Discover effective tips on how to gain muscle mass and weight quickly. Check them out….

Even without agreeing, you’ve made me think, and that’s always a good thing. Where are we in society if we can’t exchange ideas?

I’m sure we’ll dance again, probably more gingerly, in future posts.

You write out your debate fairly well and logically, I just disagree entirely, and because of the above problem with sources, we’re not going to get anywhere with each other and no one else is involved in the debate. Thanks for being willing to debate, and showing me the respect I showed you (again, I mean that seriously. I was hard on you, so I deserved to have you be hard on me).

I appreciate the discussion, and although I won’t concede my point, I’m willing to admit that I’ve dragged this out past being useful to either of us (although I did get a lot of use out of parts of it). It’s been an interesting debate.

I don’t have to reach back 500 years in Islam. I don’t have to reach back 250 years, nor 50 nor 10. I can reach back 500 minutes and call up Islamic extremism involving masses of people spanning numerous races and cultures.

And the difference is (in similarity), christians grew to imitate their exemplar. Islam has also.

The Abassid Caliphate is noted for being the golden age of Islam as a period of total peace and harmony. The historical record indicates it was not anything but violence. When I say 90+ years, I refer to just two of the caliphates, not all of them. Both of them killed christians and Jews, also.

The Jews, at times, rightly chose to risk murder in paying the jizyah over the rampant anti-semitism that swept Europe periodically.

The fact that there are huge populations of Jews in European lands today and but remnants in muslim lands speaks very differently of what you think muslim “tolerance” is.

Further, as the modern age has bloomed and spread information through the wonders of the printing press and other sources of media, the message of each individual religion in this world has gone from secretive to commonly available. If every christian does not have a bible at this point in time, considering the availability and cost, it’s a matter of circumstance or choice. In this, all religions have unfettered access to not only the written word their religion ties to, but also broad access to those who teach it.

Judaism and christianity have thus become not only more exposed at an individual level to their exemplar, but also the teaching from an aggregate of sources. This has brought a maturing peace.

In Islam I would argue the same, except that the spread of Qurans and teaching have only fostered the violent example that Muhammed gave.

Again, I stress that this comes down to the exemplars and text of each religion and is demonstrated by their total histories.

“You see Islam as a united religion of hatred, and I absolutely challenge that claim, and have offered evidence.” Current events (of the last ten years) do not support you.

Do you read MEMRI? Newsmax? National Review? American Enterprise? Have you read the excerpts from the multinational Islamic conference from 2000? Have you read anything where Islamic scholars have met to discuss Israel and issued “consensus” statements? Only one word encapsulates their consistent proclamations: hate.

You see Islam as peace; I say you’re blind.

As to your argument about the exemplar, I am trying to address that, and I’m sorry if I’m apparently not explicit enough. Here’s is the chain of argument.

1) Christianity has, in the person of Christ, a more peaceful exemplar than Judaism (in the person of such prophets as David or Joshua, and given the commandment to take the holy land by force) or Islam.

2) You claim that Christianity has had a largely peaceful history for the last 2,000 years, due to its exemplar, Christ.

3) I claim that that is, in fact, erroneous, that the 2,000 year history of Christianity is actually quite violent, and that a litany of atrocities were committed by Christians in the name of their faith. Thus, the history of Christianity does not, in fact, “exemplify in total the influence of its exemplar”

4) This is not because Christianity is inherently violent or peaceful, or because Christ is a violent or peaceful exemplar, just as the violence or peace that arises in Muslim history is not because Muhammed was a violent or peaceful exemplar. The example of this is the many Muslims who live in various western cultures that are not, in fact, the violent murderers and thieves you seem to claim them to be. It is, I argue, because society is a lot more complicated than that, and reducing everything down to a single simple cause is a terribly myopic way to understand the situation.

5) My argument is meant to be buttressed further by the example of any Muslims who do not read Muhammed as an advocate of violent conversion and the subversion of the masses. The historical record, as well, bears this claim (at least as well as it bears the claim that Christianity is a religion of peace). For instance, your claims about the Abbasid Caliphate being a brief, “90+ year” time of peace are questionable because the Abbasid Caliphate dates from the 8th century to the 13th (notably, throughout the entirety of the Crusades in the Holy Land). Similarly, historical records suggest that after being expelled from most European countries (including Spain, which had fought so valiently against the Moorish invaders in your account), many Jews settled in Muslim territory because of its more peaceful, pluralistic society. Even in occupied Spain there is a very real record of peaceful integration of the three societies, as there was in the early Ottoman culture.

Does that get to your idea of the exemplar? You are again, above, relying on the false claim that Christianity has projected a record of relative peace through the ages, not by providing evidence that refutes my own, but simply by stating it again. You have said that Leftists support your view, but in fact you provided a citation from Schumer’s website in which he claims, as I do, that Wahabbism is not exemplary of Islam and poses a danger to people’s view of the religion,while teaching a flawed, intolerant reading of scripture. Look at this quote, straight from the article you linked to:

“Non-Wahhabi prisoners are put in immediate harm’s way and prisoners are exposed to a brand of hateful speech that is likely to inspire them to intolerance and potentially violent acts once their prison terms end. I urge you to dismiss all imams hired under Mr. Umar’s supervision and to reconstitute the Muslim leadership inside New York State’s prisons to ensure that it reflects a more moderate brand of Islam that represents the diversity of belief within the Sunni, Shia and Sufi sects that make up the Muslim community,” Schumer’s letter continued.”

It continues with this…

“Mr. Agha Jafri, spokesman for the Universal Mission of Muslims in America, based in NYC said the following: “We tried 10 times to get into the Fishkill Prison, the Mt. McGregor Prison, and the Ottisville Prison and we were completely black balled and cut out by this very guy Umar. We have 15 chaplains available around NY State at any time to preach to Muslim prisoners. I can give you 15 names right now of chaplains who are ready to enter the prison system today. If we had Shi’a preachers inside the prisons, they would preach a type of Islam that is against persecution of any individual and promotes interfaith dialogue between Muslims, Christians, and Jews. A Shia chaplain would first and foremost preach Islam and the direct interpretation of the Koran which teaches peace and understanding between people and the importance of eliminating hate speech against any person in your own religion and in other religions.

So Schumer is in favor of moderate Islam because he sees it as a religion of peace and is advocating that attempts be made to stem the influence of Wahabbism, which advocates hate and violence. How is it that that is in line with what you are saying? You continually post links as though they’re going to undo my argument, but they don’t. The Schumer thing underlines that rift in the Muslim community between moderates and extremists. The Qaradawi quote you provided was from a speech where he went on to condemn violence over those cartoons. You submit the history of Christianty as though it’s going to prove you right but it doesn’t, and when I provide examples as to why not, you try and disprove them. When that proof doesn’t work, you simply say that’s not the point.

Let me put this in simple terms that will (I hope), hit all of your points, so I don’t look like I’m missing them.

1) Many Muslims see Islam as a religion of tolerance and peace

2) The fact that their history contains violence does not refute this, just as the violent history of Christian society does not refute the claim that it is a religion of peace. You see Christianity as having a peaceful history and offer that as support of your argument. I absolutely challenege both that claim and the argument it supports.

3) Religious texts are open to wide interpretation, a fact that not only divides people, but which is actively exploited by people. No religion is homogenous. You see Islam as a united religion of hatred, and I absolutely challenge that claim, and have offered evidence.

To me, this ties up the connection between exemplars and histories nicely, but if it’s still not clear, by all means, let me know.

Why, then, do converts to Islam in many countries immediately turn to violence where (culturally) before they had been non-violent?

Boredom?

Or due to exemplar?

You claim I keep ignoring your point, but when I discuss it and clarify, you ignore mine! You keep ignoring that I’m not using the past per se to claim a particular religion is violent or peaceful, but rather that each religion has a history that exemplifies in total the influence of the exemplar.

So when I talk about violent history being more or less for a particular religion, you ignore that I’m tying it to a cause, rather than just raw historical fact.

Who is ignoring whom here?

The largest increases in islamic conversion here in the US occur in the prison population – where our most violent are housed. Is it any wonder that Islam has great success in prison? Even the left in America agrees with me: here.

I’m not ignoring you – I just can’t seem to get through. That’s why I keep saying we’re not going to agree.

“Looking at any geographical area of the world, you could claim that nearly all wars fought there were over religion. Man uses whatever is necessary or convenient to make war, whether the excuse supports the war or not. Focusing on Europe and the Balkans will show anyone war after war where christian religion was used as an excuse. Some were valid some were not. All were bloody.”

That’s what I’m saying. But I don’t know why you think that I’m saying that Christian violence excuses the actions of Muslims. I’ll say it again:

Christian violence does not excuse the violence of Muslims.
Jewish violence does not excuse the violence of Muslims.
If Christians have been violent, it is not okay for Muslims to be violent.
If Jews have been violent, it is not okay for Muslims to be violent.
Past indications of violence are not a free pass for people to be violent.

Can I make that any more clear? I persisted in my argument that Christianity has been violent because you persisted in your argument that it hasn’t, that it has been a religion of peace for 2,000 years and used that as an indictment of Muslim culture. I continued to elaborate when I offered a more detailed argument and you simply ignored that more detailed argument and set up a weak argument against the clerical examples I provided. Then, when you rebutted against that, you completely ignored the next round of examples that I provided. Why? That’s a great question! As far as I can tell, it’s because it’s much easier to go on maligning millions of people in absentia when you don’t pay attention to any of the realities of their situation.

There are so many more differences between the lives of people in the Middle East and the lives of people in the West than the fact that Muslims are there. But you have siezed upon that one factor as the cause of every difference in our societies, and that is ignorant. Don’t you think that people are more complicated than that? Even within differences caused by religion, don’t you think that a variety of factors play into the way that that religion is received? What you’ve done is the equivalent of comparing crime rates in the inner city to the suburbs and saying to yourself “Wow, there’s a lot more crime. Let’s see what the common denominators are here…ahh, black people. So black people must be more violent, because in these predominately black neighborhoods, there is more violent crime!” And no, I’m not raising the charge of racism again, it’s just a fair analogy.

And the reason that I don’t like you bringing up the Turkish priest shooting is not that it’s irritating, I said it was an irritating appeal to pathos. You know, that’s another poor method of argument that people employ when they don’t have a strong argument, like the ad hominems that you so loathe from Shawn and I. In the absence of quality facts, you stretch instances to get people to react with their emotions, as opposed to making a logical appeal.

The lowest estimate of the number of Muslims in North America is 1.8 million; even if the smallest possible number is correct, how many of them are out living up to the apparent promise of their religion and bombings malls while beheading little children? How many violent riots were staged by American Muslims? How many children are beheaded each week by American Muslims? Or Canadian Muslims? Or English Muslims? Could it be possible that there are a lot of huge, important differences between the experience of living in the Middle East and the experience of living in America?

I can keep citing quotes from Muslims who read the Koran (and it seems pretty clear from the quotes above that your theory of violent conversion is in direct contradiction of scripture) to say that Islam is in fact a religion of peace, and you can keep ignoring them, but it won’t make you right. The fact that violence occurs in Islamic society is not any more an indictment of the religion iteslf than the fact that violence occurs in Christian society.

Is it that I don’t agree with you that means I’m “ignoring” your claims?

And to what end? Your obsession with christianity borders on the absurd when the topic is Islamic violence.

Yes, I know. I brought up christianity as a contrasting example of peace in the form of the exemplars. But now you feel you need to turn this into a christianity is violent issue along with claims that nearly all of Islam is obviously peaceful.

You don’t like me bringing up the Turkish priest shooting (irritating) because it’s a single incident. But that was exactly my point. The violence cannot be strictly pigeon-holed to one particular area, incited by a lone muslim cleric. This islamic violence is worldwide.

People are dying to islam right now, yet not a single person has died in the same time period to rampaging christians pissed off over the NYT reprinting Dung Mary while muslims riot.

Yet you still insist on equivocating islam to christianity, even though I have demonstrated the exemplars match both of the religions current actions. You’re getting nowhere with that particular equivocation.

Looking at any geographical area of the world, you could claim that nearly all wars fought there were over religion. Man uses whatever is necessary or convenient to make war, whether the excuse supports the war or not. Focusing on Europe and the Balkans will show anyone war after war where christian religion was used as an excuse. Some were valid some were not. All were bloody.

Taking the Islamic religion the exact same thing can be said. Which is your point, but you attempt to excuse it by blaming christianity in an indirect way. Still, let’s look at the subject, briefly.

Compare the regions inhabited by christians now to the area inhabited by islam. Christians = peace and a modern, secular, tolerant society. Islam = just the opposite.

The point: Christianity “grew up” to use words Shawn hates. Islam has not. Islam is still murdering.

WHY?

The exemplars.

Christianity’s exemplar never supported killing, slaying, ambushing, child murder, genocide, terrorism. Islam’s exemplar does.

That’s why they’re still killing. That’s why the killing is not local, but worldwide. That’s why the tiny sliver of clerics are pissing in the wind when they call for peace in the (Arabic!) lands touched by violence.

And that’s why I’ll never agree with you.

1) You’ve ignored the entirety of my argument relating to Christianity in your response. It seems to me that that was the most important part (and about 90% of the post).

2) Have you “obliterated” my claims in the same way that you obliterated my claim about the St. Bartholomew’s massacre? Although “barbarians” make an interesting scapegoat, it’s questionable at best to blame them for the actions of Catholics in the late 16th century. But let’s turn to your arguments against the Muslim case:

It’s worth noting that al-Faqih was named by the Treasury Department as a financier of Al Qaeda and his assets have been frozen, and that he is the head of an anti-Saudi organization who claims that those charges are slurs by the government. Do you expect him to respond positively to the positions of the members of a government that he is plotting to overthrow? Furthermore, your “Mouthpiece of the government” argument and your argument that everything is simply said to lead westerners on seems to be based circular logic: they are liars because they tell lies. Their words are lies because they are liars. Look at the quote you have about the “rage” of Qaradhawi: does he say “We must kill?” No; in fact, he had this to say:

“The sabotage done by some Muslims in some [Arab] capitals in response to the offensive cartoons is unacceptable and should be denounced,”

As for the Al Qaradawi, it would have been much better for your argument to grab the various arguments he’s made that the Palestinian suicide bombers are not breaking Shari’a. Unfortunately, that would open it up to my argument, because his claim has nothing to do with Jihad and everything to do with ideas of political and social strife. Hence his claim that the attacks on Sept 11th were unjustified and unsanctioned by Islam, but his support of the bombings in Palestine. For him, it’s not a religious argument.

Another quote: “The enmity that is between us and the Jews is for the sake of land only, not for the sake of the religion.”

And another: “Then all of the affairs are shared between us since we are the sons of a single land, our destination is the same and our Ummah is one. I say about them, ‘Our Christian brothers’ and some people reject this from me and say how can I say that they are our Christian brothers? [Allaah says] “Verily the Believers are but a single brotherhood”. Yes, we are believers and they are believers from another angle”)

It’s also worth pointing out that there are Islamic scholars who dispute the veracity of the term jihad as applied to any struggle between Muslims and non-Muslims. There is definitely a distinction between jihad and Hirabah. This is Qaradawi on the Bali bombings:

“It is even an act of spreading mischief in the land or Hirabah in juristic terms: a crime in Islam for which a severe punishment is specified without discrimination to race, color, nationality or religion of the culprit.”

But aside from any of the people I mentioned earlier, you asked about more than the tip of the iceberg? Hang on to your sarcasm, I wasn’t lying, I can keep going (and brace yourself, it gets a lot more kumbayaa) There was a good op-ed from a Muslim in the WSJ two months ago:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007743.
In fact, there’s a lot of good material online about this, and a search for hirabah does a lot to turn up the views of more moderate Muslims. Consider this reading from the IRFI website (www.irfi.org):

“The majority of Muslim scholars have always welcomed the diversity inherent in the unity or tawhid of the universe, including its different races and religions, in accordance with the clear teachings throughout the Qur’an. They speak of the dar al ijaba, the land of those who have accepted Islam, in contrast to dar al da’wa, the land of those who still need to be educated about Islam; or dar al taqwa, the land of those who stand in loving awe of Allah, in contrast to dar al ahd, the land of those with whom one has treaties of friendship and cooperation.”

That’s the site of an organization of Muslims, by the way, so it’s not some “kumbaya” reading by Westerners. Here’s a quote from Imam Tammi Adi, who has also said that the American fight against Al Qaeda is justified by the Koran.

“Islam is about the brotherhood and sisterhood of humanity, about fairness and respect for all people regardless of their religion, about fairness despite anger, about having no compulsion in religion, about defending those who are persecuted because of their religion, about protecting all temples and religious freedom. Quran and Hadith are full of such principles. Our fanatics have been violating all these holy principles for many years. Our fanatics have started a war of words and bullets against Christians, Jews and everybody who disagrees with them. Our fanatics have twisted the Quran to justify a Crusade. Our fanatics are the enemies of Islam. Let’s condemn them clearly and distance ourselves from them.There are problems in American foreign policy. But they did not cause terrorism. The terrorists do not care about the Muslims, Palestinians, Afghans or Iraqis. They killed hundreds of them in the towers and in the embassies. It is wrong to mention terrorism and foreign policy in one breath. It’s like saying, “You Americans deserve it because of your foreign policy.” I believe we should condemn terrorism without referring to foreign policy.”

Here’s this bit from a paper by Imad-ad-Dean Ahmad, leader of the Minaret freedom institute:

“…it is my intention to assert that it is the moral duty of Muslims to not merely condemn the attacks on noncombatant Americans (including hundreds of Muslims) that took place on September 11, 2001, but to engage in a positive effort to identify the planners and material supporters of the attacks, to confront them with the fact that their actions have violated the sharia`ah in a most egregious manner”

Against your idea of forced conversion, the Koran itself, 10:99, 10:108:

“If it had been thy Lord’s Will, they would all have believed, all who are on earth! Will you then compel mankind, against their will, to believe”

“Say: O people! indeed there has come to you the truth from your Lord, therefore whoever goes aright, he goes aright only for the good of his own soul, and whoever goes astray, he goes astray only to the detriment of it, and I am not a custodian over you.”

As always, I’ve got plenty more, but this has gotten long. And feel free to address my response to your analysis of the Christianity issue. I’m still waiting for you to prove so categorically that Christian society has been mostly peaceful for the past 2,000 years. I look forward to your obliteration.

when viewed in this light:

“Dr Saad al-Faqih, who heads the London-based Movement for Islamic Reform, told the BBC that the Grand Mufti would have been ordered to say these words by the government.”

I should mention, too, that Tantawi and Al-Sabil are both appointed by their governments as mouthpieces.

Only the Pashtun cleric griping about Osama seems valid, and I have to wonder if there is jealousy involved considering the heavy Pastun influence of the Taliban and its leaders decision to support and harbor Osama. Smells like political nose-tweaking to me.

Gosh, that sort of totally obliterates all those examples…

But what do I know? That was just the tip of a vast iceberg of “moderate” “outrage” in islam over murder, as I was assured by Owen.