Islam in the United States, with Mormons

[_J Green]

While in Afghanistan recently I would read with disgust some of the Taliban Night Letters written by extremists who maliciously twisted western history and culture. "Surely" I thought, "WE wouldn't stoop to this level. Surely this at least sets us apart." And then I come back and peruse threads like this one . . . Oh well.

[_Calculus Crusader]

Still, I assert that it is manifestly obvious to even the ill-educated that Islam is not a religion of peace. Undoubtedly there are millions upon millions of peace-loving Muslims, but that isn't a consequence of their religion, it is in spite of it, at least in my estimation.

KA

Isn't Christianity the exact same way?

No.

The Old Testament has more gore than the Saw series...

Hyperbolic nonsense.

...then you have a blip of pacifist Jesus, then some correspondence...

Blip?

...then the prediction of an epic bloodbath between believers and unbelievers that will be finally decided when the previously mentioned pacifist returns to kick the ass of the masses.

You might want to read it again to see who brings the war to whom.

[_bcspace]

I think it would be a good idea for these men to actually go to a nude beach like the kind that are legal in Greece. You see body types, both male and female, of all different shapes and sizes. It's not nearly as glamorous as they may think.

I think most men aren't under any such illusions. What is sexy is actually what's hidden that might one day show or one might get a brief glimpse of. The thrill of anticipation. Once one loses that, I think one would have a serious problem.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

While in Afghanistan recently I would read with disgust some of the Taliban Night Letters written by extremists who maliciously twisted western history and culture. "Surely" I thought, "WE wouldn't stoop to this level. Surely this at least sets us apart." And then I come back and peruse threads like this one . . . Oh well.

Hello J Green,

Would you be kind enough to give us some examples of what has been twisted, and then show us through authoritative Islamic texts how we have been duped by Western extremists vis a vis said examples?

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

[_bcspace]

The burqa is a tool of subjugation, no matter if it is worn by choice or coercion.

Indeed. But subjection of what? The woman or passions?

The cite to which you linked reported that 20% of Jordanian women APPROVED of beatings from their husbands. They felt their beatings were deserved. Because they feel that way doesn't make the beatings right. Because women feel they should wear the burka doesn't make wearing it right. in my opinion.

I have no doubt that Islam is a cruel and terrorist religion and Pipes is spot on in his asessments and right to expose Islam for what it is. However, I do give credit to those trying to Westernize it and in that context, I do believe, in fact I know pretty well know for certain that, there are Muslims who do understand the principle and wear the burka with an attitude that does not subjugate the woman.

The problem that the Church and many others have is thinking that the westernized Muslim (of which there are very few) is representative of Islam in general. Imho, I think DCP understands this also (because, in part, because he does respect the scholarship of Pipes) but is in too delicate a position to express his true feelings on the matter unfortunately. Political correctness has infected the Church just as much as it has infected, for example, the MADB.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Read some mainstream history, not just propaganda.

It is possible that Dr. Peterson is correct in saying that I don't possess the educational background to properly understand the Qur'an.

That's not quite my position.

I realize that there are many who take the commands of the Qur’an to fight the infidels and subdue them as a blanket imperative, valid for all time. Many Muslims have taken them that way, particularly in the great imperial ages of the Umayyad and early ‘Abbasid dynasties, when the schools of Islamic law formed. But many Muslims (e.g., the great classical Qur’an commentator and jurist al-Tabari) have taken them as commands relating to the specific infidels of seventh century Arabia, who had driven the Muslims from Mecca and stolen their property and who were already at war with the fledgling Muslim community. I find the latter view more convincing.

But the Qur’an itself offers little or no historical context, and anyone simply reading the Qur’an, without knowing the asbab al-nuzul (or "reasons for the revelations," as Muslims call them) and the politico-historical setting to which they referred, will naturally be much more likely to take all Qur’anic statements as universally applicable, since he or she will know little or nothing of their specific historical settings.

I assert that it is manifestly obvious to even the ill-educated that Islam is not a religion of peace.

I've never asserted that Islam is "a religion of peace," and I always correct those who describe it that way in my presence.

Undoubtedly there are millions upon millions of peace-loving Muslims, but that isn't a consequence of their religion, it is in spite of it, at least in my estimation.

I can't, however, agree with the statement above.

I'm not understanding why it's such an inaccurate or bad thing to say that Islam has historically been spread by the sword.

Because, by and large, that's not true.

The Arabs spread by the sword, just as the Egyptians and the Assyrians and the Babylonians and the Medes and the Romans and the Persians and the Byzantines and many others had done in the region before them, and just as the Turks and the Mongols and the Persians and the French and the British and, yes, on a small scale, the Jews would do in the region after them.

But Islam, as such, was seldom spread by the sword. Egypt, for example, was conquered by the Arabs in the first half of the seventh century, but was still majority Christian in the twelfth century, half a millennium later. India was conquered mostly in the eleventh century, but always remained mostly Hindu. Spain was conquered in the early eighth century, and the last Muslims weren't driven out until 1492, but Spain remained mostly Christian. In southeast Asia, Islam typically spread along trade routes, via Muslim merchants.

So was Christianity.

That's even less true.


.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello Everyone,

Taking Dr. Peterson's serious admonition to heart that we "read some mainstream history" I perused some "mainstream" press releases.

This one is from the NY Times dated December 30th, 2002:

... money from the Saudi government continues to go to the terrorist group Hamas. The idea, often reiterated by Saudi officials, is that Hamas can be divided into a Good Hamas that supports educational and philanthropic activities and a Bad Hamas that aids terrorism. This is a fiction -- and has been labeled so repeatedly by the United States. [There is also no oversight on zakat being transferred to "Bad Hamas" to buy arms, spread their propaganda, etc..- Dr. CamNC4Me]

Saudi Arabia has repeatedly refused to stop its religious schools from preaching hatred and the severe dogma of its Wahhabi branch of Islam. The secular schools are little better. But then, how can educators be expected to change in a country where the interior minister told a news magazine last month that Zionists ''are behind these events'' of Sept. 11?

The Saudi government also refuses to cooperate with the families of the victims of Sept. 11. In the suit we are involved in, highly placed members of the royal family are named as defendants, as are leading banks, the interior minister, the former ministers of health and Islamic affairs and, most important, Prince Turki al-Faisal, the former intelligence minister.

The Saudis won't respond to the accusations and have now named Prince Turki as ambassador to Britain, which conveniently gives him the claim of diplomatic immunity.

It is regrettable that little has changed in Saudi Arabia to this day:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq ... nnis_x.htm

CAIRO (AP) — Private Saudi citizens are giving millions of dollars to Sunni insurgents in Iraq and much of the money is used to buy weapons, including shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles, according to key Iraqi officials and others familiar with the flow of cash.

Ayn Rand has an interesting quote that seems appropriate when it comes to Islam and the rest of the world:

The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody had decided not to see.

I could most likely continue to post one piece of evidence after another and it would not make much of a difference for some, as it may for others. I suppose it is incumbent upon the individual to recognize a threat to its own life, liberty, and right to seek happiness.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

[_J Green]

While in Afghanistan recently I would read with disgust some of the Taliban Night Letters written by extremists who maliciously twisted western history and culture. "Surely" I thought, "WE wouldn't stoop to this level. Surely this at least sets us apart." And then I come back and peruse threads like this one . . . Oh well.

Hello J Green,

Would you be kind enough to give us some examples of what has been twisted, and then show us through authoritative Islamic texts how we have been duped by Western extremists vis a vis said examples?

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

Document assertion with authoritative references? I suppose that's a fair request; after all, it's certainly the standard that has been followed here to this point--- e.g., the carefully footnoted and scholarly observations from Paul O.:

I hate the Islamic religion. I mean, I HATE it! I would to God that Christ would return soon and burn Islam to the ground. It is a thorn in the flesh of Israel and the restoration of the gospel.

Or his deeply respectful and subtly nuanced plea to Harmony:

How about you intertain us piggy men and put one on and have a picture taken. Post it in this thread so we can all get a good laugh. I want to see you humbled in a bag!

Or KA's thoughtfully perceptive observation that the Taliban and LDS cultures are only separated by mere degrees. Or her authoritative assertion that

Undoubtedly there are millions upon millions of peace-loving Muslims, but that isn't a consequence of their religion, it is in spite of it, at least in my estimation.

Or cksalmon’s fully-referenced thesis that radical Islam represents “chapel Islam” and that American academics feign ignorance of their widespread blood lust to paint them as a peace-loving people. Or perhaps your own carefully documented comments from authoritative texts as follow:

While I believe the Crusades were fought during the late 11th century, I don't believe said wars were wars of aggression so much as a response to hundreds of years of aggression on the part of Arab-Muslim "crusaders", as it were.

And

The sheer quantity of Islamic terror organizations, individuals engaging in criminal behavior justified by the Quran and Hadith, state sponsored financing of said terroristic behavior, and a general support for jihadist organizations "disguised" as charities so pious Muslims can pay zakat are all deeply embedded in Islamic, Arab, and/or Muslim cultures.

I could probably attempt to rise to this level of articulate, objective scholarship with thoughtful answers and supporting documentation that mirrors the evidence that so forcefully buttresses the statements above. But I'm probably not that smart.

Seriously, though, I'd like to know how the invective here is any different than the filth from the other side:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.information/article6537.htm

Regards

[_harmony]

I realize that there are many who take the commands of the Qur’an to fight the infidels and subdue them as a blanket imperative, valid for all time. Many Muslims have taken them that way, particularly in the great imperial ages of the Umayyad and early ‘Abbasid dynasties, when the schools of Islamic law formed. But many Muslims (e.g., the great classical Qur’an commentator and jurist al-Tabari) have taken them as commands relating to the specific infidels of seventh century Arabia, who had driven the Muslims from Mecca and stolen their property and who were already at war with the fledgling Muslim community. I find the latter view more convincing.

I suppose to some people, your opinion would have weight. But to the average Muslim, or to the guy giving his money to Hamas (even though they may be the same guy, it's possible they aren't), it doesn't matter what you think, Daniel. There are, as you say, many Muslims... millions, in fact... and your example of one Muslim with a peaceful agenda looks a little insubstantial, in light of 9/11 and the aftermath.

But the Qur’an itself offers little or no historical context, and anyone simply reading the Qur’an, without knowing the asbab al-nuzul (or "reasons for the revelations," as Muslims call them) and the politico-historical setting to which they referred, will naturally be much more likely to take all Qur’anic statements as universally applicable, since he or she will know little or nothing of their specific historical settings.

Oh, goodie. We can just throw the whole thing in the dumpster because no one, certainly none of the present day terrorists or millions of believers, follows it correctly anyway, right? It's all a mistake, right? The US government should bring all our troops home from chasing the Taliban in Afghanistan and from everywhere else in the Middle East, because ... well, all those Muslims who think they're following their holy book are just reading it wrong. Really! All that violence, all those lives wasted, all those children blown up... just because those silly Muslims are all reading it wrong.

I assert that it is manifestly obvious to even the ill-educated that Islam is not a religion of peace.

I've never asserted that Islam is "a religion of peace," and I always correct those who describe it that way in my presence.

Then why isn't it a religion of peace? I mean, you just got through saying it's not a religion of war... that they're just reading the Koran wrong... so why isn't it a religion of peace?

Undoubtedly there are millions upon millions of peace-loving Muslims, but that isn't a consequence of their religion, it is in spite of it, at least in my estimation.

I can't, however, agree with the statement above.

Why not?

The Arabs spread by the sword, just as the Egyptians and the Assyrians and the Babylonians and the Medes and the Romans and the Persians and the Byzantines and many others had done in the region before them, and just as the Turks and the Mongols and the Persians and the French and the British and, yes, on a small scale, the Jews would do in the region after them.

And the Arabs weren't Muslim?

But Islam, as such, was seldom spread by the sword. Egypt, for example, was conquered by the Arabs in the first half of the seventh century, but was still majority Christian in the twelfth century, half a millennium later.

How many Christians died in that 500 years, simply because they were not Muslim? 49%? How many forced conversions were there?

India was conquered mostly in the eleventh century, but always remained mostly Hindu.

Mostly? 51%? How many Hindus died because they wouldn't convert?

Spain was conquered in the early eighth century, and the last Muslims weren't driven out until 1492, but Spain remained mostly Christian.

Mostly? 51%? How many Christians died because they wouldn't convert?

I'm seeing a pattern here:

7th Century: Arab Muslims conquered Christian Egypt.
8th Century: Arab Muslims conquered Christian Spain.
11th Century: Arab Muslims conquered Hindu India.

Just how does one conquer a country, if one isn't using a sword? That the countries' respective religions survived their centuries of the Muslim sword to their throats is a testament to the resilience of the conquered religion, not the mercy of the Muslim sword.

[Guest]

Hello J Green,

I feel it an unfortunate that you declined my sincere inquiry into your assertions.

I don't suppose you feel the mutawa are in any way formed, operated, and funded by the Saudi Arabian regime within the confines of Sharia?

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCr ... USLH816115

Would you like me to document the myriad cases of horrific and brutal human rights violations committed by this Islamically-based vice squad?

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

Post Script- Dr. Peterson, have you or your employer received funding in any manner from Saudi Arabia, or via a proxy for Saudi Arabia (to include academic exchanges paid by Saudi Arabia or said proxies)? This is, I must admit, a bit impudent of me to ask, but curiosity does indeed wear thin one's etiquette.