Like a virgin
 

[ QUOTE ]
I've been accused of a lot of things, but whining has never, ever been one of them.

[/ QUOTE ] Well, you just have.

There's a first time for everything.

Re: Like a virgin
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've been accused of a lot of things, Sparky, but whining has never, ever been one of them.

[/ QUOTE ] Well, you just have.

There's a first time for everything.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL - like I couldn't see that gigantuous piece of retort coming!

To which, considering the source, I'll simply, in my simple way, reply: "meh."

Re: Cliff Notes Central
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I haven't really read Orianna Fallaci either.



[/ QUOTE ]


Let me understand this : Did you just recommend an author you have NOT read?

This would be brilliant, even by your standards...

[/ QUOTE ]

Precisely so, because I have read of her, and interviews with her; and because I think some on this board DO NOT sufficiently abhor totalitarianism. She has stood against fascism, and fascistic things, from the nascent days of the Italian fascists and yet even today against Islamofascism. Naturally, the backwards loons want to kill her, just as they did Theo Van Gogh, and as they have aimed at Rushdie; totalitarianistic thinking is evil, whether it is state-sponsored fascism or religio-fascism.

Re: Where You Were, I Was
 

[ QUOTE ]
What I do disagree with, and what I'm fairly certain M is wrong about, is that Islamic states have a natural or inherent tendency to be evil, totalitarian, or fascistic.

And I'm even more certain that even if they are, that it's not due to anything regarding the nature of Islam.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, but your opinion flies in the face of theose who have lived, breathed and studied Islam all of their lives--the Muslim imams, the mullahs, and the madrassas teachers: THEY believe man's only rightful freedom is to worship Allah and to behave as prescribed in the Koran. What's more, they say so. Of course they don't see that as evil but as good: but regardless of the question of evil or good, it is clearly totalitarian--and you and I (I should think), consider thatto be a bad rather than good thing.

Re: The Crusades
 

DVaut1,

Paul Hill is clearly wrong in his interpretation of Christianity, as you can see for yourself if you just get a Bible with red-letter text and read the highlighted words of Jesus. Jesus' instructions are clearly: to not resist evil; to turn the other cheek; to forgive. The not resisting evil part is very key here. Others have misunderstood the teachings of Jesus, but they really aren't taking them literally and following them completely; if they were, they would have to be pacifists (as were the Early Christians).

Next, if you get a Koran and read through and find all the imjunctions to Muslims, the instructions given to them, you will see a mountain of injunctions to fight the infidel, to subjugate the infidel, to force the world to conform to Allah's will. I have posted many of these commands, perhaps even in the thread we are remembering; there are NOT any such commands given by Jesus, however. In fact, the injunctions given by Jesus are virtually the polar opposites of such directions.

The vast majority of Christian authorities, while certainly not all pacifists, nevertheless would agree that Paul Hill's interpretation and actions are wrong. HOWEVER, the vast majority of imams, do NOT say that the passages in the Koran advocating fighting and subjugating the infidel are wrong; rather, well, why don't you go and read for yourself what they themselves have said ( www.MEMRI.org ), or just listen to what the mullahs and imams say?

I now think you are sincere, but you just haven't read much of the Koran, or of the Gospels (since the Gospels contain the best known records of Jesus' words). If you would do those things, then familiarize yourself further with what prominent imams, mullahs, and even terrorists are saying, you might obtain a very different perspective about the whole thing (then again you might not). However if you are keenly interested, that is what I would recommend you do.

Re: The Crusades
 

[ QUOTE ]
I now think you are sincere, but you just haven't read much of the Koran, or of the Gospels (since the Gospels contain the best known records of Jesus' words).

[/ QUOTE ]

How would you know what I have and haven't read? FYI, I've read the Gospels, a few times -- my Paul Hill comment was an attempt to point out that the "Just look at the POV of these fringe guys, they're indicative of the true nature of the religion" argument is fallacious; not that I truly believe Christianity is inherently a religion of violence. My question of 'You weren't convinced?' was genuine -- you shouldn't have been convinced!

And again...the fact that the *only* explanation you can turn to for why people haven't come to the same conclusions you have is that they're not as informed or as knowledgeable as you (the 'you just haven't read' comment) is a very serious intellectual flaw. You will be constantly frustrated about your inability to persuade people you're right if you continue to refuse to acknowledge the possibility that you might be wrong (as contradictory as that may sound), and that when people disagree with you, it is not always (or should I say, it's hardly ever ) a case of someone not listening to you, or not having accessed the same information you have.

As with most things in life (and this doesn't apply only to you, but certainly does apply to you, as it does to everyone) -- people disagree with you because you are generally unpersuasive. Nothing of what you say in regards to Islam, and the relationship between Islam and politcs, is particularly convincing. And it's not because no one is listening, and it's not because you think you're the only guy in town who reads.

As Cyrus correctly points out:

[ QUOTE ]
Your ideas, such as sampled above regarding punishment of innocents, are quite close to totalitarianism, actually, although I'm sure you are blissfully unaware of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

...you've got alot in common with the totalitarians you claim to abhor, and yet I'm not quite sure you have any idea why you have so much in common with them, which is rather puzzling, to say the least.

Find pluralism in the dictionary. That's a start on the road to recovery.

Re: Where You Were, I Was
 

[ QUOTE ]
and what I'm fairly certain M is wrong about, is that Islamic states have a natural or inherent tendency to be evil, totalitarian, or fascistic.

And I'm even more certain that even if they are, that it's not due to anything regarding the nature of Islam.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'd be interested in the reasons for your certainty here DVaut. That is, why there would be no causal relation between Islam and Islamic states tending to be totalitarian (if they do have that tendency). Thus, what other reasons would there be? And obviously if there are other such reasons, then many other non-Islamic totalitarian states should be the result of the same causes.

Re: Where You Were, I Was
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and what I'm fairly certain M is wrong about, is that Islamic states have a natural or inherent tendency to be evil, totalitarian, or fascistic.

And I'm even more certain that even if they are, that it's not due to anything regarding the nature of Islam.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'd be interested in the reasons for your certainty here DVaut. That is, why there would be no causal relation between Islam and Islamic states tending to be totalitarian (if they do have that tendency). Thus, what other reasons would there be? And obviously if there are other such reasons, then many other non-Islamic totalitarian states should be the result of the same causes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's one that immediately popped into my head, and one that I suspect might have some normativity (although I certainly haven't done a vigorous study, if a vigorous study were even possible):

Rejection of modernity (or more broadly, fear of change); Peter Gay's book The Outsider as Insider is a fantastic book that chronicles the culture of the Weimar Republic, and how the rapid modernization of German society led to an immense backlash that spurred the rise of the Third Reich. Little Man, What Now? is closely related and equally important in the study of what led to the rise of the Third Reich...included in Fallada's work (Little Man...)is a rather vivid picture of how fascists rely on using overtly masculine rhetoric (and enacting policies meant to appeal to rectify 'male anxiety') can lead a state to fall prey to leaders who advocate totalitarianism.

Speaking of male anxiety, adherence to an overly-masculine ethic is another theory as to why states that have a foundation of religious fundamentalism (be they Islamic, Christian, or otherwise) will frequently turn to totalitarian or oppressive means of governance. Ducat details in the recently released The Wimp Factor how Holy Wars of all kind are frequently waged to placate mass male hysteria.

So there's two (although I'm sure I could speculate as I have here, and come up with many more) reasons as to why I'm fairly certain that there's not a particularly causal relationship between Islam and totalitarianism, even if there's a correlation between Islam and totalitarianism (and I don't think has ever been successfully demonstrated, either).

Re: Where You Were, I Was
 

But wouldn't it be fair to hypothesize then that those 2 causes were themselves caused by Islam and thus there is a causal chain linking totalitarian states and Islam after all? Else how do you explain those two causes existing in most Islamic states?

Re: The Crusades
 

Amazing...you have the Bible, OK...but you have read very little of the Koran, yet you think you know what it is all about (or more appropriately, what it IS NOT about).

I don't have time or inclination to write a tome to convince you or others...I gave good recommendations for reading...take or pass, it's your loss not mine.

Funny too you should advise me about pluralism...that's exactly my point, Islam is non-pluralistic, and absolutist...THAT'S what I take issue with. I'm all for pluralism--EXCEPT when one of the entities is non-pluralistic and absolutist. Another way of looking at it is that I'm all for tolerance...but that doesn't give a pass to intolerant persons or intolerant ideologies...I'm all for freedom, but that doesn't mean I support the freedom of "A" to enslave "B"...you should really read more about what you are defending, Islam is very much an absolutist and totalitarian ideology...it is sad that many Westerners know so little about it, and that they erroneously presume it is just another side of the same coin.

Re: Where You Were, I Was
 

[ QUOTE ]
But wouldn't it be fair to hypothesize then that those 2 causes were themselves caused by Islam and thus there is a causal chain linking totalitarian states and Islam after all? Else how do you explain those two causes existing in most Islamic states?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think Islam 'caused' a fear of change (a characteristic of humanity, I think, that has always existed to varying degrees -- long before Mohammed lived); it's when the rejection of modernity becomes an overwhelming and ubiquitous societal concern, or more correctly, when accepting the inevitable changes of modernization cause widespread fear (fear, of course, being one of ways that successful fascists and totalitarians alike can negotiate consent) -- that totalitarianism is bred. In all honesty (and I freely admit to this being idle speculation), but I'm guessing the current Islamic/totalitarian correlation is caused by ( if it even exists )to the fact that the Middle East, and the Islamic world, by and large, missed out on the Industrial Revolution -- for reasons that are many and varied and aren't particularly related to Islam, either.

I'll admit that there's a rather strong case to be made between fundamentalism and adherence to an overly-masculine ethic -- but as Ducat posits, this is a characteristic found in all religious fundamentalism, not Islam alone.

Re: Where You Were, I Was
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here's one that immediately popped into my head, and one that I suspect might have some normativity (although I certainly haven't done a vigorous study, if a vigorous study were even possible):

[/ QUOTE ]

Rejection of modernity (or more broadly, fear of change); Peter Gay's book The Outsider as Insider is a fantastic book that chronicles the culture of the Weimar Republic, and how the rapid modernization of German society led to an immense backlash that spurred the rise of the Third Reich. Little Man, What Now? is closely related and equally important in the study of what led to the rise of the Third Reich...included in Fallada's work (Little Man...)is a rather vivid picture of how fascists rely on using overtly masculine rhetoric (and enacting policies meant to appeal to rectify 'male anxiety') can lead a state to fall prey to leaders who advocate totalitarianism.

Speaking of male anxiety, adherence to an overly-masculine ethic is another theory as to why states that have a foundation of religious fundamentalism (be they Islamic, Christian, or otherwise) will frequently turn to totalitarian or oppressive means of governance. Ducat details in the recently released The Wimp Factor how Holy Wars of all kind are frequently waged to placate mass male hysteria.

So there's two (although I'm sure I could speculate as I have here, and come up with many more) reasons as to why I'm fairly certain that there's not a particularly causal relationship between Islam and totalitarianism, even if there's a correlation between Islam and totalitarianism (and I don't think has ever been successfully demonstrated, either).


[/ QUOTE ]

You're conjecturing theories, and trying to look at Islam through a Western lens. Did it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, the reason Islamic societies have through many centuries tended towards totalitarian rule, and today so clearly do, is that Islam itself is absolutist and totalitarian, and that it contains prescriptions for totalitarian religious rule? If you would just READ the Koran you would see for yourself...also, instead of trying to look at Islam solely through a Western lens, why not listen to what the Islamic teachers have to say about it? Try to understand it from their point of view, and you will find that the things you and I find scary, they actually applaud (such as forced following of the word of Allah, etc.)

Re: The Crusades
 

[ QUOTE ]
Amazing...you have the Bible, OK...but you have read very little of the Koran, yet you think you know what it is all about (or more appropriately, what it IS NOT about).

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, and again, this is important:

1) I don't just 'have' a Bible; I've read the Bible.
2) I've also read parts of the Koran (but, as I don't know Arabic [and neither do you, as far as I know], I'm limited as to how much I can truly understand of it).

[ QUOTE ]
I don't have time or inclination to write a tome to convince you or others...

[/ QUOTE ]

From what I've seen of your premises and arguments, even with infinite time, you could never write a convincing tome that would convince me or others.

[ QUOTE ]
Funny too you should advise me about pluralism...that's exactly my point, Islam is non-pluralistic, and absolutist...THAT'S what I take issue with. I'm all for pluralism--EXCEPT when one of the entities is non-pluralistic and absolutist. Another way of looking at it is that I'm all for tolerance...but that doesn't give a pass to intolerant persons or intolerant ideologies...I'm all for freedom, but that doesn't mean I support the freedom of "A" to enslave "B"

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't talking about religious pluralism, specifically.

[ QUOTE ]
...you should really read more about what you are defending, Islam is very much an absolutist and totalitarian ideology...it is sad that many Westerners know so little about it, and that they erroneously presume it is just another side of the same coin.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, again, again...I don't agree with you, so you try to vainly claim I haven't 'read'. Nowhere have I ever conceded that I haven't 'read' about Islam. It's a conclusion you came to all on your own, for your own pathological reasons.

Like I said, there's a reason you're an island unto yourself. There's a reason your arguments are weak, and you're frequently forced to appeal to emotional arguments that lack reason and coherence, and are full of demagoguery. There's a reason you'd be laughed out of any room full of serious scholars and researchers, and legitimately so. And it's because you've never considered the possibility that you might be wrong, and that you're not persuasive -- so you've forced yourself into repeating the same, old, unconvincing clichés and platitudes that are tired and that you've been forced to spew ad nauseum (because you never bothered to consider other evidence and adapted accordingly).

How many times have I had to read that hackneyed quote you repeat over and over: "As Ibn Warraq says, there may be moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate"; at least 10 times. Did you think we didn't hear you the first 9? Seriously, think it over.

The moment you realize you could be wrong is the moment you'll come back with better arguments. Great poker players (and if I remember correctly, you're a pretty good poker player who plays at pretty high limits, right?) are keenly aware of the importance of adaption, and accounting for new information. If somethings not working in poker, you're either catching the really awful end of variance, or you're playing badly. I think it's time to consider you might just be playing badly.

Until then, you'll just be spewing the same nonsense over and over, and fighting the same battles over and over -- and claiming you don't care about it all, only to fight the same battle again a week later. Funny I'm not buying the "I don't care" line, either. Care to take a guess why? I've heard it all before, and I'm still not convinced.

Re: The Crusades
 

Just to be clear, DVaut, have you in fact read the Koran? If not then unless you can show MMMMMM to be asserting a factual error about same, doesn't the excerpts from the Koran and the words of other Islamics that MMMMMM has quoted make his case?

And like MMMMMM said, it seems you are making up theories to explain the characteristics of Islamic states from your own perspective simply not to have to acknowledge the simplest explanation is more likely to be right, i.e. what MMMMMM has asserted regarding Islam itself being the cause of totalitarianism in Islamic states. And since it is a simple and prima facie argument, then it would seem incumbent on you not to spin theories but to demonstrate factually and logically that his view is not accurate.

Re: The Crusades
 

I wonder, could a nation inhabited by citizens who all rigidly adhere to the most extreme interpretation of Islam possibly exist as a secular, democratically elected (allowing 100% suffrage) non aggressive welfare state with open borders and complete religious toleration? If that isn't possible, then clearly M6's correlation exists. If it is possible, then clearly it doesn't.

Re: Where You Were, I Was
 

[ QUOTE ]
You're conjecturing theories,

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it's conjecture. It's what I could come up with in 10 minutes.

The theory of evolution is nothing but conjecture (as is, of course, most scientific theories)...which doesn't mean that conjecture isn't informed and improved by solid evidence.

Like I said, I'd like to see an empirical study that proves even a correlation between Islam and totalitarianism. If you know of such a study, please do provide details (don't give me some link to some editorial by some Islamo-phobe cluster [censored] group).

Since no such studies exist (to my knowledge) -- you, me, and everyone else are forced to turn to conjecture. Such is the world. When complete evidence exists is when arguments become pointless. We wouldn't be here talking about this (or having political discourse in general) if complete evidence existed for the wide array of controversial topics that get bickered about endlessly.

[ QUOTE ]
and trying to look at Islam through a Western lens.

[/ QUOTE ]

Being a Westerner -- yes, I'm forced to look at Islam through a Western lens. So are you. Don't pretend you've got some extra special, 'worldly' perspective. Perhaps you do, but I'd like to hear what kind of life experiences you’ve had to could make you so worldly. Perhaps you have had some life experience that have provided you with such a perspective. Perusing the pages of TownHall.com doesn't count, mind you.

But I'm all ears if, for instance, you lived for 10 years in Syria or something like that.

[ QUOTE ]
Did it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, the reason Islamic societies have through many centuries tended towards totalitarian rule, and today so clearly do, is that Islam itself is absolutist and totalitarian, and that it contains prescriptions for totalitarian religious rule?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, of course I've considered it. I think that possibility is far outweighed by the preponderance of convincing evidence that has led me to believe differently from you, and led me to believe that you're fundamentally wrong.

But sure, obviously, I could be wrong and you could be right -- and I'm willing to consider that, but not merely because you say so.

[ QUOTE ]
If you would just READ the Koran you would see for yourself...

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if you would just LEARN Arabic and READ the Koran, you would see for yourself you're wrong (see, arguments that rely on such inane premises like 'you haven't read' are fun, aren't they? I can see why you try this so much. It's alot easier than tying to provide compelling and objective empirical evidence.)

[ QUOTE ]
also, instead of trying to look at Islam solely through a Western lens,

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is, obviously, the lens you're forced to look at Islam solely through, too.

[ QUOTE ]
why not listen to what the Islamic teachers have to say about it? Try to understand it from their point of view, and you will find that the things you and I find scary, they actually applaud (such as forced following of the word of Allah, etc.)

[/ QUOTE ]

How many Islamic teachers are there in the world? Millions? I can name one who disagrees with you.

I used to work with this Islamic scholar, for a short time at the ISR

He almost uniformly disagreed with everything you have to say about Islam.

But then again, I'm not so near-sighted, provincial, or naive as to think that every single Islamic teacher has completely consistent (or even similar) beliefs, either -- so I would never be dumb enough to make such silly and patently dim-witted arguments.

Re: The Crusades
 

[ QUOTE ]
i.e. what MMMMMM has asserted regarding Islam itself being the cause of totalitarianism in Islamic states.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to be clear, I hold that it is "a" substantial cause, not the "only" cause. I further hold that a society following Islam fully as it is laid out in the Koran must result in a state under absolute religious rule. And for DVaut1: such a state is precisely what the Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia, and the mullahs in Iran, have been trying to accomplish.

Re: The Crusades
 

[ QUOTE ]
Just to be clear, DVaut, have you in fact read the Koran?

[/ QUOTE ]

Parts, yes -- in English.

[ QUOTE ]
If not then unless you can show MMMMMM to be asserting a factual error about same, doesn't the excerpts from the Koran and the words of other Islamics that MMMMMM has quoted make his case?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course not. You think objective research about such matters just means picking up a Holy Book and cherry-picking a few quotes -- and that constitutes a vigorous study of MASS SOCIAL AND POLITICAL BEHAVIOR that comes anywhere close to conclusive?

No, of course they don't make his case -- no more than picking 15 of your favorite Bible verses explains anything meaningful about how Christians have behaved (both historically and contemporarily) in regards to politics and social interactions. Imagine the work it would take to prove such a claim! Think of every Christian leader, ever -- factor in the history of the country in question -- and how said leader responds to their imperatives that exist in the Bible; you could research for years upon years and never even begin to sratch the surface on such a subject!...which doesn't even begin to describe the multitude of factors I didn't even mention!

In the simplest of terms: Did Jimmy Carter, Pope Urban II, George W Bush, Constantine, and other historical and contemporary Christian leaders use their power and authority in the same manner because they all read from and adhered to the same Holy Book?

I should hope we aren't fooled into thinking the world is so easily explained away.

[ QUOTE ]
And like MMMMMM said, it seems you are making up theories to explain the characteristics of Islamic states from your own perspective simply not to have to acknowledge the simplest explanation is more likely to be right, i.e. what MMMMMM has asserted regarding Islam itself being the cause of totalitarianism in Islamic states.

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain to me why M's explanation is objectively the simplest explanation. Realize that, to satisfactorily prove why M's is just the simplest explanation (and not necessarily the correct one) would take months of research at a top-notch research institution.

Good luck.

[ QUOTE ]
And since it is a simple and prima facie argument, then it would seem incumbent on you not to spin theories but to demonstrate factually and logically that his view is not accurate.

[/ QUOTE ]

OH, okay! So convincing arguments work like this: you posit something controversial -- and the onus falls on those who DISAGREE (or even just casual onlookers?) to produce evidence that REFUTES the proposed theory, lest said theory stand as true.

Yikes.

Re: The Crusades
 

It is true that the onus is on one who asserts something to prove it likely or certainly to be true, rather than upon him who disputes that assertion.

Nonetheless, although you are trying to label MMMMMM's quotes "cherry picking", they seem to be valid unless you can show they were taken out of context (he is asserting that they weren't I assume).

The simplest explanation:

1. The Koran advocates war and violence to convert unbelievers and punish those who are deemed to have offended Islam.

2. The history of Islamic states from the time of the caliphs has been one of authoritarianism in the name of religion.

3. Islam advocates the imposition of Shari'a law as the basis for the judicial system even if it means using violent means to achieve this (Iran and Islamic Northern Nigeria are prime examples).

4. Since the state is thus based upon holy writ and the will of Allah, then democracy can have little place except for expressing the will of the masses regarding mundane matters, and thus a totatlitarian state is the likeliest result.

Re: The Crusades
 

DVaut1,

Obviously there is no point in trying to convince you: I will color you "unconvinced."

The best I can do, short of producing reams of links and footnotes, is to suggest that you further read the Koran, and read what imams and mullahs have said and written--if you want to gain a better understanding of Islam from an Islamic point of view.

If and when you do, you may find that many of the ideas we might consider unfortunate or unattractive, they find worthy and attractive; Ideas such as: human rights being determined by GOD not by MAN; freedom being not to do what one wishes but rather the freedom to follow God's instructions; lesser rights being appropriate for non-followers of God's word; the basis of good government being the laws made by GOD, NOT laws made by men; the state of "peace" being where Islam dwells, and the state of "war" being where Islam (which is God's word and will) finds resistance.

You may find the non-Western, Islamic perspective on things quite a eye-opening experience--if you choose to find what it is really all about, from those who have lived it thoroughly all their lives (not some liberal Western scholars offering their views on it; rather, straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak.

If nothing else, you might find such views startlingly refreshing, in a way--and rather scary at the same time. But at least you would be hearing what *Islam* has to say about Islam--not what some Western professors or coffee-housers have to say about it, in the context of their postmodern analyses.

Who do you think really knows Islam? George Bush--or the head imam in the Grand Mosque in Mecca? Ducat--or the Ayatollah Khomeini? Or how about Mohammed--do you think he might have known something about Islam, perhaps? Why not read what they, and other Islamic leaders, say and have said--about Islam??

Re: The Crusades
 

[ QUOTE ]
1. The Koran advocates war and violence to convert unbelievers and punish those who are deemed to have offended Islam.

[/ QUOTE ]

Prove it. I've met a few Muslims (and by that I mean all, as I've only ever known a few personally) who feel this is not a legitimate directive in Islam.

[ QUOTE ]
2. The history of Islamic states from the time of the caliphs has been one of authoritarianism in the name of religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Prove it. Establish some controls, too. Have Islamic states been more authoritarian than other states that existed at the time? What about just comparitively across the region?

Hope you've got 15 research assistants at your disposal. This could take a while.

[ QUOTE ]
3. Islam advocates the imposition of Shari'a law as the basis for the judicial system even if it means using violent means to achieve this (Iran and Islamic Northern Nigeria are prime examples).

[/ QUOTE ]

Prove it -- the first line Wikipedia's article on Sharia under the section of 'Contemporary Practice of Sharia Law':

"There is tremendous variance in the interpretation and implementation of Islamic law in Muslim societies today."

[ QUOTE ]
4. Since the state is thus based upon holy writ and the will of Allah, then democracy can have little place except for expressing the will of the masses regarding mundane matters, and thus a totatlitarian state is the likeliest result.

[/ QUOTE ]

Prove it. Remember to factor in the fully-functional democracy of Morocco, which is also a country with a majority of dutiful and observant Muslims.

Re: The Crusades
 

[ QUOTE ]
OH, okay! So convincing arguments work like this: you posit something controversial -- and the onus falls on those who DISAGREE (or even just casual onlookers?) to produce evidence that REFUTES the proposed theory, lest said theory stand as true.

Yikes.

[/ QUOTE ]

DVaut1, it's not "controversial" to state that Islam requires absolute submission to the will of God, as spelled out in the Koran. It's not controversial to assert that the goal of Islam is to bring both the self--and the entire world--into following God's will and instructions, as outlined in the Koran. It's not controversial to state that Islam requires man to follow God's will rather than man's wishes.

"Islam" means submission--to God's will. It is the proper role of all Muslims to bring themselves into complete submission to God's will--and to do their best to bring the their surroundings, and others, and the world, into submission to God's will, too. And as the example of Mohammed showed, force can be used if necessary to these ends.

These are not controversial concepts. They are embraced by major Islamic religious leaders past and present.

In Islamic ideology there is no distinction between the sacred and the secular. Hence there is no distinction between secular government and religious rule--it is all the same, and it is all to follow the will of God. Therefore government under Islam has an absolute or totalitarian aspect that cannot ever be truly shaken loose.

Re: The Crusades
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OH, okay! So convincing arguments work like this: you posit something controversial -- and the onus falls on those who DISAGREE (or even just casual onlookers?) to produce evidence that REFUTES the proposed theory, lest said theory stand as true.

Yikes.

[/ QUOTE ]

DVaut1, it's not "controversial" to state that Islam requires absolute submission to the will of God, as spelled out in the Koran. It's not controversial to assert that the goal of Islam is to bring both the self--and the entire world--into following God's will and instructions, as outlined in the Koran. It's not controversial to state that Islam requires man to follow God's will rather than man's wishes.

"Islam" means submission--to God's will. It is the proper role of all Muslims to bring themselves into complete submission to God's will--and to do their best to bring the their surroundings, and others, and the world, into submission to God's will, too. And as the example of Mohammed showed, force can be used if necessary to these ends.

These are not controversial concepts. They are embraced by major Islamic religious leaders past and present.

In Islamic ideology there is no distinction between the sacred and the secular. Hence there is no distinction between secular government and religious rule--it is all the same, and it is all to follow the will of God. Therefore government under Islam has an absolute or totalitarian aspect that cannot ever be truly shaken loose.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because I'm going to bed and you're just repeating the same nonsense you cite over and over and over again (did Ibn Warraq really say "there may be moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate"?...I don't remember), I'll just answer that obviously, there is a great deal of debate on almost all of that which you say is uncontroversial here -- evidence, clearly, by the fact that there are states with vast Muslim majorities that are secular, democratic, and non-totalitarian.

Re: The Crusades
 

I really liked the way this thread started out, with people discussing history, and facts. Now....it is a nit fest [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Re: The Crusades
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
DVaut1, it's not "controversial" to state that Islam requires absolute submission to the will of God, as spelled out in the Koran. It's not controversial to assert that the goal of Islam is to bring both the self--and the entire world--into following God's will and instructions, as outlined in the Koran. It's not controversial to state that Islam requires man to follow God's will rather than man's wishes.

"Islam" means submission--to God's will. It is the proper role of all Muslims to bring themselves into complete submission to God's will--and to do their best to bring the their surroundings, and others, and the world, into submission to God's will, too. And as the example of Mohammed showed, force can be used if necessary to these ends.

These are not controversial concepts. They are embraced by major Islamic religious leaders past and present.

In Islamic ideology there is no distinction between the sacred and the secular. Hence there is no distinction between secular government and religious rule--it is all the same, and it is all to follow the will of God. Therefore government under Islam has an absolute or totalitarian aspect that cannot ever be truly shaken loose.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because I'm going to bed and you're just repeating the same nonsense you cite over and over and over again (did Ibn Warraq really say "there may be moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate"?...I don't remember), I'll just answer that obviously, there is a great deal of debate on almost all of that which you say is uncontroversial here.


[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe there is a great deal of debate about those things amongst ignorant Westerners, but not amongst imams and mullahs.

Re: The Crusades
 

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe there is a great deal of debate about those things amongst ignorant Westerners, but not amongst imams and mullahs.

[/ QUOTE ]

MMMMMM, has hit the nail on the head here. It is not what you think or would like to believe about Islam and the intentions of its adherents, but what Moslems themselves do and have through history. They don't have a problem with these things but some of you want to think otherwise.

Re: The Crusades
 

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe there is a great deal of debate about those things amongst ignorant Westerners

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll take your word for it.

Re: The Crusades
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. The Koran advocates war and violence to convert unbelievers and punish those who are deemed to have offended Islam.


[/ QUOTE ]


Prove it.

[/ QUOTE ]

First let me say that the Koran does not insist that unbelievers be forcibly converted--they can be killed, instead; or, if they are other people "of the Book" (Jews or Christians), they may be subjugated under Islamic rule and forced to pay the poll tax. Elsewhere in the Koran it is written that "there shall be no compulsion in religion", and as can be seen from the three choices above, there are two other options other than conversion.

However, here is what the Koran does say (in four translations):

(excerpt)
Sura 9:29 Qatiloo allatheena la yu/minoona biAllahi wala bialyawmi al-akhiri wala yuharrimoona ma harrama Allahu warasooluhu wala yadeenoona deena alhaqqi mina allatheena ootoo alkitaba hatta yuAAtoo aljizyata AAan yadin wahum saghiroona

YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger 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.

KHALIFA: You shall fight back against those who do not believe in GOD, nor in the Last Day, nor do they prohibit what GOD and His messenger have prohibited, nor do they abide by the religion of truth - among those who received the scripture - until they pay the due tax, willingly or unwillingly. (excerpt)

http://www.universalunity.net/quran4/009.qmt.html

Re: The Crusades
 

[ QUOTE ]
First let me say that the Koran does not insist that unbelievers be forcibly converted--they can be killed, instead; or, if they are other people "of the Book" (Jews or Christians), they may be subjugated under Islamic rule and forced to pay the poll tax. Elsewhere in the Koran it is written that "there shall be no compulsion in religion", and as can be seen from the three choices above, there are two other options other than conversion.

However, here is what the Koran does say (in four translations):

(excerpt)
Sura 9:29 Qatiloo allatheena la yu/minoona biAllahi wala bialyawmi al-akhiri wala yuharrimoona ma harrama Allahu warasooluhu wala yadeenoona deena alhaqqi mina allatheena ootoo alkitaba hatta yuAAtoo aljizyata AAan yadin wahum saghiroona

YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger 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.

KHALIFA: You shall fight back against those who do not believe in GOD, nor in the Last Day, nor do they prohibit what GOD and His messenger have prohibited, nor do they abide by the religion of truth - among those who received the scripture - until they pay the due tax, willingly or unwillingly. (excerpt)

http://www.universalunity.net/quran4/009.qmt.html

[/ QUOTE ]

First, let me start by saying that Christianity is inherently violent, and that this is reflected by all Christians in government, across all time and in all places -- as Christianity has a causal relationship with violence, as I will now demonstrate (because, of course, as we all know now, thanks to our good friend M's beautifully argued theory that Biblical quotes will suffice in proving far-reaching political and social theories):

Exodus 35:2
"On six days work may be done, but the seventh day shall be sacred to you as the sabbath of complete rest to the LORD. Anyone who does work on that day shall be put to death."

Case closed, Christians are violent, homicidal maniacs who must be sent back from whence they came, lest we allow their inherently violent nature stop us from kicking up the GDP a few ticks on Sunday. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

As Ibn Warraq says, there are non-violent Christians, but Christianity is not non-violent.

-----------------

And with that ridiculousness (and the ridiculousness that it was in response to), I'm really off to bed.

The First Crusade
 

The latest scholarship is Thomas Asbridge's The First Crusade: A New History, quite an entertaining read. Asbridge was a student of Jonathan Riley-Smith, who is something of an apologist for the Crusades. Yet, of the First Crusade, Asbridge says:

"The first point to acknowledge is that the call to arms was not directly inspired by any recent calamity or atrocity in the East. And although the Holy City of Jerusalem, the expedition's ultimate goal, was indeed in Muslim hands, it had been so for more than 400 years--hardly a fresh wound.

"The reality was that Islam and Christendom had coexisted for centuries in relative equanimity. There may at times have been little love lost between Christian and Muslim neighbours, but there was, in truth, little to distinguish this enmity from the endemic political and military struggles of the age.

"Europe was a long way from being engaged in an urgent, titanic struggle for survival. No coherent, pan-Mediterranean onslaught threatened, because, although the Moors of Iberia and the Turks of Asia Minor shared a religious heritage, they were never united in one purpose. Where Christians and Muslims did face each other across the centuries, their relationship had been unremarkable, characterized, like that between any potential rivals, by periods of conflict and other of coexistence. There is little or no evidence to suggest that either side harboured any innate, empowering religious or racial hatred of the other.

“Most significantly, throughout this period indigenous Christians actually living under Islamic law, be it in Iberia or the Holy Land, were generally treated with remarkable clemency. The Muslim faith acknowledged and respected Judaism and Christianity, creeds with which it enjoyed a common devotional tradition and a mutual reliance upon authoritative scripture. Christian subjects may not have been able to share power with their Muslim masters, but they were given freedom to worship. All around the Mediterranean basin, Christian faith and society survived and even thrived under the watchful but tolerant eye of Islam. Eastern Christendom may have been subject to Islamic rule, but it was not on the brink of annihilation, nor prey to any form of systematic abuse.”

[emphasis added]

Re: The Crusades
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
First let me say that the Koran does not insist that unbelievers be forcibly converted--they can be killed, instead; or, if they are other people "of the Book" (Jews or Christians), they may be subjugated under Islamic rule and forced to pay the poll tax. Elsewhere in the Koran it is written that "there shall be no compulsion in religion", and as can be seen from the three choices above, there are two other options other than conversion.

However, here is what the Koran does say (in four translations):

(excerpt)
Sura 9:29 Qatiloo allatheena la yu/minoona biAllahi wala bialyawmi al-akhiri wala yuharrimoona ma harrama Allahu warasooluhu wala yadeenoona deena alhaqqi mina allatheena ootoo alkitaba hatta yuAAtoo aljizyata AAan yadin wahum saghiroona

YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger 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.

KHALIFA: You shall fight back against those who do not believe in GOD, nor in the Last Day, nor do they prohibit what GOD and His messenger have prohibited, nor do they abide by the religion of truth - among those who received the scripture - until they pay the due tax, willingly or unwillingly. (excerpt)

http://www.universalunity.net/quran4/009.qmt.html




[/ QUOTE ]
First, let me start by saying that Christianity is inherently violent, and that this is reflected by all Christians in government, across all time and in all places -- as Christianity has a causal relationship with violence, as I will now demonstrate (because, of course, as we all know now, thanks to our good friend M's beautifully argued theory that Biblical quotes will suffice in proving far-reaching political and social theories):

Exodus 35:2
"On six days work may be done, but the seventh day shall be sacred to you as the sabbath of complete rest to the LORD. Anyone who does work on that day shall be put to death."

Case closed, Christians are violent, homicidal maniacs who must be sent back from whence they came.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't answer the text I provided, which shows that the Koran tells Muslims to be aggressive towards non-believers--so you resort to sarcasm and parody.

But even your parody is wrong, for the text you cited to impugn Christians or Christianity is from the Old Testament (essentially Jewish), not the New Testament--and as such does not reflect the teachings instructions of Jesus, which appear in the New Testament in the Gospels.

The advent of Jesus Christ created (for believers) a new covenant with God, and the old laws were not of primary importance any more. Jesus also turned the Old Testament principles of an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, and hating one's enemy--completely upside down; instructing instead to forgive those who do you ill, and to love one's enemy; and Jesus proved it by his own real example of not resisting, and even loving and forgiving, his own tormentors and executioners.

Jesus gave the Two Great Commandments:

Matthew 22:36 “[Jesus], which is the great commandment in the law?” And he said to him, ’You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets.”

http://www.secondexodus.com/html/cat...tscommands.htm

\"Haphazardly\" is the world
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I haven't really read Orianna Fallaci either.



[/ QUOTE ]


Let me understand this : Did you just recommend an author you have NOT read?



[/ QUOTE ]
I have read of her, and interviews with her.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you unable to understand that an author might be brilliant in interviews and have a nice mug for the magazine covers, too, yet his output be crap??

How can you be recommending reading Orianna Falacci when you have not read anything she wrote??

Why not recommend reading what you have read?? I.e. those interviews and stuff.

All this is indicative of the way you are forming your opinions, your ideology and your worldview...

Re: The Crusades
 

This is another tacit agreement: instead of responding to the evidence, you resort to meangingless denials. The fact remains that you advocate cruelty (land confiscation, war, etc.) toward innocent members of other national, ethnic and religious groups for reasons that you would never tolerate if applied to the yourself. To take an egregious example, you have often advocated seizing land and other collective punishments from "the Arabs" -- meaning innocent others -- if any Arab commits any terrorist act. At the same time, you deny that "the Americans" should ever be collectively punished for the many depredations committed by them, even when such acts are taken not individually or lawlessly but as popular acts of a democratic state. In those cases, you dismiss the crime as a mistake, an abberation or "in the past" and therefore unworthy of concern. When it's the other guy, as in this thread, ancient aggressions merit violent, savage responses against descendants some 300 years hence and therefore presumably forever, a perpetual reign of sadistic vengence that you try to rationalize with a few inapposite denunciations of "fascism." It's a double standard so obvious that only the appalling reality of it being a norm of the American right merits explaining it over and over again.

This proves that your purported reasons for violence have no pincipled basis and can't be taken seriously, leaving only the motive of racism to explain yourself, a fact that you continue to underscore by refusing to face up to your contradictions.

Re: The Crusades
 

I think you are now wasting words MMMMMM. It is clear that political correctness and the liberal inability to distinguish between the way things are and the way they would like them to be, has oozed into every corner of DVaut's brain and prevents him from acknowledging facts and drawing correct conclusions therefrom.

Nit feast
 

[ QUOTE ]
I really liked the way this thread started out, with people discussing history, and facts. Now....it is a nit feast.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, and that's because the nit wit arrived.

He recommends for us to read authors he has not read himself, he chastises without cause the rest of the posters for not being "anti-totalitarian enough" and he comments on historical facts which he's got totally, totally wrong!

Apart from that, his contribution to the thread has been outstanding...

Al-Luther ?
 

Islam is missing its Reformation.

stultus es teipsum
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yep, and that's because the nit wit arrived.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Nit feast
 

Thanks Cyrus [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Andy, I found your post interesting, thank you.

Feeling left out ?
 

Alright, a couple of nitwits.

Re: The Crusades
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is another tacit agreement: instead of responding to the evidence, you resort to meangingless denials. The fact remains that you advocate cruelty (land confiscation, war, etc.) toward innocent members of other national, ethnic and religious groups for reasons that you would never tolerate if applied to the yourself. To take an egregious example, you have often advocated seizing land and other collective punishments from "the Arabs" -- meaning innocent others -- if any Arab commits any terrorist act. At the same time, you deny that "the Americans" should ever be collectively punished for the many depredations committed by them, even when such acts are taken not individually or lawlessly but as popular acts of a democratic state. In those cases, you dismiss the crime as a mistake, an abberation or "in the past" and therefore unworthy of concern. When it's the other guy, as in this thread, ancient aggressions merit violent, savage responses against descendants some 300 years hence and therefore presumably forever, a perpetual reign of sadistic vengence that you try to rationalize with a few inapposite denunciations of "fascism." It's a double standard so obvious that only the appalling reality of it being a norm of the American right merits explaining it over and over again.

This proves that your purported reasons for violence have no pincipled basis and can't be taken seriously, leaving only the motive of racism to explain yourself, a fact that you continue to underscore by refusing to face up to your contradictions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Chris, your personal accusations are in error, and your conclusions are intellectually vacant; moreover, you are employing the cheap tactic of attempting to steer the focus of the thread away from the subject at hand and divert it instead to personal attacks. Additionally, your gross twisting of my words is simply appalling.

Par tactics for a certain type of lawyer, I suppose; but a truly sad reflection for a human being. I'm not surprised that I had you on ignore before, and I won't be surprised if I have you there again shortly.