Interesting that he took the same approach with the points I raised as well – and I wasn’t even talking to him.
And lest he use his other rhetorical dodge, accusing me of “backpedalling” when I’ve done nothing of the kind, I’ll state again for the record: “for someone steeped in Islam . . . you are an infidel. The things you do in your daily life are an affront to God and his Prophet, and chances are the more he learns about you – and how apparently happy you are to thumb your nose at Allah and the Prophet as you do – the more offended he’ll be. Because no matter how much ‘communication’ goes on, your beliefs and practices seem to him to be anathema to his very being.”
Note I say “steeped in Islam”, i.e., someone thouroughly familiar with what Islam actually teaches and who believes it with all his heart. Given what we know of this religion, how could the above paragraph be anything but a simple, accurate description?
I don’t think Muslims are necessarily generally worse than others, but I’d say that where they do shine through as good or even great people, that’s a credit to them as human beings and not much credit at all to the belief system they grew up under.
OK. I admit that I was wrong. My statment should have read With the exception of the 100 year interuption of the brutal Alhomod dynasty, The fact that Muslims held most of the Iberian peninsula for over 600 years and Greece for over 300 years without forcibly converting or murdering the Christians in those places means nothing …
Were there instances of violence perpetrated by Muslims against Christians and Jews? Sure. With millions of people over hundreds of years, it would be difficult to find any case where such incidents never happened. If your primary example in Spain is the case of a priest who, when asked about Catholicism, chose to defame Mohammed, I am not going to be very impressed. Similarly, there was a lot of violence toward Christians by the Ottoman Turks at the end of their empire, (which is when I suspect that most of your uncited murders of Greek prelates and priests occurred). Of course, let’s not delve too closely into the matter that most of those murders, (along with a series of truly horrendous massacres), occurred at the point where the empire was collapsing and the sultan and his minions were striking out, wildly, to suppress numerous revolts–revolts that actually began with the massacre by Christians of a large Muslinm community.
Now, you are going to respond that you have found instances where Muslims murdered Christians and so, in your opinion, I am wrong. I will point out that when Greece (and Serbia, and other Balkan lands), got free of the Ottoman Empire, it was Greek and Serb and Bulgarian Christians who rebelled and won independence, so they (as a group), were obviously not forcibly converted. Similarly, when Christians reconquered Iberia, they did not arrive as a force from France, but arose among the Christians living in Iberia, so they were clearly not forced, (as a group), to convert, either.
You are going to continue to attribute most misdeeds by Muslims to their religion and I am going to continue to look to the political situations surrounding violence to see whether it was really the religion that caused the event or if the religion was simply the handy excuse that the perpetrators used to rationalize the actions they were going to employ, anyway.
Given that Muslim lands have enjoyed periods of peace and tolerance that have extended for decades and centuries in different locations, your claim that there is an inherent violence in Islam simply fails to persuade.
Actually, while you might have been prompted to make your claim based on the fact that you did not think modern communications would aid in dialogue, the point you actually posted–and which I quoted in full–was simply one more slam at Islam that had no basis in fact. That you apparently wanted to make a different point does not change what you actually posted.
There you go again, implying that I’m trying to avoid acknowledging what I wrote, when I’ve done no such thing. On the other hand, if your complaint is simply that you misunderstood the point I was making, you sure are bringing it to an odd level of vehemence.
Tomndebb, I invited you to comment on whether a religion that advocates publicly stoning women to death is violent, cruel, and barbaric. You ran away from the question so fast the curtains are still twitching in the breeze of your exit.
I ask these kind of things in the perhaps vain hope that someday you will reply to just one of them.
However, I must confess to a guilty schadenfreude watching you twist and squirm and wriggle to avoid answering these simple questions …
Instead of discussing what I had said about Islam and violence, you are off again on one of your quixotic jousts at something I never said. I asked you to quote my words that you disagree with. Instead, you are off in some delirious fantasy about
and
Before, you were putting words like “evil” in my mouth. I asked you to stop doing that, and to quote what I’ve said about Muslims and Islam that you disagree with.
Your response? You attack, not things that I haven’t said, but things that you fantasize I will say in the future. How weird is that?
You sure you understand this whole “discussion” deal? Because I can assure you, it does not consist in responding to your own twisted guess at what the other person might say …
If you can please tell me in what countries this is happening today I will clearly and unequivocally condemn those countries.
I am not interested in discussing who killed who some centuries ago.
But I clearly and categorically condemn any country or culture where there is religious discrimination, be it legal or be it social. And I notice the USA has a fair amount of religious social discrimination as I am sure is true in many other countries, whether majority Muslim or other religions. As there is racial discrimination, ethnic discrimination, etc. I condemn them all. But please tell us what countries today tax Muslims at a lower rate than people of other religions. I am eager to condemn them.
I did not run from it, I ignored it while I pointed out your false claim.
I am quite willing to condemn Wahbbism and the cruelty it demands.
I am quite willing to condemn the cancerous sort of religion practiced by the imams of Iran.
I have made both points clear on several occasions over the years.
However, you keep looking at those localized cultural traditions that are employed by some adherents of a much larger religion and claiming that they are the results of the religion and I decline to share in your Fallacy of Composition.
You complain that I have mischaracterized your position as being one that declares Islam is evil, yet you want to associate every evil act ever perpetrated by any government or leader of Muslims with their religion rather than their humanity and then twist and squirm to claim that you are not saying that it is evil.
Well, make up your mind. Are you acknowledging that there is really no significant difference between my characterization of your position that “Muslims are teh evull”? Or was there some part of your post that I quoted that actually went beyond saying
Since you did make only this claim as the single reason why better means of communication would fail to lead to more tolerance, and you have done nothing but complain that I mischaracterized your condemnation without ever bothering to provide anything resembling a more coherent explanation, I would say that my caricature is very much the best representation of your position posted thus far. If you have actually something to say on the subject besides whining, feel free to post it.
That’s a crock of shite. Again I must ask for quotes. Where have I said that anything is evil? Tomndebb, you have evil on your brain and evil on your tongue.
I defy you again to find one quote where I said that either an act, a person, a government, or a religion was evil. I have issued you this challenge before, and you have ignored it to spread your bullshit around once again. You continue to misrepresent what I have said. FIND ME THE GODDAM QUOTE WHERE I SAID SOMETHING IS “EVIL”, OR SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT “EVIL.” Is that clear? Say it again, and I’ll call you a damn liar. It is you that continually talks about evil, not me.
PS - you are still running from commenting on my quote, which was that
Islam is a violent and cruel and barbaric religion.
You have said nothing about that. You talk about Wahabis. You talk about Iranian imams. But somehow, you still have not commented on a religion that in its holy books (the Koran and the Hadiths) enjoins the followers to publicly stone women to death for adultery. You have not talked about whether a religion that chops people’s off hands and feet is violent and cruel.
No other religion I know of advocates publicly stoning women to death, or chopping off people’s hands and feet. I know of no other religion that practices either of those in the 21st century. Just Islam. And even in wildly liberal (for Islam) Indonesia, half of the Muslims say that adulterers should be stoned to death. It’s not just some eccentric Wahabis and Iranians. Stoning and chopping off hands is founded and grounded in the Koran and the Hadiths, it has followed wherever Sharia Law has gone.
So rather than running off into your fantasies about what I said about “eeeevil”, how about commenting, not on Wahabis and Iranians, but on what I actually said: that Islam is a violent and cruel and barbaric religion. This is the third time I have asked you to comment on it. But like I said … at least I get either an answer or I get schadenfreude …
So, you have now repeated the same broad brush claim that Islam is violent, cruel and barbaric and you want to quibble that you have not used the specific word “evil” in your statements? That is ludicrous.
Would you then characterize something that was violent, cruel and barbaric as good? Your use of the English language does not appear to match that used by anyone else.
Since Islam does not insist that women be stoned or that hands be severed–only various sects within it do–my point has been clear and consistent throughout the discussion. I will condemn those factions within Islam that resort to barabric laws. I will not join you in your fallacy of composition by condemning the entirety of the religion for the actions or beliefs of separate groups who happen to be members of that religion.
Stoning does not appear in the Qur’an. We can find stoning and other practices in the bible. The Hadiths are non binding commentaries written after Islam was established, more in the traditions of the Talmud and the Patristics. Just as Israel and the majority of Christian dominant nations no longer enforce those commands, the majority of Islam dominated lands do not enforce theirs. So your double standard in excusing Judaism and Christianity for their barbaric rules on the grounds that they are not enforced while condemning Islam because some Muslims in some countries continue to practice actions that are not even in the Qur’an, only in the Hadiths, is still not persuasive.
Fallacy of composition? Well, since the Koran says
it seems pretty clear that you are following the fallacy of decomposition. Lest you think this is just one translation, here are various translations:
Seems pretty clear to me that the Koran insists on severing hands. Or alternatively, we have 5:33,
So I’m in mystery why you say the Koran doesn’t insist on cutting off hands. Oh, wait … you didn’t say that. You couldn’t say that, because the Koran does insist on cutting off of hands. Instead, you want to follow the fallacy of decomposition …
You are correct that only some of the branches of Islam practice amputation. The UN High Commission on Refugess says it’s only the branch in Saudi Arabia. And Iran. Oh, and Yemen. And the Sudan. Don’t forget Nigeria. And Afghanistan under the Taliban. Heck, that’s only a quarter of a billion people, what you call a “sect” above, hardly enough to worry about.
You say above that you "will condemn those factions within Islam that resort to barbaric laws’ … well, that’s a first step. Now, how about condemning the religion that is the font and the sole source of those self-same barbaric laws?
Tomndebb, you always want to compare the Islamic practices of today, say amputation and stoning to what Jews and Christians did a thousand years ago. This would be a valid comparison, except that Muslims are doing it today, and every other religion has given it up long ago. Which should provide you with a clue about whether Islam is a violent and cruel and barbaric religion … but probably won’t.
So yes, I would condemn anyone who enjoined stoning and amputation in the 21st century … but unfortunately, I can’t find any Jews or Hindus or Buddhists or Christians or anyone else doing it. Funny, that.
And while you are correct that the majority of Islamic nations don’t practice amputation, a majority of nations with Sharia (Islamic Law) do practice amputation. Coincidence? You be the judge.
Regarding stoning, since it is not specifically required in the Koran, is it also just an accident or a coincidence that it is only and solely done by Muslims? How did that happen, if the Hadiths are just a “commentary” as you claim? From the Telegraph:
If you think the Hadiths are “non-binding commentaries”, you have missed the meat in the sandwich. Sharia Law is compounded of both, which is why in most versions of Sharia Law the punishment for adultery is given as stoning. Now in some Islamic countries this has been abolished, to their credit.
But the ugly reality that you choose not to face is that the Koran and the Hadiths together proscribe both amputation and stoning, and more than a quarter billion people live under those laws today.
However, I wish you the joy of your dhimmitude, and the pleasure of your obsession with “evil”.
It is BS to say that because the Koran says whatever, any and every Muslim is going to follow your interpretation to the letter. You could say exactly the same thing about Christians and the Bible, which proposes things which are quite barbaric. Except that Not all Christians interpret the Bible literally nor in the same way. So you have all the spectrum from reasonable people who interpret the Bible in a reasonable way to fanatical nutjobs. And that is the way it is with Muslims.
To look only at what a document says and to take it out of all context is ludicrous. The constitutions of the Soviet Union and China gave their citizens extensive rights while the UK does not even have a Constitution protecting any rights. If you look just at what’s written then the UK is a terrible place and Communist countries were paradise. You need some context.
Perhaps you just dash your words on the page without thinking about them. I do not. I choose my words to mean what I want to express. I do not characterize things as “evil”, that is your trick. I do not swap your words out, I do not claim that when you say one thing you really mean something entirely different.
You see, Tomndebb, we have a variety of descriptive words because they mean different things. “Cruel” means something different than “violent”. Both of them mean something very different than “evil”. There’s this cool thing called a “dictionary” that lets even fools find out the difference between “evil” and “violent” and “cruel”.
Your first claim that I have said something is “evil”, as you do above, was either an honest mistake or a pathetic attempt to put words in my mouth.
For you to repeat the claim a second time, after I denied it and asked you for a citation to where I said it, is either a dishonest mistake or a slimy and reprehensible deliberate tactic.
Finally, for you to now try to defend your slimy tactic by making a claim that what I said was somehow equivalent to calling Islam “evil” is simply stupid. No, I would not “characterize something that was violent, cruel and barbaric as good”, as you point out. I also would not characterize it as “wonderful” or “superb” or “peachy-keen” either … so what? What does that have to do with anything? It is meaningless.
Because neither would I characterize something that was “violent, cruel and barbaric” as “evil”. That’s your word, your idea, and not mine.
Your puerile insistence that anyone who says bad things about Islam thinks that Islam is “evil” would be humorous in another context. Here, it is just a pathetic and childish attempt to get your way by putting words in people’s mouths. However, it seems to be a deeply ingrained habit, so I have no false illusions that you might actually give it up and join a civilized discussion. You know, the kind of discussion where you respond to what I actually said, not to the words you have falsely put in my mouth?
Is Islam violent and cruel and barbarous? In my book, any religion whose laws (Sharia) for centuries have called for the public stoning of women to death is all of those. However, YMMV, you may not find stoning, or a religion that advocates stoning in the 21st century, to be violent or cruel or barbarous. It is possible you may find such a religion “charming”, or “delightfully anachronistic”, or “a bit misguided”, or “somewhat behind the times” … me, I find it violent, cruel, and barbarous.
OK. In your odd world, something that is violent, cruel and barbaric is not evil. Interesting concept.
It might if it were true. It is not, I do not think that anyone who says anything bad about Islam is calling it evil. You, however, have claimed that it is a collection of things that amount to evil.
.
As I have already noted on several occasions while you have insisted on ignoring history and reality to make your claims, I do consider those groups within the Muslim community who insist on calling for (or executing) stonings and similar punishments to be practicing evil. (You may consider them merely violent, cruel, and barbarous, but I consider their effects to be evil.) I simply decline to join you in your efforts to portray all of Islam as violent, cruel, and barbarous–or whatever terms you wish to fling around on this occasion–because there are still backward groups who practice it as though it were a seventh century religion while the majority of its adherents have moved beyond those behaviors.
You might want to take apart your straw man and use the contents to mulch all the new lawns in your county.
Yes, Tomndebb, it is true that often in my “odd world, something that is violent, cruel and barbaric is not evil.” That’s why we have different words for them. For example, animals are often violent, rarely cruel, and neither barbaric nor evil. Humans can be violent or cruel or barbaric without being evil (as I understand the word). My father was often cruel to my mother, but was neither violent nor evil. FGM is barbaric, but that doesn’t make the people who practice it evil. Buy a dictionary …
Your claim is that the Koran doesn’t condone stoning. Here is the view of the Second Caliph, who knew Muhammed personally:
So while you may think that I am “ignoring history and reality”, the historical reality is that all of the people around Muhammed agreed that he said to stone people to death. You claim to know more than the Second Caliph about what Muhammad said and believed … seems kinda doubtful to me. Heck, the Second Caliph saw your sorry apologia coming in the year six hundred and something. When he said “I fear that in time to come men will say that they find no mention of stoning in God’s book and thereby go astray …” he was talking directly about you. You may call that a “straw man”. I call it a fact.
You say that stoning and lopping off of hands and feet only exist in “backward groups who practice it as though it were a seventh century religion while the majority of its adherents have moved beyond those behaviors.” You call those who support amputation and stoning “sects”, like it was a church of several hundred snake handling Christians.
However, amputations occur in Saudi Arabia, in Iran, in the Sudan, in Yemen, in Libya, and in a host of other Islamic countries. I would not advise you to call Iranians a “backwards group” to their faces, they have one of the oldest and richest Islamic histories. Iran and the Saudis are the spiritual homelands of Shiites and Sunnis respectively … hardly a “sect” or a small minority. In total, on the order of half a billion Muslims live in countries that practice amputation … and there are calls in many of of the other Muslim counties for amputation to be re-introduced. A recent survey found that Sharia Law as the only law was supported by 65% in Jordan, 63% in Palestine, and 60% in Egypt, and half of the Muslims in Indonesia want to see stoning as the punishment for adultery … minority, my ass.
So your idea that amputations and stonings are not a part of Islam itself, that they are only supported by a “sect”, or by “backward groups”, is total bullshit. Amputations and stonings are supported, condoned, and commanded by the Koran, by the Hadiths, by the spiritual authority of the Islamic Mullas who are the leaders of the Shi’ite Muslims, by the words and deeds of the Saudi religious leaders who are the keepers of Mecca and guardians of the Ka’aba, by the Sharia Law codes of dozens of countries since ancient times, and by the testimony of those who personally knew Mohammed and those who succeeded him. A quarter of Muslims today are subject to amputation laws, and a host more want the laws changed to include amputation. Your claim that it is not central to Islam is nonsense.
Why? I have not claimed that any one of your adjectives, singly, made something evil. But to hold all three traits simultaneously? That would seem to me to provide a enough interlocking attributes to justify using an umbrella term. Nether lethargy nor gluttony mean fat, but if a person was described as both gluttonous and lethargic as well aas having a low metabolism, I would think that one could describe them accurately as fat. At any rate, I have already dropped the word evil and begun to use your trinity of traits in this discussion–but whatever.
So what? Whatever Mohammed may have felt, (and I have never called him a saint), he did not put it into the Qur’an and there are many Muslims who do not consider it appropriate behavior. When I look to describe the totality of something, I generally prefer to look at all the aspects of it rather than cherry picking those things that let me skew my description.
So, the countries which have remained the most backward–plus Iran that moved backward–cannot be called backward. I am not sure why it should be an issue for me to refer to the current religious practices in Iran as backward when they clearly are–When Khomeini took over the country, he instituted a serious reversal of direction in that nation. You do not seem to have a problem calling them violent, cruel, and barbaric.
As a part of a cultural revolt against the imposition of Western cultures on many countries, (often accompanied by the suppression of Islam), there is a movement in many places to return to an earlier form of Islam. I hope that that trend reverses, again. However, the fact that the older forms are gaining ground still does not mean that the religion, as such, is violent, cruel and barbaric, only that people have the capacity to be led into evil (my term) when society is disrupted.
I notice that you still continue to ignore all the Muslims and groups within Islam who have never engaged in barbaric practices. Are you going to claim that they were not “real” Muslims?
So 75% of Muslims are not subject to amputation laws and some not quite determined number wants them back, and that makes it central to Islam? Do you have any other examples of issues that are “central” to a philosophy or a system when fewer than half the participants favor it or engage in it?
I get the impression that even if all the participants of a religion followed a particular practice you wouldn’t acknowledge that it was because of the religion itself that it was done so. Well, unless it was a good practice.
I think a better answer to this question is that in spite of what their religion is telling them to do, 75% of Muslims are smart/civilized/moral enough not to follow it, or don’t have the opportunity to do so even if that is what they’d personally prefer to see happen.
Christianity: love thy neighbor as yourself. How many Christians actually practice this?
Buddhism: In order to find release from the wheel of worldly suffering, you must give up your worldly attachments. How many Buddhists actually vow a life of poverty and meditation as the Buddha did?
I’ll bet that few Christians or Buddhists adhere to and fulfill the examples set by Jesus and Buddha, but even so they recognize those figures and their teachings as central ideals of their faith and examples worthy of emulation.
So what ideals are faithful Muslims striving for? Whose example are they taught to emulate?