DiscussMormonism.com

I was reading through Jihad Watch this morning and noticed a post by Mr. Spencer describing his experience with Islamic apologists (emphasis mine):

One of the most striking elements of the response to the talks that I have been giving on university campuses all over the country is the never-yielding unwillingness of Muslim questioners to admit even the smallest point. They will dismiss the evidence that I bring from authoritative Islamic sources of the jihad imperative to subjugate non-Muslims under the rule of Islamic law as the ravings of a few extremists, not hesitating to repudiate any authority, no matter how influential it may be in the Islamic world.

This may seem to be a canny tactic, as most of the non-Muslims in any given audience have no idea who is an authoritative voice in Islam and who isn't, and so it gives the impression that I am quoting marginal people to whom the vast majority of Muslims don't listen. But as an approach it carries with it some serious risks: anyone in the audience who does know anything about Islamic theology and law, and about who the authoritative voices are in the Islamic world, will know they are lying. Also, anyone who is reasonably well informed about the extent of jihad activity worldwide, from Europe to Indonesia, will wonder just how tiny this Tiny Minority of Extremists™ really is.

I'm tempted to delete out certain words and phrases and replace "Muslims" with "Mormons" and "Islamic" with "Mormon" and take in the uncanny similarities.

Typing this out it also strkes me that xian apologists are the same, too. I suppose the only difference is Islamists tend to resolve their differences, ultimately, with violence. They do, indeed, have the final word in a very sobering way.

To Mormons' credit, they at least are peaceful... And that has to be respected, and I respect it.

Yeah, I see this a lot in Mormonism.

Any Faith-Promoting Rumor, no matter how outlandish, will be taken as gospel truth without a single shred of evidence.

Anything negative must be documented and proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, and even then they can alter the meaning of words or apply motives which they have no backing for.

From Jihad Watch, comments section:

Posted by: Geoff at October 30, 2008 10:39 PM

In other words…

“Moderate” Muslims cannot, or will not stop their more faithful so-called “radical “ Muslims from carrying forth the edicts of Islam. Instead, moderate Muslims end up simply denying anything is wrong with Islam. So is there really any use to calling them moderate?

They are Muslims, and they follow Islam. They will defend Islamic principles in school auditoriums, in government offices, and on the battlefield if push comes to shove. They defend it even if it hurts them, because it is something they are familiar with, just like over 90% of white American southerners did not own slaves, and the practice ended up just hurting them as well, yet many still ended up defending it under the rubric of state rights, or some other contrived notion, or saying the north was not any better (notice the Spanish Isabella reference). Also just like most Germans were not Nazis, yet defended Nazism under the notion of defending the fatherland from Communism etc.

Muslims will not look into the mirror on their own. They will only do so if forced to do it. It could be social means, like “western corruption”, economic means by loss of the wealth, through conversion by another religion, or to a reconfigured Islam (a real stretch) which accept secular liberal principles, or it could be by brute force, like warfare, etc., but no matter how you look at this will be a brutal and ugly process. The people who think that a majority Muslim nation that appears western on the surface, or picks their leaders by a ballot box, will be on our side in this process is naïve. Just like a man from Alabama, who loved democracy, yet fought for slavery, or a Prussian, who listened to Mozart, and fought for Hitler. It is just the way things are sometimes.

-------

You see this a lot within the religious paradigm. Change (ugh) only comes from some sort of outside-the-tribe influence, and it's usually very uncomfortable for all concerned. Mormons didn't leave polygamy until the Federal government was forced to cram the law down their throats. They didn't offer the "priesthood" to Blacks until, again, the their tax-exempt status was threatened. It makes me wonder as The Gays gain more rights how long it will be until the LDS corporation adjusts its policies...

The process has again and again played itself out within Christendom. And what's funny, they always make an excuse for it. But what's stronger? God, the Ultimate Alpha Male, or a government composed of men? It seems to me that men are indeed stronger than God. Well, at least the polygamous Mormon one. I wonder how this will play out with Allah and his followers as they become more entrenched in our society... Who will adjust? Them or us?

Do you actually know any Muslims?

rcrocket wrote:Do you actually know any Muslims?

Yea, I do know few of them....
What of it?
the ones I know are mostly good people respect the laws of the land.
The ones (Muslims) I don't know, stone a 13 year old girl to death for the reason of adultery,
(she was actually raped by three men), fly planes into buildings, do horrendous stuff just to please Allah.
I also know Palestinians in Holy Land who are treated like caged Animals by Israel which staked it's
claim by default of being God's only chosen Nation.
Muslim, Jew, Christian...
Id doesn't get more convoluted than this.
Oh, I didn't want to leave peaceful Hindus, who exterminated deported, killed peaceful minorities unless they be converted to Hinduism in India.

I grew up in a Moslem country, often I wonder why they let me survive.

rcrocket wrote:Do you actually know any Muslims?

Yeah. So?