LDS "world famous scholar" publishes book

[_harmony]

Really now. Must you resort to internet authority? Can't you realize that your Mormon ethnocentric bigotry can be rebutted with all sorts of countering internet websites?

You might want to get to know the participants on the board before you jump off the deep end. Dart's not exactly the quinessential ethnocentric LDS. Many of us aren't.

And what's wrong with internet sources? Are you saying anything on the internet is automatically suspect?

[_guy sajer]

I'll pass; I've had my fill of your games.

You said you were quoting me, so we should expect you to prove it.

For all your moaning and groaning about true research and honesty, you should teach us by example. So let's have it.

And I am perfectly content to know someone thinks I am a bigot for stating a truth. Islam and democracy are incompatible. To believe otherwise is popular lore, but it is based in ignorance.

I assume you mean something akin to "fundamentalist Islam?"

Which goes to a more general question, "Is Democracy compatible with any kind of fundamentalist religion?"

Take it one more step further, "Is Democracy compatible with any kind of fundamentalist ideology?"

I assume also we're not talking about the presence of fundamentalist political, interest, religious groups in the country but rather something along the lines of fundamentalists who control of the coercive mechanisms of the state?

Can you clarify and then offer your views.

I'm inclined to think that, as a general rule, Democracy cannot survive in any situation in which fundamentalist control the coercive mechanisms of the state, even in a system that is ostensibly Democratic.

What do you all think?

[Guest]

Really now. Must you resort to internet authority? Can't you realize that your Mormon ethnocentric bigotry can be rebutted with all sorts of countering internet websites?

As you know Tradd, the Middle-East forum is a scholarly think tank run by the highly educated Daniel Pipes (Ph.D. Harvard), and the Middle-East Quarterly is a scholarly journal which it publishes. It even published two of your favorite Islam scholars, Esposito and Voll.

But if you’re so sure of yourself that this “can be rebutted with all sorts of countering internet websites,” then feel free to provide them. I have always been interested in hearing both sides, though the same cannot be said from your end.

I've already provided one quote. How many more do you think there are? This is fun.

Oh, so now you admit only portions of your posts consist of direct quotations? Well, at least we’re getting somewhere. I’m still waiting for you to provide these mysterious quotations, which allegedly prove my “manifest bigotry.”

So let’s have them. I’m particularly interested in the part where I said Mecca and Medina should be flattened.

Please enlighten us with a presentation of scholarly research and integrity.

[_dartagnan]

Hey guy

I assume you mean something akin to "fundamentalist Islam?"

The Islam I refer to is one that accepts sharia law. I operate under the assumption that Islam and sharia are inseparable, and that in Islam, there can be no separation between Church and State (there are more than enough authorities to corroborate this premise). This Islam represents the vast majority today; only a minority fringe is trying to push the idea that Islam can be separated from politics. The apologists fall behind this camp without ever indicating that what they are describing is not the majority view. They embrace the ideas of renegade Muslim reformers and treat them as though they represent the norm.

[_Levi]

Really now. Must you resort to internet authority? Can't you realize that your Mormon ethnocentric bigotry can be rebutted with all sorts of countering internet websites?

You might want to get to know the participants on the board before you jump off the deep end. Dart's not exactly the quinessential ethnocentric LDS. Many of us aren't.

And what's wrong with internet sources? Are you saying anything on the internet is automatically suspect?

Unless they are peer-reviewed, they are suspect and probably worthless, in my view.

Are you saying that Mr. Dart is not a Mormon?

[_dartagnan]

I should add that this question also depends on how one defines democracy. I consider democracy something more than just a system where the general public elect politicians. Western democracy and Western values (i.e human rights) go hand in hand in my view, and this is what sharpens the line between it and Islam.

Unless they are peer-reviewed, they are suspect and probably worthless, in my view.

The only article Esposito and Voll wrote for the Middle-East Quarterly was an apologetic article which argued Islam and democracy were compatible. I'm glad you consider it worthless.

[_Bond...James Bond]

Unless they are peer-reviewed, they are suspect and probably worthless, in my view.

Well there goes all of Kerry Shirts' hard work down the crapper.

[_guy sajer]

Hey guy

I assume you mean something akin to "fundamentalist Islam?"

The Islam I refer to is one that accepts sharia law. I operate under the assumption that Islam and sharia are inseparable, and that in Islam, there can be no separation between Church and State (there are more than enough authorities to corroborate this premise). This Islam represents the vast majority today; only a minority fringe is trying to push the idea that Islam can be separated from politics. The apologists fall behind this camp without ever indicating that what they are describing is not the majority view. They embrace the ideas of renegade Muslim reformers and treat them as though they represent the norm.

Fair enough. How do you account for Turkey within this argument? It is a secular, Democratic government (for the most part, right?), yet its citizens are overwhelmingly Muslim.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not arguing against your point, just curious how you account for this within your arguments.

Thanks.

[_dartagnan]

Turkey is a secular democracy, and sharia plays no role. That's the difference.

I never said Muslims couldn't live in a democracy. They can do whatever they want if they choose not to put Islam first.

When the Caliphate was in power, democracy as we know it was impossible. Most Muslims today hope for the reimplementation of the Caliphate. They are not interested in giving power to the people, because only God is has authority and he rules them through Islam. Also, the idea that all humans are equal is absent in Islam. Islam, via the Quran, explains the second-class status of all Christians and Jews, and those adhering to polytheism were generally killed; though later they were granted dhimmi status for economic purposes.

[_Pumplehoober]

As you know Tradd, the Middle-East forum is a scholarly think tank run by the highly educated Daniel Pipes (Ph.D. Harvard), and the Middle-East Quarterly is a scholarly journal which it publishes. It even published two of your favorite Islam scholars, Esposito and Voll.

But if you’re so sure of yourself that this “can be rebutted with all sorts of countering internet websites,” then feel free to provide them. I have always been interested in hearing both sides, though the same cannot be said from your end.

I am not Levi. Sorry.

Oh, so now you admit only portions of your posts consist of direct quotations? Well, at least we're getting somewhere. I'm still waiting for you to provide these mysterious quotations, which allegedly prove my “manifest bigotry.”

You already said I was posing as an anti-Islamic bigot. What did I say that you agree with? Inquiring minds want to know.

So let's have them. I'm particularly interested in the part where I said Mecca and Medina should be flattened.

That one was one of your supporters.