up.

How so?
 

I'm not sure how this argument holds water? What constitutes a lie is a matter of fact not faith. There seems to be a fair amount of historical evidence a man named Jesus lived, whether or not he was divine is a matter of faith.

Historical perspective matters too since the apostles or zealots (not meant to be offensive but likely how the Pagan Romans viewed them) were members of an uprising in conquered lands that threatened the status quo. As the movement gained traction, the Romans took the common steps to stifle it including culling the leadership, until such time as the Roman emperor Constantine realized he could use Christianity to enhance his political ends. By amazing coincidence a burning cross appeared in the heavens to inspire his troops at the Milvian Bridge shortly before a decisive battle.

There are also issues of cultural values, in the prosperous West, we rank value of life very high, obviously not the case globally, there are parts of the third world where a murder can be bought for considerably less than the price of a toaster. People die for all sorts of reasons, some of them seemingly stupid to us, all the time.

Culture aside, history has shown people will die for what they value. Soldiers for example choose to die for things they value highly. Our troops at Corregidor knew the score, they weren't fools. The Japanese Kamikazes or defenders of Iwo Jima, chose death in a lost cause. These people were not inherently stupid no one believed that the war could be won at this point regardless of the propaganda. I'm sure some of the veterans on this site could go into their reasons better than I.

Perhaps, People typically don't die for things they don't value makes more sense?

3 largest religions?
 

Perhaps my Google Fu is weak, but while prominent historically particularly in the West is it possible there are anywhere near as many Jews as Hindus or Buddhists?

Buddhism doesn't seem to get near the bad press Islam does, yet the Tamil Tigers are terrorists and Buddhists, which may coincide with Richard's point about violence from ideologies espousing peace. Instead of debating the veracity of any one particular faith over another, should we be looking at the nature of men?

*

Apparently, the Tamil Tigers are predominantly Hindu.

Link to a story on the Tamil Tigers from the BBC:

Analysis: Tamil-Muslim divide

I wonder if this is a question that can even be answered definitively. The fact that historians invest so much time trying to understand the motivation of soldiers who fought during a number conflicts suggests that the question defies uncomplicated answers.

IMO, answering the question basically requires one to know a person's state of mind during those moments when one faces certain death. How would one know that a person is balancing thoughts of "This is a cause for which I'd die" with thoughts of "Maybe I'll come out of this alive.":confused:

And then there are the complicated questions about truth, faith, knowledge, free will, and choice.

Mohammad believed he was a prophet.
Davy Crockett believed he was quite the adventurer.
Jesus believed he was The Son of God.

With all of them, we are left with three options regarding their self-assessment:
1 - The given person was a liar.
2 - The given person was a lunatic.
3 - The given person was exactly who they said they were.

It's interesting to see what people's responses are when posed with this trichotomy.

Typically, they will dispute the record of self-assessment rather than answer the question.

*