Defeat Tehran not with bombs but with culture

[Maccus Germanis]

At the very least, we should be able to recognise the problem, and not fall for fantasies of reform. How are muslims to be persuaded by arguments that we will not even make?

[Plane]

And meanwhile no one pays attention to the moderate/liberal Muslims, who are virtually jumping up and down, waving their hands, and shouting loudly "Hello! Here we are! Hello! We're over here!"

What?

[Plane]

I recommend we try something much easier to handle. Just stop making blanket comments about Islam as if Islam itself were the enemy. Acknowledge that Islamic terrorists are not representative of Islam as a whole by not talking about them or about Islam as if they were. In the much the same way we generally recognize that people who bomb abortion clinics are not representative of Christianity by not talking about Christianity as if all followers were people who want, will or support the bombing of abortion clinics. For example, instead of talking about "the problem caused by Islam", one might say, "the problem caused by Islamic extremists". Also, rather than talk about Islam as if it is necessarily and inherently incompatible with the Western world, or as if there was only ever one way to interpret Muslim scriptures, one might talk about fundamentalist Islam, or Muslim extremism, or perhaps even merely conservative Islam.

What?

I feel falsely accused !

You have a list of things here that I disagree with and you accuse me of espouseing them.

How could I be so poorly understood , How could my communication skill fail so utterly!

[Maccus Germanis]

I reject being called a "munafiq" as well. If you must be insulting, use either my language or your own.

Are you claiming to be a moderate muslim? A submiter who doesn't submit?

I was calling K. Mohamed munafiq and I don't actually believe it an insult. It is descriptive of those people who are decent, in spite of what the koran does in fact say.

[Maccus Germanis]

I feel falsely accused !

He is confused because, I contend that each of you has miscounted. The munafiq are representative of a terribly small monirity that they hope to expand by creative reinterpretation. But those who attempt to faithfully submit are going to have a hard time giving up on the idea of mo' being the model man, the koran, and hadith. Faithful submiters seem to think that their tradition is as they have practised it for 1400 years, rather than what those that are wonderfully corrupted by Western ideals and nominally muslim can reimagine it should be.

[Plane]

I feel falsely accused !

He is confused because, I contend that each of you has miscounted.

I have been to the middle east , in Jordan , in Baharain and even in Sudan I was odviously  an American but I was treated with hospitality. Most people in these cultures are good people who like to be hospitable , kind and generous.

But it makes a lot of diffrence what sort of guy takes leadership.

Al Quieda is led by people who have declared war on us in the name of Islam , it is an important part of their effort against us to claim that it is Islam that causes them to stand against us. They want all their brethren to join them in their effort at war against the USA and the rest of the immoral West, so far they have won only a small fraction of Islam over to their side enough to join in the fight, and a somewhat larger fraction , still small, to contribute cash.

Unfortunately, the number of Muslims who are willing to stand against Al Queda , is an even smaller fraction.

Geographicly the closer one gets to Osama Bin Laden the more dangerous it is to speak ill of him .

[Maccus Germanis]

I don't find it surprising that you would be treated with courtesy. But, I also believe that most of those well meaning nominal muslims, while not well versed in islam, would reflexively defend their personal concept of islam, if challenged. I do believe we should make such challenge, extolling personal virtues, in spite of what the koran does say. Because the true believers are making such challenge, while extolling submission. And why wouldn't submiters choose submission? Especially when the nominally free dare not actually be free.

I would think your visits were before events recounted in Infidel by Ayaan Hirsi Magan. She did witness the transformation of Somalia and Somalian refugees in Kenya into true believers. She did herself attend muslim brotherhood speakers while wearing a full covering and trying to be a faithful muslim. I recommend the book, as I think it demonstrates this dynamic well.

Leadership really doesn't matter as much when discussing literal revival. Qutb, Hassan al-Banna, and others are dead, but their work lives on, as it was built more firmly upon islamic tradition than that of innovators that we would like to root for.

[Plane]

I don't find it surprising that you would be treated with courtesy. But, I also believe that most of those well meaning nominal muslims, while not well versed in islam, would reflexively defend their personal concept of islam, if challenged. I do believe we should make such challenge, extolling personal virtues, in spite of what the koran does say. Because the true believers are making such challenge, while extolling submission. And why wouldn't submiters choose submission? Especially when the nominally free dare not actually be free.

I would think your visits were before events recounted in Infidel by Ayaan Hirsi Magan. She did witness the transformation of Somalia and Somalian refugees in Kenya into true believers. She did herself attend muslim brotherhood speakers while wearing a full covering and trying to be a faithful muslim. I recommend the book, as I think it demonstrates this dynamic well.

Leadership really doesn't matter as much when discussing literal revival. Qutb, Hassan al-Banna, and others are dead, but their work lives on, as it was built more firmly upon islamic tradition than that of innovators that we would like to root for.

I think that there is a terrible  potential for the Whabbi sort of Islam to persuede lots more Muslims that Jahaid is a present duty , but the level at which we see violence occur makes me think that their success rate is still low.

[Universe Prince]

You have denied that islam has had anything to do with riots in France, even after shown that the documented reactions of nominal muslims to quell the unrest did attempt to invoke islam. That clearly shows that muslims were involved in the riots.

For the umpteenth time, I have never denied that many or even most of the rioters were Muslims. Saying that many rioters were Muslims does not automatically mean, however, that the riots were specifically motivated by Islam. As has been pointed out time and again by this point, there were also Christians among the rioters, and their motivations had much to do with the rioters economic and social situation of being pretty much third class citizens and almost nothing to do with their religions.

Other sources did show that those riotous muslims had nothing but disdain for their adoptive country, and did express that disdain in terms of their own religion.

What sources? I saw a picture from a protest, i.e. not a riot, and there might have been some blog entries that where something along the line of "the news media is lying because we know they are". These are not sources I trust.

You have Continually said that there is no fundamental conflict between islam and Western values, even though the moderate you quoted does reveal his kind to be in conflict with what "95% of contemporary Muslims are exposed to" and "almost 12 centuries" of tradition.

What I said was that Islam is not necessarily and inherently incompatible with Western values. Something with which the moderate I quoted seem to agree.

I did in fact interpret that to mean that you thought everything would be fine. Is my interpretation to be discounted? By what criteria?

The answers are yes, and because that is not what I said.

Consensus?
"Moderate" (read munafiq) muslims are no broad consensus, but you consider their interpretation to be representative of islam.

At no point did I say that I consider their interpretation to be representative of Islam as a whole, imply it, or otherwise communicate that meaning. What I said was that they exist.

Literalism?
The Munafiq must disregard all of the hadith and large portions of the koran to make their innovation.

Says you. But you seem rather close-minded about it.

You see, you did in fact say just that.

On the contrary, despite this strange set of erroneous proofs, I still have not said it.

He claims to submit to something that he is in the process of remaking to his own desires.

Again we see that you leave no room for the moderate Muslim to exist. To you the moderate Muslim is merely a hypocrite, a munafiq, claiming to be Muslim on the surface but untruthful. But maybe, rather than a munafiq or even a muqallid, Khaleel Mohammed is a a mujtahid. He certainly seems to be one who suggests ijtihad is better than taqlid.

An extra scriptual teaching that has been an accepted part of islam for near "12 centuries."

Yes, but one that can change without changing the Koran. I didn't say it would be easy. I just said it can be.

I don't deny that Khaleel Mohamed does call himself a muslim, and that simultaneously he believes in Western values. I do deny that he is a reformer. He is instead an innovator, whose innovations are held in relative low esteem among those "95% of modern muslims" that are exposed to anti-Semitic teachings.

Yes, and...? Is that it? You want to ignore him and his efforts to change Islam because a majority of Muslims are exposed to anti-Semitic teachings? Wow, that is (definitely not) a good plan.

Most clearly the verse does not speak only of Jews and Christians, but of nominal muslims that attempt, for admittedly noble reasons, to subvert islam. Would you or Khaleel M. like to show how Jews, Christians, and Munafiq have not gone astray? When elsewhere in the koran, such people are promised new skins to be burned again, and again, I do interpret that as wrath, and you?

"Jews and Christians and Sabians, all who heed the One God and the Last Day, have nothing to fear or regret as long as they remain true to their scriptures." "Unto you your religion, unto me my religion."

Unfortunately the misused curse does exist. It can be misused again. That is the ever present danger that people will read into text that which they'd rather believe. You and K. Mohamed are the ones reading into islamic text and tradition that which we, all three, would rather believe.

The curse does exist, but there is nothing about it or further scripture that supports slavery as some claimed. And I am not reading anything into Islamic text. I am not a Muslim scholar by any means. I'm simply paying attention to the fact that there is not one Islam any more than there is one Christianity.

There may be differing opinions, but islam did predate your new Mo'. It did not predate the old mo'. It is defined by the old mo', his koran, and the traditions faithfully collected after his death.

The Pharisees thought they had defined Judaism too. We can all see how well that worked out.

He is attempting innovation. He is not so thoroughly deluded by fantasy as you. He makes no suggestion that there is no fundamental conflict, rather he does, I think nobly -but ineffectively- attempt to address those fundamental differences.

You keep assuming there is some fantasy involved. There is none. That see some hope in people like Khaleel Mohammed and Irshad Manji does not mean I deny the reality of the situation. It just means that I am, apparently, more willing to hope for a better outcome than you are.

What would make you think me Scandinavian,

You may not be, but your handle seems possibly Scandinavian. I took a guess. I'm okay with being wrong. Wouldn't be the first time.

or your friend?

It's a polite term. You are not my enemy.

[Universe Prince]

At the very least, we should be able to recognise the problem, and not fall for fantasies of reform. How are muslims to be persuaded by arguments that we will not even make?

How are Muslims to be persuaded by arguments that we will not even make? Indeed. Which is why we need to recognize the reformers, not ignore them.

[Universe Prince]

You have a list of things here that I disagree with and you accuse me of espouseing them.

How could I be so poorly understood , How could my communication skill fail so utterly!

Did you or did you not say that the existence of differing theological opinions in Islam "makes no diffrence at all when discussing the problem caused by Islam." in Reply #130?

[Plane]

You have a list of things here that I disagree with and you accuse me of espouseing them.

How could I be so poorly understood , How could my communication skill fail so utterly!

Did you or did you not say that the existence of differing theological opinions in Islam "makes no diffrence at all when discussing the problem caused by Islam." in Reply #130?

Sure, and let me repeat it , there is no point in pointing at the peacefull Muslims when we are discussing the violent ones.

Further there is a perfect right on their part to maintain the arguments on theology they may be haveing without my interference, I am only concerned where their aims come in conflict with peace , otherwise there is a benign apathy on my part.

Remember we are discussing people , ands a beleif system held by people.

Do I misunderstand your attitude twards Fascists being elected in Italy ? As if Fascism ever caused a problem , is it improper to refer to fascism negatively without any reference to the peacefull ones?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Do I misunderstand your attitude twards Fascists being elected in Italy ? As if Fascism ever caused a problem , is it improper to refer to fascism negatively without any reference to the peacefull ones?

=========================================================
The problem with Fascism is not that it presents a danger to those in other countries, although it certainly has in the past: Hitler, Franco and Mussolini and the Portuguese Antonio Salazar were all a threat to people outside their countries, Salazar and Franco mostly to the unfortunate inhabitants of the Spanish and Portuguese colonies.

Fascism limits creativity, imprisons productive citizens and tends to wreck the educational system. Since Italy is economically bound by the Euro to most the rest of the EC, it could also be financially disadvantageous to the EC as well. It is basically a type of government that treats its citizens as a disciplinarian principal treats high school students. Those who triumph are mostly the drudges, not the noncomformists, and the result is a stagnant society that exports its talent elsewhere. That is certainly what happened in Spain and Portugal. It happened less in Italy and Germany, becausae all the young men were drafted and packed off to war, where many simply died and others returned crazy and mutilated.

[Universe Prince]

How could I be so poorly understood , How could my communication skill fail so utterly!

Did you or did you not say that the existence of differing theological opinions in Islam "makes no diffrence at all when discussing the problem caused by Islam." in Reply #130?

Sure, and let me repeat it , there is no point in pointing at the peacefull Muslims when we are discussing the violent ones.

Heh. How could your communication fail so utterly when you said the existence of differing theological opinions in Islam "makes no diffrence at all when discussing the problem caused by Islam" but meant "there is no point in pointing at the peacefull Muslims when we are discussing the violent ones"? Hm. Gee, I just don't know. I guess that depends on how much you actually expected me to assume that "discussing the problem caused by Islam" meant "discussing the violent ones." While I'm sure it makes perfect sense to you, to me, "Islam" does not equate to "the violent ones". "Islam" means, to me, "Islam". So when you say, "the problem caused by Islam", oddly enough I conclude that you mean to speak of Islam because you used the word "Islam". And when you say, "the problem caused by Islam", as strange as it may seem to you, I conclude that you are saying there is a problem caused by Islam. So at this point I am left with the question, if you did not mean "the problem caused by Islam", then why did you say it?

Do I misunderstand your attitude twards Fascists being elected in Italy ? As if Fascism ever caused a problem , is it improper to refer to fascism negatively without any reference to the peacefull ones?

Those are good questions, almost. Let me help. If fascists ever caused a problem, would making derogatory comments about fascism without referencing peaceful fascists be improper? No, probably not. Making derogatory comments about Islam without referencing moderate Muslims is not necessarily improper. The question to be asked here would be, is the derogation intended to lay blame on the religion/ideology for the actions of people. There is a lot to criticize about Islam. There is a lot to criticize about fascism. I don't blame fascism for what fascists do. I blame the fascists. I don't blame Islam for what Islamic extremists do. I blame the extremists. Fascism did not make the fascists choose to be fascists or to act on fascist ideology. The individuals made their own choices and are responsible for them. That doesn't mean there are no grounds to criticize fascism. But there is an obvious difference between an ideology and a person, a religion and a person, and I have no trouble making that distinction.

[Plane]

How could I be so poorly understood , How could my communication skill fail so utterly!

Did you or did you not say that the existence of differing theological opinions in Islam "makes no diffrence at all when discussing the problem caused by Islam." in Reply #130?

Sure, and let me repeat it , there is no point in pointing at the peacefull Muslims when we are discussing the violent ones.

Heh. How could your communication fail so utterly when you said the existence of differing theological opinions in Islam "makes no diffrence at all when discussing the problem caused by Islam" but meant "there is no point in pointing at the peacefull Muslims when we are discussing the violent ones"? Hm. Gee, I just don't know. I guess that depends on how much you actually expected me to assume that "discussing the problem caused by Islam" meant "discussing the violent ones." While I'm sure it makes perfect sense to you, to me, "Islam" does not equate to "the violent ones". "Islam" means, to me, "Islam". So when you say, "the problem caused by Islam", oddly enough I conclude that you mean to speak of Islam because you used the word "Islam". And when you say, "the problem caused by Islam", as strange as it may seem to you, I conclude that you are saying there is a problem caused by Islam. So at this point I am left with the question, if you did not mean "the problem caused by Islam", then why did you say it?

Do I misunderstand your attitude twards Fascists being elected in Italy ? As if Fascism ever caused a problem , is it improper to refer to fascism negatively without any reference to the peacefull ones?

Those are good questions, almost. Let me help. If fascists ever caused a problem, would making derogatory comments about fascism without referencing peaceful fascists be improper? No, probably not. Making derogatory comments about Islam without referencing moderate Muslims is not necessarily improper. The question to be asked here would be, is the derogation intended to lay blame on the religion/ideology for the actions of people. There is a lot to criticize about Islam. There is a lot to criticize about fascism. I don't blame fascism for what fascists do. I blame the fascists. I don't blame Islam for what Islamic extremists do. I blame the extremists. Fascism did not make the fascists choose to be fascists or to act on fascist ideology. The individuals made their own choices and are responsible for them. That doesn't mean there are no grounds to criticize fascism. [/size] But there is an obvious difference between an ideology and a person, a religion and a person, and I have no trouble making that distinction.

This diffrence is not so odvious to you that I could depend on it when I am discussing this with you.  How many times now have you remade the point that Muslims are people and that Islam is not monolithic?

Lets go on ahead and consider it RESOLVED that Muslims are 100% people and are not monolithic.

As I pointed out myself several pages ago.