Pro Giuliani group co-chair says we should get rid of all Muslims

The BBQ Pit
141

No. You were utterly wrong in calling me a leftist (unless your Left/Right perspective is based on that of Robert Welch).

Not really. You are changing the points of discussion (or conflating things in your ignorance) and pretending that political conquest is identical to religious conversion and then incorrectly (and falsely) imposing subsequent political developments on your original (incorrect) claims that Mohammed and the Qur’an called for forced, violent conversions. (And, based on your little link, you should be expressing far more fear of Buddhism than Islam.)

I doubt that you would be amenable to reading actual history that noted that Christians were far more violent (and virulent) in their actions that Muslims have been, so your point is hollow. That there is currently a slight edge toward civility among non-Islamic nations is a blip in history. (The most recent Muslim nation to invade another country without provocation was being run as a secular state at the time. The most recent Christian nation to invade another country without provocation is the most Christian large nation in the world.)

Well, far more than the exactly none that you have provided.
Saudi Arabia, the only Islamist nation on your list, has the warm cooperative support of the current U.S. administration.
Iran, while fitting the description of Fundamentalist Islam, is not Islamist by any informed definition of the word. While they may be seeking a nuclear weapon, (the CIA appears to disagree with you), they have no history of attempting conquest and an argument could be made that they want nuclear weapons as a defensive deterrent, just as Israel does.
Pakistan, which has the warm cooperative support of this adminstration is NOT a Fundamentalist Muslim nation although it has Fundamentalist Muslims fighting their countrymen for control of the nation. They, too, have demonstrated no ultimate desire for religious conquest and their actual fighting has been based on the desire for natural resources, not religious expansion. I agree that Pakistan is troubling, but anyone who has paid attention to more than USA Today or Fox News headlines realizes that the Pakistani people would not tolerate an Islamist state and Paskistan would probably devolve into civil war if the Islamist factions of the military attempted to impose their will on the nation.

Islamism is the province of a limited number of people. (How limited can be debated, but invoking Iran and Pakistan while ignoring Malaysia, Bangladesh, India, and Dearborn is disingenuous–particularly when offered in support of the clear error of the claim of violent conversion to which you seem to be so attached.)

142

So sorry for mischaracterizing you.

I don’t know as much about how Buddhism spread. I know that Islam spread by conquest. Any attempt to spin it otherwise is dishonest.

I don’t dispute that Christianity has a history of violent conquest. More violent than Islam, well that’s debatable. Islamic nations have only relinquished their invasion of other nations in the time that they’ve essentially been Anglo vassal states since World War I when the British Empire carved up the Ottoman Empire into competing nationalisms. Since then, Britain and later America have continued to foment those divisions to ensure that a united Islam cannot become aggressive.

Yes, of course they do. More’s the pity. Our addiction to oil has put us in bed with a snake. No doubt they feel the same about us.

Fine, I’ll let you pick that nit from my beard. The CIA puts out conflicting reports all the time. Different intelligence estimates come out all the time. It goes back and forth with the political wind. I also, have argued here many times against invading Iran over their nuclear program. I don’t think that Khameini is irrational, and the winds seem to be blowing away from the Mad dog Ahmadinejad, but be that as it may, there is a lot of naivete in the ‘Islam is a religion of peace’ crowd. I think that a strong Iran could be a very good thing for the global balance of power, but that doesn’t mean that the fundamentalist factions are quite as limited as people here like to make it out.

If you’re going to be snide, then you should make sure your reading comprehension is impeccable. I said, ‘one bullet away from fundamentalist islam’. That means all they need to do is cap Musharraf. You are probably right that Pakistan would devolve into civil war (I don’t read USA Today or watch Fox News. Well I saw Hannity and Colmes once last month.) but that doesn’t change the fact that some provinces in Pakistan would go Islamist, or really, are already Islamist, like Waziristan. It also doesn’t change the fact that the status of their nuclear weapons would be in doubt, regardless of the safeguards Musharraf’s administration has put in place.

Fine, maybe I should say, “Islamofascism” for a more all-encompassing term. I was using ‘Islamist’ generically to mean radical fundamentalists who believe in using conquest as a means of conversion. The fact is Muhammad sanctioned violent conversion, and his followers throughout history practiced violent conversion. Spin it however you like, equivocate however you want. There is plenty of literature that shows that violent Islam is not as underground as people might wish it to be, and that throughout history Muslims have practiced peace when they are the minority population in a region, to becoming more hostile when they take over as the majority religion.

Sharia and democracy are not compatible. Our systems are very different, for better or worse. Christianity can work within Secularism because secularism arose from Christendom. Yes, some Christians want to do away with Secularism, but not enough to make the changes they’d like to see. Many Muslim nations are Muslim Fundamentalist regimes, whether you want to call it Islamist or however you choose to characterize Iran’s Mullahcracy.

As I said, I don’t think we should round up the Muslims in Dearborne Michigan, but the idea that violent conquest isn’t one of the central themes of Muslim history, is naive at best, and willfully ignorant at worst. Muhammad himself was a conqueror. Muhammad direct successors were conquerors. Please show me any violent conquest by Jesus and the 12 disciples. I think the Romanization of Christianity was an unfortunate happenstance, but the conquest thread in Christianity did not start at the source, it followed the common theme of the Empire that adopted it. Christianity worked to soften conquerors. Islam started out as conquerors. Remember where you live in Dar-al-Harb.

143

What is dishonest is implying that Muslim armies marched up to the gates of cities and demanded that everyone convert to Islam on pain of death when the reality, as noted by Brain Glutton and his links, is that the conquest was purely political–the sort of thing humanity has always done–and that the conversions, initially resisted by the Muslim Arabs, came about as a natural result of the conquest with the conquered currying favor with the new overlords–pretty much the way that most non-Christian peoples in North America, whether indigenous or imported as slaves, adopted Christianity.

Your “one bullet” comment more than implies that only Musharraf is preventing Pakistan from becoming an Islamist state. This ignores that fact that much of Pakistan is opposed to the mullahs of Waziristan and that Pakistan was never a Fundamentalist Islamic state prior to his taking power. (They even elected a woman president, something the U.S. has failed to do.) I read your incorrect analysis quite clearly and I noted its errors.

Nah. If you use “Islamofascist” you will be admitting that you follow the ranting of a noted xenophobe who invented a nonsense word for the purpose of drumming up bogeymen to hate and fear. The “fascist” suffix was simply tacked on to the word because it gets a good negative visceral reaction in the U.S., even though the word is utterly meaningless in this context as the Islamists have very few features that could be accurately described as “fascist.”

Mohammed did not promote violent conversion, (and quoting suras out of context will not make that falsehood true). Islam has no more used violent conversion than has Christianity, so appeals to history are simply silly in this context. As to Muslims lying low until they get a majority so they can pop out and unleash their violence, you’re pretty much just making that up. The Muslim conversion of what is now Malaysia and Indonesia and Southern Philipines occurred through simple missionary work and the rest of the Muslim world came under the sway of Islam after political conquests (as you keep insisting, getting only the motives and sequences wrong). The violence in the Philipines is not the result of some minority becoming a majority, but the resistance to active Christian suppression that has been going on for more than a century. The growing violence in Indonesia (which is troubling) has a lot to do with a Muslim country that was suppressed (in the name of “fighting communism”) for decades looking for new leadership and radical Islamists moving in to seize power.

Depends on the version of Sharia invoked. The word Sharia identifies several separate strains of Islamic judicial philosophy. Several of them have been employed in secular states. It has nothing to do with “democracy” (a philosophy of government, not of the judiciary), in any event. I think that there is a real danger of some versions of Islamic philosophy (governmental, judicial, and social) that are very much a source of danger to the people who live under them (or, potentially, their neighbors). The same can be said of some of the sort of nonsense that the West has pawned off as “democracy” when it has suited us. I have no problem opposing the Wahabbists and the other actual Islamists or resisting the spread of Iranian style Fundamentalism.
I simply find it silly and counterproductive to run around crying “The Muslims are coming! The Muslims are coming!” when the crier cannot distinguish among all the various factions within Islam, acting as though Islam, itself, is some sort of bogeyman that is out to “get” us so that we need to fear everyone in the world who prays five times a day toward Mecca.

And I think that deliberately misunderstanding and re-writing history for the purpose of creating monsters to hate is counterproductive, regardless how much one likes that churning hatred and fear in one’s guts.

144

Ah, the old “taking it out of context” song and dance routine. :smiley:

I wondered how long it would take for you to dive into that shit filled foxhole. :slight_smile:

The links in my post provided plenty of context if anyone bothered to follow them up. A reading of the Koran and Hadiths would not tend to support your bizarro view that “do as I say and believe what I believe or I’ll attack you,” (presumably with extreme prejudice) does not involve coercion.

Next, you’ll be telling us that you need to become proficient in Arabic to understand the Koran and hadiths properly. :smiley:

145

No they didn’t.

Your first quote was
usc.edu: Sura 8: 12

"Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): “I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.”

The following passages explain that this refers to war against “Unbelivers” who oppress and attack Muslims

8:13 says “This because they contended against Allah and His Messenger: If any contend against Allah and His Messenger, Allah is strict in punishment.” *

8:15 says: “O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them.”

8:19 says: “(O Qureysh!) If ye sought a judgment, now hath the judgment come unto you. **And if ye cease (from persecuting the believers) it will be better for you, but if ye return (to the attack) We also shall return. ** And your host will avail you naught, however numerous it be, and (know) that Allah is with the believers (in His Guidance).” (emphasis added)

Your second quote is even more disingenuous, usc.edu: Sura 2: 191, reads “And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out”.

But that’s only part of it. Why didn’t you quote the whole thing?

“And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.” (emphasis added)

Again, this is about defensive warfare, not conversion (the passage right before the one you quoted, 190, says “Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.”). The part you excised from your quote even explicitly orders Muslims not to fight “unbelievers” even if they’re in the Sacred Mosque, unless the “unbelievers” attack first.
usc.edu: Sura 9: 29

“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.”

This one is not explicitly explained, but the opening passage of that Sura (9:1) reads “A (declaration) of immunity from Allah and His Messenger, to those of the Pagans with whom ye have contracted mutual alliances”

Strange how out of three passages from the Koran you quoted, two dealt with strictly defensive actions, and one doesn’t say, but is in a Sura prefaced with a grant of immunity to friendly pagans. Sure doesn’t seem like a bunch of passages demanding forced conversion to me.

146

Owned.

147

Here is a historical question: the concept of an eternal battle between dar al harb (or the “house of war”) versus dar al islam (or “the house of Islam”) is not once mentioned in the Koran. Where did this distinction come from, and what does it currently mean? Is this concept widespread in Islam, or the perview of a tiny minority?

148

Who are we talking about here? Wikipedia, at least, says the term was created by Maxine Rodison, the French sociologist, to describe the Iranian Revolution, and was first used in the popular media by Malise Ruthven. Did you mean him?

149

It comes from Muslim legal theorists of the Middle Ages who were trying to work out theories of just warfare. The dar al-islam (“house of peace”) are those areas under Muslim government where Muslims can practice their religion freely. The dar al-harb (“house of war”) are those areas not under Muslim government where Muslims are being persecuted. The theory was that it was forbidden to go to war within the dar al-islam, because all Muslims should be brothers, but that war against the dar al-harb was legitimate.

150

Interesting.

I note that the theory requires that Muslims be persecuted in order for an area to be declared “dar al harb”. Is this the currently popular interpretation of the theory?

I have seen in passing references to the notion that the world is, in effect, divided into the two zones - that is, any area not “dar al islam” is, more or less by definition, “dar al harb”. Which is a somewhat more alarming version, as it would imply that warring on non-Muslim governments is more or less always legitimate.

According to the just war theory as formulated above, there ought to be some intermediate zone inbetween dar al-islam and dar al-harb, which would represent areas not under Muslim government where Muslims are not persecuted as such. Presumably, the countries of the West would fit within this intermediate zone, rather than within the dar al-harb.

151

At the time the theory was formulated, that WAS true (medieval Christian European countries very, very rarely, if ever, allowed enclaves of Muslims to live there at all, much less unmolested).

But in the modern era, it’s not only possible, but fairly common. Some Muslim theologians now do consider there to be more divisions than just dar al-Islam and dar al-Harb because of that - Wikipedia labels one such as dar al-Amn, “House of Safety”, which describes Western countries which aren’t Muslim, but where Muslims may practice without oppression.

However, in the traditionalist denominations of Islam, such new divisions aren’t recognized, and they still consider the world to be a “you’re either with or against us” black and white thing. And since most of the Islamic groups that embrace terrorism and forced conversion at the point of a sword are traditionalist…

It should be clear from the Suras linked above that while there’s certainly no explicit mandate for forced conversion or death in the Koran, the passages can easily be interpreted to result in that. All you have to do is define “enemy” and “attack on you/Islam” broadly enough to justify it.

But by the same token, it can also be interpreted to say “live and let live”. Which interpretation you choose, whether Muslim or not, seems to depend on the desire to justify pre-existing attitudes.

Like pretty much ANY sacred text, really.

152

Muqtedar Khan, in his article “Immigrant American Muslims and the Moral Dilemnas of Citizenship” wrote, after talking about conflicts between immigrants’ understanding of being Muslim and being American:

153

Yeah, there isn’t much point in looking at the sacred texts themesleves - what is important is how they are implemented by believers. You would not predict the Inquisition from reading the Gospels; nor Bin Laden from reading the Koran.

As far as Islam goes, it is possible to find both the mystical Sufism of the poet Hafiz and the puritanical fundamentalism of Wahhabism. The problem is that the latter gets all the press, and may, as far as I know, be the more popular.

154

And here is the statement from Wikipedia, (bolding mine):

And I reject Ruthven’s contention that it was “convenient.” We already have terms like fundamentalism to indicate an extremely conservative position in a religion without invoking inappropriate comparisons to Fascism. (The Wikipedia article goes on to note the connection between several anti-Jewish Muslim demagogues and the hatred expressed by the Nazis–a point I have made, myself, on this board–but to confuse the specific anti-Jewish sentiment of the Nazis with the broader aspects of Fascism dilutes the word by robbing it of serious meaning.)

In the U.S., Andrew Sullivan was the biggest proponent of the word and his grasp of history is, at best, tenuous, filtered and obscured, as it is, by his numerous fears and hatreds.

155

I’m not arguing that Islamo-fascism is a good term. I don’t think it is. But if you’re trying to argue that Andrew Sullivan is a “a noted xenophobe who invented a nonsense word for the purpose of drumming up bogeymen to hate and fear.”, then I disagree that:

  1. He invented the word
  2. It’s a nonsense word
  3. He’s a noted xenophobe
  4. He did it for the purpose of drumming up bogeymen to hate and fear.
156

Nah. I was talking about Rodison. On the other hand, I do consider Sullivan to be a xenophobe who submits far too many tainted essays based in hate and fear and I do consider Islamofascism a nonsense word.

157

Yeah, his recent one about Obama being the best hope for healing the divide of the culture war was a scorcher of fear-mongering. He’s a crafty one that Sullivan!

It’s a good thing you spent some time on issues that actually matter. You know what we mean by ‘islamist’ or ‘islamofascist’ so picking the nits on it is pretty irrelevant. Somehow I doubt you’d find useful any term that refers to violent radical elements amongst Islam. It’s probably your moderate leftist leanings. :wink: It’s hard to say fundamentalism, because we are talking about violent and coercive, and you’ve made a tough argument that the Koran does not necessarily explicate a call to violence. So we need a term to differentiate the crazy ‘alalallalalalalala death to America!’ Muslims, from Achmed the Taxi driver who just wants to send money home to his family in Bangladesh.

Besides, every government is fascist these days. It’s just the natural tendency of governments in a capitalist system to lean that way. :wink:

158

Making up things to pretend I have said is pretty silly.

Islamist is a perfectly acceptable term for the most violent of the Wahabbists and their follow-on terrorists. It does not happen to apply to the Iranian theocracy, which has a separate set of issues, but that does not mean that it is a useless word.

As to Sullivan, his views of domestic issues are separate from the hate-mongering he invokes when he leads you on your little forays into codemning as much of the Muslim world as you can fit into any given essay. A kind word for Senator Obama hardly makes up for the distortions he regulartly publishes regarding the Middle East and Islam. I’m sure that if you read everything Senator Tancredo has submitted as legislation you can find the occasional efforts to provide good law. That does nothing to change the fact that his current purpose in life is to lead the U.S. down a path of virulent xenophobia.

159

Regardless of your smiley, this is an incredibly stupid paragraph. I suppose it indicates some sort of parody “leftist” mentality into which you would like to pigeon-hole my thoughts, but it is really too dumb even as parody.

160

Grow a sense of humor.

As for Andrew Sullivan. The point I was making rather blithely was that you talk about not seeking to create bogeymen to hate on one end, but do it covertly on another. In the name of cultural tolerance you are offended by the notion that a large proportion of Muslims may actually openly support a violent dominionist theology, but you’ll turn around and excoriate someone from your own culture as having questionable cultural validity because he supports a side that you find distasteful.

You seem quite knowledgeable on the subject, but you also seem very attached to a certain outcome. More interested in what you want to be true, than what is true. Tolerance is all well and good, and I’d hate for peaceful Muslims to suffer for the actions of their violent brethren, but having about 1/8 of Muslims supporting terror is an alarming statistic.