Cet apres-midi j'ai vu le film francais Des Hommes et Des Dieux, l'histoire incroyable des pretres en Algerie qui etaient tues...oops, sorry, I'm reliving my days of college French. Anyhow, this afternoon I saw the movie Of Gods and Men, the story of French monks in Algeria who were killed during the uprising of the 90s. It is a powerful film, and I encourage everyone to watch it.
The sadness I felt watching the film was probably different than the emotions experienced by most of the others in the theatre. What caught my attention as much as the devotion of the monks was the concentrated effort made by the film producers to make a distinction between "Islam" (good) and the "Islamism" (bad) of the extremists who murdered them. The pattern is so common it is predictable. Verses quoted from the Quran are peaceful, references to non-Muslims are positive, and terrorists are presented as people who know nothing of Islam, the Quran, and their Prophet Muhammad.
It is simply not true. Even grammatically the distinction between "Islam" and "Islamism" does not exist. Islam is an Arabic word meaning "to surrender". (Muslims who argue that it comes from the verb meaning "peace" are not quite telling you the truth; in Arabic the "peace" arrives after the surrender has been made; peace is a result of surrender). The Arabic verb is Aslama, to surrender, and the gerund or verbal noun is Islam, the act of surrender. Although neither the verb nor gerund originally had a religious meaning, by extension they have come to mean surrender to Allah. Since Muhammad never told anyone to obey or follow Allah without adding on himself as well, Islam now means to surrender to the will of Allah and his Apostle. The word "Islamism" does not exist in any original Arabic text.
The Salafis and the Jihadis, not the moderates, are the ones who have the Quran, the Hadith, the life of Muhammad, and Islamic history on their side. The distinction to be made is not between "Islam" and "Islamism", but between Islam and Muslims. It is peaceful Muslims who do not really understand Islam, the Quran, and Muhammad, not the extremists. The greater the distance between these moderate Muslims and the Prophet they think they follow, the better off we all are.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
41 comments:
testing
“The Salafis and the Jihadis, not the moderates, are the ones who have the Quran, the Hadith, the life of Muhammad, and Islamic history on their side. The distinction to be made is not between "Islam" and "Islamism", but between Islam and Muslims. It is peaceful Muslims who do not really understand Islam, the Quran, and Muhammad, not the extremists. The greater the distance between these moderate Muslims and the Prophet they think they follow, the better off we all are.”
Yes, because a Christian polemicist, who thinks positively of people who have expressed genocidal sentiments (e.g. Wafa Sultan), knows more about Islam than the vast majority of Muslims and can portray it fairly. Why is that the preponderance of Muslim theologians and scholars alive today assert that Islam doesn’t condone terrorism? Even Salafis, who you claim "have the Quran...on their side," have spoken out against terrorism. Western scholars studying Islam have said the same, including the old Orientalist Bernard Lewis. In his words:
"The emergence of the now widespread terrorism practice of suicide bombing is a development of the 20th century. It has no antecedents in Islamic history, and no justification in terms of Islamic theology, law, or tradition. It is a pity that those who practice this form of terrorism are not better acquainted with their own religion, and with the culture that grew up under the auspices of that religion."
Claiming, as you are, that Islam condones terrorism is both false and unhelpful.
Anonymous at April 10, 2011 10:57 PM,
"Yes, because a Christian polemicist, who thinks positively of people who have expressed genocidal sentiments (e.g. Wafa Sultan), knows more about Islam than the vast majority of Muslims and can portray it fairly."
1. It is irrelevant whether SATV is a "Christian polemicist", though if he is, he's quite a mild mannered and non-combative one. Some Christians have studied Islamic texts and history in detail; some Muslims have hardly studied these things at all. It does seem that SATV has studied Islam in greater detail than some Muslims, perhaps most Muslims, in regards to those issues about Islam that pertain to treatment of non-Muslims.
2. You present no evidence to support your allegation that Wafa Sultan or any of the other the "polemicists" who SATV likes have advocated genocide against anyone.
3. What do the "vast majority" of Muslims know about Islam? I couldn't tell you that. But what I do know from research by PEW and others is that most Muslims want strict sharia law to be applied. Polls of Muslims in the U.K. indicate that most of them want those who criticize Islam to be criminally prosecuted and punished. It seems likely then that most Muslims in the Islamic world want restrictions and serious punishments for those who criticize Islam.
4. Speaking of genocide, Anonymous is clearly supporting genocide by defending the Qur'an, which clearly supports genocide, and Muhammad, who, according to the Hadith, carried out genocide and ethnic cleansing. No significant Muslim group, to my knowledge, has ever rejected the portions of the Qur'an which call for genocide and glorify genocide.
"Why is that the preponderance of Muslim theologians and scholars alive today assert that Islam doesn’t condone terrorism?"
1. I think you will first have to provide the statistical evidence showing that most of these scholars, jurists, etc., say that "Islam" doesn't condone violence against non-Muslims for ideological objectives. How many of these scholars will condemn clear terrorist organizations like Hamas, Hizballah, etc.?
2. The Qur'an, Hadith, Sira, and Islamic law all allow terrorism against non-Muslims. Terrorism is central to Islam, and I am prepared to present verses and hadiths and so on to support this claim.
"Even Salafis, who you claim "have the Quran...on their side," have spoken out against terrorism."
What percentage of "Salafis" have condemned terrorism against non-Muslims, such as that carried out by Hamas, Hizballah, etc.? What percentage of Salafis reject the use of violent terror in the Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira?
Continuing in response to the "Anonymous" above,
"Western scholars studying Islam have said the same,"
I think Efraim Karsh and others would disagree.
"including the old Orientalist Bernard Lewis. In his words:
"The emergence of the now widespread terrorism practice of suicide bombing is a development of the 20th century."
The technology wasn't readily available until the 20th century.
"It has no antecedents in Islamic history,"
Even though the technology wasn't readily available prior to the 20th century, there were analogous actions taken by jihadists as described in the hadith and Sira, and there are Qur'anic verses that seem to support it (e.g., 9:111). For example, Muhammad advocated plunging into the enemy without mail (mesh armor) and fighting until one is killed.
"...and no justification in terms of Islamic theology,"
Why not? Going into jihad fighting to kill and be killed seems like a pretty clear theological justification.
"...law,"
There is no Islamic law about sacrificing oneself in battle for the greater glory of Islam.
"...or tradition."
On the contrary, there are historical examples of jihadists using kamikaze-like tactics.
"It is a pity that those who practice this form of terrorism"
(My emphasis) What about other forms of terrorism in which the jihadist kills others without killing himself?
"are not better acquainted with their own religion, and with the culture that grew up under the auspices of that religion."
Again, when the act is viewed in terms of sacrificing oneself in jihad to defeat the enemy and glorify Islam, it isn't simply regarded as the same as suicide in response to despair, hardships, etc. (Lewis, not being an expert in jihad, has made a very basic error in confusing self-sacrifice in the context of jihad with destroying oneself out of despair or recklessness etc.) Qaradawi--another one of those "scholars" who has condemned "terrorism"--calls these acts "martyrdom operations."
"Claiming, as you are, that Islam condones terrorism is both false and unhelpful."
It is true that the Islamic texts and some Muslims condone terrorism, and it is helpful to point this out if the problem is ever going to be solved or at least drastically reduced.
First, it should be established that essentialising Islam and assuming it is a homogenous entity is wrong. By making broad, sweeping condemnations of the religion and its adherents, SATV is not doing justice to totality of Islamic thought. If he was only condemning extremists, then I wouldn’t mind. However SATV is condemning all of Islam and Muslims—who he regards as ignorant of their own religion. In reality, it’s likely that most Muslims know more about Islam than SATV. Most of them have lived in Muslim families and practiced Islam their entire lives.
Re Wafa Sultan: She has said Muslims must change their religion or face the threat of nuclear annihilation. This sentiment is not rare amongst Islamophobes: Walid Shoebat, Bob Beers, Michael Savage, Pamela Geller, and numerous other heroes of rightwing Christians have suggested nuking Muslim countries. The fact that some put these people on a pedestal is telling.
http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/12/wafa-sultan-is-better-known-as-wafa-stalin-sultan/
Re Islamic scholars condemning terrorism: It seems that you think Muslims are guilty until proven innocent. Ironically, by your definition, Israel and the United Sates would be terrorist sates. In fact, one could argue that your definition makes almost every nation-state that has every existed a terrorist entity, especially the ancient Hebrews as portrayed by the Bible. Regardless, it’s undeniable that numerous Muslims scholars have condemned terrorism, i.e. the killing of innocents for political purposes. Ultra-conservatives like Salafi Al-Albani and Wahabbi Bin Baz have condemned suicide terrorism and the targeting of civilians. Shaykh Al-Azhar Tantawi, the grand muftis [of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and other Muslim-majority countries], The Grand Council of Religious Affairs in Turkey, the ICNA, the Deobandis in South Asia, and numerous other influential bodies of Islamic thought have all unequivocally condemned terrorism. Influential American Muslims who have devoted their life to religion, including Hamza Yusuf and Zaid Shakir have condemned terrorism and the killing of innocents (only to be accused of lying by Robert Spencer). This shouldn’t even be a point of contention; the Amman Message was organized for the purpose of putting this to rest. I suggest looking at the Amman message—there are signatories representing the ulema of Muslims-majority countries from Azerbaijan to Lebanon. Even the ulema of historical Muslim minorities (e.g. Tartarstan in Russia) were represented. The largest petition in history (almost 63 million signatures) is called ‘Yeh Hum Nehaan’ (Urdu for “this is not us”) was about condemning terrorism. If you want to ignore this overwhelming evidence and instead look at polls, you’ll notice that polls show that the majority of Muslims disapprove of terrorism and the killing of innocents. Specifically in regards to 9/11, Gallup found that 93% of Muslims condemned the 9/11 attacks (apparently they polled 50,000 Muslims). Even more telling is 0% justified it on religious grounds, instead they invoked politics.
“I think Efraim Karsh and others would disagree.”
Good point. The only people who seem to “disagree” are anti-Muslim ideologues. Karsh has been criticized by his intellectual superiors for his bias, including anti-Palestinians like Benny Morris. Karsh doesn’t even study Islam (i.e. as a religion and its pre-modern history), and he has spoken negatively about those “medievalists” who do. Thus, he really has no credentials on whether Islamic law condones terrorism or not, and some academics assert that he is too biased to be taken seriously at all. In contrast, Bernard Lewis does have credentials (I gave Bernard Lewis as an example because he is also a Zionist ideologue, but fortunately is more honest than Karsh). In short, your “example” is moot.
“The technology wasn't readily available until the 20th century.”
You are again revealing your general ignorance. Guns were widely available in the Ottoman Empire as early as the 15th century. A look at Ottoman records from the 1700s will reveal that firearms were second only to clocks and watches when it came to Western goods. As for the rest of your spurious claims (especially the referent to the Qur’an and “kamikazes”), they were addressed by Loonwatch some time ago.
http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/04/suicide-terrorism-an-islamic-phenomenon/
What about other forms of terrorism in which the jihadist kills others without killing himself?
Lewis also recognizes those as un-Islamic.
1) "At no time did the (Muslim) jurist approve of terrorism. Nor indeed is there any evidence of the use of terrorism (in Islamic tradition)."
2) "Muslims are commanded not to kill women, children, or the aged; not to torture or otherwise ill-treat prisoners; to give fair warning of the opening of hostilities; and to honor agreements."
To Anonymous,
I suggest you pick a name so that others will be able to follow the exchange. Also, are you the same "Anonymous" to whom I was responding above?
Now to my reply: You are huffing, puffing, and bluffing. You present not one shred of evidence to support any of your fatuous assertions. Obviously you are upset by my citing Karsh, but you present no evidence for what you claim about him.
"Guns were widely available in the Ottoman Empire as early as the 15th century."
What are you talking about now? You (?) introduced the topic of suicide bombing, not guns. Your response is irrelevant.
"As for the rest of your spurious claims (especially the referent to the Qur’an and “kamikazes”), they were addressed by Loonwatch some time ago."
No, my claims weren't addressed, and Loonwatch is not a credible source. You have failed to address any of my claims. You present not a single shred of evidence against any of them.
The only thing worth responding to here is the quote of Bernard Lewis. Lewis is wrong.
The hadith and Sira clearly show that Muhammad ordered the slaughter of poets and other dissidents. That's terrorism. Likewise, Islamic law requires the killing of adult male apostates and blasphemers and allows vigilantes to carry this out with impunity. That's terrorism.
The Qur'an itself clearly calls upon Muslims to strike terror into the enemies (i.e., non-Muslims). Muhammad himself in the hadith declares that he was made "victorious with terror." The entire jihad policy, including offensive jihad, consists of the use of terror: Embrace Islam, or else be subjugated under the dhimma--a dangerous, onerous position--or be killed in warfare.
As for women and children, as the hadiths clearly state, Muslims were allowed to kill women and children of the polytheists when this was unavoidable. Jurists also ruled that women and children could be killed in jihad, using Muhammad's attacks on Ta'if as a precedent. Note that jihad was required and was therefore unavoidable. Also note that if the women and children "fought with words" against Islam, they could be killed. Muhammad himself ordered the killing of women, and "two singing girls" who had sung mocking lyrics against him. The women and children who were lucky enough to survive the jihad onslaught would then be raped and enslaved, to be used or bought and sold, by their Muslim masters.
(Rape, by the way, is a form of terrorism).
The claim that opponents were given fair warning is in some senses not true and in others is grossly misleading. First, it is not true, in the sense that Muhammad himself engaged in surprise attacks against non-Muslim neighbors, and the hadith and Sira bear this out. In addition, the verse 9:5 specifically advocates the use of ambushing, which is by definition a surprise attack. Second, when opponents (or rather, potential targets) were notified in advance, according to the standard procedure they were invited to embrace Islam, and if they failed to embrace Islam or accept dhimmitude, the Muslims who had the military power to do so waged war on them.
As for honoring agreements, Muhammad broke agreements, then blamed the other side, then attacked them.
As for torturing and mistreating prisoners, this is allowed according to Muhammad's conduct and by the Qur'an (5:33).
Anonymous, both you and Bernard Lewis are incorrect in your assertion that no anecdotes to terrorism can be found in Islamic law or tradition. The very word "assassin" is most likely derived from the Arabic أساسين - meaning "fundamentalists" - which is how Hasan-I Sabah, the leader of the Ismailis (considered by many to be the first Islamic terrorist organization), referred to his followers. The oft mistaken Marco Polo later misunderstood the origin of this word, which is why you may hear that it's derived from the Arabic "Hashashin" حشاشين - hash smokers - which was probably just a derogatory play on words that enemies of the Ismailis used to refer to them.
This demonstrates that terrorist tactics can be linked to Islamic fundamentalism very early in Islam's history.
I meant Islamic *history and tradition. Not law.
I should also mention that the most feared of the Ismailis were the "Fida’i" - self-sacrificers. Nobody knows what it was that convinced them to sacrifice themselves for their cause - but considering they identified themselves as Muslim fundamentalists I don't think it's out of the question that they believed their actions were supported by Islam.
Regarding that loonwatch article posted by anonymous - I see that it addresses, and corroborates, what I posted above. The loonwatch response to this bit of history seems to be "yeah, but those guys were a really radical" and it goes on to distinguish between "suicide" and "self sacrifice" and suggest that their actions were justified. That's neither here nor there as it pertains to the assertions of anonymous and Bernard Lewis - fact is Islamic terrorism and suicide...er, "self sacrifice" isn't a 20th century phenomenon.
I've always been amazed by how Muslim terrorists are able to make a reference to Allah in the same sentence they talk about which explosive used for killing others is best to use.
Or the martyrdom video where the suicide bomber is holding a Koran in one hand an assault rifle in the other.
And people have the audacity to claim that these Muslim terrorists aren't inspired by Islam.
@ Greenforest; I remember back when Pakistanis were marching in support of the man who assassinated a Pakistani politician in the tens of thousands, if not 100's of thousands, for 'blaspheming' against the blasphemy law, a group of five hundred 'moderate' Muslim clerics got together to issue their seal of approval for the any one who assassinates someone for committing blasphemy.
My point being, these same five hundred scholars would have been among the majority of Muslim scholars who supposedly reject terrorism in Anonymous's mystery 'poll' he claims to have.
A poll or statistic can be cited, but common sense goes a long way with dealing with someone who claims night is actually day. I guess Muslims hope they're dealing with the misinformed and they're there to take advantage of any Westerner they cross paths with to prime them with misinformation.
Anonymous,
I agree with the suggestion of Greenforest that you choose a username - call it I-hate-SATV if you will, but it would be nice to be able to address you by name. I have a couple of comments:
1. You are thinking "Islamically", not rationally, evidenced by your choice use of adjectives (Muslims would be dead in the water if they were denied adjectives). According to you I am not a blogger, I am a "Christian polemicist". WTF?? On the one hand - again according to you - I express my admiration for atheists and agnostics (Aayan Hirsi Ali and Wafa Sultan), and on the other I am a Christian polemicist? Yes, I am a Christian by choice, but what you choose to believe about Jesus is entirely up to you.
2. Your argument that some Muslims condemn terrorism proves my point that the line to be drawn is not between Islam and Islamism, but between Islam and Muslims. Muslims, not Islam, condemn terror. You can argue until hell freezes over and the cows come home that the terror experienced by Kinana of Khaybar or caravan driver Amr bin al-Hadrami (I hope you know your history well enough to know what I am referring to) was any different than the terror experienced by the people in the World Trade Center as they leaped to their deaths on 9/11, but you won't convince me.
JihadBob,
Pakistan is a good example where the probably majority of the scholars and jurists, and probably the majority of the population, support at least two types of terrorism: State or vigilante killings of (1) public apostates, and (2) blasphemers.
An odd thing about Bernard Lewis' comments denying that Islam supports terrorism is that he, himself, has cited the killing of an apostate as an example of terrorism. Lewis does not deny that mainstream Islam calls for the death of adult male apostates. Then why does he make such a sweeping denial about Islam's support for terrorism?
When Lewis says that Islam does not allow suicidal attacks, it is nevertheless possible to deduce from his own writings that what he is saying there is admittedly his own personal interpretation. That's because Lewis himself talks about the difference of opinion among jurists as to whether suicidal attacks were permitted in jihad, with some approving and some disapproving. In other words, he is tacitly admiting that approval within Islam exists for suicidal attacks in jihad. Why, then, does he make his sweeping categorical denials about Islamic support for suicidal terrorism?
Moreover, the statements of major authorities in recent times, like Qaradawi, (the late) Tantawi, and others, support suicidal attacks (i.e., what they prefer to call martyrdom operations) in regards to jihadists fighting the Israelis.
In terms of terrorism in general, the is widespread support among Shia Muslims for the terrorist organization Hizballah. Among Sunnis, there is still a significant amount of support for bin Laden. Among both Shia and Sunnis, there is significant support for Hamas, which uses various methods of terrorism, including suicidal attacks on civilians.
I think Bernard Lewis was writing more like a politician than a ruthlessly honest scholar when he wrote that nonsense suggesting that Islam does not support terrorism against non-Muslims.
Among Sunnis, there is still a significant amount of support for bin Laden.
Hello Greenforest, your comment here is crucial to addressing the recent opinion polls Muslim apologists will cite to support their argument that Muslims oppose terrorism. There indeed has been a shift away from supporting OBL in recent years that I will admit to (though the % of Muslims who support al-Qaeda is still very high). However what Muslims never feel willing to address are the surveys from the Muslim world months and a few years after 9/11 when al-Qaeda's claim to fame was the murder of three thousand kuffar. We see Muslim support for al-Qaeda in the double digit range throughout the Muslim world save for Turkey. Indeed, between 1/3-1/2 of Muslims in Jordan, Pakistan and elsewhere where al-Qaeda supporters. Crafty Muslim apologists will not be honest enough with the people they engage in debate with to mention these early surveys nor the reasons behind the more recent drop in support for al-Qaeda that is explained by the recent terror attacks in *Muslim* countries - not a rejection of al-Qaeda's general extremist views of killing non-Muslims or establishing a fascist seventh century religious theocracy.
The point here is that al-Qaeda will continue to live on in the Muslim world that created the thousands of suicide bombers who have swelled the ranks of Islamic terror groups throughout the world. And if al-Qaeda falls in disfavor with Muslims, then a new umbrella terrorist organization with a clean slate could easily replace al-Qaeda's agenda.
jihadbob
you comment on loonwatch also right?
havent seen you lately on loonwatch.com
JihadBob,
I agree; all good points.
To "Anonymous" immediately above: Please use some kind of name/handle/distinctive label, otherwise these exchanges get confusing.
Anon
I stopped posting over at LW for a variety of reasons, chief among them was that I was getting tired of the censorship over at that site.
Specifically in regards to 9/11, Gallup found that 93% of Muslims condemned the 9/11 attacks (apparently they polled 50,000 Muslims). Even more telling is 0% justified it on religious grounds, instead they invoked politics.
Here we go again.....
To "Anonymous" at April 11, 2011 5:44 PM,
Nice try, trying to slip in all those new claims as if they were posted on April 11. What's the reason for your deception this time?
1. Nope, nowhere does Wafa Sultan advocate genocide. Please learn to read. As for the others--Bob Beers, Michael Savage, Pamela Geller, Walid Shoebat--I'm not sure what these people have to do with the discussion here.
2. The only one essentializing and homogenizing Islam is you with your preposterous apologetics, strawmen, etc.
3. "In reality" you haven't presented a shred of evidence for your assertion that most Muslims know more about Islam than SATV. But suppose they do. Does that mean SATV is wrong about what he says? You again present no evidence whatsoever.
4. "Ironically, by your definition, Israel and the United Sates would be terrorist sates."
Israel and the U.S. are states that kill, or allow the killing of, blasphemers and apostates?
5. "In fact, one could argue that your definition makes almost every nation-state that has every existed a terrorist entity, especially the ancient Hebrews as portrayed by the Bible."
I would agree with that, i.e., that according to those myths/legends, those who followed commands to kill blasphemers and apostates would indeed be terrorists. But by and large the ones who follow commands to kill blasphemers and apostates in real life today are Muslims.
6. "It seems that you think Muslims are guilty until proven innocent."
It seems you like to just make stuff up. Let me help you with choosing a moniker. How about "lying hatemongering scumbag"?
7. Have any of the people you listed as condemning "terrorism" condemned the "martyrdom operations" against Israeli civilians? (BTW, the late Tantawi shouldn't be on your list, since he supported those martyrdom operations).
8. "This shouldn’t even be a point of contention; the Amman Message was organized for the purpose of putting this to rest."
The Amman message was full of holes and was a superficial exercise in public relations and brazen Islam-promotion.
9. "The largest petition in history (almost 63 million signatures) is called ‘Yeh Hum Nehaan’ (Urdu for “this is not us”) was about condemning terrorism."
What evidence? Where is the evidence that 63 million Muslims(?) actually signed this? And suppose they did. Why does terrorism against non-Muslims remain so popular among Muslims according to polls, which are more representative? Why was bin Laden more popular than any Pakistani leadership candidate? Why do the majority of Iranians and the majority of Shia Lebanese support Hizballah? Why is Hamas, a terrorist organization, still so popular?
9. "If you want to ignore this overwhelming evidence..."
Again, What evidence? Note: You huffing and puffing does not constitute "evidence"--except of your own stupidity and self-importance.
(continued, completing)
10. "Specifically in regards to 9/11, Gallup found that 93% of Muslims condemned the 9/11 attacks (apparently they polled 50,000 Muslims). Even more telling is 0% justified it on religious grounds, instead they invoked politics."
Ah, but as Mogahed later admitted, there is much more support for terrorism when the data are divided up and presented in a different (less misleading) way. Besides, we have the PEW data which are clearer and which show that large minorities to majorities of Muslims support various kinds of terrorism and terrorist groups.
Most importantly, the data from PEW and others (including Gallup) indicate that most Muslims the world over support sharia law. In countries such as Pakistan, Egypt, Nigeria, Jordan, and others, the majority of Muslims want apostates to be put to death and want adulterers to be stoned to death. Even among British Muslims, the majority want those who criticize Islam to be criminally prosecuted and punished (i.e., they want at least this major aspect of sharia). Thus, on some important issues, most Muslims agree with the Islamists, militant or non-militant.
11. "0% justified it on religious grounds, instead they invoked politics."
Misleading. Islam is a political and legal system, not just a "religion."
JihadBob (@ April 14, 2011 10:00 PM),
Nice catch. Had you not quoted that, I would not have noticed what Anonymous had done. How did you catch that he/she posted new material?
I would not have thought that Anonymous (at the first post for April 11, 2011 5:44 PM) would have done something as underhanded and deceptive as trying to post later material into an old post.
In my post at April 11, 2011 8:12 PM, I had replied to Anonymous "You present not one shred of evidence to support any of your fatuous assertions."
At the time, he hadn't. Anyways, I've now addressed the later claims he tried to pass of as earlier claims.
@ Greenforest
I would say it's two different persons. They certainly have different writing styles.
I happened to catch that by looking at the number of comments in this thread where it was 18 it became 19 so I had a peek to make sure. I have no idea how he managed to slip in like that, though. As you've said, they should start posting under a handle otherwise it becomes downright annoying.
Greenforest, my guess 'anonymous', the one you're replying to, goes by the name of 'zameel', but that's because I've crossed swords with him on other forums, such as a site called Quodlibeta forum. He went off the wall with copy pasty rants after I showed him Jews were bigger victims of hate attacks in Britain than Muslims were.
As you've already figured, the guy goes on misleading tangents. He's certainly an embodiment of the Muslim apologist I had referred to earlier. At least with previous posters, they have some semblance of common sense, but with this one, it's a rambling attack with no consideration if his own claims pan out. He'll simply heap whatever talking points he can without the slightest care in the world if what he actually says is factual.
JihadBob,
"I would say it's two different persons. They certainly have different writing styles."
Perhaps. One thing I know for sure: The contents of the "Anonymous" post time-stamped "April 11, 2011 5:44 PM" (i.e., the first of the two with that time stamp, as the thread now appears) did not originally appear on April 11. I suspect that the contents of that post did not appear until sometime on April 14.
My dear fellows, Greenforest and Jihad Bob, Do you not understand that in Islam 'Time' is arbitrary? Allah is an Occasionalist, the Qur'an is organized by length of passages rather than chronology, a book completed in the 7th century was in existence before the Old and New Testaments.
Logic is a belief from corrupt Western Civilization, it holds no sway in Islam because it has never entered the minds of its practitioners.
https://www.fonsvitae.com/OnlineStore/tabid/58/pid/176/0834-The-History-and-Philosophy-of-Islamic-Science.aspx
In Islam, logic was never conceived as being opposed to religious faith. Even the grammarians, who initially opposed the introduction of Aristotelian logic (mantiq) by philosophers like al-Farabi, did so on the belief that their Stoic-like juridical-theological logic, known as adab al-jadal (art of argumentation), was already sufficient to meet their logical needs.
Among Muslim philosophers and scientists, logic was always viewed as an indispensable tool of scientific thinking. They also considered logic a form of hikmah (wisdom), a form of knowledge which is extolled by the Quran. In their use of logic, they were as much concerned with clarity and consistency as with truth and certitude. They were too aware of the fact that logic is a double-edged instrument which can serve both truth and error.
Logic was developed by Muslim philosophers and scientists within the framework of a religious consciousness of the Transcendent. In their view, logic, when used correctly and by an intellect that is not corrupted by the lower passions, may lead one to the Transcendent itself.’ An obvious function of logic in relation to religious truths is to help explain their rationality and clarify their overall consistency in the face of outward appearances of incoherence and contradiction.
Some philosopher-scientists, such as al-Farabi, wrote works which sought to demonstrate that Aristotelian logic found strong scriptural support in the Quran and the prophetic hadiths. When a religious scholar of the stature of al-Ghazzali wrote a work with a similar purpose, and with full conviction embraced Aristotelian logic in its entirety, the last significant traces of opposition to that logic from the religious quarters disappeared. Mantiq(logic) in its Islamic home became an important tool not only of the philosophical sciences but also of the religious sciences.
http://i-epistemology.net/science-a-technology/11-islam-rationality-and-science.html
Sorry, I came back after some time, and it appears one of my comments wasn't posted? Was it too long? It linked to video where Wafa Sultan advocated genocide.
Anonymous,
Sorry, I'm not sure what happened to your original post. I don't delete comments; you are welcome to repost it if you like.
Anonymous,
Sorry, I'm not sure what happened to your original post. I don't delete comments; you are welcome to repost it if you like.
Anonymous at April 17, 2011 9:01 PM,
Your allegation against Wafa Sultan is unsupported. However, if you truly believed that she is advocating murdering large numbers of people, I suggest you would be contacting the police, not posting spam and wild allegations on SATV's blog.
"Your allegation against Wafa Sultan is unsupported. However, if you truly believed that she is advocating murdering.."
here is the evidence you wanted.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxfjFHIlYhA&feature=player_embedded
many have adovacted nuking muslim countries.
http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/04/how-to-identify-a-loon-the-nuclear-card/
here wafa sultan said :
“I believe King Abdullah can change Islam overnight, but you need to put pressure on him to do it, and the same kind of pressure you put on Japan, you might need it“ at that moment someone from the audience interjects and asks, “atom bombs?” Wafa Sultan replies, “Yes. At some point the West will need to do it.” This statement is quite revealing considering how in 2007, at a right-wing David Horowitz funded conference called “Restoration Weekend,” Wafa Sultan said, “I will change 1.3 billion Muslims…they have to realize they have only two choices: to change or to be crushed.”
http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/12/wafa-sultan-craven-loons-speech-at-ahavath-torah/
I know greenforest you said you dont like loonwatch and its not scholarly, but the evidence is there if you look for it.
If a muslim called for nuking washington dc you would say islam is evil and blame the quran, yet here we have christians/atheists/jews calling for the nuking of muslim countries like japan.
I dont have a problem with her(wafa) saying that, the problem is the double standards and hypocrisy. What if a muslim said that? you would blame islam/quran, but when a non-muslim says the same you're no where to be seen.
Anonymous,
Wafa Sultan's statements indeed appear to be disturbing. However, what I said was that you did not show that she advocated genocide. Your quotes show that she did not advocate genocide.
"Might need it"? "At some point"?
Under what conditions? Does she mean in war, where the U.S. is under attack by nuclear weapons?
BTW, you do realize that the Qur'an and Hadith call upon Muslims to physically fight and kill people over issues of religious belief, right?
You wrote:
"If a muslim called for nuking washington dc you would say islam is evil and blame the quran,"
No, not unless there was additional evidence to implicate Islamic teachings; people say all kinds of things for all kinds of reasons.
"...yet here we have christians/atheists/jews calling for the nuking of muslim countries like japan."
Huh? You are not making sense.
I repeat [with a minor edit]:
"...if you truly believed that she [was] advocating murdering large numbers of people, I suggest you would be contacting the police, not posting spam and wild allegations on SATV's blog."
test
I am different anon, I was just providing the evidence you wanted.yeah she did say 'might' and 'at some point', but she also said : ""they have to realize they have only two choices: to change or to be crushed."" I mean change? change into christianity or atheism? what if they dont change? You CRUSH them? Is that ethnic cleansing? atom bombs?
when an audience member says 'atom bombs' she says YES..at some point the WEST might have to use it, i mean thats genocide, I dont think any muslim country can invade USA , so why would you need to drop atom bombs on them when most muslim countries are corrupt and puppets of USA?
"BTW, you do realize that the Qur'an and Hadith call upon Muslims to physically fight and kill people over issues of religious belief, right?"
Dont change the subject, we are talking about wafa sultan, also we discussed about this in the other post 'the one with over 100 comments'.
"...if you truly believed that she [was] advocating murdering large numbers of people, I suggest you would be contacting the police, not posting spam and wild allegations on SATV's blog."
I think this is not for me but for the other anon. But i would reply to it anyway, to the above I say why dont you pick up the phone and call the police when the iranians advocate the nuking of israel or america? If someone threatned you online to destroy your home or kill you, you probably wouldnt care, you would think its just trolling you wouldnt take it seriously. So my point again was the double standards and the hypocrisy.
Wafa sultan and others like her can go into churches and synagogues, and call for the nuking and mass murder of muslims (by the way did you see in the video the audience were clapping after the atom bomb remark?) and nothing happens, but if a muslim dared to say usa should be nuked cause they invaded many countries and caused so much destruction they are instantly called terrorist, and the united nations security council would convene.
So you watch the whole video, i gave you the links , you can watch the whole talk online on youtube. One person says atom bomb? and she then says yes and she refers to Japan and you know what was dropped on japan. The best bit, which shows she is like muslim extremists , is when she says CHANGE or BE CRUSHED!
I dont know what else you need more, if I told to convert to islam by force, you wouldnt like it would you? I would be an islamic extremist fascist fundementalist trying to take over the world. But here we have an atheist (wafa sultan) calling for the genocide and mass murder of muslim so they could change otherwise be crushed.
Anonymous,
1. Wafa Sultan is an off-topic item that you introduced. If you have a complaint about her being quoted at the side of the blog, I suggest you complain to SATV in an email, not in this thread.
2. You are forcing your own interpretation on Wafa Sultan's statements. She didn't say she wanted them to be crushed or that they should be crushed.
3. I have no need to contact the authorities about Iran because they are already monitoring that situation. You claim that Wafa Sultan is advocating mass murder. I say that if you truly believe that, you should be contacting the authorities instead of wasting time here.
Piss Christ Art Work Destroyed by Protesting Christians, What if they were Muslim?
http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/04/piss-christ-art-work-destroyed-by-protesting-christians-what-if-they-were-muslim/
^ LoL
You mean, what if a secular artist in a Muslim majority country created an 'offensive' depiction of Muhammad, entered the artwork in an exhibition, which was funded by the tax payer of the Muslim state, and subsequently toured countless museums throughout the Muslim world for two and a hald decades?
(All the while, there were no major drives to silence free speech, let alone legitimately question why the government should be promoting such art)
Yeah, valid comparison indeed.
Post a Comment