Muhammad Reveals...

[MMMMMM]

The direct Word of God : Koran

[3:85] And whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers.

[4:34] Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that God has preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have
expended of their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for God's guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them.

[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 Allahs 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.

[5: 33-34] "The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet and alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom; Save those who repent before ye overpower them. For know that Allah is forgiving, merciful."

[8.12] When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every
fingertip of them.

[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a
state of subjection.

[22:19-22] But as for those who disbelieve, garments of fire will be cut out for them, boiling fluid will be poured down their heads. Whereby that which is in their bellies, and their skins too, will be melted; And for them are hooked rods of iron. Whenever, in their anguish, they would go forth from thence they are driven back therein and
(it is said unto them): Taste the doom of burning.


[41:27] But We will certainly give the Unbelievers a taste of a severe Penalty, and We will requite them for the worst of their deeds.

[48.16] Say to those of the dwellers of the desert who were left behind: You shall soon be invited (to fight) against a people possessing mighty prowess; you will fight against them until they submit; then if you obey, Allah will grant you a good reward; and if you turn back as you
turned back before, He will punish you with a painful punishment

[69:30-37] "It is not for any Prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. You desire the lure of this world and Allah desires for you the hereafter and Allah is Mighty, Wise. Now enjoy what you have won as lawful and good and keep your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is forgiving, merciful."

[69:30-37] "(It will be said) Take him and fetter him and expose him to hell fire. And then insert him in a chain whereof the length is seventy cubits. Lo! he used not to believe in God the tremendous, and urged not on the feeding of the wretched. Therefore hath he no lover hear this day nor any food save filth which none but
sinners eat."

[76: 4] "Lo! We have prepared for disbelievers chains, yokes and a blazing fire."

[Clarkmeister]

Do you really want someone posting all the heinous passages in the Old Testament?

[MMMMMM]

That occurred to me, but it would be a mistaken assumption that the passages are truly comparable. Further, a great many Muslims today believe literally in the Koran. In fact, any "moderate" Muslims are on the defensive in this respect. Muslim clerics take the Koran literally, and the Koran is supposed to contain the direct word of Allah which is good for all time.

Also, nowhere in the New Testament does Jesus advocate the torture or slaughter of non-believers. I think he even speaks of turning the other cheek if someone strikes you. He certainly does not advocate forcing Christianity on anyone. Muhammad on the other hand is as warlike, violent and aggressive as he could possibly be about spreading the religion he invented (or had "revealed" to him).

My point is that it is Fascism--both in ideology, and practically speaking in those countries ruled by Islamic law. Religiously sanctioned Fascism, yes, but Fascism just the same. I don't think that can be said today about any other religion--no countries except Islamic countries today are ruled by religious fascism.

Apparently some people find it offensive or disturbing to point out significant and pernicious flaws in other people's ways of thinking or living. Well, I believe in evaluating everything on its own merits (or lack thereof). Any system which brutally and ruthlessly represses free thought and free expression should be identified as such, even if it is a religion.

The more a free-thinker delves into Islam, the more disturbing its ideology and practices begin to appear. But then, I hate the ideologies and practices of Castro's Cuba, Red China, and the former USSR too. It is clear, however, that not everyone shares my views. Some think that ruthless repression and totalitarianism are OK things. Others just may not realize that Islam is at heart a totalitarian ideology and code for living. While some may be offended at my words, I am offended that such repressive systems even exist. I am offended that people are being killed for their words and beliefs. I am offended at Islamic treatment of women (as is Amnesty International).

Totalitarian systems are an offense to all mankind, and have caused more harm and suffering in the world than probably anything else humans have ever invented.

[Clarkmeister]

M,

I don't think its a matter of people sharing or not sharing your views. I think its simply a matter of your posting habits. I can't speak for anyone else, but it seems to me that you obsess on this subject, bringing it up whenever possible. One therefore questions the motives behind such single minded posting habits.

So while you are generally rather rational in your debating tendancies, and even concede points of debate far more often than most, your overwhelming number of anti-Islam posts leads one to sense a rather irrational Islamic hatred inside of you. This causes people to either begin ignoring altogether, or to perceive you as being bigoted.

Again, this isn't an attack. Rather I am just trying to let you know how your posts (both the volume and content) are perceived by some posters.

Peace.

[HDPM]

"Do you really want someone posting all the heinous passages in the Old Testament? "


There are some ridiculous passages in the Old Testament and some awful requirements. But there is one very important and legitimate difference between the practice of the Old Testament i.e. Judaism and what I understand of the practice of Islam. Judaism has a long intellectual history about interpreting the laws in the Old Testament. Out of that came many requirements in the practice of Judaic law. I do not have extensive knowledge of these requirements, but I have some. For instance, the Old Testament often admonishes death for certain offenses. Early on, the practice was interpreted to put so many requirements on a death penalty that it was just impossible to put people to death for all the crap the Bible says to kill people over. Humans put so many requirements on the thing that it became a humane code. Animal sacrifice was also required in the Old Testament, but done away with long ago. These type of developments have led to an intellectual and humane religion for the most part. And I am talking about the practice of the religion in backwards, undeveloped places.
Islam does not have a comparable history. As I see it, there are many clerics who do not hesitate to order death or torture in various places. Of course, not all the religious leaders or practitioners are like that, but I do not think it can be seriously argued that Islam is less violent and inhumane in its worldwide practice than Judaism. Perhaps it will evolve, but that remains to be seen.
Of course, the problem with comparing religions is that the comparative irrationality is a matter of degree. I mean, it is hard to say that the believer in irrational mystical unknowable thing X is so far ahead of the believer in irrational mystical unknowable thing Y. All religions have members who behave well, and all religions have rotten, violent, evil practitioners. So it can be dangerous to say, "well, Islam is worse than religion x." However, given the horrendous things people do in the name of religion, I think it is appropriate to point out the problems in particular religions. And I don't think it can be argued that there are not Islamic forces out there that would very much like to damge civilization and force people to lead very primitive Islamic lives. And that should be stopped. No other religion is posing such a widespread threat at this point. So it is fair to point out some of the things in the Koran that lead people to commit horrible acts. So I also think it is OK to rank religions on the number of people they hurt or kill. And under that standard, Islam doesn't fare quite as well as, say, Buddhism.

[MMMMMM]

Thanks for letting me know these things. I do tend to obsess a bit on things which I view as stupid and harmful, and I've gone through phases where I've probably over-posted on other issues too.

I also feel that many Westerners simply assume that Islam and the Judeo/Christian faiths are simply two sides of the same coin. However there is much more intolerance built into Islam, IMO, and I believe it helps foster terrorism (in combination with other factors). So if I've over-posted I apologize to everyone. On the other hand, I think most Americans and Europeans really don't understand the totalitarian and incompatible nature of the ideology we are running into conflicts with. Anyway, thanks for your candid assessment.

[Michael Davis]

However, this is not the way Muhammad actually lived. He was admittedly a violent conqueror who required submission to his authority. Personally, he was more concerned with submission to political authority than religious. This was a distinction that Muhammad did make, and one that quickly disappeared in Islam. Once this was given, he allowed the "people of the Book" to live in relative peace. His treatment of Judaism is particularly impressive.

Mike

[MMMMMM]

Interesting. But did he not also require that all non-Muslims under his rule pay a special tax (probably in order to be allowed to live in peace)?

[Mason Malmuth]

"Animal sacrifice was also required in the Old Testament, but done away with long ago."

Just a small point concerning your post, but that's not quite the way I understand it. First however, let me preface my comments by stating that I am certainly not expert in this area. But here's how I understand this point.

The Old Testament gives three ways in which to obtain attonement. They are prayer, charity, and animal sacrifice. Of these three, animal sacrifice was least important. Furthermore, the Old Testament states, and don't ask me where it says this, that the Jews will be without the animal sacrifice option for many years.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Mike:

This is an interesting point that most people today don't understand. When the armies of Mohammad began to move, there were numerous religions in the region. These included many people who believed in the Greek Gods (which the Romans adopted) and Zoroasterism (if I spelt it right) which was widespread in what we know today as Iraq and Iran. These religions were essentially wiped out since they were not "people of the Book."

Best wishes,
Mason

[Chris Alger]

According to prominent Washington, D.C. attorney and Jewish World Report contributor Nathan Lewin, "the Torah commanded the total eradication - including women and children - of certain nations (Amalek being a singular illustration) because of the continuing threat its members presented to the survival of Israel." We find God's order to perpetrate the holocaust against the Amalekites in 1 Samuel 15:3: "Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." And so Saul "utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword." He spared King Agag, however, capturing him alive.

This shard of mercy was bitterly disappointing to God. "I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following Me and has not carried out My commands." As Samuel, through whom God was speaking at the time, pointed out "the LORD sent you on a mission, and said, 'Go and utterly destroy the sinners, the Amalekites, and fight against them until they are exterminated." Saul concedes that "I have sinned; I have indeed transgressed the command of the LORD..." Samuel then commands: "Bring me Agag, the king of the Amalekites." And Agag came to him cheerfully. And Agag said, "Surely the bitterness of death is past." But Samuel said, "As your sword has made women childless, so shall your mother be childless among women." And Samuel hewed Agag to pieces before the LORD at Gilgal."

Lewin uses the example of the genocide of the Amalekites to justify the mass murder of innocents today, namely the "parents, brothers, and sisters" of Palestinian suicide bombers, without regard to knowledge or culpability but merely on the basis of blood relation, and like God presumably sparing neither "child" nor "infant." You can read his essay advocating this practice at http://www.shma.com/may02/nathan.htm His pal Alan Dershowitz has argued that Lewin proposal to murder innocents is "a legitimate if flawed attempt to strike a balance between preventing terrorism and preserving democratic norms." Forward, 7/7/02
http://www.forward.com/issues/2002/02.06.07/news1.html

Lewin's argument has been condemned by mainstream Jewish theologians throughout the world, much as the Koranic defenses of terror have been condemned by Muslim leaders.

Yet people like MMMMM still try to propogate their hateful, racist anti-Muslim rhetoric that Muslims and their relgion uniquely embrace violence and intolerance.

Of course, the horrors in the annals of Islam and the Old Testament pale by comparison to history's greatest outbreak of insanity the Nazi-directed war against the Jews during the 1930's and 1940's. The perpetrators of this crime were the products of 2,000 years of Christian civilization, and quite proud of it, as their infantry uniforms bragged in embossed metal: "Gott mit uns." A sentiment that will no doubt be shared by many of our own military as they lay waste to wide swathes or Iraq and it's inhabitants. And MMMM own't mind a bit.

[sharkman]

Let me get this straight.

Nazis were Christians, so Christians are Nazis.

Nice argument.

[Michael Davis]

Listen, I don't agree with many of the things M... says, but if you are going to call him a racist, I want specific evidence. I want quotations pulled out from articles and words explained. I don't want you reading between some subtle lines that don't exist, and even if you are going to do this, show me the lines.

Your poisoning the well and character assasination are uncalled for. M... has discussed his ideas in this thread openly. He has argued for his points and has never treated another poster with disrespect. He has never spouted overtly racist rhetoric, and I challenge you to show me where racism exists in his thinking. As for being anti-Islam, non sequitur. His post has expressed some problems with the life of Muhammad and the doctrines of Islam to be discussed. He has introduced evidence from the sacred texts. What more do you want?

It sickens me to someone such as yourself write anything. You are the bigot here, for attaching a vile name to M... that does not apply. You bandy the term "racist" around like it's nothing and use it to spite your opponents. I don't care what past history you have, please limit your posts to relevant discussion.

By the way, that great argument "Islam is violent, but so are other religions" is worthless. It won't win you any arguments. Whether other religions are or are not violent has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

You suck.

Mike

[Michael Davis]

I don't think this is his argument. His argument is that Nazis were a radical group of Christians that perpetrated violence, just as Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations are radical groups of Islam that perpetrate violence. The analogy is meant to show that people of all religions are capable of such violence. But I don't think that was the intended issue of M's post.

I think he needs to show that radical terrorism has been condemned by mainstream Islam. This strikes me as false.

Mike

[MMMMMM]

CA: "Lewin's argument has been condemned by mainstream Jewish theologians throughout the world, much as the Koranic defenses of terror have been condemned by Muslim leaders."

MMMMMM: You make it sound like most or all Muslim leaders today condemn terror attacks and/or the Koranic defenses of terror. Of course, many (perhaps most) don't. Of those who do, many still tacitly condone or actually support such attacks. Further, there are many Muslim leaders today who loudly call for just such attacks. Imams all over are doing this today in various Arab countries.

Even USA today reported that of the 40,000-45,000 madrassas (religious schools) in Pakistan, approximately 6,000 are teaching the most virulent hate and preaching for violent jihad against Westerners.

CA: "Yet people like MMMMM still try to propogate their hateful, racist anti-Muslim rhetoric that Muslims and their relgion uniquely embrace violence and intolerance."

MMMMMM: This is simply untrue. I am trying to promote not racism, not hatred, but a critical analysis of the ideology of Islam--which includes acknowledgement of its absolutist, uncompromising, totalitarian, and aggressively expansionist nature.

Further, I DID NOT say that Islam "uniquely" embraces violence and intolerance. You put those words in my mouth. Islam merely does more so than do other religions. That's not a racist opinion, and it has a factual basis. All religions and ideologies are not equally tolerant. For instance, Buddhism is obviously far more tolerant than are Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. Now: do you think that Islam is actually more tolerant than Judaism or Christianity? Did the other prophets, Moses and Jesus, ever personally call for their followers to slaughter and torture non-believers? Muhammad did so on many occasions. What religion today sometimes punishes with death those who leave it, or those who try to proselytize away its members? Islam does.

I'm not spewing racism or hate, Chris. I'm asking that people inform themselves more thoroughly about the nature of the ideology we are confronting today. And sadly and dangerously, that ideology is unyielding and aggressive, and showing no sign of reformation. The Christian church went through a Reformation, as HDPM pointed out. Islam desperately needs such a developmemt. Philosophically speaking, Islam has never emerged from many centuries ago. The Western world underwent the Enlightenment and Age of Reason, and with it came secularism and some other principles we today accept as highly beneficial and necessary developments in human history. Islam, in its absolutist mindset, has yet to do so...and a great many in the Islamic world even view such developments as being diametrically opposed to their ideal world.

I have nothing against Muslims, Chris. However I have a great deal against totalitarian systems, repression of free speech, repression of free thought, oppression of women, etc. And these problems are great in the Islamic world today. And much of that stems from the absolutist nature of the ideology itself.

If you haven't already done so, you may wish to check out this link http://www.secularislam.org

The Institute for the Secularization of Islamic Society is a project created for the purpose of exactly what it sounds like. The director was raised a Muslim in an Islamic land, but later came to reject Islam. He now writes under a pen name, for to write under his own name would be certain death. Author of several well-researched and scholarly books, I find my limited exposure to his perspective to be informative and I feel that he writes truthfully and with a hopeful vision to the future. Maybe you will find something of value in what he says, too.

CA: "A sentiment that will no doubt be shared by many of our own military as they lay waste to wide swathes or Iraq and it's inhabitants. And MMMM own't mind a bit."

MMMMMM: Yes, I will mind a lot, but sometimes war is necessary to remove the worst tyrants. I don't suppose you'd think I was being fair if I were to say "And Saddam will continue to torture, terrorize, murder, and rape his own countrymen if we don't remove him. And Chris Alger won't mind a bit."

[HDPM]

Could be, I am no biblical scholar. But the required Temple rituals listed in the Old Testament had animal sacrifice. I don't think it will make a comeback. Judaism in the diaspora was revolutionary in terms of thelogy and philosophy and broke away from such rituals.

[nicky g]

"But did he not also require that all non-Muslims under his rule pay a special tax (probably in order to be allowed to live in peace)? "

that's extraordinarily tame compared to what other groups were doing to members of other religions that fell under their power. in fact it's positively enlightened.

[Chris Alger]

Of course it isn't my argument. M thinks that Islam is bad because it causes terrorism. I think this is a stupid, racist argument that can be applied with as much persuasive force to Christianity and Judaism, and gave an extreme example of bin Laden-type thinking among the so-called "opponents" of terrorism.

"I think he needs to show that radical terrorism has been condemned by mainstream Islam. This strikes me as false."

It strikes you as false even though it's unquestionably true because contradictory images play poorly in the mass media of a country at war. Consistent with the traditional pattern, populations being geared for war tend to be geared for race hatred as well, hence dozens of images and statements linking Islam with terror for every one linking it with peace and understanding. For example, most Americans that follow the media now of the dozens or perhaps hundreds of Palestinians that "danced in the streets" following 9/11, but hardly any now of the million-child prayer vigil held across the occupied territories in support of the 9/11 victims. I recently encountered a claim in another internet discussion group that none of the mainstream Muslim groups condemned 9/11, and incredible falsehood that can only be explained by media-generated mythology. (Which is not to say that the media contained no statements by Muslims condemning the attacks. They were many and frequent, but tended to be swamped by the more frequent and dramatic associations of Islam with violence and terror.)

For a partial list of condemnations of 9/11 and terrorism and offers to assit victims by hundreds of prominent Muslims and Muslim groups, including The Council an American-Islamic Relations, The Shari'a Scholars Association of North America, The Islamic Society of North American The American Muslim Political Coordination Council, the American Muslim Alliance, the Ameircan Muslim Council, as well as Islamic and Arabic leaders and groups from all over the world, see http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php

[nicky g]

"I think he needs to show that radical terrorism has been condemned by mainstream Islam. This strikes me as false."

I can't speak for America; in the UK, which has a very large Muslim population, groups such as the Muslim Parliament and the Muslim Association of Great Britain have yelled themselves hoarse condemning terrorist attacks carried out by Islamic fundamentalists. They shouldn't have to, but they do. They represent mainstream Islam in the UK. Al-Mujahiroun, the main extremist Islamic group openly operating here, has an estimated 400 members, out of several million Muslims. Out of all the Muslim imams in Britain, only 2 or 3 have ever been shown to be pro Al-Qaida/terrorism; of course they get ceaseless media coverage, while you'd hardly know other mosques existed.

[Chris Alger]

"many [Muslim leaders] still tacitly condone or actually support such attacks"

Nice weasel words: "tacitly" condone or support, as if tacit (meaning silent) support for mass murder were possible. Why can't you get to the point? Name one mainstream Muslim group that hasn't condemned 9/11 or terrorism generally.

"I am trying to promote not racism, not hatred, but a critical analysis of the ideology of Islam--which includes acknowledgement of its absolutist, uncompromising, totalitarian, and aggressively expansionist nature."

You've been using this forum to promote mass violence against Muslims in many countries for months (e.g., your lavish praise for the Gary Kasparov's call for war against Iraq, Syria and Saudia Arabia, among others). As part of your jihad, you have again cited ancient scripture to lay the ideological foundation for immediate violence, which is insane. Further, although you claim to be opposed only to certain negative aspects of some Islamic countries and groups, you apply your critique across the board to all Muslims by claiming that the very heart of their religion causes unspeakable evil such as suicide bombings and 9/11. You are therefore condeming the religion of more than one billion because you perceive that a few of their leaders or states are "totalitarian and aggressively expansionist" [huh? the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia are "aggressively expansionist?] A tendency to condemn the spiritual beliefs of a large group because a handful of their number commit evil in the name of religion is, by definition, bigotry. Your post is no different that the anti-Catholic diatribes one can find on websites run by Protestant bigots, who have no shortage of similar ammunition.

I'm talking to a wall, aren't I? You still don't understand that when less than 15% of the religious schools in Pakistan teach "virulent hate" (your evidence) that this nearly the opposite of proof that Islam tends to to foster hatred and violence, as offensive as arguing that bombs placed in Palestinian schools by Jewish settlers in Hebron tend to show that Judaism causes violence.

"Further, I DID NOT say that Islam "uniquely" embraces violence and intolerance. You put those words in my mouth. Islam merely does more so than do other religions. That's not a racist opinion, and it has a factual basis."

I'm not putting words in your mouth, as you just showed. You contend that Islam embraces and causes violence and intolerence "more so than other religions." Your point is that Islam stands out as the very worst religion in this category, and is therefore uniquely bad.

"Now: do you think that Islam is actually more tolerant than Judaism or Christianity?"

I suspect it is. Many scholars will tell you that Islam has historically been the most tolerant of the three (it is the only one that even acknowledges the legitimacy of the other two). Muslims governed Egypt, India and the Ottomon Empire for hundreds of years while their minority religions thrived, and still do. After the Jews were expelled Palestine and Jerusalem sacked by the Romans, it was the Muslims hundreds of years later that invited them back. You can't say the same thing, for example, about Andalusia, where Muslims governed for hundreds of years but none survived the coming of the Christians. Certainly nothing in the history of Islam compares with the horrors of the Inquisition and the European heritage of Christian intolerance of witchcraft, blasphemy, etc., or the hundreds of years of religious wars Europe saw throughout the Middle Ages. Where in the Bible or the Torah, for example, can you find the equivalent of the Quran's directive that "there be no compulsion
In religion?"

"Did the other prophets, Moses and Jesus, ever personally call for their followers to slaughter and torture non-believers?"

You must be kidding. The example I gave above was genocide directed by God himself, according to the basic scripture of Christians and Jews.

"I'm not spewing racism or hate, Chris. I'm asking that people inform themselves more thoroughly about the nature of the ideology we are confronting today."

By directing our attention to scripture, you apparently believe that the "nature" is Islam -- "the ideology we are confronting today" -- is what causes those handful of Muslims that do so to resort to terror. You are ignoring the hundreds of millions of law abiding and peaceful Muslims everywhere and lumping them together with terrorists simply by virtue of a common religion.

"I have nothing against Muslims, Chris."

Right. You just think the religion they practice foments violence and hatred "more so than do other religions" and have gone on record as favoring war against several Islamic countries knowing full well that it means mass violence against innocent Muslims, which you excuse as "collateral damage." Saying that you have "nothing against" Muslims other than what they believe is no different that saying you have nothing against African-Americans or Jews other than the way they tend to think and act.

"And Saddam will continue to torture, terrorize, murder, and rape his own countrymen if we don't remove him. And Chris Alger won't mind a bit."

I mind it a great deal but minded it more so when he was doing it with American aid because then I was doing it too, just as I'm doing it in many other countries that you turn a blind eye too because they're not official enemies of the U.S. And when he's replaced by a new U.S.-backed tyrant that treats the Kurds as badly as the Turks now do with U.S. aid (having destroyed, according to the Boston Globe, some 2,000 to 3,000 Kurdish villages with U.S. arms), you won't care any more about what happens in Iraq than you do in Turkey, the official enemy-mongers no longer pointing you in that direction.

[Chris Alger]

"if you are going to call him a racist, I want specific evidence"

I think it's plain that when someone argues (1) for mass violence against regimes in Islamic countries knowing that (2) innocent Muslims will be victims on the grounds that (3) Islam is a significant cause of terrorism, violence and tyranny, citing the absurdly thin evidence of ancient religous texts and the predations of handful Muslims that have been resolutely condemned by the 99.99% Muslim mainstream, then that person is guilty of racism against Muslims. (Note how this is different from an academic discussion of the goodness of various religions. The bottom line to M's argument is that he's favors violence against what he perceives to be enemies of America). I would say this is particularly true when the same poster has gone on record in favor of "racial profiling" of Arabs. You might quibble about whether this is technically "racism" as opposed to some other category of virulent prejudice, but the to my way of thinking the same line has been crossed. If you are unfamiliar with M's ouvre along these lines, then check the archives since roughly 11 Sept. 2001, the day M discovered that a quarter of the world's population worshiped evil.

Your argument that "Whether other religions are or are not violent has nothing to do with the issue at hand" seems to ignore the issue at hand, particularly in light of M's reply to me below that he is attempting to prove that Islam is "more" inclined toward violence than other religions.

[ripdog]

After reading one of MMMMMM's one-sided diatribes, I'm always in the mood for hearing a dissenting voice. Again, I give you Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell as reasons why you shouldn't judge the many based on the actions of the few. If all Christians were of the same ilk as those two, I'd have taken up arms against Christians long ago. But they're not. Those two morons are just a loud minority. Do I ask that all Christians stand up and denounce these two fools? It's not necessary. Neither is it a necessity for all Muslims to stand together as one and denounce the few terrorists who carry out these horrible acts in the name of Islam. Are MMMMMM's views racist? Possibly. They're certainly ignorant, and that is what really bothers me. What I gather from MMMMMM’s rantings is pretty much the same message that I hear from the likes of Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh. They spout their hateful rhetoric as fact and MMMMMM regurgitates it here. Let MMMMMM defend himself and keep your nose out of it. Our government wants, no, demands under the threat of violence, that Iraq prove that it doesn't have weapons of mass destruction. I want MMMMMM to prove that he's not spewing mindless propaganda (under the threat of, uh, nothing).

You don't care about the past history? How can you say that? MMMMMM constantly pushes stories with an anti-Muslim, anti-Islam slant. For my money, I can’t think of a better person to stand up and refute MMMMMM’s ramblings than Chris Alger. You suck? How lame! Keep up the good work, Chris.

[MMMMMM]

CA: "M thinks that Islam is bad because it causes terrorism. I think this is a stupid, racist argument that can be applied with as much persuasive force to Christianity and Judaism, and gave an extreme example of bin Laden-type thinking among the so-called "opponents" of terrorism."


M: Actually my chief complaint is that Islam is totalitarian in outlook. That, as it calls for government by religious decree according to the Koran, it represses free thought and free speech (which is exactly what we see in those countries which live under Islamic religious rule). The fact that the ideological underpinnings of Islam are easily used by terrorists to help justify attacks is secondary in my opinion. Islam also views the non-Islamic world as something to be eventually subjected to Islam--by force, if necessary. I hold this viewpoint to be dangerous and unenlightened.

Since when is criticizing a belief system, or a religion (or even a culture) considered "racism?" Maybe you had better look up the word "racism" in the dictionary. I do not hold that Arabs or Muslims are genetically inferior or inherently predisposed to violence.

CA: (responds to Michael Davis by citing a list of numerous examples of Muslim condemnation of terror attacks)

M: Just because there are numerous condemnations by Muslims of terrorism doesn't meant that mainstream Islam actually rejects it. There are also numerous vocal calls in support of terrorism, and a great many imams are preaching jihad and violence in the mosques and madrassas.

How's this for a better test of whether mainstream Islam rejects terror attacks: A poll of Kuwaitis (and Kuwait is not generally cnsidered a radical state), showed that the majority of Kuwaitis favored the 9/11 attacks. It's a question of percentages, not a simple listing of one side.

[MMMMMM]

How about that radical sheikh, Abu Hamza, of Finsbury Park Mosque?

He openly set up a jihadi organization right there with the goal of overthrowing the government of the UK and establishing Islamic rule.

He issued a murder-fatwa against the gay British playwright for his "offensive" play. And he told his followers in the mosque that killing infidels is perfectly fine because the Koran says so. After all, he said, they are only kafir.

Yet England allows him to continue and doesn't even deport him for inciting violence or worse (the murder-fatwa).

[MMMMMM]

You derive very poor conclusions based on my posts, Chris.

You feel that things like racial profiling in airports is automatically wrong; I think that since the most likely threat at this time is from young/middle-aged Arab males, that we should pay closer attention to them while still utilizing some random component. For instance, allowing 5 young Arabs with one-way tickets to board unsearched while searching a 70-year old grandmother and a 6-year-old girl on the same strikes me as a bit silly. I'm just saying apply a reasonable weighting to such things--don't make the searches 100% random because the threat isn't from 100% random sources. As Mason pointed out, some random component is necessary to ensure that terrorists don't specifically recruit those we would overlook this way. I agree but hold that a weighted screening is the best method, and if the threat source weighting shifts, shift the screening weighting too, while still maintaining some random component.

99.99% of Muslims certainly HAVE NOT condemned terror attacks, either, as you falsely claim. A news poll, taken in Kuwait, found that the MAJORITY of Kuwaitis actually favored the 9/11 attacks (which attacks, by the way, have also received fairly strong support throughout the Arab world from average Muslims on the street). So your 99.99% figure is pulled from thin air and is nonsense.

You also seem to think there is something wrong with examining religions or ideologies and determining which are most likely to produce violence in their followers. If you were to hold that all religions are equally likely in this regard, I would say that is patently and obviously false--all one has to do is consider Buddhism, Ba'ha'i and Quakerism to see that that is not the case.

Apparently you don't like a critical examination of certain ideas which you presume to be true, and you hold such examinations to be primae facie evidence of racism or bigotry. That's poor critical thinking, and it's an unfair characterization of the examiner as well.

[MMMMMM]

Many liberals may consider my posts on this subject to be ignorant, bigoted or groundless. However I believe that this is becasuse such ideas fly in the face of their cherished preconceived notions which they assume apply to all peoples, all cultures, all the time.

A critical examination of these cultures and ideologies may surprise certain liberals.

By the way, as I've said before, at least Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson don't issue murder-fatwas against those whose words they take exception to.

Why is it that quite a few imams have issued murder-fatwas (or the equivalent) against those who speak out against Islam?

Is it just a coincidence that no Christian leaders do this--only Muslim clerics do it?

While these men are examples of highly polarized thinking on both sides, only one religion's religious leaders issue murder-edicts for such archaic "crimes" as blasphemy or apostasy. So just this one difference should give us serious pause for thought.

[MMMMMM]

CA: "Nice weasel words: "tacitly" condone or support, as if tacit (meaning silent) support for mass murder were possible. Why can't you get to the point? Name one mainstream Muslim group that hasn't condemned 9/11 or terrorism generally."

M: The average Arab Muslim on the street.

CA: "As part of your jihad, you have again cited ancient scripture to lay the ideological foundation for immediate violence, which is insane. Further, although you claim to be opposed only to certain negative aspects of some Islamic countries and groups, you apply your critique across the board to all Muslims by claiming that the very heart of their religion causes unspeakable evil such as suicide bombings and 9/11. You are therefore condeming the religion of more than one billion because you perceive that a few of their leaders or states are "totalitarian and aggressively expansionist" [huh? the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia are "aggressively expansionist?]"

M: I think the heart of their religion contributes somewhat to such violence, but does not in and of itself cause it. There are many other factors at work.

When I speak of aggressively expansionist, I refer to the ideology of Islam itself. I don't think that politically speaking, Saudi Arabia or Kuwait are expansionist. They don't have the power to be.

I suspect you didn't check the link I provided because you didn't address it. Now since the discussion has turned a bit more to terrorism, I'd truly appreciate your commentary on the following related short essay, which is a statement by Ibn Warraq on the World Trade Center atrocity:

http://www.secularislam.org/articles/wtc.htm

Sorry we don't see eye-to-eye on so many things, Chris--I however assure you however my views are not what they are because of USA-directed propaganda.

[Chris Alger]

I didn't get any facts wrong. I said you supported racial profiling, and you have done so here again.

Regarding Kuwait public opinion, USA Today reported a different story. A poll taken in nine Muslim countiries found that only 15% of the respondents said that the 9/11 attacks were "morally justifiable." The highest percentage finding the attacks morally justifiable was indeed in Kuwait, where it rose to 36%. Note the difference between "justified" and "justifiable." If you ask the majority of Americans whether dropping atom bombs in civilian centers or proving arms to state terrorists can be "morally justifiable" I'm sure you'll get a similar reaction, probably higher. I seem to recall you arguing that nuking the Japanese was morally justifiable, in accordance with the prevailing view. Is this evidence of being infected by a rotten religion? See http://216.239.33.100/custom?q=cache:JOcVsBpGpMYC:www.usatoday.com/news/attack/2002/02/27/usat-poll.htm+muslim+opinion+9/11&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Again, can you point to a single Muslim group in the U.S., or a single government of a Muslim country, that has expressed any support for the 9/11 attacks, or even failed to condemn it?

"You also seem to think there is something wrong with examining religions or ideologies and determining which are most likely to produce violence in their followers."

You haven't done anything of the sort as virtually all of your posts on this topic are anti-Islam diatribes with no discussion of other religions at all, other that your conclusory assertions that others are better. If you are interested in doing this, why don't you describe your model for how you'd perform a comparative study of the relative morality of religions, and explain how you'd control for non-religious norms, particular histories and other political, economic and social factors that affect the behavior of large groups?

[Chris Alger]

The summary of the article you cited says it well: "The situation is far more delicate and complex than a simple battle between good and evil, the solution is not to beat hell out of all Arabs and Muslims but neither is it to pretend that Islam had nothing to do with it, for that would be to bury one’s head in the Sands of Araby."

I never said the Islam has "nothing to do with" terror by Islamic fundamentalists, or that one can completely understand it while ignoring what the author calls the Islamic "component." My point is and always has been this: only a tiny minority of Muslims engage in or support terrorism, so something in addition to religion must be a a more direct cause. I also contend that such other causes would be realated to the international economic order and the foreign policies that maintain it, but as any discussion suggesting that these things are culpable is taboo in the mainstream press, the press fills the void by concentrating our attention on Islam.

The article is a far cry from your prior claims that most terrorism is perpetrated by Muslims and caused by Islam and your present claim that "the average Muslim on the street" won't condemn Islamic terrorism.

[MMMMMM]

OK, so we have two different polls, but even 15-36% strikes me as unacceptably high. The poll you reference shows that perhaps a third or less support the attacks, but it doesn't show that the majority condemn the attacks, which is what you claimed. There are three categories actually: support, neutral, condemn. I wonder how many respondents in that poll felt more or less neutral about it. Anyway, it's a far cry from your 99.99% figure.

Regarding your latter question, it's a good one. Let's realize however that I'm not trying to compare the "relative morality" in this thread so much as considering the philosophical underpinnings. Practice of an ideology and the ideology itself are two separate although related things. The latter, more so than the former, tends to be more entwined with the current social/economic and other forces at work at the time.

I'm not sure exactly how one would set up a model such as you describe. Part of the model would have to do with the philosophical underpinnings and part would have to do with historical and current practices--and let's note that "historical" and "current" are worthy of virtually two separate categories, for it is to be expected that human thought and actions will progress over time. A religion which stunts or prohibits ideological progression is probably going to become outdated and harmful somewhat at some point in the future to the degree that it does so.

As far as my own personal views, the degree to which a religion fosters a "live and let live" attitude is important. Religions which hold that theirs are the only truth are nearer the bottom of my list, particularly so if they espouse violence as a means to force others to change their religious points of view.

I also believe that the Golden Rule is important, but think it might be more easily applied and less subject to abuse if it were changed to: Do not do unto others as you would not have others do unto you. That said, I am still a believer in defense of self and others as may be necessary in the face of attacks: I do not take the pacifist doctrine to the extreme, such as in Quakerism.

And on a related note, Kasparov did not exactly call for war with Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia. He said that after U.S. ground troops are in Iraq, the message must go out to all who sponsor terror that this game is up. He also said that Damascus, Tehran and Riyadh will have to be dealt with. I don't take that to mean he suggests that they necessarily should be attacked. However he might be suggesting that they should receive an ultimatum of some sort if they do not voluntarily curb their support of terrorism. Such an ultimatum may prove necessary, in fact. Hopefully it won't. But Hizbollah's top leader just announced that Hizbollah would be expanding terrorist attacks to the United States and not just focussing on Israel in the future. Well...if Syria is going to allow these guys to train etc. in their country, something will have to be done. I'm not sure what that something will be, but the USA cannot just sit back and allow camps and groups to continue training for terror attacks on us while we await the next successful attack. I personally think these groups in their training camps need to be wiped out, and that given their announced goals and actions, we would be acting in self-defense to do so. So maybe the USA should drop a few daisy cutters on Hizbollah's training camps. Is that being a war-monger? Hardly. Clearly it would be self-defense given their announced intentions to attack us.

[B-Man]

I didn't get any facts wrong. I said you supported racial profiling, and you have done so here again.

If you think U.S. airport security should spend an equal amount of time searching/questioning grey-haired old ladies and 20-something male citizens of, for example, Saudi Arabia, then you are either (a) an idiot, or (b) in favor of terrorism. This is not based on your past arguments rationalizing/justifying terrorist acts, this is pure logic. We know all too well from past experience who is likely to hijack an airplane, and in case you hadn't noticed, it isn't grey-haired old women.

It may be politically correct to be against racial profiling in all circumstances, but it certainly is not prudent.

[MMMMMM]

CA: "The article is a far cry from your prior claims that most terrorism is perpetrated by Muslims and caused by Islam and your present claim that "the average Muslim on the street" won't condemn Islamic terrorism."

I think you may be somewhat exagerrating the extent of my claims or views. I do think that more terrorism is perpetrated by Muslims than by any other single group. And even the poll you reference shows a significant percentage
of Muslims in Arab lands supporting the attacks on 9/11. Now add in those who feel somewhat neutral about it. Maybe the figure including them is close to 50%. Anyway it's also a far cry from your claim that 99.99% of Muslims condemn such attacks. To me, the figure shows that part of mainstream Islam rejects such attacks, and probably a smaller part supports it,
but that public opinion in support of such attacks is not confined to just a handful of crazies. Such percentages represent huge numbers of people given the huge population base. And many imams continue preaching jihad and terrorism in the mosques and madrassas.

Anyway thanks for reading the short essay and providing your candid assessment.

[Chris Alger]

Your evident need to introduce the additional qualifying factor of age to make "racial" profiling more palatable even to yourself suggests that visceral opposition to racial profiling is widely shared. Quick: there are 22 Arab countries. Which of those countries have produced terrorists that have killed Americans and which have never done so?

I understand the subject to be the relation of Islam to violence and terrorism. I'm against including anyone's religion as a basis for otherwise random scrutiny at airports because no evidence I'm aware of indicates that religious affiliation is correlated with airport terrorism. To take your example, I suspect that you'll find that a disproportionate percentage of airline hijackers in the U.S. were born Latin American (particularly Cuban) and Roman Catholic. I believe that any subjecting Latinos and Catholics to heightened scrutiny and harrassment on this basis to be stupid and immoral. Further, not even M can make up his mind whether Islam, Arabic Islam or Arabic culture causes terrorism, suggesting that he's making the bigot's mistake of assuming that the characteristics of the large group best explain the behavior of the worst of their number, but that he can't decide which large (we're talking hundreds of millions here) he thinks is worse. Until the racial profiling proponents can make a coherent fact-based argument, I'd say the burden of proof remains with them.

BTW, I have no problem with tailored fact-based profiling that coincidentally affects particular religions or nationals. My problem is profiling based on false and foolish assumptions like this one, also from M: "The fact is that the philosophical, religious or cultural predisposition to terrorism is far stronger in Arab lands.” As has been pointed to M several times before, the highest number of terrorist incidents and terrorist deaths have occurred in Latin America, according to the State Department. He nevertheless persists on pushing his bigoted ideas that terrorism or Arabic culture present the greatest causes of the terrorist threat.

[Chris Alger]

I didn't say 99.99% of Muslims, I said "99.99% Muslim mainstream," which I define as those groups and individuals familiar with the basic facts of the attack and its culprits and capable of articulating an opinion. Despite my repeated asking, you have yet to identify a single Muslim group that has applauded the attacks, outside of the one that purportedly caused it.

Further, after fabricating the results of the you continue ot ignore that the poll did not ask whether the attack was, in fact, "justified," but whether it was "justifiable," giving the respondent to option of imagining circumstances under which such attacks could be justified. Given that there is simply no exception to the litany of horrors -- terror, torture, mutilation, etc. -- that most cannot justify under some egregious circumstances, your evidence provides no basis for concluding that Muslims are more inclined to excuse the mass killing of civilians than non-Muslims.

[brad]

what about those palestinians who were cheering a soccer game or whatever that the israelis photod on 911 or 09-12 or whatever?

i think they must have been guilty of something.

[MMMMMM]

"yet to identify a single Muslim group that has applauded..."

What's that got to do with it? A very significant percentage of Muslims in the Middle East, when polled, supported the attack. That means a lot. What the heck has "a single group" got to do with anything?

Your quibbling over "justified" or "justifiable" is besides the point because the question referred to a past event. If it had referred to a potential future event you would have a point. But it didn't, so choosing between the two words here is essentially irrelevant.

[MMMMMM]

Come on brad we're trying to have a serious discussion here. Your remark is neither funny nor realistic. Do you really think they were cheering a soccer match. jeeeeeeeeez.

[MMMMMM]

Columbia is going through an internal crisis and drug wars, and much of what is identified as South American terrorism is really a sort of civil war within Columbia itself. It may be involve terror attacks but it's internal to a significant degree. Columbians also aren't calling for a jihad against the Western world.

I think we had this part of the discussion before. Cyrus looked up the terrorist organizations listed by the State Department, and it turned out that I was right by a narrow margin (I had said that more terrorist groups were Arab/Muslim than anything else, and the actual figure was something like perhaps 17-16 with the 16 being ALL OTHER GROUPS COMBINED. However based on raw numbers I may have been wrong because the PKK is considered the largest terrorist group in the world (according to my recollection of Cyrus' posted research, although he admitted perhaps it shouldn't be included because it had just made the list due to the insistence of some party or other). The PKK is Kurdish not Arab, but if it's Muslim then I am still not wrong in principle because earlier in the thread I had specified Arab/Muslim, not Arab only, although in the particular sentence in question I left that out. So that's the reason I admitted being wrong regarding the Ace of Spades bet, based on a technicality. However the number of terrorist groups which are Arab and/or Muslim is overwhelmingly greater than the number of terrorist groups of any other similar criteria, and it's close vis-a-vis ALL OTHER GROUPS COMBINED, and depending on how you categorize the PKK, it might be overwhelmingly greater in raw numbers too.

So there are more terrorist groups which are Muslim/Arab than any other single criteria, and if we consider the PKK to be Muslim, the raw numbers of terrorists who are Arab and/or Muslim outweighs all other groups combined as well. They also happen to be the only categories I know of which openly call for war against the Western world. Why? Well just maybe, Chris, it might have something to do with their religion (which also happens to be pretty big on calling for holy war). By the way, you still haven't addressed my point that only Islamic clerics issue murder-fatwas--even the most extreme Christian leaders don't do anything of the sort.

[brad]

no seriously there was a picture of arabs cheering and like an article about anti american sentiment (which exists).

later the photo was determined to be a gathering which had nothing to do with 911 or america or anything.

which is not to say that arabs didnt cheer about 911.

but the fact is that in one specific case there was a media story which was pure propaganda.

to be honest i have a hard time figuring out what to think about certain things there is so much propagnda going on. (ie, designed to influence viewers/listeners/readers into thinking a certain way.)

btw, what do u think about mass (ins estimates millions annually, thats governments own numbers) illegal border crossing/ immigration whatever in this time of 'war' on terror?

kind of a leak there, wouldnt you say? but checkpoints for citizens/ residents of US.

btw US is totally securing borders of afghanistan with like 117 checkpoints and border surveilance and everything.

general groves from movie fat man and little boy 'it's all about ass. you either kick it, or lick it'

[Michael Davis]

Ripdog,

As a simple clarification, the "You suck" at the conclusion of my post was an ironic allusion to the ad hominem attacks of Mr. Alger against MMMMMM. Since it was not dripping, it was probably difficult to spot.

I do not consider "You suck" to be a legitimate point.

Mike

[MMMMMM]

This is the first I've heard about the supposedly melded photo/story.

Re. illegal immigration: I think the U.S. already has enough people. As I've said before, just look at the traffic.

[Chris Alger]

An ad hominem attack is one made against the person rather than his argument. My characterization of M's views as racist is not that.

[sourwhiskystrait]

Why argue with a man that has been quoted as suggesting castration is a better alternative than Judaism?

Alger is a known radical anti-Semite and National Security risk.

[sourwhiskystrait]

No, you simply said that you support suicide bombing of Jews, and blamed 9-11 on the victims. I'm surprised that you haven't been arrested yet.

[Chris Alger]

So with Colombia we consider the circumstances peculiar to the conflict but in the Middle East we tend to ascribe the violence to Islam or Arab culture because to consider what Arabic opponents of the U.S. actually say would invite a critical examination of U.S. policy, which is verboten. That's my beef. There is no "jihad" to promote violence against "the West" that most Muslims support nor any Muslim "plot" to take over the world.

"it might have something to do with their religion"

On this point of course I agree. I think it has a lot to do with their religion, just as the European Christian heritage of anti-Semitism laid much of the groundwork for Nazi ideology. But attacking the spiritual lives of hundreds of millions of peaceful, law-abiding Muslims as a "cause" of terrorism, while ignoring any postive aspect (an extremely popular pastime these days, particularly on the net and particularly from the Zionist-Christian right) is sheer bigotry. Attacking a religion that obviously is here to stay is not a means of intelligently combatting the causes of terrorism.

I offer no defense for the issuence of fatwas calling for murder. They're bad and fortunately rare.

[brad]

uh, thats homeland security risk sir.

get with the times.

[brad]

yes well israel is getting like an extra 15 billion in aid because of the war on terrorism.

it was israelis who were trying to float the idea of a linkage between al kida, iran, iraq, etc.

honsestly i think at least (!) half of everything for public consumption is pure propaganda.

[MMMMMM]

Well, I think the internal conflict in Columbia is something of a special case. The entire country is being ripped apart by big-money drug wars and the politics are corrupt as hell. It really is a lot like a very dirty civil war, although I condemn terror attacks upon innocents there too just as everywhere else.

One reason I ascribe to ideology a significant portion of the anti-Western violence in the world today is because many Muslim religious leaders are calling for such violence on religious grounds. Lots of them are calling for holy war against the West, in their sermons and in their schools. And while there may be many socio-economic and other factors at work, the religious component is very significant...and much of that goes back to the absolutist nature of the Koran itself.

I don't think attacking the religious views of anyone who believes in archaic, harmful ideas is bigotry. Also, I did quite strongly condemn the institution of the Catholic Church on this forum.

In order for the world to make it through the dangerous times ahead, as weapons of mass destruction proliferate, and the potential for individuals to cause great destruction increases, it is essential that most of mankind become more rational than at present. Religion is not typically something that guides people towards thinking more rationally. That's not to say that religions cannot also have their good points.

The religions which insist more on faith rather than reason are generally the least helpful in this area. Just because something is believed by a great many people doesn't mean that it is true, or that it is even a good thing. While it may have some good aspects, certainly, the net overall effect may be either good or bad. In today's world, the stifling of free thought, free speech, and the imposition of draconian punishments for archaic "crimes" are harmful practices, even if a great number of people support such things.

Religion may be here to stay--surely, at least for the foreseeable future. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's a good thing in balance. To the degree that any ideology or religion preaches intolerance and incites violence, I would say it is pernicious. And while faith may in some ways (or circumstances) be a good thing, faith to the exclusion of reason is not a good thing. Unfortunately, Islam is and has been called "An Empire of Faith." Well, that wouldn't be so bad if it were also an Empire of Reason. However when faith is mixed with calls to holy war, etc., there are major problems brewing. And holy war is a concept which unfortunately cannot be divorced from essential Islam.

[MMMMMM]

Your characterization of my views as racist is inaccurate at best however. I hold no racist views.

Race is not culture, and race is not religion.

If you want to call me a bigot, I would dispute that too, but whether someone is bigoted is not at all the same thing as whether someone is a racist. Racism and bigotry are not identical. All racists are bigots, but not all bigots are racists. I don't believe I'm either, but at least let's be clear about what it is you're calling me.

My criticisms revolve around what I see as flaws in ideologies, or cultures, or practices...not around skin colors or who someone's ancestors might have been.

[MMMMMM]

I would suspect that it's far less than half. Also the media today often seem to have ways of somehow getting at information the government would apparently rather not see released.

Maybe Israel was initially responsible for floating that idea. Maybe they're right, too--they've always had the best intelligence service in the world. That idea doesn't strike me as being all that farfetched anyway (at least it's probably partially true).

[brad]

are you counting all the infomercials that pass as evening news?

[nicky g]

I agree MMMM. He is no good. But as I said, there are two or three of the likes of him, and thousands of reasonable imams who condemn violence.
As I understand it he can't be deported because the country he's from (Syria? I'm not sure) would without doubt torture and probably kill him. Why they don't arrest him for incitement to violence, I don't know.

[nicky g]

The PKK is a Marxist group. It could in no way be classed as an Islamic group, other than it is based in a region with a Muslim population (and many Kurds aren't Muslim).

[MMMMMM]

^

[nicky g]

No probs. Can I just say that while I do disagree with you on your view of Islam, if I've ever come across as abusive or unfriendly, I apologise - I do see where you're coming from, even if I think you're wrong. I think you should be careful in your use of "Arabs" as opposed to Islam, as I seem to remember that you have conflated the two at times, but if you want to frown on a religion or ideology that's your prerogative. I don't have a particularly positive or negative view (at least comparitively) of the histories of acts perpetrated in the name of any major religion, but if you have a negative view of the doctrines of Islam, you're welcome to make your case, which I find interesting.
Best, NG.

[nicky g]

ps can i add that i think traffic problems in the US are due to a crazy over-reliance on cars and lack of investment in public transport, rather than a population excess. there are plenty of muchmore densely populated countries with successful economies that don't have the problems the US does (not the UK, by the way - transport here is an unmitigated disaster). their economies may not be as successful but if you trade off population density against that, it seems clear they're managing transport much more effectively. even if the US stopped accepting immigrants, population and economic growth, as well as pollution problems and a crippling reliance on oil, would make the reliance on automobiles as the main method oftransportion untenable - in fact given the problems already being experienced, it seems to me the situation became untenable a long time ago.

[MMMMMM]

I certainly don't think the traffic problems are primarily due to an excess of illegal immigrants, LOL.

The European countries with better mass transit systems are also in a fundamentally different situation: they have much smaller land masses. For short-distance commuting that's not a big deal, but many US residents frequently must travel significant distances on business or for other reasons. I agree that the other factors and potential remedies you mention are important, but the USA could probably never come to rely on mass transit to the same degree as European couintries--the distances are too great and the need to travel is too great for many people. This need to be able to effectively travel significant distances without the constraints of mass transit limitations is probably one reason we developed the interstate highway system in the first place. Otherwise we would have just expanded the rail system to a much greater degree.

Hopefully the new, totally clean hydrogen fuel cell vehicles will catch on and become widely used over the next few decades.

[MMMMMM]

thanks again, nicky.

One reason I have used "Arab" and "Muslim" jointly on occasion is because, while I realize that the two groups are not the same, there is significant overlapping of members which are in both groups. Thus when discussing, say, terrorism against US interests or allies, these groups are the most frequent source of attacks, and so I mention both. Using both terms is sometimes accurate because certain matters frequently involve both groups, and to specify one group but not the other would be actually less accurate.

[nicky g]

well perhaps but while criticising an ideology or religion may be acceptable, the same is definitely not true in my opinion of an ethnic group.

[nicky g]

that's true and i can see why cars have a unique appeal in the states. but surely the major traffic problems you're referring to are centred around cities and densely populated areas? that said i'm a big fan of both the new york subway and the washington metro, and boston was pretty good too so.... oh i give up. i'm all argued out. er no buses in the suburbs or something. happy christmas/holidays to everyone.

[MMMMMM]

I don't criticize Arabs based on their race.

I only criticize such things as non-democratic/totalitarian regimes (whether religious governments or miltary regimes like Saddam Hussein's), repression of free speech, terror attacks, support of terrorist groups, belief in backwards/archaic customs which are also harmful, religious fanaticism with violent components, and rejection of the need to modernize or reform (ideologically speaking).

While these things can be found to some degree anywhere in the world, the greatest concentration of these negatives is found in the Middle East: in Muslim and/or Arab lands. I don't believe this has anything to do with race but rather has much to do the legacy of their religion their customs and practices. Certain ideologies and systems tend to foster violence and intolerance to a greater degree than do others.

When the Arab/Muslim world opens up ideologically and somehow finds a way to cast aside much of its antiquated ideologies and practices, then we can more realistically hope to see progress made in several areas: democratic, economic and human rights. However since personal freedoms and democracy are the antithesis of what many in the middle East believe is the right way to run things, don't look for this to happen anytime soon. Indeed, the new government in Afghanistan may soon be instituting--of all things--Sharia Islamic law.

[MMMMMM]

Of course most traffic problems are centered around major cities, and of course the public transit systems could be improved or expanded. All the things we've both said in this thread-within-a-thread are true regarding this--we could definitely have better mass transit; it's just that the European model for this isn't completely parallel or transferrable to the USA.

[IrishHand]

I only criticize such things as non-democratic/totalitarian regimes (whether religious governments or miltary regimes like Saddam Hussein's), repression of free speech, terror attacks, support of terrorist groups, belief in backwards/archaic customs which are also harmful, religious fanaticism with violent components, and rejection of the need to modernize or reform (ideologically speaking).

non-democratic/totalitatian regimes
You mean a government chosen by the wealthy minority? How about one in which only 1/2 of the eligible citizens vote for their president? What about one where only 1/3 vote for their congress? Interesting democracy where not only do the majority not vote, but even the will of the majority who do vote doesn't result in an individual being elected. Truly - this country is the Earth's bastion of democracy.

repression of free speech
There is a long, long list of restrictions on free speech in this country. Courts have all sorts of rules about whether something is "constitutionally protected speech", as opposed to "hate speech", "pornography", "fighting words", etc. Furthermore, even if you ignored that and pretended that you could in fact say whatever you wanted in this country - what's the point? Only a very select few have the ability to be heard.

terror attacks, support of terrorist groups
You mean a country that has a long, long history of training and funding present and future terrorists, as well as regimes that support them? The distinction between "freedom fighter", "guerilla" and "terrorist" is pretty grey. Bin Laden is a pretty disturbed fellow, but at least we were kind enough to train him and his boys in the first place.

belief in backwards/archaic customs which are also harmful
You mean a country that's never had a President (or Vice-President) who was anything other than a wealthy, educated, white male? Conversely, how about a country which forced/forces employers to choose a black candidate over an equal white candidate simply because he's black?

rejection of the need to modernize or reform (ideologically speaking)
How about a country that refuses to adapt to the obvious and indisputable realities of global warming and the systematic destruction of the global ecosystem?

[nicky g]

wha'? c'mon, as far as totalitarian regimes go, the chinese by themselves outnumber the arabs. day to day they get virtually zero press coverage despite human rights abuses on an inconceivably massive scale. think of burma, north korea (and south up until recently), latin america and all of eastern europe and the soviet block up until the 90s... blah blah blah. many of those places have opened up since (not china, and russia's democratic credentials are pretty shaky, as are many of the former soviet republics), but 10 years is not a significant time in world history - and many of them haven't. as i've said before, many of the middle eastern dictatorships are very strongly backed by the west (egypt, saudi, various gulf states, algeria, and in the past Iran under the Shah) and strongly resented by the local populations, not to mention viciously anti-Islamist.
Support for terrorism - I don't dispute that there's plenty of that, but that always happens amongst repressed populations and their sympathisers, and I think Western-backed terrorism has been just as pernicious. SYmpathy for the Palestinians, who I believe deserve sympathy, translates into sympathy for suicide bombings - which don't - but that's inevitable. Think of the massive support the IRA got from Irish Americans (pretty much all their money and weapons); the cause they represented deserved sympathy but neither they nor their methods deserved support - but most people have a hard time differentiating between the two.
One question that interests me - I've read that Muslims populations both largely support the 9/11 attacks (I don;t think this is true, though clearly many do), and that they largely believe that the attacks were an Israeli-Jewish conspiracy (often trotted out as proof of their lunatic anti-semitism and lack of touch with the real world). Given that Muslim populatins generally don't support Mossad activites, which is true (i'm not suggesting you ever claimed the latter, by the way - it's just that plenty of people do)?
anyway we've been discussing this forever so i'm going make this my last word on this subject - please respond, but I'm afraid that's it for me (what's that cheering I hear?)
Best, NG.

[MMMMMM]

The things you mention are legitimate concerns, but they pale in comparison to what's going on over there. Are you trying to somehow say that we have no more free speech or choice in government here than they do over there? LOL. And if that's NOT what you're trying to say, then what is your point? Are you just trying to bring up issues to be discussed? If so, maybe a new thread would be best, because your comparisons in no way refute my points (although it "sounds" like that's what you're trying to do so somehow).

[IrishHand]

You're indoctrinated to a Western view, which means you think their evils dwarf anything this country does or is. They have the opposite view. I was just pointing out the fact that your positions are highly dependent on your particular bias.

[MMMMMM]

China's internal policies are horribly repressive (as I've said numerous times on this forum). And of course they have the largest population. However my paragraph in the post to which you are responding referred to not only repression and totalitarianism, but also terrorism, support for terrorism, belief in pernicious archaic practices and customs, etc.. I said the greatest concentration of these things--read all of these things combined--is in the Middle East. Well, maybe it's not. But surely a damn high concentration of that stuff is found there.

I don't think the Mossad is in nearly the same category as the Palestinian/Arab terror groups. For one thing, their assassinations are targeted to political/militant leaders, while the Palestinian militant groups seem to delight in targeting for slaughter the most innocent, helpless members of society. Another reason the two groups are not in the same category is that the Mossad is a hell of a lot smarter. I think most of the Palestinian terrorists are somewhat stupid and irrational beings, while I think the Mossad is very, very smart.

Regarding the IRA: it should have been SWAT-teamed out a long time ago. Targeting innocents for mayhem and murder in order to make political points is pretty much my definition of terrorism...and I think terrorists are lower than animals, in a spiritual sense. Being human, they have the human capacity to reason and to empathize with others, and yet instead of targeting those they have a problem with, they choose to target the most innocent and helpless members of society. That's not my definition of human in a spiritual sense--that's more like the work of depraved animals or demons or something. Even animals couldn't be that bad.

Anyway if this is your last contribution to this thread, I'll just say it was a pleasure discussing things with you, really. Thanks and 'til later;-)

[MMMMMM]

Some things are relative, and other things are backwards;-) Good point though, IrishHand, although I don't think it applies uniformly in every situation.

[SammyB]

Animal sacrifices were only acceptable as atonement if made on the altar of the Temple. The Temple was destroyed twice and will never be rebuilt and therefore animal sacrifices are no longer part of Judaism.

[SammyB]

Translating the Qu'ran into any other language distorts the message or so I have learned from this link.
http://www.hissyfit.com/hissyfits/2001_10_02.shtml

Enjoy

[MMMMMM]

While much of what is said about Islam on that link is true, I don't buy all of it.

Regarding women, Muhammad's views and words, his actions, as well as Islamic law today are appalling--Amnesty International condemns the treatment of women under Islam.

Regarding Islam being a "religion of peace", just how does one explain Muhammad's myriad calls for violence against infidels, as well as his personal history of leading many military campaigns--complete with rape, pillage, etc., enslavement, and torture--and promises of sensual delights in the hereafter for his warriors as they did "Allah's will.".

The more I read about Islam, the more I become convinced that the "peace" of Islam hinges on agreeing with it--or else. The word "Islam", I have read in several places, roughly means "submission to the will of God" or "peace through submission to the will of God." Well, hey, fine...great, in fact...no problem at all with that...as long as they don't try to force others also to submit to what the Qur'an reveals as the will of God. Unfortunately, that's precisely what Islam does. Submit to the will of God...or else. And it turns out to be a mighty big OR ELSE.

Regarding jihad, there are indeed the greater and lesser jihads, and in a sense the personal and external jihads as well. The problem again arises when they take trhe struggle against bad things to be the struggle against everything non-Islamic. However there is no way out of this quandary, philosophically speaking, because the Qur'an IS the direct message from God--revealed perfectly to Muhammad, God's messenger. Therefore anything contrary to the Qur'an is contrary to God's will, and is more than fair game for jihad--in fact, jihad is an obligation for Muslims in this regard.

It is sad but true that the "radical" Islamists actually have a sounder basis for their views, according to Islam. In other words, actual practice of Islam according to the Qur'an leads to what we see as "radical" Islamism (though it doesn't have to lead to terrorism). However it is simply pure Islamism. More moderate Muslims aren't really doing what their religion tells them to. I don't doubt you or many others might disagree with me on this, but I do doubt that many true Muslim scholars or clerics would disagree with this point.

Islam is a religion which as no place for compromise built into it.

[IrishHand]

I was unaware that there was any religion that has a place for compromise built into it. Certainly, some religions are forced to adapt to a changing world, but I don't know of any religious text that's got a lot of options.

"Thou shalt not covet unless she's really hot or she's over 5'10"."
"And the Lord shall come down from the heavens and smite all unbelievers, or at least a decent percentage of them."

Pretty well every religious text that I'm aware of is completely mandatory - it's all in how each religion chooses to interpret it and encourage it's followers accordingly.

[MMMMMM]

The original form of Buddhism (Theravada), and Taoism are two religions which spring to mind as not fitting your description. Of course, most Westerners know virtually nothing about these religions, which are less popular than other mainstream religions, even in the East. Their religious texts are not generally mandatory in outlook and there are a lot of options for their foloowers.

Agreed, most religions are pretty strict in instruction to their own foloowers. The problem I have with Islam in this regard is that it is not only strict with its own followers, it is similarly imposing of its ideals and customs on outsiders. And we do see a lot of this today in the form of Muslim intolerance: of proselytizing, wearing crosses, having religious services other than Islamic (in Saudi Arabia it is considered a horrible crime to proselytize others to Christianity, and it is an offense to have a Christian service in your own home).

I don't have a major problem with a religion imposing strict guidelines on its own followers (as long as these are not barbaric practices such as female "circumcisions"--cutting away the entire clitoris of a girl so that as a woman she cannot ever attain orgasm--a frequent practice in certain Muslim lands today). I do however think there is a problem when a religion attempts to force its customs and practices on people who are not its followers, even if these are relatively benign practices, and this is precisely one of the greatest problems of Islam. This problem is magnified because under Islamic law there is no separation of church and state.

[SammyB]

Buddhism is not a religion or at least the Theravad branch does look towards higher beings. It is more of a philosophy than a religion.

[SammyB]

But Christian leaders DO ask for their followers to murder those who speak out against their brand of Christianity. The Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan is a Christian leader. Christians might not like it but a lot of Christians follow him.

[brad]

i dont know,if joseph campbell says its a religion i think we have to take his word for it.

but you are definitely right that oriental 'god' is impersonal whereas occidental 'god' is personal.

[MMMMMM]

OK, maybe the Grand Wizard does that today (or maybe he doesn't--I wouldn't know). I'll concede that there may be a few nutcases on both sides, BUT even given such rare and extreme examples, the numbers here don't compare to all the imams today doing it. Lots of imams; maybe a nutcase or two in the US, and the Grand Wizard is surely a less mainstream and accepted figure than are these imams.

We also don't have a death penalty for leaving Christianity, but Islam does have a death penalty for it (apostasy).

[MMMMMM]

It very well might be accurate to describe Buddhism as being more philosophically oriented than religiously oriented, but it is considered to be one of the world's great religions.

Before his death Buddha instructed his followers that, after his passing, they should not worship or depend on him, or on the order of monks, or on the scriptures, but should rather be lights unto themselves, and through thinking and meditation, strive to better their own understandings.

Prayer to a Deity, or to deities, or even to the Buddha (the Awakened One) was not a part of original Buddhism.

The existence of other worlds or other beings was not rejected, and was discussed and alluded to a bit, but the Buddha cautioned his followers against unprofitable speculation regarding things which were not essential to improving their own understandings, and not conducive to overcoming sufferings which arose from attachments.

[MMMMMM]

and why should a religion necessarily have to include a God or gods?