“Make peace with us”. Or else;
Prominent Muslim scholars are warning that the “survival of the world” is at stake if Muslims and Christians do not make peace with each other.
In an unprecedented open letter signed by 138 leading Muslim scholars from every sect of Islam, the Muslims plead with Christian leaders “to come together with us on the common essentials of our two religions.”
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, and Pope Benedict are believed to have been sent copies of the document which calls for greater understanding between the two faiths.
The letter also spells out the similarities between passages of the Bible and the Koran.
The Muslim scholars state: “As Muslims, we say to Christians that we are not against them and that Islam is not against them – so long as they do not wage war against Muslims on account of their religion, oppress them and drive them out of their homes.”
The manager of a Christian bookstore in the Gaza Strip who was found dead last weekend was first publicly beaten and tortured by Islamic gunmen accusing him of spreading Christianity, according to witnesses and Palestinian security officials speaking to WND.
The body of Rami Ayyad, who managed the only Christian bookstore in Gaza, reportedly was found Sunday riddled with gunshot and stab wounds. Ayyad had been abducted the previous night as he closed his shop, according to a local Christian group.
Ayyad, a Baptist, was accused by Gaza-based Islamic groups of engaging in missionary activity. His bookstore, owned by the Palestinian Bible Society, was firebombed in April after which he told relatives he received numerous death threats from Islamists.
You can’t accuse them of inconsistency.
irwin daisy, I once had a long debate with ET about the importance of Christianity to the development of the West. No amount of facts on my part made a dint: ET would NOT admit that Christianity and its legacy should have any pride of place in the West. ‘Very frustrating because this person is obviously very intelligent.
We also disagree on the “fact” that Islam “must” reform. I believe ET’s argument fits one of the logical fallacies: circular argument, maybe. Her thesis is that Islam MUST reform in order to sustain an industrial infrastructure. But what if sustaining the ways of the West is not their goal?
My argument is that the infrastructure may well be destroyed: people who don’t have it and are willing to destroy those who do–e.g., Islamic extremists with nuclear capacity against us–may well obliterate the West as we know it. It’s happened before in the history of the world. ET seems to be wilfully blind to the possibility that the fall of a sophisticated, decadent civilization could happen again. Although she insists that such a possibility is impossible, I’ve not yet heard a convincing argument to disabuse me of my opinion that it isn’t.
(That said, I appreciate most of ET’s posts and find her knowledge and expertise on many topics very welcome, very informative, and very helpful.)
Some topics just keep hanging around like a bad smell. How soon a posting about some Muslim leaders expressing their concerns about a war they think they are losing and are thus trying to buy time to regroup ends up as some kind of moral equivalency debate or theist – atheist argument.
As a Christian I hold the Bible in highest esteem because of the Voice that speaks through it. From the beginning of Genesis to the Book of Revelation there is a common voice that speaks in words of the Spirit and not of the flesh. Parenthetically the same can not be said of the deuterocanonical books that are included in many Bibles. I am not a linguist and don’t pretend that I can read the Bible in its original languages but the translation(s) I read along with the Spirit that speaks through them is sufficient develop a deep abiding faith in a Loving, Faithful God who seeks and saves the lost.
However when I read the Qur’an, and again I state that I am not a linguist, I don’t hear that same voice. I read page after page of calls to violence intermixed with flowing poetry, twisted history and a theology that would suffice if the god being described was a rock in the middle of the Arabian Desert. From the Qur’an I can understand the reason for the shallow recited prayer. Lacking the Spirit there is no opportunity to interact with the Divine so the only possible prayer is mindless repetition or performing acts of self immolation.
I speak of the Spirit here and before any of the atheists get their dander up please realize there are things beyond your comprehension of which you have no idea. Talking to an atheist about God is kind of like discussing the colour of the sky with a man born blind. I can wax eloquent about the subtle hues as they blend and change as the sun sinks below the horizon but the blind man will never understand because he has no experience with sight or colour.
Unfortunately all too many atheists insist that their self imposed blindness is universal and never reach their full potential. The average atheist reminds of a young child standing in the middle of the street with eyes closed, ears plugged and yelling I can’t hear you at the top of his lungs as cars whiz by and I am urging them to move to the sidewalk.
I would also bet that Anthony Leeuwenhoek felt the same when he first discovered small creatures living in water. I have no doubt that some philosopher somewhere went to great lengths to explain the impossibility of there being creatures so small that they are invisible to the naked eye. Poor Tony if only he could get that smart person to look through the lens he too could see. If only the wise would do the experiment they too could see. Some tidbits of wisdom are found in the most foolish places and I am reminded of a line in a song “There is none so blind as he who will not see”.
ET,
I’ve suggested to you in the past that because of your clinical and strictly scientific view of reality, you don’t consider the whole.
Human life cannot be observed in a petrie dish.
Regardless of whether you recognize faith and belief to be true or even important or not, beliefs are experienced and exist in the individual and the shared agreement of most people on this planet.
“Irwin daisy- my view about immigration is an opinion, not a fact. Just like yours is an opinion and not a fact. I cannot prove your opinion wrong or right – because it has not moved into facticity. That is, your claim that immigration is without benefit to the host culture and is suicidal – is an opinion. With regard to Canada – is your claim factually valid?”
I’ve already agreed with you on this point. But you have not admitted the fact that violence is foundational to Islam and that it cannot be reformed without removing the perpetual call to violence. Otherwise, the violent, inherent nature of Islam is chronic. ie: the homegrown Toronto 19.
Albeit, I have ventured that if the violent foundation of Islam was gutted, the Islamic faith would become redundant – that violence, not the misappropriated ‘Oneness of God’ defines Islam.
lookout:
Nobody can deny that western civilization was built on Judeo-Christian values.
The key word here being values.
One of the key values is knowing the difference between right and wrong, something we call morality.
It is possible to have a sense of morality without being devoutly religious, as long as a person understands the traditional values our society is based on.
One of the hallmarks of the secular progressives is their denial that right and wrong even exist.
At the same time, it is possible to be secular and believe in traditional values. Difficult, yet possible.
Wow, 100+ comments on a not very controversial post.
Ask yourselves, all you atheists: when was the last time a Muslim book store owner got himself killed/jailed/disappeared in a Western country for selling Muslim books? Or a Buddhist, Jew, Zoroastrian, Animist, Scientologist, Reformed Church of Elvis…
Now ask yourselves, when was the last time a Christian got killed/jailed/disappeared in an officially ATHEIST country for selling Christian books? Probably today, someplace like China! Or Burma, Cuba, Angola…
Are we seeing a pattern here?
Given this obvious pattern, I propose the following. This is (supposed to be) a free country. That means I am free to go to whatever church/synagogue/temple/etc. I want, when I want, if I want.Other people are certainly free to complain about my choices, but that’s it.
Anybody wants to change any of the above substantially can K my A, because I’m not going to put up with it. My relatives didn’t fight two world wars to see me take that crap lying down.
Reasonable?
And could we stop feeding the friggin’ idiot trolls? They’re boring.
ET
As rude as it seems , you know nothing of Islam. NOTHING. You argue with a western mindset about an ideology you know nothing about. “pastoral nomadic reaction to the expansion of agricultural Christianity (within the Roman empire) of the 5th, 6th, 7thc into the Arabian Peninsula”….????WTF??? What planets history are you talking about? Got any books , references or links to this brutal usurpation of gentle muslim nomads magic kingdoms by continent stealing Christian /Haliburton agro-giants?
Excuse me, I just could not let that slip unchallenged. You sound like you know something about something and maybe you do on some things but on Islam you know NOTHING.
Reform Islam? Islam is the pure voice of GOD to muslims! You suggest that gods words can be rearranged? Do that in some mosque in the ME and you will be torn to shreds, perhaps literally.
Perhaps you mean well by carrying water for Islam ET. You should study the cause you defend before you stumble so completely. There are Islamic sites that serve every purpose under heaven. Visit ummah.com and join so you can enter the complete forum and get to know Islam from its practitioners. Please. Again, sorry for losing my cool in the face of ignorance. (persistent/consistent)
Joe, I always enjoy your postings.
lookout,
I agree. The fallacy and deception of Islam, regardless of numbers of adherents, has been and will continue to be a problem unless the people are unchained. The ideological violence is defining, generational and foundational – it is chronic.
As far as ET is concerned, she cannot offer a solution, only commentary, when she refuses to acknowledge that a higher power is real in the hearts and souls of the majority on this planet. The question remains , who is God? For me, God is defined through Christ. Hence “(I am) the way…” Yes, it is grace. But God is also made clear through Christ’s life example.
As Allah is made clear through Mo’s life example.
Amen. And thanks, irwin daisy and joe. I always appreciate your posts.
While I don’t always agree with her, I admire ETs use of reason when stating her position. Frankly, she has shredded the argument of every Christian fundamentalist who has responded. I am beginning to seriously doubt that the so-called Christians who regularly post here have the slightest interest in Islamic reform, reconciliation or even peace. For them, this is a war of religions and there can only be one winner.
lookout- No, the ME states have no choice but to move into industrialism. The reason is – their exponential population increase since the World Wars. You cannot sustain a population of that size without industrialism. And industrialism requires a middle class. Tribalism, which is a political mode found in agricultural economies, does not require a middle class.
And that is the problem in the ME states; their refusal to change their political mode to empower their population and permit them to form a middle class.
Irwin daisy – my point is that the ‘call to violence’ is an interpretation. And this interpretation can be re-interpreated.If you would read some of the journals I suggest, you’d find that the authors are proposing just that. So, your opinion that the violence is ‘basic’ to Islam is, in my view, a conclusion that is invalid. The interpretation of the texts can be changed – and that is what moderate Muslims are working on.
Blackbird – actually, I know a quite a bit about Islam. Including its text (Koran), its historical devt, the ecological nature of the envt in which it developed; the economic nature of the envt in which it devt; its later history – and the development of Islamic fascism.
And I am not defending Islam; I am analyzing it. I prefer to analyze it rather than simply condemn it. As Aristotle said – “All men by nature desire to know” (first line of his Metaphysics). I desire to know what and why – is Islam.
And I know a great deal about the devt and nature of societal organization – and that includes the nature of and the differences between pastoral nomadic and agricultural settled economies. You don’t; these are not ‘extra planetary terms’ but basic ecological and anthropological terms.
Who said anything about ‘gentle muslims..magic kingdoms’? Just because you don’t understand these terms or know anything about the history of the area doesn’t mean that you can get away with silly mockery.
I base my analysis on a knowledge of several areas. First, the ecological nature of the area; this enables you to understand what type of economy could develop there. Then, you have to know demographics and population bases and changes. And – the history of the area, including the Roman input that enabled markets – irrigation, roads, safety of commerce and marketing, increase of population, requirement for larger harvests, for settlements, expansion of settlements etc. …and expansion into the Arabian Peninsula..
The rise of Christianity – an agricultural religion based around collaboration with neighbours [read the texts]. See also what was happening with Rome and the switch to Christianity.
The resultant emergence of Islam as a warrior agenda to maintain control over pastoral nomadic migratory lands. [read the texts; the society outlined in the Koran is very obviously pastoral nomadic.]
As for the modern era and the rise of Islamic fascism – again, you have to know the operational infrastructure of a tribal society, how it operates politically and legally; the size of population it can sustain – and the same with an industrial economy. Same thing – what type of political system does an industrial economy require? What type of family structure?
So- the fact that you don’t know these things is ‘just the way it is’, and sorry, one book or article won’t deal with all these issues – You need books and articles on: social organization of different economic modes (I used to take my students through ten basic modes); human geography; cultural ecology; population dynamics; the history of the area – from the time of Rome on; the texts of both religions; and..there are excellent books on the rise of Al Qaeda and Islamic fascism; …as well as basic books on fascism.
As for those on this blog who are believers in a Metaphysical Agent – that’s you. I am not going to denigrate or insult your belief, and I’d appreciate it if you would do me the same courtesy. I’m an atheist; there is no need to insult my belief.
Belisarius,
“Frankly, she has shredded the argument of every Christian fundamentalist who has responded.”
Funny, if you follow her responses, she lost horribly again. Deflecting her defeat to immigration.
Is “fundamentalist” meant as a perjorative? Also, care to prove it?
As for the rest of your statement would you like to give evidence about “Christians who regularly post here have the slightest interest in Islamic reform, reconciliation or even peace.” Or, do you mean appeasement?
I suppose that had it been the atheist ‘Crusaders’ versus the Muslims, it would have been different? What, you would have out manouvered them by force of intellect? Silly me, were they actually Christians? Or, Nazi Christians?
Your brain requires too many questions. I’m tired and going to bed.
There was hope.
Ladies and gentlemen, Elvis has left the building.
Et,
“Irwin daisy – my point is that the ‘call to violence’ is an interpretation. And this interpretation can be re-interpreated.If you would read some of the journals I suggest, you’d find that the authors are proposing just that. So, your opinion that the violence is ‘basic’ to Islam is, in my view, a conclusion that is invalid. The interpretation of the texts can be changed – and that is what moderate Muslims are working on.”
Agreed, through editing out, or revising the tense clearly to a time and place. Mohammad’s life example, on the other hand, as the “perfect man” to emulate, must be abolished.
Under the circumstances, ‘Invalid’ is a ridiculous statement to make. You sound foolish.
Since apparently Islam – the religion of 1.5 billion people on this planet – is fair game for mockery and slander by those posting here, I thought I’d post a different perspective:
Top 10 Signs You’re A Christian Fundamentalist
10 – You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.
9 – You feel insulted and “dehumanized” when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.
8 – You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.
7 – Your face turns purple when you hear of the “atrocities” attributed to Allah, but you don’t even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in “Exodus” and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in “Joshua” including women, children, and trees!
6 – You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.
5 – You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.
4 – You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs — though excluding those in all rival sects – will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most “tolerant” and “loving.”
3 – While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in “tongues” may be all the evidence you need to “prove” Christianity.
2 – You define 0.01% as a “high success rate” when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.
1 – You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history – but still call yourself a Christian.
Belisarius – your one through ten just confirm how ignorant a person can be of the contents within the Bible. As a Christian, I have never felt outraged that anyone denies the existence of God; you must have us mixed up with Muslims. I can only feel sad for you.
I desire to know what and why – is Islam. ET
I am reminded of a woman (I’ll call her Mary) I met while teaching an adult Sunday school class. She was a very intelligent woman well travelled, well read, conversant in several languages and a tenured professor at the local university.
Unannounced she showed up in the class explaining her presence in the class was the result of her desire to get to know Christianity. She explained that although she was an atheist, religion interested her and she had begun by travelling to various places around the world to fully understand the religion that she was exploring at that time. Her explorations were not just superficial examinations. She spent several years examining each faith. She had been to Israel to study Judaism, Tibet to study Buddhism and wanted to go to Saudi Arabia to study Islam.
In the mean time she wandered into my class. I don’t know why, I am not a recognized expert on anything but never the less she was in my class asking intelligent yet foolish questions. As weeks turned into months I did my best to answer her questions without losing my temper and believe me that was a challenge. One night after my time of prayer and meditation I was led to begin write a letter to Mary.
I can’t remember what I wrote that night because I didn’t keep a copy of it but the next Sunday I gave the letter to her. Before the class started we had a cup of coffee and a cookie and during this time Mary proudly showed the unopened letter to all her classmates. I began the class and while everyone else was discussing the love of Paul expressed in his letter to the Colossians Mary began reading her letter. Suddenly our scriptural reflection was shattered when Mary leapt to her feet screaming like she had been branded with a hot iron and began ripping the letter to shreds as raced out of the room never to return.
I often wonder what ever happened to Mary. The only thing I do know is that she had encountered the Living God whose Spirit spoke to her through the letter I had written. All the Buddhist prayer wheels of Tibet had little more than a romantic appeal to her. Likewise the devout Jews at the Wailing Wall had failed to connect with her and her academic study of religion.
However God chose to speak to her through some western Canadian doofus who, struggling to keep up with her mental acuity and in an attempt to answer some questions she had asked the previous week had resorted to writing her a letter.
I can only hope that ET (and the other atheists) dares to examine the depth of Christianity and although I wouldn’t want her to experience the discomfort Mary experienced I do hope and pray that one day she will realize the foolishness of the philosophers she loves to quote, the emptiness of her socioeconomic analysis she keeps expounding and realizes the inherit danger of a religion that incubates fanatics steeping in the teachings of its holy book, a holy book that calls for death to the unbelievers and justifies war to spread the religion, and come to a knowledge of Whom it is written “The fear of Yahweh is the beginning of Wisdom.”
Well said Belisarius!! I think we have room for one more effectively making it the Top 11 Signs You’re A Christian Fundamentalist:
and the number 11 sign is:
“You spend most of your time on small dead animals posting ignorant hateful and mindless rants about muslims and Islam”
I suspect the sad man with the flowery name will be circling the wagons shortly with his band of blow holes after your last comment. I suspect, based on your last comment, and the frequency of their posts, you have given them a few more days of self importance; not to forget, provide them with something to do with their time which appears consummed by this site.
As I have said before, free speech makes for a great demoracy, but most times, at least on this site, it makes for lousy reading. It also make for disturbing reading and brings out all manner of wackjob. Thanks for bringing some balance and knowledge to this subject Belisarius! It is and has been entertaining and refreshing, albeit, I fear your efforts may not be fully comprehended by this lot. You are, attempting to reach, for the most part, an angry, small minded, racially motivated group of simpletons. Hate propaganda is a crime I sense a thin line is being walked on this site. I won’t be back.
Belisarius
I’m a Christian fundamentalist and not ashamed to say so. However your clever(?) 10 points just don’t seem to fit in my case.
10 – There are millions of gods in this world. Each religion has their own god including atheists. Most people have many gods they just don’t know what a god really is. A god is that thing that determines what course of action a person will take at any given time. We appease the money god by going to work. Etc etc etc.
If someone doesn’t recognize Yahweh I don’t get upset or outraged. I can’t blame a blind person for tripping over an obstacle because they didn’t see it. It was my fault that I didn’t warn them about it.
9 – I don’t feel insulted or dehumanized when science points to evolution instead of the Biblical teaching of us being made from dirt. Actually evolutionary science says that our grandfather was a rock so I don’t see much difference.
8 – Did you graduate from kindergarten Sunday School or were kept back a few years and decided to drop out before they got around to discussing the Christian teaching on the Trinity. I can save you some time though I wrote an explanation of the Three in One on this website October 8 2007. Look it up if you want to.
7 – My face doesn’t turn purple over the atrocities committed by Muslims nor do I try to explain the thoughts of Yahweh when the firstborn of Egypt were killed. I do take some consolation in the fact that in the end we all die by God’s design so we can go on to something better. What I find most galling about the Muslim violence is the victims are predominately Muslim.
6 – I don’t laugh at Hindu belief in human deification. I believe that the purpose of Christianity is the deification of humans. Sons of God mean anything to you?
5 – Sorry I don’t look for loopholes in science and the dating of the earth. Science dating proves nothing more than the Bible states. “A thousand years is but a day” ring a bell?
4 – I don’t think everyone who does not believe exactly as I do is bound for hell. In fact Jesus said I have sheep of other pastures. Which to my tiny little human brain means that not everyone has to believe what I believe. The Bible also says I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy. Its not up to me to judge.
3 – I used to speak in tongues but grew out of it. “When I became a man I put childish ways behind me” Actually I believe in God because of the Grace He has given me. If He should withhold that Grace I will stop believing in Him. As for all your gods , history, geology, biology, and physics none of them disprove the existence of Yahweh and I know and fellowship with a good number of historians, geologists biologists and physicist who all have the same Grace. They too believe in God. BTW does Albert Einstein ring a bell with you?
2 – As for answers to prayer I could begin to list them but you wouldn’t accept them anyway. BTW when is the last time you prayed?
1 – You actually think that knowing the Bible and Church history is important to being a Christian? You did drop out of kindergarten Sunday School didn’t you. How much education did Jesus have? How about the apostles? How much Bible do I need to know to know Yahweh? How much church history do I need to be led of the Spirit? Jesus said, “You study the scriptures thinking that by them you have life. They all testify about Me but you refuse to come to Me to have life.”
Now if you want to know what I know quiet your spirit, admit your fallibility and ask Yahweh to forgive you. You might be surprised at what you find. God Bless
Joe, that was a very thoughtful and well-thought out posting. I took the time to read all of it, and understand completely what you’re saying. The “10 signs you’re a Christian fundamentalist” I posted earlier were what I considered to be the equivalent of the anti-Muslim slander I read here so often. I know a number of Conservatives who used to read and comment regularly on Kate’s blog, but got so sick of the nutjob fundamentalist Christian commentary that they have stopped doing so. Frankly, you and your friends need to tone down the rhetoric. I really try hard to respect your beliefs, but wish you would extend the same courtesy to others. Your last thoughtful post is a step in the right direction.
This thread started with discussion of a letter from Muslim theologians proposing dialogue with Christians, and even you referred to it as expressing their concerns about a war they think they are losing and are thus trying to buy time to regroup. Not a very Christian sentiment. I say lets give them the benefit of the doubt and have a conversation. We’re not fighting a war with mainstream Islam, we’re fighting it with Jihadists. Otherwise, what would all of those Iraqi and Afghan battalions be doing fighting and dying beside our soldiers?
Aleikum assalaam.
It’s ALL crazy………….goofs!
I know I couldn’t convince you otherwise, but please use your own mind and your own inherent intuitions (basic instincts) and realize what damage you do.
Your educated and intelligent why be insane!!!!!!!!!
His God….. My God….. the holy book say’s —- I love you but I’ll kill you if you don’t believe in my unproven God. PATHETIC weakness of the human race. Yes you deserve to not exist (or possibly inherit it all) but please for the love of humanity and the greater good of what IS – leave the rest of us alone.
All right kids, settle down.
You’re all wrong.
Never cared for these middle eastern blood religions myself. It’s nothing but fight fight fight with you guys. Give it a rest.
Why don’t you just let me sort the wheat from the chaff, OK? I’ll smack some heads together.
Now go eat something. Get some sleep. You look terrible.
belisarius – thanks for all your excellent posts. I don’t think that one can change the mind of some of these people – and that really isn’t the agenda.
My only agenda is to introduce some facts to the rhetoric, to offset the fundamentalist (ie,non-factual and unprovable) beliefs of the few who post here – that Islam is an evil religion; that all Muslims are fanatics whose prime agenda is to kill others, that the only way to deal with Muslims is to prevent migration and seal them into the ME.
The issues about belief in god, results postulated of one’s eternal damnation if you don’t believe in god, evolution etc, are peripheral to this debate.
These people aren’t interested in the historic facts of the emergence of any religion, the ontological nature of the religion, the historic causes of current Islamic fascism, and, the both possibility and probability of reform of the religion by Islamic scholars. And, the reform of their sociopolitical system that causes Islamic fascism.
Despite Perun’s pre-emptive, very narrow minded, quite empty of specifics ad hominems, I have opinions I’d like to express. (Goody Two Shoes, who only like “nice” thoughts, might consider skipping the following.)
ET hasn’t convinced me by her, IMO, wrong starting point. Sheer numbers of inhabitants do not necessarily change the economy from tribal to industrial. E.g., Just a few points: 1) Israel, a country also inhabited by a tribal people, in the same area of the world as millions of Muslims, but with a much lower population, has turned the desert into a thriving economy. Why the difference? IMO, it’s the result of a belief in a radically different God, one of justice and mercy, and so, a radically different belief system, one which is not based on fatwas, and one which rewards initiatve. 2) It’s not too likely that investors are going to be flocking to build infrastructure in the Muslim part of the world, when the chances of their investments and workers being blown to smithereens is likely. Without massive investment in that part of the world, industrialization won’t happen. 3) Let’s also consider Africa: its inhabitants have been living lives of tribal misery for centuries—not much improved by colonialism, which left some infrastructure for progress, now largely destroyed. Just because there are large numbers of people in a given area is no proof that industrialization WILL occur. 4) North America: with a small population compared to land mass, it rapidly moved from an agricultural to an industrial economy. How come?
Let’s look at first things: The crucial difference in all of these examples appears to me to be attributable to the underlying belief system and practices of the inhabitants. Those countries, based on the Judeo-Christian dispensation, respected cooperation, in accordance with their religious ideals of justice and mercy (exceptions included), as well as freedom to choose belief or not. Such DEMOCRATIC countries have tended to thrive and provide important freedoms to their inhabitants (such as Perun). (Unfortunately, these freedoms are now sometimes being exploited by immigrants with axes to grind.) Those countries with Muslim and animist deities, who control by fear, coercion, and violence have tended to be chaotic, miserable backwaters, ruled by despots. (Notice that $BILLIONS of Western aid has made little difference. Most of it ends up in some despot’s pocket.) And, as if things weren’t bad enough for their own people in Muslim and animist countries, the Muslim jihadists have now decided to export their violence and misery to the citizens of the democratic countries of the world.
So, a healthy scepticism re happy outcomes from initiatives by a group of moderate Muslims does not seem misplaced. E.g., Although these men—I’m betting they’re all men—may be sincere about moderating Islam, by what authority are they doing so?
There is no Muslim Magisterium: each imam is his own authority. So, even if the reformers arrive at a fine document, reinterpreting the excesses of the Qur’an, this document will have no authority or compulsion over those who wish to ignore it and continue to use intimidation and violence to carry out their agenda—to establish a modern day caliphate.
Yes, dialogue is a good thing. Trying to understand the motives and means of those who are a part of the community that wishes our destruction, may give us much needed insights. But a solution to this problem? I don’t think so. Think Neville Chamberlain: these imams cannot speak on behalf of their bloodthirsty, violent co-religionists, so, no matter what these men of (possible: where were they 6-5-4-3-2-1 years ago?) good will say, the problem of jihad is still with us. We need to remember that there is a very critical mass of Muslims who have no intention of “getting along” with the West.
Thank you for your kind words Belisarius. Your 10 points were a bit like an adult playing T ball but it is always fun to match wits with a worthy “foe”. Personally I would like to see dialogue between all religions (beats bullets and bombs anytime) but at the same time I am sceptical about the results. As in anything I am never certain or the other’s sincerity and hidden purposes. I truly want to see and believe the best in everyone except life experience tells me otherwise. While I have nothing against anyone individual who practices Islam, indeed I respect many of them for their fervent devotion, I do see in reading the Qur’an and talking to various Muslims I have had the opportunity to get to know that the Muslim mindset is not one that is easy for me to grasp. In all the study and interaction I have had with Muslims I come away feeling like Thomas Jefferson who went over to the Middle East on a good will tour. He met with some potentate over there and expressed the ideal of we are all humans lets get along. The potentate’s response was something along the line that it was the job of Islam was to wipe out all Christians. Seems kind of hard to make peace with an enemy who wants war. no?
“You spend most of your time on small dead animals posting ignorant hateful and mindless rants about muslims and Islam”
I suspect the sad man with the flowery name will be circling the wagons shortly with his band of blow holes after your last comment
You are, attempting to reach, for the most part, an angry, small minded, racially motivated group of simpletons. Hate propaganda is a crime I sense a thin line is being walked on this site.”
– Perun
Islam has been on a war path of conquest for 1350 years.
The Ottoman turks committed genocide against 1.5 million Christian Armenians in the early 20th century. The US senate now agrees.
It is claimed that Muslims killed up to 80 million Hindus during their conquest and occupation of India. It is further claimed that the Muslims killed up to 2 million Hindus in East Pak/Bangladesh during the early 70’s.
It is estimated that up to 2 million have been killed so far in the Sudan.
Although it is openly still practiced, Saudi Arabia made slavery illegal in the early 1960’s.
There have been 9600 terrorist attacks since 911.
Obviously, there’s a problem.
Is the cause, as ET believes, “pastoral nomadic reaction to the expansion of agricultural Christianity (within the Roman empire) of the 5th, 6th, 7thc into the Arabian Peninsula?”
Or, is it foundational and perpetual violence commanded and rewarded by Allah, as written in the Quran, combined with the command for Muslims to emulate Mohammad?
In the latter case, my (and many others) opinion, based as it is on fact, is nonetheless construed as hate, in order for the facts to be silenced.
It appears that not only Perun agrees with this, but ET, Belisarius, et al agree also – with the standard obfuscation added by others by way of cultural and moral equivalency.
Strange times.
There’s one fundamental flaw in the imam’s proposal.
Unlike the Muslim world, western civilization has never been a theocracy.
The Bishop of Rome (the Pope) cannot decree that western states are not allowed to use military force.
Contrast that to Iran. Through western eyes, Ahmedinijad is the president of the country. Yet, even his power flows from the imams.
I guess this is kinda the same point that an earlier poster made.
The Muslim world does not understand the concept of separation of church and state, a concept in the US Constitution which protects religious feedoms by prohibiting the state from designating an official religion.
The US forefathers came from European nations which did exactly that. Since the forefathers were persecuted because they did not bow to the state religion, that was motivation enough to write a constitution that guaranteed freedom from persecution because of religious beliefs.
It’s a concept that unfortunately has been lost on today’s intolerant and hateful secular progressives.
lookout – for heaven’s sake, you simply don’t understand the terminology.
Israel is NOT inhabited by a ‘tribal people’. By ‘tribal’ I mean POLITICAL tribalism, which is a specific mode of governance, based around hereditary authority, and operative in a Non-Industrial economy.
And all economies are directly related to their population size. You try sustaining a hundred thousand people using only an hunting-gathering economy! It can’t be done; a H-G economic mode can only provide food for a few hundred in a group.
Tribalism is a political mode found in an agricultural economy – a horticultural, swidden or pastoral nomadic economy. Israel was not and is not a tribal political mode and is not and was not a non-industrial economy. The people who immigrated to Israel were western Jews, coming from a democratic political mode and an industrial economy. That’s what was replicated in Israel.
Again- Israel does NOT and never has, operated within a tribal political mode or non-industrial economy.
How come N. America moved into industrialism? The colonists were bringing with them the infrastructure of industrialism from Britain, Germany, France – all nations that were moving from ‘late agricultural economies’ (high population, market economies, democratic political systems, high surplus economies)..into industrial technologies (steam power using coal and gas). The colonists brought all of this perspective with them!!!
The focus on individualism, which is a foundation for inventiveness and self-organized entrepreneurship is the foundation of the USA – a product in the 18th c, of the emergence of the industrial technology.
So- you simply don’t understand what tribalism means, don’t understand population ratios and the close link that economic and political modes have with each other.
You don’t ‘choose’ a political mode; if you have a large population in the millions – then, you could only have and sustain such a size by industrialism. Either direct or indirect (the Muslim world is indirect industrialism; it hasn’t invented a single industrial technology but buys it all from the West).
The problem in the ME is that even though they have been able to purchase industrial technology, and enable an exponential increase in population, they haven’t changed their political mode from one that privileges hereditary tribal leaders – to empowering a middle class. That’s the ‘root cause’ of Islamic fascism.
The fact that you don’t understand these basic facets of social organization, and think it’s all about ‘choice’ – is something that I can do nothing about. And – it has NOTHING to do with religion or ‘god’.
Look, I’m not going to tell you again.
If you don’t stop it, I will TURN THIS THING AROUND, MISTER!
irwin daisy – I fully agree with perun’s concerns, and have made them before. Your, and other’s focus on the rhetoric, while ignoring the causes of the rhetoric, and your reaction to that rhetoric, is bigoted.
I’ve outlined before, how the various religions arose; no ideology emerges and is taken up, in a vacuum. No society is just an ideology but operates within a particular economic mode, and sustains that mode by its political, legal, family modes.
And, no non-industrial society is able to operate outside its biome. You can’t have an agricultural economy in the arctic; you are limited to a hunting/gathering economy. And each economy can only sustain a certain size of population.
So, your refusal to explore why and when each religion emerged and became a common ideology, means that you are confined to the rhetoric. This is an unreasonable action; it means that you cannot make informed conclusions for you are trapped within the rhetoric.
So- your view that Islam is basically violent, ignores the historical context of its original emergence and why it became accepted. No ideology emerges and is accepted without reason; lots of people come up with ideas – and are ignored. Why was this one accepted??? Think about it – the historical and economic context that made it acceptable.
Your complete rejection of history, of context, of economic forces – reduces you to the rhetoric of the text. You refuse to consider anything else, ie, the causes for those words. Therefore, your conclusions about Islam are, in my opinion, completely wrong.
It was a reaction to loss of economic viability when it emerged in the 7th c – and Islamic fascism is a reaction to the political tribalism of the ME. Can Islam be reformed? Of course it can, and there are Muslim scholars intensely interested in doing this. Can the ME’s political tribalism be ended? Ahh..that’s a question. The ME has no choice – but – the tribal leaders are fighting tooth and nail to retain their power.
So- I agree with perun and have been equally appalled by some of the rhetoric in these threads.
Once again ET, very well said. We all know there are big problems in the world today with Islam and Islamic terrorism. But clearly there are solutions to these problems, and many, many Muslims are equally interested in finding them. That should be our goal. The “my religion is better than your religion” talk really isn’t helpful.
“Hate propaganda is a crime I sense a thin line is being walked on this site.” by Perun
Come one Perun, you stated, “Thanks for bringing some balance and knowledge to this subject Belisarius! It is and has been entertaining and refreshing, albeit, I fear your efforts may not be fully comprehended by this lot.” I guess it is okay to bash Christians, but speak the truth about Islam, and you call it hate propaganda. You are so obviously a hypocrite that it is mind-boggling how you call the kettle black, but think it is the color red.
Both ET and Belarius persist in prattling on without knowing anything about Islam. Islam is not a religion, it works under the guise of a religion but it is actually a predatory/parasitic criminal organization guilty of enslaving the free will of its adherents. The Quran is to be thought of as the words of Allah as delivered to Mohammed by the angel Iblis/Gabriel. The words of “God” are not reformable. The Quran is organized and arranged by the length of each book, longest to shortest. It is not chronological nor coherent in its instruction. The only consistency is the condemnation of Jews, Christians, polytheists and everyone and thing that is not Islam ( of course,”bad muslims”as well)and a call for destruction of obstacles to the spread of Mohammeds dream. The basic call from Allah to all Muslims is simple…make all religion in the world ONLY for Allah. How can that be done? By the sword or by artifice and deceit and the spreading of terror. How did you read the Quran and miss that ET? Obviously you weren’t paying attention to those nomadic tribesmens modus operandi or that sort of thing runs counter to your theories.
This isn’t about evil muslims either, they are the first victims of Islam and have to live it. If they are serious about their “religion” they must work towards Allahs demand of Islamic supremacy and suppression of all opposition. No they won’t cut all your heads off although Allah decrees a great slaughter is initially required to shock and stun the unbelievers into Dhimmitude. Dhimmitude is for Jews and Christians who don’t want to revert to Islam (everyone in the world is born muslim, they just don’t know it, thats why you revert and not convert to Islam). Jews and Christians can pay the Jizya tax and live as Dhimmies. Kind of like double your income and property tax compared to your muslim neighbour on top of your recognized second rate status in the community. Polytheists have no such choice, they must revert to Islam or die. So living UNDER muslims is possible but never on equal societal conditions.
Like Cassandra I howl from the walls. Please know the force that comes to deceive and adulterate life with evil. Find out about Islam by reading the Quran,Hadiths, Sunna. Save your cultures future and perhaps rescue 1.5 billion people from darkness, ignorance, violence and poverty.
ET, Belarius, if your want to debate something specific to Islam and it’s history I would be happy to engage you.
“We’re not fighting a war with mainstream Islam, we’re fighting it with Jihadists. Otherwise, what would all of those Iraqi and Afghan battalions be doing fighting and dying beside our soldiers?” by Belsarius
You know when you get a bad feeling about something and you do nothing about it, that is where the West is on Islam today. Even though Muslims can be good neighbors and good people, they still consider us ‘infidels.’ I’m afraid too many mainstream Muslims have committed terrorist acts, so to think that we aren’t having the wool pulled over our heads is plain ole daft.
We are fighting with them, for them. When is the last time Muslim battalions fought for us……ummmm, hummm, ….. I’m really cheering for the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, and even Iran, but Sharia Law is not what I eventually want to be governed under. If Muslims chose Sharia Law, so be it, but not in my neck of the woods, thank you.
Perun had the guts to come out and say what a lot of us have been thinking.
There you have it.
ET agrees with abolishing factual criticism of Islam, by construing it as hate. Exactly what Islamofascists are attempting to do throughout the world.
Further, she thinks her unsupported theory trumps factual cause for all too read in the Quran, Hadith and Shariah.
She will continue to peep into her petrie dish, ignoring the cause of much of the world’s violence today and Islamic pograms throughout history.
Pathetic.
“I know a number of Conservatives who used to read and comment regularly on Kate’s blog, but got so sick of the nutjob fundamentalist Christian commentary that they have stopped doing so.” by Belsarius
So, do you refer to Muslims as nutjobs too, or just Christians?
Joanne, I think the proportion of nutjobs in each religion is probably about the same. I know a lot of Priests and Ministers whom I have the highest respect and regard for, and find them to be excellent ambassadors of Christianity and the teachings of Jesus.
But I’ve also met those from the fringes of Christianity. These are the ones who view the creation of the State of Israel and the rise of Islamic terror as signs that the End of Days is upon us and the Return of Jesus is imminent. They eagerly anticipate a war with Islam, hoping it will provoke Armageddon and the fulfillment of prophecy. A rapprochement with Islam is the last thing they want.
I too was shocked by ET’s hate tag offensive against irwin daisy who has taken the time to learn a great deal about Islam.
ET fails to understand that Islam is indeed “unreformable”. There is a semantical confusion, however, in her offensive. By unreformable irwin daisy refers to the fact that the Koran is considered the direct unintermediated word of Allah. This is where Islam is stuck. Here, and also in the hadiths and sira — Muhammed, a monster for any age — is the perfect model for mankind. Islam cannot be reformed, only replaced with un-Islam, in other words, destroyed as Ayaan Hirsi Ali points out. Or smacked down good and hard for a few more decades or centuries.
ET, being a scholar herself and way too much in her head, believes that this little journal she refers to is evidence of reformability. It isn’t. That is mere navel-gazing. There is no reform movement whatever in the upper echelons of Islam — the four schools of islamic jurisprudence. Zero.
If these “reformers” are not anonymous it will mean one of two things: 1) taqiyya or 2) total irrelevance.
The tiny “reform movement” has zero traction in the Islamic world. Period. Tho I wish it well!
Finally, we Israel-supporters did not call ET a bigot. We attempted to correct her false narrative with factual historical information.
There is no reconciliation with Islam. Only dawa, submission. Islam is indeed the Religion of Peace — peace properly understood: when all the world is Dar Al Islam, in the house of Allah.
This is just another call to Islam before war.
As in legal matters, you must be very careful to understand the defintions of the words. See Anjem Choudry on what “innocent civilians” means.
You must fight cognitive egocentrism.
Belarius
For the handful of Christian fringe members with no direct political power to be cast as promoters of armageddon is quite interesting because another group are actively trying to provoke armageddon in the middle east. This group however runs Iran. Khamenie and his puppet Amadinajad are the promoters and hopeful producers of the 12th Imam, who will come and scrub the world clean for Shia Islam but only when the world is in chaos. Iran aims to start that chaos. Anyone here familiar with this fact of Islam?
Blackbird – if defining Islam as ‘actually a predatory/parasitic criminal organization’ isn’t bigotry – then, what is?
And, you haven’t mentioned a thing about Islamic history; again, if you don’t analyze the factual historical context of an ideology, and instead, like irwin daisy, rely only on the text, you are committing a critical error.
To claim that a text is the cause of that ideology, is simply erroneous. It’s ‘backwards’. Is Darwin’s text on evolution the cause of evolution? Is Einstein’s article on mass and energy the cause of this equation? Is Hitler’s Mein Kampf the cause of nazi fascism? The answer to all – is NO.
Your tactic is empirically not verifiable.
Second, to utterly ignore the actual causes of an ideology, is akin to wilful ignorance. The failure to differentiate between the actual and the conceptual is a serious error.
me no dhimmi – to attempt to denigrate those Muslim scholars who are attempting to modernize Islam, by calling ONE of their journals ‘little text’ is hardly constructive. First, you haven’t read any of their works; second- your set-in-stone conclusion is that Islam is unreformable and you have no wish to hear otherwise. Why is that? Of course they are not anonymous. Go read a few journals and books on reforming Islam. Or perhaps – you’d rather remain with your unreformed opinion.
No- your view of Israel is your view. My view is not false; YOU say it is false; that doesn’t make it false. There’s a difference!
She will continue to peep into her petrie dish, ignoring the cause of much of the world’s violence today and Islamic pograms throughout history.
What’s more there is a very good reason for this. It has often been noted that the secular leftist and the intellectual atheist seem to side with Islam in its struggle against western ideals, Christianity and Judaism. The reason is spiritual and not intellectual.
When the Muslim asserts that we are all born Muslim, he is not too far from the truth. We are all born with an unregenerate nature. However in some people’s lives a transformation takes place and that unregenerate nature is supplemented with a regenerate nature.
The nature we have regenerate or unregenerate seeks out common cause with those who share the same nature. Thus a regenerate Christian will find support from another regenerate Christian or regenerate Jew. An unregenerate atheist will find support in an unregenerate Muslim. That is not to say that regenerate Christians find much in common with regenerate Jews or the secular atheists have much in common with unregenerate Muslims but when conflict arises between the regenerate and the unregenerate we all choose sides based on the nature we were born with or reborn with depending on the circumstance.
This is why Jesus told us to go and make disciples. We aren’t going to win any intellectual arguments with a person who is wilfully plugging their ears and or wilfully remaining blind but using Spiritual words that speak to the spirit of man the unregenerate will come to a place where they too bend their knee before the Lord of lords and King of kings. As I have posted before ‘we struggle not with flesh and blood but against powers and principalities in the spiritual realm’.
re: ann coulter
if a christian is a “perfected jew” then is a muslim a “perfected christian”?
Ok, ET,
Here’s a little quiz for you. To satisfy your premise, it’s both textually and historically accurate.
1) The definiition of dar al-Islam and of dar al-Harb, and the relationship that is to be established between the two.
2) The basis for all Muslim jurisprudence pertaining to treaties and agreements with Infidels — that is, the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya.
3) The concept of Muhammad as a “perfect man” and the behavior of Muhammad in his 78 military campaigns, including the stated reason for the campaign against the Jews of the Khaybar oasis, and the execution of the Jews of the Bani Qurayza taken prisoner.
4) Sura 9:29 of the Qur’an.
5) The doctrine of naskh, or abrogation.
6) What the word “Sunnah” comprises, and the contents of some of the best-known hadith (stories about the acts and sayings of Muhammad) that express the correct Muslim attitude toward Infidels.
7) The Qur’anic verses pertaining to women. The most relevant hadith pertaining to women. The women in Muhammad’s life, including the story of his last, and favorite, wife — young Aisha, whom he married when she was 6, but demurely waited to consummate the marriage when she was 9 years old. The significance, or lack of it, of this part of Muhammad’s life for Muslims today.
8) The atittude toward the Christian belief in the divinity of Christ. The relevant passages in the Qur’an about believers in “shirk.”
9) The concept of the kuffar. What is the Bilad al-Kufr? Why is it now permissible, as it once was not, for Muslims to migrate to the Bilad al-Kufr and live there? What do the Muslim websites explain?
10) What does the phrase “umma al-islamiyya” mean? Do whom, or to what, must Muslims owe their allegiance? Are they permitted to owe their allegiance or loyalty to anything else? Could they ever possibly fight on the side of Infidel fellow-citizens against Muslims from another country?
11) What is the concept of “taqiyya”? Does it differ from “kitman”? People of all religions lie, but is there another religion that formally sanctions lying in order to protect that religion or its Believers?
12) How are Jesus and Moses viewed in Islam?
13) What are the “djinn” in the Qur’an and where do they come from?
14) When was the Qur’an written? Over what period of time? And who wrote it down, if Muhammad was “unlettered”? And who dictated it? Why are there so many elements of both the Old and the New Testament to be found in the Qur’an? Which came first?
15) Why did the original Arab conquerors have such astounding success in subduing large swaths of territory? Did the belief-system they brought with them help or hinder that success, in the light of what you now know about Islam?
16) Can the hadith that are regarded as “authentic” be changed? That is, can one simply get rid of those hadith that say unkind things about Infidels?
17) Why are those who are Muslims not allowed to change their religion without the threat of severe punishment, including death?
18) Why do Muslims call Infidels who become Muslims “reverts” rather than “converts”?
19) What does the word “dhimmi” mean? What are the ahl al-dhimma? What is the “pact” that was made between the Muslims and the “People of the Book” who were allowed to live, and even practice their religion, under certain conditions? What requirements were laid upon the dhimmis in order that they might be treated as such? What does it mean to be a “protected people” — “protected” from what, exactly?
20) Was Islamic Spain a paradise of interfaith harmony, that it would be advisable to try to reproduce today, if only we could?
21) What are the vast benefits that either “interfaith dialogue” or a “dialogue of civilisations” can bring to us?
Here is what I propose. If Either you, or your cohorts wish to utter a word about Islam, or about the relation of the tenets of Islam to how Muslims actually treat non-Muslims, and have done so for 1350 years, you will have to take this test. Otherwise, your opinion is – in your words – invalid.
“your view that Islam is basically violent, ignores the historical context of its original emergence and why it became accepted. No ideology emerges and is accepted without reason; lots of people come up with ideas – and are ignored. Why was this one accepted??? Think about it – the historical and economic context that made it acceptable.”
Then you must also read the most recent scholarship on the origins of Islam — John Wansbrough, Patricia Crone, Michael Cook, Yehuda Nevo, Gerd Puin, Christoph Luxenburg, Ephraim Karsh (A history of Islamic Imperialism), et al.
Had this kicking around. Here’s some more text for you:
The unbelievers among the people of the book and the pagans shall burn forever in the fire of Hell. They are the vilest of all creatures. (98.6).
Surely the vilest of animals in Allah’s sight are those who disbelieve. (8.55)
The unbelievers are your inveterate enemy. (4:101)
Mohammed is God’s apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another. (48:29).
It is unlawful for a believer to kill another believer, accidents excepted. (4:92)
Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends. (5:51)
Make war on them [non-Muslims] until idolatry shall cease and God’s religion shall reign supreme. (8:40)
Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God’s religion reigns supreme. (2:193)
The true believers fight for the cause of God, but the infidels fight for the devil. Fight then against the friends of Satan. (4:76)
We will put terror into the hearts of the unbelievers. (3:150)
I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers. (8:12)
When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. (9:5)
Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given as believe in neither God nor the Last Day, … until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued. (9:29)
Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. (9:73 and 66:9)
Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them. (9:123)
When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield, strike off their heads. (47:4)
Wow, aside from Belisarius, ET, and Perun there is little of note to read here. Talk about religious paranoid zealots; this blogs got them.
Belisarius, as Perun stated, your points will be lost here. They will continue to operate from a position of ignorance and displace fact to fit their rheoretic, to make their sad and infantile conclusions and call to arms. Reminds me of Shrek when the angry group of farmers all grabbed pitch forks because an ogre was spotted down the road somewhere.
Belisarius tried to get you to understand the poor logic of painting all muslims with the same brush. There are good and bad and extremes at either end, just as there are good and bad christians, with extremes at either end. In fact, I would venture to say the Dasiests and christian fundamentalists on this site have aptly proven his point ten fold. They display they are operating at the extreme end of christian fundamentalism, and in the end, appear more similar to the Muslim extremists they despise, than with mainstream western soceity they live in. They appear to be calling for a western jihad against the middle east muslim countries because of a few. Thankfully, their voices appear as small as their ability to be balanced in their thinking.
Although I admire your posts Belisarius, and ET, and Perun’s insight, I think it is fruitless to attempt to reason with the bigotry and racism that is entrenched here. I do hope none are my neighbours.
ET: I didn’t denigrate the scholars — in fact I wished them success. I merely pointed out their utter irrelevance. Repeating: the tiny navel-gazing reform movement has zero traction. And I tried to point out that the “reform” would not be reform but a replacement of Islam with UN-Islam. Islam is un-reformable using the word reform as I understand it. As mentioned, semantics.
When I start hearing reform-oriented things from say Al Anzar (sp?) university and other high seats of Islamic learning, I will become more constructive on this. I will not he holding by breath.
And when I start seeing bona fide gestures of good will from the Islamic world to reciprocate our dhimmi gestures, I will be more constructive. In the meantime, I’ll be street-smart and on guard. I’ll be from Missouri.
In the meantime, I believe this “reform” fantasy helps disarm us in the war of Islam against the West. And that’s not bigotry that’s fact. I take them at their word.
On guard against cognitive egocentrism, ET.
Good post irwin daisy.
But remember to ET and other apologists, the text is not important.
On guard against western liberal cognitive egocentric kool-aid.
this has basically turned into atheists defending Muslims from Christians/Jews. I think that Joe is on to something.
Does it really matter what caused the ideology to arise? In the case of Judeo/Christian ideology it exists and has given rise to the civilizations where everyone on the planet want to live.
In the case of the ideology of Islam, it exists, and its societies are the worst places on the planet to live.
In the case of atheist/communist ideology, it too has given rise to the worst kinds of living conditions from which people try to escape.
Not all ideologies are equivalent in the kinds of societies they establish. Saying that Islam is a terrible ideology does not mean that you hate all Muslims. Saying that Nazism is a terrible ideology does not mean that you hate all Germans. Saying that communism is evil does not mean you hate Chinese or Cubans.
Islam does not want to change – it wants us to change so there will “peace”. check out the latest demands of Islam in “Palestine” – they want the Kotel too (the Western Wall, the last remaining piece of the Second Temple – the Temple that Jesus was in, the Temple that Arafat says did not exist there.
Atheism and Islam are threatened by the existence of Christians and Jews.
Haouk, hack, or whatever,
Rhetoric? You’ve posted nothing but ignorance. Not a fact, nothing.
“Call to arms?” Since there’s nothing to your argument, I suppose you need to resort to making things up, of course.
“Perun’s insight?” What insight? Ad hominem attack is insight in your world? The call for shutting down factually based criticism and free speech is insight?
“Belisarius tried to get you to understand the poor logic of painting all muslims with the same brush.”
I have done no such thing. I have clearly stated that violence is foundational to Islam. That the violence is commanded and rewarded in the Quran and in the command to emulate Mohammad’s example. These commands are true to the Quran, Hadith and Sirah, which all Islamic sects hold in common. These commands have been executed throughout history to the present day.
Because of this foundational violence the inherent problem is chronic. That despite the fact there are good Muslims, the problem/cause can skip generation(s) and manifest itself again and again. This is why western people, including Muslim parents are ‘bewildered’ by so-called ‘home grown’ and newly converted terrorists.
This is not debatable. It is a fact. If you would like to disprove this then I invite you to do so, based on fact. However, as usual, not one has been able to do so. If you cannot, your opinion is moot.
BTW, Belsarius also said:
“Irwin Daisy,
I’ve been reading some of Robert Spencer’s stuff and have to say I’ve been pleasantly surprised. His position on the state of Islam and Jihadism isn’t nearly so far from that of most Muslim reformers as I’d thought. From jihadwatch.org:
I encourage any Muslim individual or group who is willing to work publicly for the reform of the Islamic doctrines, theological tenets and laws that Islamic jihadists use to justify violence. But this must be done honestly and thoroughly, confronting the texts of the Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira that are used to justify violence against unbelievers, and decisively rejecting Qur’anic literalism.”
I agreed with him.
ET, I’ll grant that modern day Israel is not tribal. But it is industrial and DEMOCRATIC because of its ideals, which are altogether based on the Jewish faith.
You say about the USA, “The focus on individualism [the dignity of the individual is a very important tenet in both Judaism and Christianity], which is a foundation for inventiveness and self-organized entrepreneurship is the foundation of the USA – a product in the 18th c, of the emergence of the industrial technology.”
Your denial that this has ANYTHING to do with Christianity—“social organization . . . has NOTHING to do with religion or ‘god’”—is, to say the least, disingenuous. (Look at the 20th century secular states which massacred millions of their own citizens. Do you really believe that this had “NOTHING to do with religion or ‘god’ “?)
In 1835, among other things, Alexis de Tocqueville observed while in the USA: “There is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America.”
And, in an article in the National Review (October, 2002) by Michael Novack: “What happens when religion is pulled out from the foundations of the republic? Alexis de Tocqueville reflected more deeply on the inherent weaknesses of democracy, stripped of religion, than anybody at the ACLU today. His thesis went something like this: The premises of secular materialism do not sustain democracy, but undermine it, while the premises of Judaism and Christianity include and by inductive experience lead to democracy, uplift it, carry it over its inherent weaknesses, and sustain it.”
You have the right to disagree with this thesis but not, like you remind the rest of us, by mere assertion—and by ignoring inconvenient truths. In fact, your convolutions and unwillingness to admit the obvious often seems like gnosticism to me. Why not speak plainly, avoiding “shock and awe” and smoke and mirrors?
I appreciate the input of irwin daisy batb, joe, set you free, Joanne, other Christians, and posters like ex-liberal, Me No Dhimmi, and Apollyon. I find their opinions strong and clearly stated. To try and construe them as hate or the comments of “nutjob fundamentalist Christian[s]” (Belisarius) is out of turn. E.g., Belisarius writes, “But I’ve also met those from the fringes of Christianity. These are the ones who view the creation of the State of Israel and the rise of Islamic terror as signs that the End of Days is upon us and the Return of Jesus is imminent. They eagerly anticipate a war with Islam . . . ”
These words most certainly don’t express the opinions of any Christian poster here. Perhaps Belisarius would like to document his unpleasant suggestion.