Debate: Islam -- Threat or Not? Options

[CaptainTightpant...]

I know, darth, that for you it is about a specific religion. it's always about this specific religion. that's why there cannot be any rational discussion.

To repeatedly single out one religion as a source of evil, is a bias, not a balanced discussion.

I'm no fan of islam at all. But I see it having the same strengths and weaknesses as any other powerful and influential religion. The same decent people, the same evils and the the wackjobs who do evil in it's name. What is really worrisome is that constantly wanting to address it as some unique source of evil no other groups can match isn't that it engenders useless debate, but that it's the very shit that people use to justify bigotry and further violence.

[DarthMarley]

I know, darth, that for you it is about a specific religion. it's always about this specific religion. that's why there cannot be any rational discussion.

To repeatedly single out one religion as a source of evil, is a bias, not a balanced discussion.

I'm no fan of islam at all. But I see it having the same strengths and weaknesses as any other powerful and influential religion. The same decent people, the same evils and the the wackjobs who do evil in it's name. What is really worrisome is that constantly wanting to address it as some unique source of evil no other groups can match isn't that it engenders useless debate, but that it's the very shit that people use to justify bigotry and further violence.

Again, you start by telling me what I think, asserting that "for me, it is;" when actually you have no clue.
You are not even parsing what I actually type.

You are the obstacle to rational discussion, because rather than discuss, you are asserting that you know my mind, and are telling me what I think (back to that "strawman" concept which you don't seem to full grasp either) rather than engage the topic.

This is not "singling out" a particular religion as a sole source of evil, it is discussing one particular religion.
With regards to the topic, "Is Islam athreat" there is plenty of room to qualify "threat to what?"

One can qualify it as "Threat to western values" or "threat to non-Muslims" or "threat to historical honesty" and still be engaging the discussion.

Instead, you offer assertions about what I believe while insisting that I cannot know what the mind of a killer or Muslim holds.

You refuse to counter factual citation of Muslim scripture that calls for murder of non-Muslims, and prophesizes about the death of all Jews. Then you go on to assert a moral equivalence claim, suggesting that it is "no worse" than other religions, even though other religions do not generally advocate genocide, racial bigotry, and murder the way Islam explicitly does.

Your introrgesis that I think it is some sort of "ultimate evil" which is unmatched by any other problem is yet another bullshit projection you have indulged. Here again you stray from a rational discussion of "Is Islam a threat?" and insist that you know what is in the mind of another.

Nowhere do I make claims of ultimate or even unique evil.
And Islam does not have to be an "ultimate evil" or even a unique evil.
Put differently, even if every other religion were to be "just as bad" that does not mitigate the truth of the assertion that "Islam is a threat" on some level or another.

You continually steer the discussion to me, as a person rather than have a rational and factual discussion of the doctrines, scriptures, practices, and beliefs of Islam.

So shove your petty jabs about "rational discussion" sideways.
You obviously can't elevate your discussion of the topic to a rational level.
Hell, you can't even discuss this topic at all.

[CaptainTightpant...]

What you say matters, Darth, but how you say it matters too. And what you DON'T say matters.

If you had ever suggested we examine other religious scriptures or practices or history or cultures from the perspectives you so often suggest for Islam, i might believe you were looking for a fair discussion about the pros and cons regarding a particular religion based purely on a desire to better understand human nature and religion.

But you have never demonstrated such an interest on this board.

There's moral equivalence and there is a balanced objective discussion of the world without obsessing solely on one group. I am merely suggesting that there might be a real debate if we spent more time doing the later on this board.

[DarthMarley]

What you say matters, Darth, but how you say it matters too. And what you DON'T say matters.

If you had ever suggested we examine other religious scriptures or practices or history or cultures from the perspectives you so often suggest for Islam, i might believe you were looking for a fair discussion about the pros and cons regarding a particular religion based purely on a desire to better understand human nature and religion.

But you have never demonstrated such an interest on this board.

There's moral equivalence and there is a balanced objective discussion of the world without obsessing solely on one group. I am merely suggesting that there might be a real debate if we spent more time doing the later on this board.

That is still evasive, non-responsive, and projecting your own assertions regarding my thoughts and beliefs.

And there is no place for that in an objective rational discussion.

In terms of the topic narrowed to "Is Islam a threat?" casting aspersions on the speaker for what they have not said, or what they say elsewhere regarding other topics is immaterial, and is a blatant doge.
Or it is a simple lack of critical thinking skills.

To the extent that your projection of assumption to my thought while criticizing any who "jump to conclusions" is inconsistent, you are not conducting a rational discussion.

Is Islam a threat to the freedom of women in Islamic culture?
Can you even have that discussion without trying to shift to abuses of women in other cultural frameworks?
If you can't, then you cannot really engage in an objective and honest discussion on that topic.

Failing to counter my claims with facts, you work to suggest I have made claims I have not.
That is contemptible.

[CaptainTightpant...]

Like I said, I am no fan of Islam. I just recognize where it falls in the larger picture of human nature and therefore cannot view it as a singular source of wrong in this world to the extent that requires constantly being singled out and discussed as something uniquely threatening and dangerous.

I refuse to fuel your own bias by attempting to have a rational discussion when the entire premise of the conversation is irrational and geared towards only entertaining topics that confirm your need to bash one particular group of people. my point is that most of your complaints use the common weakneses and failures of human nature as though they are only specific to the object of your derision and any attempt to point that out is met with insults and accusations of "moral equivalency".

if you ever want to have a measured discussion about the problems with the world religions, how they have affected us for good and ill,or even something more measured about the pros and cons of islam that takes into account human nature and world events, I'm more than happy to have that interesting and intelligent discussion.

But I'm not going to fall into the trap of having to defend the bad parts of Islam against someone who only wants to a. confirm their own bias against one particular religion and b. paint anyone who argues against the irrationality of this bias by offering a more objective approach to the world religions and humanity in general as an Islamic apologist.

[DarthMarley]

Like I said, I am no fan of Islam. I just recognize where it falls in the larger picture of human nature and therefore cannot view it as a singular source of wrong in this world to the extent that requires constantly being singled out and discussed as something uniquely threatening and dangerous.

I refuse to fuel your own bias by attempting to have a rational discussion when the entire premise of the conversation is irrational and geared towards only entertaining topics that confirm your need to bash one particular group of people. my point is that most of your complaints use the common weakneses and failures of human nature as though they are only specific to the object of your derision and any attempt to point that out is met with insults and accusations of "moral equivalency".

if you ever want to have a measured discussion about the problems with the world religions, how they have affected us for good and ill,or even something more measured about the pros and cons of islam that takes into account human nature and world events, I'm more than happy to have that interesting and intelligent discussion.

But I'm not going to fall into the trap of having to defend the bad parts of Islam against someone who only wants to a. confirm their own bias against one particular religion and b. paint anyone who argues against the irrationality of this bias by offering a more objective approach to the world religions and humanity in general as an Islamic apologist.

And now, rather than have a rational discussion, you just continue to insult, and assert that the basis of asking "Is Islam a threat?" is irrational.

Either shut the fuck up, or spell out right now WHY that is an irrational question.

Don't you dare fucking equivocate. You just said the discussion is "irrational" so put up or shut the fuck up.

If you want to discuss world religions, or the problem of religion, start another thread, or post in the Atheism Now thread.
But for you to come to this thread and pull this shit exposes you for what you are.

It is not a "bias" for me to quote the Koran in a way that makes you uncomfortable. It is simply me quoting the fucking Koran. For you to spin it into anything else will not stand at all.
For you to suggest that my quotation of Islamic sources is an exercise in "bashing" Islam is again you deviating from the topic and engaging in a personal attack.
But since you don't have any other point to make, I suppose I should not expect anything more.

You are not compelled to defend Islam. But neither do you refute my claims.
When I assert that the Koran calls for the killing of polytheists, either shut the fuck up, agree, or disprove the claim.
For you to do anything else has no part in a "rational discussion."

Frankly, I don't think you are capable of arguing intelligently about anything, or at least, you have not yet demonstrated the capacity.
Your continued abuses of logic and language in your last few posts demonstrate that.

[CaptainTightpant...]

Well, thanks for proving my point, anyway.

[DarthMarley]

Well, thanks for proving my point, anyway.

You have not articulated a point to prove.
You should feel embarassed about that.

Once again, you spout off nonsense unrelated to the discussion.

[CaptainTightpant...]

You have not articulated a point to prove.
You should feel embarassed about that.

Once again, you spout off nonsense unrelated to the discussion.

No, I articulated it pretty well, you just don't like the point I articulated. pretending you don't get it or insulting me doesn't really change that.

One cannot have a discussion of Islam in a vacuum such as the one you demand in this thread because it loads the conversation to conform to your argument, however incorrect or irrelevant it might be. And you can't discuss the influence that islam might or might not have had on what Hasan did without also dicussing everything else that might or might not have surrounded his actions.

When you refuse to allow any context brought to the conversation then there really can't be a debate.

[larocque6689]

This is interesting...

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/6710361.html

El Sayed said he spent time with Hasan, but that was after being asked to assist finding the bachelor psychiatrist a wife.

“I met him personally because he sought my help to get him married. This was unsuccessful,” said the imam, who learned little of the man's world view.

Like most worshipers, he said Hasan “joined prayers, finished prayers, then left. I didn't see him hanging out with people, joining discussion groups or classes.

Contrary to numerous reports Hasan was a brooding loner in Killeen, a more detailed picture of Hasan has surfaced that said he had at least one close friend, an Army officer who had converted to Islam several years ago. They had worshiped through the night together during the final days of Ramadan, the Muslim fasting holiday.

Kamran Pasha, a Pakistani-American novelist, quoted the Fort Hood officer as saying he befriended the Army psychiatrist, prayed side by side with him hours before Thursday's mass killings and had once challenged Hasan's view that Islam condoned suicide bombings.

Hasan also argued Jews were “cursed by God,” according to the officer, who had contacted Pasha long before the shootings to discuss his novel, Mother of the Believers, an account of Islam's beginnings as seen through the eyes of Prophet Mohammad's wife, Aisha. The officer, a 22-year Army veteran, declined to be identified or speak to reporters because of his past work in special operations in Iraq, Pasha said. No independent corroboration could be made Sunday.

[DarthMarley]

No, I articulated it pretty well, you just don't like the point I articulated. pretending you don't get it or insulting me doesn't really change that.

One cannot have a discussion of Islam in a vacuum such as the one you demand in this thread because it loads the conversation to conform to your argument, however incorrect or irrelevant it might be. And you can't discuss the influence that islam might or might not have had on what Hasan did without also dicussing everything else that might or might not have surrounded his actions.

When you refuse to allow any context brought to the conversation then there really can't be a debate.

You have not articulated any idea well.

I am certainly not wanting a discussion of the threat (or not) of Islam in any sort of vacuum.
That is why I include references to actual Muslim scriptures and commentary over the last millennium.

Since the thread topic is "Islam, threat or not" nothing that "conforms to my argument" taking a position on that topic is "irrelevant" and if you want to call my claims "incorrect" then prove it bitch, or shut the fuck up.

And you really have earned that level of disrespect.
You are not putting forward any counter claims at all, and you certainly not demonstrating that any of my claims are "incorrect."

One can discuss whether or not Hasan's religion influenced his criminal actions without discussing other possibilities.
You just don't fucking want to stick to a topic.
And that would be fine if you just butted out. Instead you want to rattle of inanities and off-topic insults.

Good for you.
But it does make you look like a stupid bitch.

Context and debate are welcome.
But you are not willing to discuss the context of Islam as it relates to anything, instead always wanting to discuss something, anything else as an apparent distraction tactic.
It would be like posting opera in the Americana music thread, and spending multiple posts insisting that it is appropriate to do so.

So when you try to steer the topic away from Islam, and then claim that I am the one preventing a discussion of "Is Islam a threat" by insisting that you actually discuss "Is Islam a threat" rather than whatever else you want to steer the topic toward, you expose yourself as an idiot.

I can certainly cede that Hasan has other influences and stresses. I can do that without compromising any position on "Is Islam a threat?"
But your refusal to engage on topic defines you.
If you are not up to it, then just shuffle off.

[DarthMarley]

This is interesting...

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/6710361.html

Meh.

I didn't think the connection to the Mosque was of particular importance.

One media trend as I have mentioned is the notion that it is "jumping to conclusions" to suggest that this was religiously motivated, but somehow not "jumping to conclusions" to insist that it is not religiously motivated.

The murders could be "religiously motivated" and still not be part of any organized plot.

So, the connection between religious beliefs, as have been discussed with other officers, seem to at the least informed his views on the appropriateness of US military action in the M.E., as well as the legitimacy of "Islamic response" to such military and foreign policy actions.

We have certain example in Hasan's past statements which support that view.
Others are so committed to sanitizing that idea from the public consciousness tha tthe idea of "PTSD by proxy" was the problem. This since the officer had not yet been deployed overseas.

[larocque6689]

I wasn't focused too much on the mosque, nor even on the "loner guy can't find a wife" meme, but it was the second-hand conversations on the Jews that perked my interest. And apparently shouting Allah Akbar. I wonder what flipped his switch and why he went off his nut. I think that's a fair question. I'm reminded a little of the Maryland shooter, I think there was an interesting Muslim angle there as well.

I don't know if you can read HuffPo but this is the article referring to Kamram Pasha talking to "Richard" (co-soldier with Hasan) on the latter's views.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kamran-pasha...r_b_348973.html

[DarthMarley]

I wasn't focused too much on the mosque, nor even on the "loner guy can't find a wife" meme, but it was the second-hand conversations on the Jews that perked my interest. And apparently shouting Allah Akbar. I wonder what flipped his switch and why he went off his nut. I think that's a fair question. I'm reminded a little of the Maryland shooter, I think there was an interesting Muslim angle there as well.

I don't know if you can read HuffPo but this is the article referring to Kamram Pasha talking to "Richard" (co-soldier with Hasan) on the latter's views.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kamran-pasha...r_b_348973.html

And elsewhere you can find the articles of Hasan's visits to strip clubs.

Which the 9/11 terrorists also did before their attack.

Hasan is off the ventilator and talking.

It will be interesting to hear what he has to say going forward as charges are brought.

There is still the fundamental problem with those who wish (or hope) to obscure a role for Islam in the motivation of such bad actors.
Just like the ideology of Mao motivates shining Path combatants, or a Christian faith motivates anti-abortion assailants, it seems clear enough the Islam is a factor.

[DarthMarley]

Officials: U.S. Aware of Hasan Efforts to Contact al Qaeda

U.S. intelligence agencies were aware months ago that Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan was attempting to make contact with people associated with al Qaeda, two American officials briefed on classified material in the case told ABC News

At what point should sensitivity to Muslims serving in our armed forces supersede prudent security?

If true, this is another indicator of the negligence of the attitude that asserts "Islam has nothing to do with it, because we want to be multicultural!"

[DarthMarley]

From the 10NOV09 Daily Gut:

So, denying the role militant Islam played in the Fort Hood atrocity is like staring at a shark bite and thinking, "bicycle."

When a fundamentalist kills thirteen innocent people while shouting "allahu akbar," Islam isn't just a small player - it's got a starring role. And now that U.S. intelligence admits Hasan tried to contact al Qaeda, it should make it increasingly hard for anyone to say otherwise.

I say it "should," but it won't.

Look at the news.

Over at Time, thoughtful types speculate over a "secondary trauma" that could have driven Hasan to kill. Never mind terror - one news network tells us we should focus more on "a backlash against Muslim soldiers." On a major website, they want us to ponder the "next McVeigh." And our very own Homeland Security secretary says she's hard at work preventing "a possible wave of anti-Muslim sentiment."

And that's the drill: concern over crimes that have never happened, as opposed to the terror that has. When Americans are murdered in cold blood, the first step in our screwed-up world is to chant, "backlash." Never mind that backlash concerns may have allowed this massacre to occur in the first place. Hasan exhibited more signs than a horoscope - yet fears over appearing politically incorrect kept him around.

The fact is, in mosques all over the world, the desire to destroy the west continues - and our administration still worries about what you might do. The PC thing? Avoid "connecting the dots," but stick to the "square peg in round hole" equation: a troubled man feeling hopeless in a weird world, suddenly snaps and kills people.

But it's more than that. The defiant Muslim living in America has contempt for modern life, your lifestyle, your beliefs. Add to this a rejection of female equality, which pretty much eliminates any chance for a hook-up - and you've got a madman on a mission.

I suppose saying all this makes me a right-wing hate monger. But that's the point. When a man kills Americans in the name of Allah - and you become a bad guy for pointing that out - then it's time to be the bad guy.

It's far better than moaning "why do they hate us."

[larocque6689]

I'm almost hesitant to point out that some have reported that there were 14 victims of the shooting... but that's another thread. No... make it this one... Tee hee..

http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?p=63758451

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 was enrolled on 2004-APR-01.by a vote of 61 to 38. 5 It is also called the. "Laci and Conner's Law."

President Bush signed the bill into law on 2004-APR-6. Scope of the law:
State laws described above, apply to crimes anywhere within the state. However, the federal legislation only applies to certain federal and military crimes:
It applies to crimes committed:

On federal lands,
On Native reservations,
In the military,
In post offices and other federal buildings

You know... they could charge him for that, if they adhered to federal law.

[DarthMarley]

http://www.stallioncornell.com/2009/11/of-...-murderers.html

Now this Muslim doesn’t represent all Muslims any more than Glenn Beck represents all Mormons – and thank heaven he doesn’t. But if a man at a military base had started shouting, “All hail Joseph Smith!” as he gunned down his fellow soldiers, do you think the media would be so circumspect about avoiding mention of his faith?

How do we do anyone a service by ignoring facts?

The thing that is so confusing about this is that even non-violent Islam holds tenets that are antithetical to the American Left. The subjugation of women; the shunning of homosexuals, and intolerance of other faiths are all inherent to Sharia law. I can understand left-wingers who are reluctant to acknowledge the extremist tendencies of their own ideological brethren, but why the reluctance to stand up and acknowledge the failings of a religion that runs counter to much of what they believe?

And please don’t try to tell me it’s because they “respect all faiths” or some such nonsense. They don’t. Leftists despise my faith, and they say so publicly. When a Mormon apostle recently described the oppression the LDS Church has encountered since Proposition 8, he was greeted with howls of derision from the Left. Nobody was worried about hurting our feelings.

Maybe it’s fear, then. Maybe the Left just doesn’t want to poke an angry tiger with a stick. They can beat up on Mormons all they want with no repercussions, but they know if they draw cartoons with Muhammed in them, they’ll start a riot, so they wear kid gloves and “avoid jumping to conclusions.”

I can understand that, I guess, even if I don’t respect it.

[larocque6689]

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/11/20/...urder.html?_r=3

Masked Gunman Kills Russian Priest At Moscow Church

By REUTERS
Published: November 20, 2009

MOSCOW (Reuters) - A masked gunman entered a church and murdered a Russian Orthodox priest who had received death threats for converting Muslims to Christianity and criticizing Islam, prosecutors and church officials said Friday.

The killing could threaten delicate relations between the powerful majority Russian Orthodox Church, which has close ties to the Kremlin, and the country's growing Muslim minority of about 20 million.

The gunman approached priest Daniil Sysoyev, 34, in St Thomas Church in southern Moscow Thursday night, checked his name and then opened fire with a pistol, a spokesman for the investigating committee of the Prosecutor-General's office said.

"The main theory is that religious motives are behind the crime," spokesman Anatoly Bagmet said.

Sysoyev died on the way to hospital. His choirmaster was injured in the attack, Bagmet said, and is in hospital under armed guard.

Sysoyev was from Tatarstan, a predominantly Muslim region of Russia on the Volga river. He was threatened after preaching to Muslims and Christians from other denominations.

"I have received 10 threats via e-mail that I shall have my head cut off (if I do not stop preaching to Muslims)," Sysoyev stated on a television program in February 2008, according to Interfax. "As I see it, it is a sin not to preach to Muslims."

Russia is home to Europe's largest Muslim community and Islam is the country's second-biggest faith, something which Sysoyev criticized.

"Islam is far from being a religion in the way we understand it," he said in one of his video lectures posted on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJNPSyh4zFk&feature=related).

"Islam can be rather compared with projects like National Socialism or the Communist party seeking to create God's kingdom on Earth using humanly instruments," he added.

He also wrote books including "An Orthodox Response to Islam" and "Marrying a Muslim," in which he advised Russian women against taking a Muslim partner.

Russia has seen a religious revival after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the dominant Orthodox Church has become an important political force. Its leader, Patriarch Kirill, is frequently seen in public with Russian and foreign leaders.

But Orthodox bishops have complained that rival Christian denominations are seeking to make converts on its territory and Islam is spreading fast among a sprawling community of migrants from predominantly Muslim republics of the former Soviet Union.

The Russian Patriarch's press service refused to comment on the murder but some of Sysoyev's Orthodox colleagues referred to Muslim attacks on him prior to the killing.

"Father Daniil ... has been periodically receiving e-mails which said he will be treated as 'infidel' if he did not stop polemics with Muslims," Kiril Frolov, the head of the Orthodox Experts Association, told Interfax news agency.

Russia's Chief Mufti Ravil Gainuddin expressed his condolences to the Orthodox Church and to Sysoyev's family. He cautioned against assigning blame prematurely or speculating about the motives for the killing.

<snip>

There's a bit more here:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle6925396.ece