I'll have get back to Mr. Left later. Right, I am pleased you find the exchanges between Left and myself so entertaining. It is easy to label me as ethnocentric, like throwing rocks at someone from the bushes. When you stop laughing why don't you produce some examples. Also, Left is not trying to get me to see anything because he is too busy attempting to stem the bloodletting I subject him to.

Well, I did throw my 2 cents in (see last two paragraphs)....if you are willing to respond. But really, why debate with someone who's not going to let you win when you're right? I've got better ways to spend my time.

Now folks, here's a blind man. The closest thing I could relate any of the incessant foolishness you post to would be "Mein Kampf", where another fool went on and on about how a specific group of other human beings should be exterminated based on some supposed threat they posed to "civilization".

You're claiming to have shed blood? It's a wonder you have a drop left.

As for you being ethnocentric, you really don't seem to disagree with that otherwise you'd at least make some half-assed attempt to prove me wrong. Care to explain how you're not?


The main problem with Islam, along with Christianity and Judaism, is that the main works held sacred by each group were written a long time ago, roughly 1300 years ago I believe for Islam, 2 millenium for Christianity, and even longer for Judaism. Therefore, it shouldn't be unexpected to find that the morality and different things found acceptable at the time should be found unacceptable in today's time. However, they shouldn't detract from the actual message. The most dangerous thing someone could do in today's world is believe in an exact interpretation of those works, that what they say applies exactly today as it did back then.

By no means is this strict interpretation limited to Islam. Christianity has had there problems with people using the Bible to promote things current morales would consider wrong. However, while Christianity and Judaism have adjusted to the times and preached the message rather than the events, Islam still hasn't done that to the extent of the other religions. Not all Muslims advocate exactly what Muhammed did, or what the Koran says word for word, but unfortunately there are still a good deal that do, as edvidenced by the Taliban. As Islam continues to evolve, I believe that we'll see Islamic terrorism start to die out, but unfortunately this is going to be a very violent affair that won't come about easily. However, I believe that this can only come within the Islamic community, as more people start to have moderate and liberal views of the Koran.

This isn't about bloodletting or quarreling on a personal level (which you clearly believe it is; a peculiar way to relate to a discussion about the fundamental equality of human beings!)... This is about your bigotry and denial that each and every human has natural rights, and that each person, race, and creed are entitled to respect and dignity. To believe otherwise is to commit your own sin, and stoop, essentially, to the level of the Islamist; you do in words what those monsters do in deed. Why not hold yourself to the same scrutiny you hold others? They deny your legitimacy as a person and as a spiritual being, and you hate them for it... yet, at least rhetorically, you deny them the same. To boot, you do it badly! The only difference is that you don't actually murder innocents (so far as I know)... Although, if you were in uniform serving in a Muslim land, I suspect that you wouldn't think twice about ending lives, with great pleasure...

As an afterthought: I think you're putting a rather happy face on obvious rhetorical defeat with your little response, here, wouldn't you say, chap?

MrRight, how many more innocent people have to die while Islam sorts itself out? A thousand, a million, tens of millions???? Iran is on the verge of aquiering nukes and they already have the means to deliver them to Israel. Would you chalk up a million deaths in Tel Aviv to muslim growing pains???? A culture that needs to be tolerated and understood while they continue to massacre untold numbers of innocents???? Would you tolerate a neighbor that shoots at your house every night?????

Actually, I doubt we have ever met, yet another example of you not being able to get the obvious facts straight. Yes, I do know what it is to interpret something. It is beyond question there are plethora of Islamic texts, whose evil intent does not requirer interpreting. Ooops! I mean for the honest and/or unbrainwashed.

Pay attention, the Qu'ran is the eternal, immutable word of Allah to All of humankind. That word is the will of Allah and is not open to be questioned; it is just to be obeyed. How do I know, because Islam tells Muslims so. Again, Islam says what it says and the Islamists are in line with that, which follow the Qu'ran, hadiths and examples of their prophet. I can produce, as I have in the past, quotes to prove what I say is true. If you could you would refute them with your own, but we both know you can't. Name calling and left foot dancing and the quasi-filibuster is all you have.

But then, as you do here, you deny it when you're called out. The issue in terms of this thread (even as you unsucessfully try to divert my attention), has nothing to do with how Muslims interpret things; I'm interested in your interpretive flip-flopping, thereby casting doubt on your logical integrity and your intellectual honesty. By doing so, I want to show that your crtique of Islam is erroneous and that it really has nothing to do with actual Islam.

Ah yeah, did this actually make sense to you when you wrote it? I know you are having a problem with the reality, but Islam actually does say to do bad things to non-Muslims. Muhammad did bad things to non-Muslims. That's a fact, interpret it anyway you want.

Now you pay attention. That's actually false... ijtihad is alive and well. How can one slam shut the doors of a method of intellectual literary criticism? That's like saying someone slammed shut the doors of hermeneutics long ago... Logically, it doesn't make any sense. Even if you were right (which you're not), then where did ijtihad come from? Hrm... let's see.... It's in the Quran... so, according to your Islamist interpretation of things... it came from Allah through the Archangel Gabriel to Muhammad, and finally the Quran! So then, you implicitly admit that ijtihad, being a Quranical doctrine, is actually legit... we can then assume that it was mere men who came after the prophet who decided to squelch ijtihad because it cramped their autocratic style...

Ah, ha it is not you who is crazy it is you who is mad! Islam is evil!

It teaches evil and demands evil from its followers. However far any individual wants to go down that road is the only question. Some get angry over cartoons; some riot and destroy property over cartoons; some kill over cartoons. Why because Islam tells them they should and they have the rights which supercede others.

But, logically speaking, there is a great fallacy in your limited argument on ijtihad. You see, the doors that you say were "slammed shut long ago" are reopened once more as soon as someone and/or anyone engages in it. Indeed, it happens all over the world! You hope the doors are slammed shut on ijtihad, don't you? Just so you can call the Muslims close minded and evil. Once again (as it keeps happening!), your rhetoric doesn't match reality. Liberal Muslims live and die by ijtihad. A popular figure working tooth and nail to spread the word about it is Irshad Manji... She's a liberal Muslim from Toronto, who wrote a cool book: The Trouble With Islam... You might like it (though I'm probably sure you won't). She's a really cool, smart lady, who I've met twice. She has a website that explains her ideas here. She welcomes argument. Muslim clerics insist that only trained scholars of Islamic literature may engage in ijtihad (essentially, a method of interpretation of the Quran). But liberal Muslims insist this is not so - there is no passage in the Quran that refutes Muhammad's proclamation that all are equal in spiritual authority below Allah, and that all are equal in inherent worth. Even the word Caliph, from the Arabic, literally means "first among equals." Therefore, according to their logic, ijtihad is a legitimate mode of interpretation that all and any Muslim may engage in. I'm not sure I see any problematic aspects of ijtihad from within Islam... I believe it is as many open-minded Muslims say it is, and my studies support the idea... Now you go ahead and try to refute me... Can't you see that Islamism does not equal Islam as you so dubiously imply?

I am familar with Irshad Manji. I used to seek out her words with great interest. I no longer do so because I saw how her words changed over time. Like I said before let me know when the major schools of jurisprudence throw open the floodgates to change and modernization; ijtihad lol. Please do continue, it is the people with the weapons and the will to use them, who call the shots, not a lesbian, Muslim in Canada.

Also, I think you can humor LooseCannon with a better response than you gave him/her on Christian terrorists. I think you're just dishonestly ducking anyone's well-thought out point that might challenge your bigotry (not racism! - I got it this time!!).
Now you pay attention. I'm not making blind claims without evidence... I'm attacking your logic and common sense, which you lack. You still haven't addressed the notion that interpretation of texts, according to post-modern theory, paralyzes your argument. If we are indeed free to interpret what we read, and as Islam provides for by the doctrine of ijtihad, then my argument works because I can then apply Foucaultian textual criticism to the Quran.
And of course you'll insist that I've never proven you wrong if you simply ignore all my points, and twist my words... That's really classy, bro.
If you read what I wrote a little more carefully, you might not look like a retard all the time... Here... let me help you, son.. This is what I wrote:

LOL, you humor L.C. Christian terrorists do not interest me. That's why the thread is about Islam. Well, to cut this short why don't you produce some of this ground breaking ijtihad doctrine you claim is out there. Something that counts now! You know from a major school or even a major individual authority.



"Although Muhammad is not my Prophet, nor do I recognize him as the fourth pillar of Islam demands I recognize him [do you even know what 'pillar' I'm speaking of, and what it says?], I believe that Muhammad did more good than bad. It's people who followed him that mucked things up."

See?
I was speaking of a particular idea, e.g., Qutb's thesis which states that the West suffers from a "hideous schizophrenia" because we separate church and state, and separate the spiritual from the physical... I'm not saying I agree... But I maintain that it is original. If it is not original, as you claim, then I'd like you to prove so.

Ah, I see now that you have made it clear. What does his thesis have to do with the acts and words of Muhammad, the most perfect of humans and best example of a Muslim?

Now you pay attention. Your drivel betrays historical method. In order to know what Muhammad in fact did, you'll have to have primary historical sources to back up your interpretation. As the Victorian myth goes, "Islam came up in the full light of history..." Indeed! If this is so (which it's not), then surely, you can produce bona-fide primary source documents to back up your notion of what "Muhammad did." So then, based on your idiotic response, can I assume that you believe the Quran is a primary historical source, as an Islamist might believe? Once again... caught in the act of setting up that defenseless straw man... You probably enjoy kicking puppies and stealing candy from babies, don't you?

Oh, please you really do like wearing those Islamic apologist knee pads, don't you. I need only study from excepted Islamic material. Brilliant!
That's a very general claim without detail or evidence. Do you deny that Turkey has a modern secular government? How about Pakistan, with it's parliament, although Musharraf is dictator... In terms of political forms, these countries are very much secular and modern. Refute me!

Yep, secular governments, where most of the people want to separate government from religion, LOL.

So if I asked you to produce some evidence of how a women's lot was worst before Islam you could do it? At any rate, the mind stifled by relativity syndrome. Hey, Muhammad is the perfect human and example of Muslim for all times. Don't you think he should have been a cut far above? Not merely, at best a half step. Hey, maybe you would like to share your thoughts about what this guy has to say:

"Before the advent of Islam, the pagan Arab women generally enjoyed a respectable status in society; many of them including Khadija - the first wife of the prophet of Islam, had the right to engage in business and choose or dismiss their husbands in a matrilineal fashion; they took part in most activities of war and peace including public worship. In female oriented Arab paganism, goddesses had special status; in Mecca, the female goddess Al-Uzza, in Taif the goddess Al-Lat and in Medina the goddess Manat were the most popular deities, and their statues were most revered while the statue of the stern Allah was almost neglected. Read more" http://www.rationalistinternational.net/ar...0041120_en.html

"If you cannot deal justly with more than one wife you must only have one..." Hrm... Just how is this evil? It supports the well known doctrine that monogamy is ideal within Islam.

LOL! Two left feet!

As for sex with captives... I think you're a naive homer if you think this hasn't happened all around the world. Including Europe... Look at Chad, right now... Did you know that the English raped Scottish women during their war and occupation just as men in Chad are, as a weapon of war?

Hello! Perfect human; Muslim to be emulated! How about chosen messenger of Allah, that syndrome has got you bad.
You continue to excellently demonstrate how Muhammad improved Arab life...
As with legal testimony... that's better than before Islam, whence women were as chattel. Once again... you're support of Muhammad is commendable.
Firstly, as you write it, the relation between 4:34 and 65:4 is unclear.

Don't worry about what I "excellently demonstrate", best you do something. Ah, read the link.

Secondly... are you so naive as to believe that domestic abuse is new, or that it is exclusive to Islam? Shall I remind you about the Victorian's famous "rule of thumb"? Perhaps you'd like to read the 2005 UN report on battered women... guess who leads the world in this crime, and guess who has led the world in this crime since 1985? You guessed it. The United States. Guess who leads the world in rapes? You guessed it. The United States.

Ah, prophet, perfect human, etc... It's too bad. How long have you had the relativity syndrome?
I wonder why this is, Machinist? Let's see... I think it's because regardless of what a book does or does not say, men will choose to sin. This is regardless of race, gender, color, or creed. Sin is the choice of a person, not the deeds of an inanimate book; by no means, may a text be blamed for the sinful choices of human beings. It seems you continue to struggle mightily with this idea.
Your rhetoric fails, once again, to match reality.

You got it real bad.




Your shallowness is so deep.

Ah, forgive me, I was in a hurry. I see the word bloodletting gave you the wrong idea, although that is nothing knew where you are concerned. What I meant was watching you cut yourself up while attempting to do same to me, is most entertaining. My bigotry is it? Perhaps you can produce one of my bigoted comments. A desparate tactic for a man in over his head. My comments are about Islam, which is no race. Beside, I currently have a friend who is Muslim, so your mudslinging is wasted.

Islam is evil, plain and simple. I have told my friend so in gentle terms. The response from my friend was curious, when pinned down, "That's Arab Islam, my Islam is different." Do you think my friend is a cousin of yours philosophically? You both are living near a river in Egypt.

Yeah, I can see one of them is biiiching.

Now folks, here's a blind man. The closest thing I could relate any of the incessant foolishness you post to would be "Mein Kampf", where another fool went on and on about how a specific group of other human beings should be exterminated based on some supposed threat they posed to "civilization".

I see, so where did I say all Muslims should be killed? You are doing real good so far.
You're claiming to have shed blood? It's a wonder you have a drop left.

Wow, that was a good one...ever hear if the figurative?


As for you being ethnocentric, you really don't seem to disagree with that otherwise you'd at least make some half-assed attempt to prove me wrong. Care to explain how you're not?
The main problem with Islam, along with Christianity and Judaism, is that the main works held sacred by each group were written a long time ago, roughly 1300 years ago I believe for Islam, 2 millenium for Christianity, and even longer for Judaism. Therefore, it shouldn't be unexpected to find that the morality and different things found acceptable at the time should be found unacceptable in today's time. However, they shouldn't detract from the actual message. The most dangerous thing someone could do in today's world is believe in an exact interpretation of those works, that what they say applies exactly today as it did back then.

Ah! So could you explain how I'm being ethnocentric again? Islam, Christianity and Judaism go a long way back and for you that is a problem. Most revealing! Each has ideas that are "unacceptable in today's time". Boy you are on top of it aren't you. It can be a "dangerous thing" for "someone" to "believe in an exact interpretation of religious texts. Not exactly ground breaking, but I'm with you. What about being ethnocentric, again?

By no means is this strict interpretation limited to Islam. Christianity has had there problems with people using the Bible to promote things current morales would consider wrong. However, while Christianity and Judaism have adjusted to the times and preached the message rather than the events, Islam still hasn't done that to the extent of the other religions. Not all Muslims advocate exactly what Muhammed did, or what the Koran says word for word, but unfortunately there are still a good deal that do, as edvidenced by the Taliban. As Islam continues to evolve, I believe that we'll see Islamic terrorism start to die out, but unfortunately this is going to be a very violent affair that won't come about easily. However, I believe that this can only come within the Islamic community, as more people start to have moderate and liberal views of the Koran.

Well, you were going along fine, except for the logic fallacy and then.... How is it you have come up with the idea that Islam is going to change its stripes? You would be hard pressed to find an Islamic authority, which would say some Islamic texts need to be rewritten. The Qu'ran is recognized as eternal and immutable. Islam has not evolved since the three centuries after Muhammad's death. "Islam continues to evolve", hey don't tell me, Jihad has been repudiated. Nope, not even close, but I can take heart, you say Islam is evolving, lol.

Your right change has to come from the Islamic community. One thing, though, many Muslims born in Britain are turning toward the so called Islamist ideology. Now why would they do that, being born in a moderate and liberal society and all? I didn't learn anything new from you, but you keep trying. Two dimensional thinker in a 3D world.

Great debate. I think the whole arguement boils down to the above. Islim is repressive, you both agree, and to live in these times it SHOULD EVOLVE, but can't. There is roughly seven hundred years difference in ages between Christianity and Islim, and it is doubtful than anyone alive will see an enlightened Islim.

Well if anything, you're continuing to prove that you're very good at selective reading and taking people's words out of context. What the above quote, along with the rest of my reply that went with it, was to show that Islam isn't inherently evil like you claim it to be. However, I can see why you left the rest of it out, since it would make it much harder for you to formulate a reply.

Nice to see that you completely misinterpreted what I wrote and tried to make it look like I believed that we should just let terrorists go around and kill millions. I don't think this should be tolerated at all, but the only way I see Islamic terrorism dying out is from more moderate and liberal interpretations of the Koran gaining acceptance in the Islamic community. We obviously have different view points on whether or not Islam is intristically evil or if it's the interpretation of the Koran that leads to this. But from your viewpoint, that Islam is what directly leads to terrorism, how do you see Islamic terrorism being resolved? Because it sure seems that from what you believe, we wouldn't be able to eliminate Islamic terrorists until we eliminate the religion of Islam, and since that would take a very long time to accomplish, we'd still be seeing all the deaths that you're prediciting would come if muslims were left alone to solve their problems.



But please, if you have any ideas on how we as Westerners could possibly solve the problem of Islamic terrorism, go on and share them with us. Your reply, or whatever witty twisting of words and insults that you chose to respond with instead, should be entertaining.

Hmm... you didn't address a single point that I wrote... you just repeated yourself, and made the same old claims without any evidence. You refuted nothing of what I wrote. Nothing! Same old song and dance from you, I see... I'll just leave it at that at let my writing stand for itself. And you really could've addressed ijtihad better than that... And what does Manji's sexuality have to do with anything?

Cheers, ta!

Let’s recap; you entered this thread with this:

“That guy is such a joke, don't even bother with him.”
Personal, attack absolutely nothing given to back it up, posted nothing to do with the thread. Can someone say agenda?

Then you came back with an article given you by one of your favorite professors, which is essence says that the problems with Islam lay outside of Muhammad himself. Will call it blame it on Qubt. And it works to if you ignore the fact that Muhammad was a religious warlord, brigand, rapist, mass murderer, who happened to be the mouth piece for his god. A mouth piece, who revealed revelation over a 22 year period; often when it was convenient for Mohammad's goals or desires.

Oh yeah, Berman wrote the article, which I lambasted because does not even address the Muslim role model zero Muhammad played in Islam’s viciousness. Of course you, Berman and perhaps one of your favorite professors believe Muhammad is not the problem, even though he was an intolerant mass murderer, rapist, brigand, etc. and let’s not forget the most perfect human and example of a Muslim.

There are more personal attacks along the way, with no substantiation. While you try mightily to avoid making any judgment about Islam and Muhammad and insist that later followers have ruined what Muhammad wrought. It is difficult to prove something that isn’t true, but do feebly try.
“Your consuming hate has the burning intensity of a thousand suns, my dear Stealth... I think you ought to see someone about this.”
Somewhere along the line you attempt to say that the Islamists bring their own interpretation to Islam. You accuse me of taking Islam literally, when I merely point out that is what the Islamists do.
You see the problem here? By making these statements you let it be known you know what Islam says literally, but you want to claim I am out of line to for saying it. There may be Moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate. It is the Moderates who interpret and more they have to deny and/or lie to do it.

“Ijtihad” is a red herring issue, which you want to make the focus to save your: one of your favorite professors loving; Berman agreeing; deflect from Muhammad excusing; dishonest backside.

Hamid opinions was my point; let me know when you get around to addressing them. Islam is the philosophy that Satan is proud to call his own. Muhammad is indefensible, Islam is indefensible. Qubt was just part of the problem which Muhammad created.

Manji's sexuality has nothing to do with Islamic reform and neither does she in reality. When she first spoke out Manji was bold and unequivocal when she spoke about Islam. Now days she uses some of the Islamic qualifiers, with hers words, which tells any Muslims out there, who might be offended to chill. Because, at worst, she is lulling the enemy into a false sense of security. Who came blame her. It's safe and it's a living. Jihad comes in many forms




"Islam isn't inherently evil like you claim it to be." I'll bet you could find people who would say the same thing about Nazism. Islam is inherently evil, unless you can put a happy face on Jihad, for starters. It is people who are inherently good for the most part. Islam is the "Fundalmental Darkness", which can appeal to the darkness in us all.

I am still waiting for you to tell me something knew, that I don't know about this subject.

Hmmm, never said I thought Islamic texts needed to be rewritten. The bible was never rewritten, was it? Yet it is still interpreted differently today than it was even 300 years ago. The more mderate and liberal interpretations of the Koran gain accpetance in the Islamic communtiy, the less backing Islamic terrorism will receive.

Many Muslims born in Britain are turning towards the so called Islamist ideology? Care to find some numbers to prove your point on that one? Cause I found a survey that suggests that only 1.9% of Muslims in Britain find that attacking civilians is acceptable, and a large portion of the population seems to think that the extremism from the British Muslim population has to do with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. But no, the West couldn't have anything to do with that, don't you think?

http://www.blink.org.uk/docs/muslim_survey_report_screen.pdf

As for being 2 dimensional, maybe, but it's a lot better than the one dimensional view point that you bring to the table.

You got me there you didn't say anything about rewriting; of course I don't believe I did say it. I said it. The bible has been rewritten. A well know bible, the King's James Version. You are right the bible can be reinterpreted; the Qu'ran cannot. Written by Allah, don't you know, not tobe tampered with. Besides how could Allah get it wrong? Please explain how modern and liberal of the Qu'ran are gong to gain in acceptance? There is no authority which can do so and anyone who would try would be dead in short order.

I said many Muslims were turning toward the ideology 100,000 plus is a large number of people:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...2/nbailey02.xml

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...3/ixportal.html

http://www.asharqalawsat.com/english/news....ction=3&id=5594

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3273120,00.html

Hey, whatever the reasons Muslims in Britian give to justify there beliefs doesn't change what they like to see done for those beliefs. "Afghanistan and Iraq" LOL! The brainwashing has settled into your small mind, quite nicely. Have you not noticed that there are those in Islam who have a proclivity toward blaming others and attempting to make them responsible for some Muslims behavior? The cartoon thing being a case in point. "If you didn't insult us this kind of thing wouldn't happen. Put you kneepads on your ready.

Ethnocentric you said; still waiting for something new. So far I am not impressed.

And while we wait for that to happen.................................
I ask you again.............


I'm gonna be civil here MrRight. Please answer my question then I will answer yours. I'm just trying to figure out what goes on in the minds of people like you..........

I believe I already answered your question, but who said that I would just accept the loss of innocent lives? I explained the only way that I see that Islamic terrorism will be eliminated, I didn't say that we are powerless to do anything to control it in the mean time. We're not going to be able to wipe it out completely, but we can do things to prevent some of the acts from taking place.

The only way this sort of ideology gets wiped out is from within the Islamic community, and that's going to take some time. That doesn't mean though that we have to sit around and let the terrorists kill "tens of millions" while that happens. So once again, what's your solution to a quicker and less violent end to Islamic terrorism? With your knowledge and understanding of this subject, I'm sure you have to have some sort of idea. Please, enlighten me.

form the British historian Millaire Belloc's
The Great Heresies - 1938

"...it has always seemed to be possible, and even probabe, that there would be a resurrection of Islam and our sons or grandsons would see the renewal of that tremendous struggle between the Christian culture and what has been for more than a thousand years its greatest opponent.

The suggestion that Islam may re-arise sounds fantastic-but this is only because men are always powerfully affected by the immediate past: one might say that they are blinded by it...But no so very long ago, less than a hundred years before the Declaration of Independence...Vienna was almost taken and only saved by the Christian army under the command of the King of Poland...on a date that ought to be amoung the most famous in history, September 11, 1683

The two Left and Right bookends should have some consternation with this. Maybe they would both like to venture, whose present opinion is more in accord with the quote and thus with reality. Is that ducking I hear?

It's preposterous that this thread has gone on this long and Nomad apprently hasn't really listened to a single point any of us have made... Now he's just so far gone, he can't even answer such a direct challenge to his thinking... Maybe, just maybe, he'll offer you a good answer in the coming days, bak, after he stews on his apparent impotence... I won't tell anyone, Nomad if you drop your bigotry for one second and use that potentially nimble mind of yours for something other than your perpetual paranoid flag-waving...

I really wish there were some Muslims on this board... I think we need the insider viewpoint very desperately to bring some stability to these rantings and/or discussions...

Has anyone else considered that this is merely a phase of religions? Consider the fact that Islam is 1300 years old, approximately. When Christianity had been around for 1300 years, it was the most brutal religion in the world, bent on killing both non-believers (the crusades) and its own followers (the inquisition). Perhaps if we stop bombing and shooting regular arabs and mild-mannered muslims, they won't find anymore reasons to join the angry and misguided.

I would assume you do hear ducking, seeing as you just ducked my question again. That's a nice quote you found, but unfortunately for you it doesn't really fit into the context of our discussion. Yes, Christianity and Islam have clashed in the past, but that has been in the form of invading armies and crusaders. Now, we have Islamic terrorists commiting these acts, not armies. So again, my question is, what's your solution to a quicker and less violent end to Islamic terrorism than the one I posed? Once again, I'm waiting for an answer.

Thanks you for the compliment on the quote, which does fit into context with the start of this thread. It also is something you have no response to other than to attempt to dismiss it on bogus grounds. In 1938 Belloc wrote that quote, when Islam was what a danger long forgotten. That quote supports who? Well me, how about that. It also kind of leaves you intellectually hamstrung, don't it?

You'll have to excuse me, do I have to have answers for my factual illuminations? Where did you get that idea? Do I have to have solutions for the inherent problems of Islam in order write about those problems? I don't think so. Remember that ducking thing I was writing about? Your problem solving dodge is an excellent example.

Your summary of the clash between "Christianity and Islam is a bit overly simplistic, but that suits the ostriche genes in you just fine. The clash is actually between Islam and the remainder of the non-Muslim world. A fact that has been in existence for nearly as long as Muhammad's supposed revelations.

Well, let's look at this logically. There are 1.2 Billion Muslims on this planet. Granted the majority of them are not islamofacists. The stated goals of the radical Muslims are the destruction of Israel and the US first. Then the goal is worldwide conquest under Islamic rule. This is a fact.

Now lets get back to the 1.2 Billion Muslims. Moderate Muslims themselves put the percentage of the radicals at anywhere from 5 to 20 percent. So lets go with a low average of 10 percent. That means 120 MILLION Muslims would like to see you dead and live in a world under the rule of Islam. This is a fact.

The "moderate Muslims" will not contain the extremists or make them any less extreme. They know, full well, that the extremists will kill them as well to further the goal of a world ruled by Islam. This is a fact. Just look at the Muslim on Muslim carnage going on in Iraq, Algeria and elsewhere.

Now the solution to this problem??

Militarily destroy all the know areas where this extremism exists. The no mans
land of Western Pakistan and the Tiblisi Gorge in Georgia would be a good start. If we have to eliminate the madrassas in Saudi so be it.

All Mosque services should be recorded for any extreme and anti west propoganda and those that espouse it deported immediately.

Bury all killed Muslim terrorists in a pig skin. That means no Allah and no virgins. And would be quite the deterrent.

That's just for starters....................

There is no non violent solution to this unless you convert to Islam. Wishing for a peaceful solution will not change reality.

Nomad, comment please your phrase about Georgia... The Georgians are christians.

Haha... you're rich, Stealth.

Hilaire Belloc (not Millaire), was a Victorian Frenchman-turned-Brit, and more importantly, he was an important figure in Catholic apologetics and rhetoric at that time. The book you mention is a fine collection of turn of the century church doctrine on Islam, and views on Christian sects. If you've ever even read it (which I doubt you have), the prose of his chapter on Islam is written as if it were he, personally, who the Muslims attacked overran when they entered into Europe, Africa and Asia Minor. He writes as an outraged observer, witnessing in horror the Catholic retreat amid the Muslim onslaught, trying to find meaning in the chaos. He basically whines and moans about how wretchedly history turned out for Catholicism, and he blames it all on nasty little "heresies" (the thematic approach to his book).

Belloc ultimately takes shelter in church doctrine, finding solace in what he believes is the promise that God's rage will crush the heretical Muslims and that a life of empty, unfulfilling error awaits Christian heretics. This book is about much more than Islam, of course... It is interested in the heresy of doctrinal interpretation, slamming those early churches who denied the dual-nature of Christ, and decrying those Christians who would break from the political authority of the Catholic Church (e.g., Nestorians, Manicheans, Puritains, Protestants). In the last chapter, he goes into a discourse about the writing of history and literature (the creation of knowledge!) that isn't quite Catholic enough, considering it as a particularly modern strain of heresy.

While this might be a common approach for Victorian Catholic literature, I laugh at your suggestion that this reflects common, contemporary views on the subject (indeed, you call it "reality"); this drivel, which you mistakenly call history, has been obsolete for close to a hundred years. Belloc was not even a historian, though he undoubtedly studied history; he was a divinity student at Balliol, Oxford, and graduated, I believe, in 1894 or 1895. He became a British citizen and wrote Catholic literature for the rest of his days, advising, as a scholar, the weak Catholic communities in Britain.

Belloc's work, Stealth, is not history - but hard-core, conservative Catholic literature on the "heresy" of Islam, amongst others... It is a throwback to the crusades and inquisition. Indeed, this fellow could be a Catholic version of Qutb!!... This trash is that intolerant, bigoted, and pretentious. It is deep and wide in scope... almost a manifesto in support of the Catholic scholarly and doctrinal tradition. The fellow is smart and he is a fine writer, unfortunately, he views those who fight Catholic doctrine and authority as heretics. I fail to see its relevance in this thread. Try again, maybe...



Are you really an ultra-Conservative Catholic who believes this stuff? Or did you just pull this out of your azz without even reading it? I guess, in a weird way, it is consistent with your rhetoric, though... Unfortunately it's not very credible, or based on "reality," as you say.

Thank you so much for the personal attack Belloc and the same continued on myself. You continue in your intellectual dishonesty, from nearly the start of your post. I mentioned no book sir, only a quote which you have avoided and attacked the author instead. With I might add a particular point of view. I would be interested to learn how you views on Belloc's insight of Islam rising again in its attempt to conquer all. His being a Catholic doesn't take away from the truth of his position, as current world events tend to give credence.

Belloc was running for office when he was asked if he was a papist, he replied:

"Sir, so far as possible I hear Mass each day and I go to my knees and tell these beads each night. It that offends you, then I pray God may spare me the indignity of representing you in Parliament."

Belloc was of the opinion "that all this was not a matter of old history, and that Islam continued to pose a dangerous present and future threat. At the time of writing, the Islamic World was largely under the rule of the European colonial powers, and the most visible threat to Britain was from Fascism and Nazism. He however wrote:

"The story must not be neglected by any modern, who may think in error that the East has finally fallen before the West, that Islam is now enslaved - to our political and economic power at any rate if not to our philosophy. It is not so. Islam essentially survives, and Islam would not have survived had the Crusade made good its hold upon the essential point of Damascus. Islam survives. Its religion is intact; therefore its material strength may return. Our religion is in peril, and who can be confident in the continued skill, let alone the continued obedience, of those who make and work our machines? (...) There is with us a complete chaos in religious doctrine (....) We worship ourselves, we worship the nation; or we worship (some few of us) a particular economic arrangement believed to be the satisfaction of social justice (....)Islam has not suffered this spiritual decline; and in the contrast between [our religious chaos and] the religious certitudes still strong throughout the Mohammedan world lies our peril."
Belloc believed that it was not some fanatical branch of Islam, but Islam itself that was a permenetly intent on opposing the Church, and the West which the faith had built.

You made this guy sound like some loathsome creature, not like your fine upstanding Muslims faithful. I thought the quote a nice addition to the exchange, but the more I read of this guy the more I can appreciate how correct he was. You can go back to your personal, avoidance of the topic attacks now.

The so-called "essential truth" of Belloc's position, is based on Catholic doctrine and assumes that such doctrine is absolute truth. This is an idea I reject. So you, like a Catholic cleric whose worldview is forged from Catholic literature, view Islam as an actual heresy? Yes or no?

Furthermore, maybe you'd like to clarify the sources from which you derive your argument and bigoted attitude towards over a billion human beings... I sense that your knowledge of Belloc is superficial (e.g., you don't reference any of his other more bigoted pamphlets... maybe I'll post the images of some if I can scan the copies of them we have at our library), and your referencing of him inappropriate. I see much apparent confusion in your conceptualization of the complex of ecomonic, social, political, and spiritual relations that make up the Islamic world-system. You mistakenly equate Islamism with Islam (repeatedly!)... but the bringing in of Belloc just puts it over the top... What, are you joking?

For you to honestly posit that Belloc's nearly century-old writing is either essential or absolute truth runs roughshod over the tradition of the historical profession for the last hundred years. It unacceptably implies a reliance on Catholic doctrine that the vast majority of social science or humanities scholars would just laugh at (which I'm doing as we speak... actually, since you posted that ludicrous entry recently on Belloc). Not that I have anything against Catholics... but their worldview can be pretty messed up, as Belloc illustrates (e.g., If it's not Catholic, it's a heresy). In this sense, his views on Islam are incidental to his towing the church line on the enforcement of doctrine; this is the essence of my problem with this guy... because of this, yes, he is quite a loathesome creature. I'm not sure how you can say that this guy isn't intellectually dishonest with a straight face...

But if it's any consolation to you, I got a kick out of it... You do a good job of tracing the history of your own bigotry to other times and places. But do you really think your insane, fringe attitude toward people different from you is at all solidified by supporting your foolish argument with perhaps the most intolerant and insidious of all possible literature on the subject? That's like saying Jews are evil, and then supporting your argument with Dr. Mengele's bigoted propaganda... You're the biggest joke on the internet, chap!

Hmmm yes, that might just work. Because doing something like that would in no means provoke the rest of the Islamic community and push even more people towards extremism.

/sarcasm

But of course it would. It would bring out those on the fence so they could be readily identified and killed. You do not have a tactical mind M R.

History proves you wrong. This world has gotten to this point through the use of force. The use of force will determine the world of tomorrow. Technology has changed. Humanity has not. We no longer fight with swords and stones. Nukes are on the table now. And if Iran is allowed to fully develop them they will strike Israel. Millions will die. And yet YOU are content in waiting to let Islam sort itself out.

You are either a Jew hater or a naive fool. I suspect 50/50 here.





BTW. It's apparent you cannot refute any of my points. If you could you would.....................

[quote name='MrLeft' date='Nov 19 2006, 02:25 PM' post='98017']
The so-called "essential truth" of Belloc's position, is based on Catholic doctrine and assumes that such doctrine is absolute truth. This is an idea I reject. So you, like a Catholic cleric whose worldview is forged from Catholic literature, view Islam as an actual heresy? Yes or no?

Eye on the ball, eh Mr. Left. The truth of Belloc's prediction is self evident and the fact he was an unabashed Catholic makes no never mind. Islam is quite obviously a heresy, a twisted rip-off of Judeo-Christian beliefs and teachings. I came to that conclusion long before I ever heard of Belloc.

Furthermore, maybe you'd like to clarify the sources from which you derive your argument and bigoted attitude towards over a billion human beings... I sense that your knowledge of Belloc is superficial (e.g., you don't reference any of his other more bigoted pamphlets... maybe I'll post the images of some if I can scan the copies of them we have at our library), and your referencing of him inappropriate. I see much apparent confusion in your conceptualization of the complex of ecomonic, social, political, and spiritual relations that make up the Islamic world-system. You mistakenly equate Islamism with Islam (repeatedly!)... but the bringing in of Belloc just puts it over the top... What, are you joking?

LOL! You not going to the old, tired bigot gambit once more are you. I write about Islam sir, as I have told you many times before. The fact that a billion plus humans follow a evil ideology to differing degrees of faith doesn't reduce the evil of that ideology. Germany embraced the Nazi philosophy. The numbers of Germans who did doesn't save the philosophy from being labeled what it was evil.

By all means post some of Belloc's bigoted pamphlets. You use the word so much it has no real meaning. Anyone who critizes Islam is a bigot and racist; racist and Islamophobe in your eyes. You love wearing those kneepads. My supposed "apparent confusion" is but the escape for your intellectual dishonesty mind. When have you ever successfully challenge what my presentation of what Islam actually demands. On Jihad you tried and failed. On Muhammad evil behaviors you have failed. It will always be so because you have to make up lies, obscure the truth to support what you say. I on the otherhand only have to present long accepted Islamic sources. You claim I make mistakes, here once more, I refer you to the unofficial sixth pillar called Jihad. It is evil and it is still, how you say, still on the books. Tell me where I am wrong and better yet show me where Islamic sources reject Jihad.

For you to honestly posit that Belloc's nearly century-old writing is either essential or absolute truth runs roughshod over the tradition of the historical profession for the last hundred years. It unacceptably implies a reliance on Catholic doctrine that the vast majority of social science or humanities scholars would just laugh at (which I'm doing as we speak... actually, since you posted that ludicrous entry recently on Belloc). Not that I have anything against Catholics... but their worldview can be pretty messed up, as Belloc illustrates (e.g., If it's not Catholic, it's a heresy). In this sense, his views on Islam are incidental to his towing the church line on the enforcement of doctrine; this is the essence of my problem with this guy... because of this, yes, he is quite a loathesome creature. I'm not sure how you can say that this guy isn't intellectually dishonest with a straight face...

Whatever your opinion of Belloc, your diatribe doesn't take away from the fact of that quote and the accuracy of it prediction. Eye on the ball old boy! And I would say you have said enough to indicate you have a definite probaly with Catholics. I believe it is cause for you to project your feelings in Belloc's direction. Oh, let me know when you are going to get around to explain how Belloc's erroneous (your opinion) beliefs predicted what Islam was capable of. How is it your label of his biased view could be so accurate? Please do entertainmen me.

But if it's any consolation to you, I got a kick out of it... You do a good job of tracing the history of your own bigotry to other times and places. But do you really think your insane, fringe attitude toward people different from you is at all solidified by supporting your foolish argument with perhaps the most intolerant and insidious of all possible literature on the subject? That's like saying Jews are evil, and then supporting your argument with Dr. Mengele's bigoted propaganda... You're the biggest joke on the internet, chap!

Your dishonesty continues in feeble spurts. Islam is evil defend it if you can, haven't been able to do it so far. Personal attacks is all you have and an interpretation of Islam which is pure fantasy. The challenge to you is simple present these accepted Islamic texts and authorities, which support your characterization of this beautiful Islam your kneepads have you wishing for so bad. You can't do it. No one can do it. Only lies, half-truths, denial and let's pretend keep Islam respectable. And kneepad wearing enablers like yourself.

Hmmm, yeah I guess that I don't have the tactical mind to hunt down 120 million extremist Muslims, then hunt down the hundreds of millions that turn to extremism as a result of your plan. I was asking you to find a way to extinguish islamic terrorism, not add fuel to the fire. So we'll have to go out and massacre all of these people while fighting off tremendous international pressure from pretty much every civilized coutry in the world, and we'll have to do so without having access to bases or ports in any nation other than our own. And you somehow think we'll be able to either occupy these countries and mass murder the extremists or make ridicuously long flights to drop bombs on them, which wouldn't harm the terrorists hiding out in the mountains of afghanistan and pakistan. Not to mention doing so would almost guarantee that every single country in the Middle East declares war on us, and very likely Russia and China will back them. We'd be in a war that we'd have absolutely no chance of winning, and for what? If we're lucky, your number of 120 million would drop 10 million, and that's not even taking into account the number of Muslims we would have converted to this extremist thinking. So pretty much, we'd severly weaken our position in the world, and be in even more danger than we were before.

Speaking of not having a tactical mind, do you really believe that your plan would work? I cannot see someone seeing the world as black and white as you do. Once again, you completely ignore what I've repeatedly said. Just because the only way we get rid of Islamic extremism is to let the Muslim community work it out, doesn't mean that we should just sit on the sidelines while that happens. We should do everything we can to foil terrorist plots. However, the only way change will happen is if it comes from the Muslim community. That shouldn't be that hard of a concept for you to grasp, notice that in no way did I say we should just sit back and let ourselves be attacked.

So I'm a Jew hater or a naive fool? Not really sure how attacking me supports your point, but it makes me look a lot more right if you have to resort to that.



Oh, as for not being able to refute your points, when you say something so ridiculous and completely off the wall, I really see no need to comment on it. But if there's something you'd really like to see me address, maybe if you ask nicely I'll let you know where you're wrong.

So because MrRight disagrees with your reasoning, he's an anti-semite? Interesting logic...

You try so hard, Stealth... hoping I'll go away so you can win this verbal and intellectual race by default. But, as Ronald Reagan once said, "only one side is racing" right now. And here's a hint: it's not you.





Belloc didn't make a prediction. He tries to show, relying on Catholic doctrine, that Islam and non-Catholic Christians are heretics. He goes a step further in his last chapter and argues that scholars who don't tow the Catholic line are also heretics. How don't you have a problem with this?



a. Islam is a religion. Islamism is an ideology, which has mostly political goals and motivations which are disguised as religious ones, as to plausibly use scripture as its backing. Islam, therefore, does not equal Islamism. Why are you ignoring this like an addled ostrich, with your head tightly nestled in your azz?

b. I use to word bigot to characterize you (repeatedly) because you equate Islamism with Islam (repeatedly). To judge billions of people, categorically, based on that erroneous equation, is indeed bigoted. Indeed, you're just a hypernationalist, bigoted, over-wrought quasi-Christian; you're just a Christian version of the Muslims you have so much; your ideology is basically theirs, except you hate the religion they love, and vise versa. Just like Muslims call our civilization and beliefs "the Great Satan," you call Islam "evil." You are no better than they are. Your mind is just as poisoned!



a. I have no problem with criticism. For instance, the Pope is meeting with Islamic dignitaries and rasing important questions to them, especially concerning violence and the treatment of women. But, then again, the Pope is doing it tastefully and not calling for the execution of "sub-human scum" (Muslims) as you are. There is a difference between respectful criticism and obnoxious bigotry.


b. He also recognizes, based upon his own interpretive gaffe, that one can be misunderstood while quoting, reading, and interpreting a text and that the problems in the Islamic world, just like the West, are not all based on religion, but are cultural and political as well. He said as much this very morning...



Unofficial sixth pillar? Who made that whopper up? You? You don't even know what you're talking about!


Linguistically and historically, jihad has nothing to do with mindless violence. This is a modern manifestation of Islamism. It has more to do with "moral striving" or "struggle." You should know that the scholarly endeavors of Abbasid clerics who translated the great works of other civilizations at the "house of knowledge" in Bagdhad did so out of a proclamation of jihad (1), as to struggle with one's conscience, and to perfect one's worldview by not over-emphaszing one's own. You should also know that the practice of ijtihad, which I mentioned earlier, is scripturally conencted with jihad, as to provide a method of checking the unrestrained fatwas of activist clerics (2). These two things are actually derived from the ancient tradition of free-thought withing Islam that is just beginning to be revived. Conversely, it has become the scriptural support for the political aims of terrorists - a practice I denounce. This is, as well, as modern development. One can only hope Muslim clerics stop worrying about their political positions (as they misuse the Quran) and begin to worry about intellectual honesty, just as you should.


No matter how much you don't want to admit it, people have interpreted, acted upon, and used jihad in various ways. Jihad is by no means a monolithic practice of mindless aggression, used by all Muslims across time and space. If you think that's the case, then I'd advise you to take some basic history courses. Some interpretations of jihad are indeed evil... sure... But I think this says much more about the particular Muslims who interprets jihad wrongly than it does about all of Islam. I thought this was common sense, to be honest. If you maintain your idiotic view of jihad as a way to legitimize your bigotry, then you have some serious mental/social problems, my friend.


Why close your eyes to the multitudes of actual scholars who contradict you just so you can fancy yourself correct? Isn't this the epitome of foolishness? I've provided a short bibliography based upon a syllabus I use for one of my classes.


Sources cited:


1. Dunn, Ross. The New World History. New York: Bedford/St. Martins, 2000, pp 121-126.
2. Bentley, Jerry. Old World Encounters. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006, 3rd ed., pp 69-71.


Other supporting references on jihad:

1. Manji, Irshad. The Trouble With Islam. Toronto: Random House, 1999, pp 118 - 132.
2. Adas, Michael, ed. Islamic and European Expansion. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1999, 2nd ed., pp. 32 - 41.
3. Lewis, Bernard. "The Eve of Battle: Explorations in Islam and Violence," in The Johns-Hopkins Review of World History 14, no. 3 (Fall, 1977): 1164 - 1172.