Redstate

Muslims!

"If they attack us, it means we're winning." - Rush Limbaugh

My reasoning is that I read what the Book says, what Mo hammed said and did, what Muslims did when they ruled for centuries, that they never reformed within after being defeated by Christians, and that the non-violent Muslims by their deafening silence and inaction againt their radicals in their midst in the Muslim world reveal that they simply cannot argue against violent jihadism via the Koran and history, except thru "re-interpretations" of the Book, which the fundamentalists rightly see as illegitimate theologically and that the moderate muslims are really simply not Muslims. They are modernists and must be killed just as dead as Christians.

And then I compare that to the story of the Hebrew people, Christ and the NT, and even the Middle Ages thru today and Coulter's "albeit" verbalisms, and what I see is in o way equivalent.

Does the Koran define Islam or not? The Bible defines Christianity and Judaism .

In the OT, there are stories of PAST God sanctioned war for a specific purpose at a particular time, but no where is there any admonition or sanction to kill un-beleivers now, or at anytime other than the time it occurred, BC. In the New testament there is no call for violence.

Individual Christians and sometimes the institutional church strays and has strayed from what the Books teach.

For Muslims to not engage in violence NOW and at any time after the founding of Islam, they must disobey their book.

"If they attack us, it means we're winning." - Rush Limbaugh

While my logic or facts are sometimes in error, this is not one of those times.

Firstly, as this is Princess Bride Paraphrase Day, you say "begs the question", but I don't think that means what you think it means.

Secondly, you have done an amusing thing: reasoned (poorly) for me, then accused me of being in logical error.

And too, I notice that you use "Muslim" as the name of a religion, which it is not. A Muslim (or "Moslem") is a follower of Islam. Perhaps your usage was a typo, as you panicked in your rush to attack my illogic.

So, with those minor points aside, let me assume that you could correct them, and answer them as if you had.

The difference between the faith of "moderate" Muslims and the faith of typical Christians is that moderate Muslims have had to shake off not an aberrant period of violent usurpation of their religion, but an inate feature of it. They have to deny the teaching and example of the Prophet and his contemporaries in order not to be violent. Christians have to ignore the explicit teaching of Christ in order to use violence in His defense.

If I am begging the question, it is by stating that Islam is a religion of violence ... but I assert that not as a way of arguing it, but rather to take it as obvious.

Moderate Muslims lack the fullness of Islam, because they do not practice it completely. I do not suggest that they change as Muslims, other than to drop their false theology altogether and accept Jesus Christ, and Him alone, as their Lord and Savior.

I won't mind being called illogical for espousing that. In general, however, if you wish to say that my suggestions are unreasonable or insulting, I would ask that you first find out what it is that I suggest.

--
The Presidency is a position more easily critiqued than attained.

and all men

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com

"If they attack us, it means we're winning." - Rush Limbaugh

is just silly. In centuries past a man who stood in the middle of a town square and defamed Christ or the Christian God was thought a fool or criminally prosecuted. Today our elected leaders and cultural elites do and say much worse; the Christian responds with words or declines to respond at all. Is he an inauthentic or impious Christian? The notion that violence in response to a quote gleaned from an otherwise academic presentation should be both anticipated and excused because the perpetrators are Muslim should be seen both by Muslims themselves and by the self-professed 'enlighted' among Westerners as patronizing. It is acquiescing in the characterization of the Muslim World as a community of sheep, led by religious and political elites bent on the aggrandizement of money and power. The fact of the matter is that Muslim leaders, temporal or religious, say far worse about Christianity and Judaism on a daily basis. Were Westerners, daresay Muslims themselves, to hold Muslim leadership to the same standard of sensitivity that they demand of Christian and government leaders in the West the indignation would be boundless.

You say:

That is, Muslim is not "inherently violent," if only because today's Muslims interpret it to be the contrary.

Isalm is a revealed religion - not subject to interpretation by humans. It is the given word of allah which you either accept it as it stands or not (the later not recommended in SA). There an many verses in the koran that call for violence as well as teh teachings on mohammed (hadiths), which are elevated to almost the same level as the koran.

And BTW, the canard of equating Christianity's past violence with islam's present violence is really wearing thin (ala Rosie the blivit). Past Christian violence was inspired by (faulty) human interpretation of the Bible - specifically against texts advocating peace. Islam specifically advocates violence by it's non-interpretable texts against other religions (kufr). I ask you to cite ANY text in the NT where God calls on the faithful to perpetrate violence on another human or religion. I believe you'll find that he reserves vengeance for Himself.

agree with you that violence on the part of Christians is usually inspired by misinterpretations or outright motivated by a desire for power or money and intentionally using quotes out of context.

I think this is one reason, as a Christian, I have real issues with taking verses out of context, even when the verses aren't meant for any evil purpose.

I also think you would be hard pressed to find any point in the last hundred years where Christians rioted and murdered because of a perceived insult to their faith (I am willing to have somebody enlighten me, because I can't think of an instance-I honestly can't think of an instance in the last few hundred years).

Or what about...?
uhhh, maybe back when...
hmmmm. I can't think of any time in history at all that Christians rioted for the sake of their religion because of some insult...

"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself

They are devout, good folks who have a violent past (must like Christianity's) who have come to a more enlightened present, with the exception of some very crazy few (again, like Christianity - see the medieval violence promoted - albeit verbally - by Coulter, or Falwell).

It has a violent present.

And equating historical violence by Christianity with contenporary violence by Islam is the worse kind of apologia (and why is it that we never hear about Judaism's "violent past?") This is the 21st Century and Jews and Christians are not blowing up beheading people in the name of God; but because a thousand years ago there was Christian violence then its OK for Islam today.

John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke

do not distract from the fact that these extremist outbursts receive very limited condemnation (and a good deal more apologia) from mainstream voices in the Muslim world and the a majority of Muslims in virtually every country on Earth in which they constitute a statistically significant presence believe the US and/or Israel was behind 9/11. Are all Muslims violent? Of course not. Is Islam necessarily violent? Probably not. But that does not mean that the connection between the Islamic ummah and the propagation of terror can be dismissed with recourse to a lesson in sophistry.

the VAST MAJORITY of modern muslims want to rid the world of the same terrorists that we do.

These terrorist movements could not survive and thrive if this were so. The depend for their existence on the tacit support of large numbers of Muslims. If your contention is true, what concrete steps are they taking to rid the world of Muslim terrorists?

There has been a great deal of collaboration between the US and many Muslim states.

Just by way of example, it was Jordanian intelligence that helped us catch the biggest fish so far(that'd be Zarqawi):

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,198651,00.html

An excerpt:

A Jordanian official said that Jordan also provided the U.S. military with information that helped in tracking Zarqawi down. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was addressing intelligence issues, would not elaborate, but Jordan is known to have intelligence agents operating in Iraq to hunt down Islamic militants.

of cheerleading in the Muslim world either. For instance, Stephen Schwartz and others highlight the genuine pride that certain regions in Saudi Arabia take in the fact that some of the 9/11 hijackers were from their lands. The money for the familes of suicide bombers that a number of countries (or prominent citizens in them) have offered is hardly evidence of outrage, nor are the exhortations to jihad in Iraq that come from pulpits throughout the region, often with the quiescence of regimes that portend to be pro-American.

...on your definition of "no shortage", but I believe that we are no longer disagreeing.

All I want to do is eliminate in people's minds the idea that terrorism and Islam must go hand in hand. They don't in theory and they don't in practice. I've tried to demonstrate that with the examples that I've given.

There will be counter examples, of course. A small percentage of a huge religious body equals plenty of them. We are at war, and the enemy are jihadists. They exist, no question.

I am also aware, as you have pointed out - either intentionally or not - by mentioning areas where they were celebrations, that there are areas that have more anti-American sentiment than others.

But doesn't this draw attention to the fact that there are other factors at play here, besides religion?

Think about it: we have this huge area of land, wherein the vast, vast majority are Islamic. There are sizable portions that are helping us, and sizable portions that despise us. Obviously, to me, Islam is not the deciding factor.

I'm not a devotee of Huntington, but it seems to me a bit too much a coincidence that in virtually every place in the world where Islam comes into contact with non-Islamic societies there is conflict. At a certain point it would seem reasonable to ask what in the nature of Islam itself may be driving these conflicts. Islamic history, particularly in the context of regional history and that of the Arabs as a people, would seem to provide some of the answers to these questions. Islam is unique among the major world religions in that it was spread by the sword. Military action was given sanction, indeed given example, by Muhammad himself. And while this does not prevent the drawing of the conclusion that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful, it may also allow for the reasonable inference that those who do violence on behalf of Islam may be acting out a reasonable interpretation of the faith.

And one that should be asked by all people, of all faiths, at all times: what are the biases/misconceptions that have been, or are being, promulgated through my religion? Do they actually have bearing on my religion itself?

There is definitely a connection. I didn't say that Islam was NOT a factor in terrorism; it's a major one. I just said that it isn't the deciding one, that the link is made, not inherent.

Islam is without question being used as leverage to gather people to the corrupt business of terrorism. There are scriptures within Islam and cultural biases that have made this easier. Apparently, you think that this fact makes violence a "reasonable" interpretation of the faith.

Most of the faith disagree with you. That is the most important issue here.

a reasonable interpretation of the faith (it is the fastest growing sect thanks to petrodollars), or ibn Taymiyyah a reasonable interpreter of it than clearly the impulse to commit violence on behalf of Islam would seem a reasonable interpretation of faith. Fourteen centuries of Islamic aggression, broken only in the last one and a half not by a lack of desire but by a lack of means, would also suggest that the violent propagation of Islam as a faith and as a contiguous polity would be reasonable interpretations. This has been the policy, stated in words and/or deeds, of the sizable majority of Muslim rulers throughout the history of Islam. Are we (non-Muslims) to deem them heretical or impious because we would prefer Islam to be nonviolent? Ironically I am arguing something near the converse of what I was arguing before, namely that it is patronizing to expect violence of Muslims because they are Muslims.

I don't particularly care what Muslims said or did in the past, but what they do today. The vast majority of TODAY'S Muslims shun the philosophy of terrorist violence. Polls are regional, right? We've covered that ground already (see previous posts).

It is presumptuous to say that the only reason that Islam isn't more aggressive is because it doesn't have the means. By the way, aren't you supposed to be arguing that it is aggressive? Second, any hesitation to commit violence is always a product of many factors, political, social, and yes, religious.

I've given evidence that Islam is not INHERENTLY, or NECESSARILY a violent faith, and that in actuality, it usually isn't. But that does not preclude the possibility of exceptions, which fact I have already covered in previous posts.

I can well believe that we are getting help from the Jordanians. And we also receive help from the Kurds, and from other Muslims in Iraq. But it does not follow that the vast majority of Muslims hate the terrorists, since Jordan is not a democratic state.

All the evidence, not to mention the polls, suggest that there is a least a sizable minority in the Muslim world who support the jihadis. If the remainder are as opposed as you say they are then they need to do more than speak out. They need to reclaim their religion by force. If they feel as you say they do then there should be a civil war in the Muslim world. I don't see it, so far.

If they'd just Start to speak out. So far, they haven't even done that on a relaible basis...

"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself

Jordanian officials back the US. As I have explained in previous posts, the people want peace, though they do not necessarily agree with US policy. I don't know what polls you're talking about, but I do have some experience. I will not repeat myself about that any more than I have.

I have also already stated that I agree there needs to be more speaking out. But that isn't, to me, a scathing condemnation of Islam. See my previous post on that, also.

(and yes, I suppose "offended" is as good a word as any.)

Something anthropologists always have to watch for is the Obervability Principle: the anthropologist is not invisible. The natives may, and almost certainly do, change their behavior for his benefit.

I know there are a lot of crazy Muslims out there. There are crazy Christians, too. I don't think Coulter is quite the equivalent to bin Laden.

And the number of crazy Muslims, "crazy" meaning flying airplanes into buildings, dwarfs the number of "crazy" Christians, "crazy" meaning saying Politically Incorrect things.

--
The Presidency is a position more easily critiqued than attained.

And I agree that has an effect on their responses.

But perhaps not in the way that you might think.

Note, I didn't say that they were supportive of American policy. Quite the contrary. They gave him an earful, citing the injustices done to them at the hands of (as they perceive it) America's bosom-buddy Israel in their long, colorful past with that nation. They are disappointed with much, maybe most, of what the US is doing.

But they want peace. They are looking for solutions just as we are. All of the folks I listened to were bristling with ideas. One could easily tell they'd given serious and heartfelt thought into it before the interview, as it is a more integral and crucial part of their lives than it ever will be for us here. I can totally sympathize with their assertions that they are not being listened to. I think it's true a lot of the time. But the bottom line is, contrary to what was said about them in previous posts, they don't want death to infidel X.

As for the Coulter thing, I think we've read into that a little too literally here. Or a lot. I might have anticipated it and saved us some trouble. All I wanted to convey - and I will try to convey this less ambiguously next time so there's no confusion - is that no religion is invulnerable to being hijacked for purposes that are not congruent to the religion itself (or, if gamecock prefers, what the majority perceives their religion to be), and that we shouldn't ascribe THAT, either, to Islam alone.

BTW, while I don't want this to get off on an anti-Coulter rant, either, I can't help but say I think she's a touch beyond politically incorrect.

But again, Coulter-bin Laden correlations are NOT my first priority here!

is with the Muslim sense of victimhood, nurtured by the West's own academics and politicians. The cultures tend to be much more historically aware than their Western counterparts and pine for eras in which they were much more exploitative, much more expansionist, much more imperialistic than the West ever was. It takes a remarkable degree of hypocrisy, or a remarkable willingness to abide such hypocrisy, to say such things or to endorse them, but it is behavior that is constantly reinforced when those who lament the passing of Andalusia and the Ottoman Empire circa 1600 are permitted to air their grievances about the loss of a tiny sliver of territory along the Mediterranean.

Yes, they do say they want peace. Even the terrorists say that. But they want it with certain conditions that we can't accept. They already found their solutions, and most of them go "BOOM"

"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself

Yes, they want peace. Peace where we all bow to Mecca five times a day; peace where your wife, mother and daughter all do as they are told and wear their burkahs --- a peace where half of the human race is chattel; peace where we do as the imam tells us to do; or, if we refuse to accept this version of peace, then the peace of the grave. Take your pick, they don't care which you choose.

John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke

Now can we agree on anything I've said?