Election 04

[kevinswatch]

Yeah...McCain would make a nice president... Hopefully he'll run in 2008.-jay

[duchess of malfi]

I think Brinn needs to go visit that horrid "God Hates Gays" website.
Then he will see that at least a few (and do I ever hope that is just a few!!!!!) Christians are every bit as radical and hate-filled as some of the Islamic fundamentalists.

I happen to have friends who belong to Islam, btw, from India, and they think the terrorists/fundamentalists are terrifying people, who pervert their religion, and bend it to their own purposes. They are steadfast in maintaining that their religion is one of tolerance and peace.
www.freep.com/jobspage/arabs/index.htm

[Brinn]

Duchess,

Do you truly believe that I think all Christians are good and all Islamics are evil? If so you've missed my point or I haven't explained it properly.
Regardless, christianity as an institution, does not support murder and torture as appropriate ways to punish homosexuality. Sharia law does.

As we all understand, there are moderates and extremists in both religions. However, the extremist minority in Islam coupled with the culture and unpopularity of western influence serve to stifle any moderate or liberal voices. Even if the moderate peace loving muslims are the majority they hesitate to speak out or contradict the fundamentalist minority for fear of shame or reprisal. And the fundamentalist voices are always the loudest.

I understand that not all members of the islamic faith are terrorists however I am equally aware that most terrorists are members of the islamic faith. To deny that fact is to deny the obvious.

I am certain that extremists would call your Indian friends infidels for their liberal views and would take issue with the fact that they are obviously not prepared to take up the sword for Islam.

Here are some quotes from Larry Elder's interview with Robert Spencer, Islamic scholar and author of "Onward Muslim Soldiers: How Jihad Still Threatens America and the West". In this interview Elder addresses the question of violence as a core concept of Islamic religion.

Larry Elder: Is Islam a religion of peace that's been hijacked by Islamic extremists, as George W. Bush says?

Robert Spencer: There are millions of peaceful Muslims . . . but the fact is that radical Muslims are using core texts of Islam that are deeply rooted in Islamic theology, tradition, history and law to justify their actions, and those radical Muslims are able to recruit and motivate terrorists around the world by appealing to these core Islamic texts. . . . As far as the radical, violent elements of the religion go, they are very deeply rooted, and we are naive in the extreme if we don't recognize that and try to get moderate Muslims to acknowledge it so that real reform can take place.

Elder: Have some translations of the Koran taken out the more extreme statements?

Spencer: The only Koran that really matters is what's in Arabic, because as far as traditional Islamic theology goes, Allah . . . was speaking to Muhammad through the angel Gabriel, and the language is intrinsic, can't be separated from the message. The fact is that what's in Arabic is very clear . . . but in two opposite directions. What you have are very many verses of peace and tolerance, and also very many verses sanctioning and mandating violence against non-believers. . . .

You find many moderate Muslim spokesmen and American-Muslim advocates in this country, who quote you the peaceful and tolerant verses, and no reference to the violent verses. . . . When you read Islamic theologians themselves . . . you find they actually confront this problem directly. . . . Some of the most respected thinkers in Islamic history say that when you come upon these kinds of disagreements -- where you see peace in one place and violence in the other -- you have to go with what was revealed last, that cancels out what was revealed before. Unfortunately, for the moderates, the violent verses were revealed later and they cancel out the peaceful ones -- but you won't hear this from the American Muslim advocacy groups. . . .

What we need to see is a forthright acknowledgement of it and reform from moderate Muslims themselves, the same way that the Pope has apologized for the Crusades and Christianity at large . . . has repudiated the theology that gave rise to them. So we need to see . . . moderates on a large scale repudiating the theology that has led to violent jihad, which the radicals are using to justify their actions.

Elder: You write, "Muslims must present non-Muslims with the three choices of Sura 9:29 of the (Koran): conversion, submission with second-class status under Islamic rule, or death."

Spencer: Correct. This is a deeply rooted tradition in Islam. Islam is unique among religions in having a developed doctrine theology in law that mandates violence against non-believers. Not all Muslims take it seriously, but the radicals do, and they are working to recruit and motivate terrorists. So . . . whenever anybody says we want to institute Sharia Islamic law in a country, they mean these laws. They do not provide for the equality of rights and dignity of non-Muslims in a Muslim society . . . (but) mandate just the opposite -- that non-Muslims are not to be given equality of rights, but denied various jobs because they're not allowed to hold authority over Muslims.

They must pay a special tax called the jizya, which is referred to in the verse you mentioned. . . . Their humiliation and inferior status is enforced with numerous other regulations, still part of Islamic law, and liable to be enforced by radical Muslims and who want to gain power and institute Islamic law. . . .

Like the Bible there can be many interpretations of the Koran however in Islam there is no synod nor figurehead like the Pope to provide ecclesiastical rulings or guidance thus factions can interpret the text as they see fit and there is nothing and no one to gainsay them.

[A Gunslinger]

Here is a posting about Brinn's author, Spencer. I will leave it up to the reader (it is long) to decide what they think without my editorializing. The writer is a fan, and not exactly neutral...bear that in mind.

Robert Spencer: An Important - and Dangerous - Man

Last Thursday evening I was fortunate enough to attend a talk given by Robert Spencer, author of several books on radical Islam, such as Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the World's Fastest Growing Faith and Onward Muslim Soldiers: How Jihad Still Threatens America and the West. He blogs regularly at his website Jihad Watch and is a frequent contributor to web sites such as FrontPageMag.com. Regular blog readers should be familiar with his work, and I have linked it here any number of times.

The evening was co-sponsored by the Middle East Forum with the specific topic for the talk billed as "How Radical Muslims Recruit."

The event was held at Temple Emanuel in Newton, Massachusetts - seemingly home to a large congregation as there was much going on in the Temple's various rooms on that Thursday night. I arrived a bit early to find a smallish room laid out with some refreshments. I forgot to count the attendance, but I'd just guess that by the time the talk started there were about 75 people there. The crowd tended strongly toward the higher end of the age range, and at 36, I think I may have been the second youngest person in the room. That's not exactly an encouraging sign for the future, particular when one thinks of all the young people out there receiving the radicals' message on the other side.

This is a fairly long piece, so please click on the link below (or the permalink) to read the entire thing.

After some brief remarks from the host, including a standing moment of silence for the day's victims of terror in Spain, and a speech given by someone on the Temple's activities in support of the victims of terror in Israel, it was Spencer's turn.

Physically, Spencer appears as a bit of a nebish, not tall, slightly round but not fat, well-groomed black hair and beard. He approaches the podium slightly hunched over, carrying his briefcase under his arm, possessing more the bearing of a Linux-nerd than the martial presence that might have the radicals in the Middle East squirming. But, unlike a Computer Science professor who could tell you chapter and verse of the Windows Programming Guide, and the best way to set up a 500-node network, Spencer quotes Islamic history. He can go toe to toe with anyone, anywhere, anytime. For instance, watch him demonstrate his depth of knowledge in this FrontPage Symposium.

When he puts down his bag and steps up to the mic, his stance becomes more upright. Here is Spencer in his element, expounding on his subject, feeling comfortable, ready to quote chapter and verse and share his knowledge with a willing audience.

What follows from here is more or less a transfer of the notes - more like scribbles - I took that evening. It is not necessarily a coherent narrative, nor in any way a transcript. I had no recorder with me. Any errors of fact, portrayal or understanding should be seen as my own, and not those of Spencer. I may have misunderstood something I heard, and I certainly did not write down every word.

As a display of the immediacy of the subject, Spencer referred to his FrontPage Magazine article which had appeared that very day, American Jihad, that gave a run-down of all of the "Jihad activity" that had occurred that week in the USA - various arrests and indictments, as well as the continuing controversy surrounding the Boston Mosque.

He spoke about his website, Jihad Watch, and how easy it is for him to keep it updated and filled with news on the subject. His readers will know how true this is. Spencer is indefatigable at keeping his site updated with multiple daily posts, none of which comes across as filler (unlike some blogs I know *cough*). The scope of Jihad Activity, particularly of the violent sort, worldwide is great enough that there's plenty of work to be done. This may be an indicator that the "tiny minority" of radicals who some like to tell us cause all the trouble may not be so tiny after all.

The answer to the question of what to do is that we must deal with the root source of the problem - a military solution will not be enough. When Spencer talks about "root causes" however, he is not talking about the self-blame favored by so many on the Left - that America's foreign policy and Israel are to blame, that America's support of foreign dictatorships is the biggest part of the problem, for instance, or that the "plight of the Palestinians" is the cause of terror, or even that what we face is some sort of deserved retribution against Western Europe for the Crusades. When Spencer talks about root causes, he is talking about a structural problem within Islam itself. Right or wrong, this in itself is a refreshing change from the morass of self-doubt and blame many of us are used to being treated to.

Using the case of the Lackawanna Six as an example of how the Islamists recruit, Spencer explained how they transform previously basically moderate, secular Muslims into Jihadis. The six came from a basically secular Yemeni immigrant community. They exhibited no outward signs of be Islamist. They drank alcohol and lived with their girlfriends. Along comes, do I have the name right, Kamal Darwish, a popular guy, football player, who had spent time in Saudi Arabia. He comes along and offers them something, like many cult leaders, some meaning for their lives, in this case, a path back to true Islam. Next thing you know, they're off to Afghanistan meeting Osama bin Laden.

Likewise, the thoroughly-seeming secular Mike Hawash. Before long, he's growing a beard and indulging in Jihad.

In any case, that is the true source of terrorism - the convincing sale of "real" Islam to receptive minds.

He spoke about the case of Abu Bakir Bashir, thought to be the head of Jemaah Islamiah, the group responsible for the Bali bombing. Bashir on one hand says that the Bali bombing was probably done by the CIA, but on the other hand was the required responsibility of Muslims as a Holy War on non-believers. Bashir is so popular that Indonesia will not be able to hold him in prison any longer - another example of the power of the "tiny" minority.

This by way of explaining the Islam is unique among World Religions in advocating violence against non-believers.

Here is where Spencer begins to part with his colleague, fellow Middle East Forum member and Islam expert, Daniel Pipes. Where Pipes is careful to explain that the problem is Radical Islam - an Islam perverted for violence, Spencer is not quite so sanguine. For Spencer, "Radical" Islam is true Islam. Those who practice real Islam are bound to be involved with, and advocate violent Jihad. More on this as we go on.

The are many moderate Muslims, but there is no moderate Islam. Yes, Islam's advocates may selectively quote from the Koran to show its tolerant side, and Spencer gave a number of examples, but there are two problems: The first is that this is the message usually only given in English for outsider's consumption, and second, there is the theory of Naskh - "cancellation," or abrogation. That is, Allah can change his mind on things, so that verses that represent a time later in the Prophet's life may cancel out earlier, often more conciliatory messages, and these later (chronologically) verses are what the real commandments are based on.

Interestingly, the Islamic calendar starts when Mohammed took over the leadership of the tribe of Medina - the polical beginning - not Mohammed's birthday, nor the anniversary of his first revelation or some other event one might logically presume to be the most important date. This is significant.

For the non-believer, death, conversion or subjugation are the only acceptable options according to Islam, and Muslims who are telling the truth about their faith. There must be a reform of these options or terrorism will never end. There will always be those who seek violent Jihad.

That ended the "talk" period, and it was on into the question period. I was wondering if Spencer, like Dershowitz might have his own "intellectual stalker" to spice things up a bit, but no such luck. Everyone was quite well behaved. I did not write down all the questions verbatim, so again I present my impressions of things. Things went fairly informally, so some of the questions went back and forth a bit conversationally. Following are some of the main points I jotted down.

One question was about reform. Why did Islam get "stuck" in this violent form? Both Christians and Jews have bad stuff in their books, too.

In Islam, there is nothing comparable to the Rabbinic tradition that involves, no requires, self-criticism. Islam's trouble is that the Book is pure revelation with no human element. It is "all" you need, while the others have assimilated revision and change for practical purposes. As an example, Spencer told the probably apocryphal story of Caliph Umar who burned the great library of Alexandria saying, "If the books agree with the Koran they are superfluous, if they disagree they are heretical."

Someone asked about Irshan Manji and Spencer said she's an apostate so she could be under death sentence (unlike Spencer who was never a Muslim so he isn't) and that she's good but it will take millions more like her to effect real change. Even the Sufis are the Jihadis in Chechnya.


Muslims are peaceful by inertia, not by theory. If they are not pursuing Jihad, it is by laziness and not backed by any theory. Here Spencer bragged a bit that he has debated the advocates and can take them on on this point - that is, he can take the "Radical's" case and beat those who say that Islam is peaceful. The Radicals are the ones who have it right. He quoted a Muslim who said, "All Muslims support violent Jihad - most just won't get off the couch to do anything about it."


The University of Alexandria in Egypt had a drive for volunteers for suicide bombing. They got 2000 volunteers. This is not a small problem. There is no guarantee of paradise in the Koran. The only guarantee of paradise is for those who are killed fighting for Allah.


The Black Muslims are heretical. The Nation of Islam has nothing to do with real Islam (its bizarre racial theories are a for-instance). The trouble is that the NOI members start to self-identify as real Muslims and they go out and find out about true Islam and wind up finding it in its violent form.


Asked what's changed things in recent years, Spencer says that Saudi money and Iran's success have been big factors.

Attaturk's abolition of the Caliphate sticks in the Islamist's craw. It was shortly after this abolition that the Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1928.

In the case of the Saudis, money is the problem. Spencer rejects the idea, pushed by Dore Gold among many others, that Wahabi Islam is the real problem. According to Spencer, the Wahabis are not the only violent Muslims, it's just that they're the ones with the money.

The success of the Islamic Revolution in Iran has also provided a base for the launching of violent Jihad.

So basically, nothing has actually changed in recent decades, it's just that Muslims have more means now [I've got a few thoughts on this I think I'll make into a separate post, later. - Sol]. As an example, the English in India had to contain the Muslims and their constant Jihads and deal with the Hindus. A guy named Khan made up the idea of Jihad as an inner struggle merely as a way to sell a moderate face of Islam to outsiders. It has no true validity.


The domestic policy front is muddled. No one can deal with the truth as they would be labeled anti-Muslim. Look at Spencer himself, he has trouble getting his work published or reviewed.


The closest thing to a confrontational question came from someone who took note of the fact that Spencer graduated from UNC and asked what the difference was between Pat Robertson and Louis Farrakhan. Spencer had to search for an answer for a moment, but when he found it, it was a good one. "Pat Robertson isn't allied with people who want to murder us."


And those were all the notes I took. Spencer was affable and hung around and talked to everyone who wanted to afterward. He seemed in no hurry to leave. Not surprisingly, his personal safety is a concern as he was circumspect with regard to giving details of where he lived, and no, Robert, I did not have a weapon hidden there under my coat.

I did introduce myself, "Hi, I'm Solomon from Solomonia.com," to which Spencer responded with a somewhat quizzical look and an "Ohh...uhhh...yeah, I...think I've seen that on the little referrer thing..." Ahh, basking in the appreciation of my admiring public. Blogging - the pathway to instant celebrity.



To conclude: Spencer's message is not exactly hopeful. The picture he paints (and can backup) is a bleak one. His is the message of true Islam - the message of violence in the name of Allah as the rule, not the exception. True Islam represents a danger to the non-believer (and even to the believer when faced with a Muslim from a different sect) everywhere and always and in cases where it does not seem to, the danger is right there, lying just below the surface. Ignore it at your own peril. Barring a deep reformation of the religion by its practitioners, this will not change. Given the violent manner with which apostates are handled, it's not likely to happen any time soon, either.

Ultimately, the real questions for us are political. We can't control Islam, so what do we control? What can we do, and what does this all mean for the War on Terror? Has George Bush been too soft on the Islamic World? Should we be at war now with Saudi Arabia and Iran? Should we nuke Mecca?

It seems obvious that we can't and shouldn't. I know there are many on the right side of the political blogosphere who believe the Administration has been too conciliatory, too slow to confront some of these nations (like Saudi Arabia), and that inviting Muslim groups to the White House for a Ramadan feast is absurd, but just imagine...imagine that George W. Bush spoke like Robert Spencer. I'll even let you imagine that Bush himself has Spencer's depth of knowledge and ability to speak and debate on the subject. If he spoke this confrontational "truth" he'd be destroyed politically so fast it would make your head spin. He'd be vilified in the foreign and domestic press as a racist and a bigot. He'd never have a chance to get his message out, or really have the debate. He'd lose the election and set the cause of resisting Islamic extremism back a decade or more. The press and the body politic would be so busy with forcing the world to fit into their pre-conceived desires to pose and feel good about themselves, that "tolerance," and "acceptance" would trump "truth" - as it almost always does.

No. We must hope our leaders recognize the truth, such as it is, see where we are and where we need to get to and then devise us ways of getting there step-by-step. That means that as long as I get the sense that George Bush "gets it," I'll cut him some slack with the steps he takes moving us along and not risking an unnecessary war against the entire Muslim world. He must be the one to figure out the best ways of defending our lives and our civilization without overcoming the inertia of all those millions of Muslims out there. If the truth is that those Muslims still sitting on the couch aren't really practicing true Islam, that they're merely lazy, I say let me get them another Coke and a bag of potato chips as I don't want to do anything to make them feel like they have to stand up - and that's a difficult balancing act to perform. Whether our methods tend toward the carrot or toward the stick and how much of either are a balance of circumstances that are both in our hands, and the hands of "the enemy."

We need people like Spencer to help us with finding the truth, and assist us in keeping ourselves immune from those on "the other side" who would deceive us, but we need the politicos, too (hence the title of this piece). Intellectuals like Robert Spencer and Bernard Lewis (for instance), provide us with information and advice, but it's up to the politicians (and I use that not as a dirty word in this instance) to decide what to do about it. I'm all for shouting the truth from the rooftops, but it must do some good. It must be done in such a way that it accomplishes some goal, not just makes us feel better for having screamed. I'm all for standing sword in hand, and even using that sword when necessary, but we will need to remember to keep one hand free, so that when the reformers come, we will have a hand empty with which to greet them.

Is Spencer "right?" That is beyond my pay-grade to assess on an academic basis. I can only listen to him speak, read what he writes, watch him debate knowledgeable opponents and then try to assess how truthful it all sounds. I can also measure his message against what I see happening in the world around me. On those bases, I find Spencer's message compelling.



Update: As a follow-up to this piece, I decided to email Mr. Spencer for a short reaction and a follow-up question. He has been kind enough to reply.

My question: Who has the authority to "reform" Islam. From whom or from whence must the reform come? Is it even possible given Islam's current structure?

Spencer: ...As for reform, the senior ulama of each Islamic nation would have to make a statement enunciating the new understanding. This is very unlikely to happen, of course, and even if it did, it wouldn't bind all Muslims. But it would have a significant impact.

In reaction to reading the piece: "It's a good summary. My wife didn't like the "nebish" part, but appreciated your saying I wasn't fat! [Heh, sorry, just my way of finding a creative way of providing an image for "Non-threatening physically, intimidating mentally." -Sol] Anyway, I agree with your assessment of the position GWB is in: I wouldn't expect him to say what I am saying. I do think, however, that he could fight terrorism without saying anything about the nature of Islam, and such statements would not be missed. Also, violent Islam is not the only true Islam, but it is a broad tradition within Islam."


So, a big "Thank You" to Robert Spencer for the illuminating evening and for taking time to respond to my piece. I strongly recommend hearing what this man has to say whenever you have the chance, and be sure to check in on his website, Jihad Watch, and its sister site Dhimmi Watch on a regular basis.

Update: Special bonus feature: Here is a scan of a couple of "pages" of the notes I took - such as they are - actually, each page is a section of an 8 1/2 x 11 sheet of paper folded into quarters and scribbled on. Now wouldn't it be nice if the mainstream press provided access to the raw data they prepare their items from?

[danlo]

at least a few

I don't think duchess is talking about all Xtians as we can see that you, Brinn, aren't talking about all of Islam

[Tranquil Hegemony]

As I was saying to Brinn privately the other day, probably the only more volitile subject than politics is religion. Unfortunately, the two seem as fused as gold and platinum in white gold, and just as unpredictable as wild magic (how's that for an SRD tie-in!)

It's good that Spencer sees the potential for some reform within the Muslim world. And yes, when I suggested Islam might mellow with age, that's just my hope.

But let's say Spencer's logic is unimpeachable, that everyone in the western world decides this guy is right on. If we treat Islam as the enemy, then I guarantee things will turn out just as he predicts - a self-fulfilling prophecy as it were. I find that an unacceptable result, so I continue to give the Muslim world the benefit of the doubt. I'm hoping somebody will figure out how to deal with terrorism without escalating the violence.

[Brinn]

Danlo,

Your point is taken, but in the context of a reply to my previous post (and one adressed directly at me by name) it seems to intimate that I do not acknowledge that there are "violent" christians and "peaceful" muslims. I don't have to visit God Hates Gays (although I have seen that sight on this forum I believe) to understand that very basic point.

A re-read of my post will show that my premise was not that ALL christians were peaceful and loving and that ALL Muslims are violent but rather to show that the basis and foundation of these religions are very different and advocate very different positions when it comes to those who are either not of the faith or who are considered deviant.

I acknowledge both you and Duchess's point but want to make sure my positions are clear. Someone reading Duchy's post without having read my much longer previous post could conclude that I'm a christian apologist and anti-islamic as it is worded as a direct reply to me. I wouldn't have reacted as strongly had the Duchess used generic collective pronouns such as "one would only need to vist the website God Hates Gays...".

These issues are difficult to address without offending anyone's sensibilities but I think that we do a wonderful job of keeping things courteous despite the sensitive topics we raise. Besides, Duchy knows that I mean no harm.

[Tranquil Hegemony]

Brinn - I want to say and I want everyone here to know that you make me think very hard about my positions. For that I thank you and you have my highest respect.

Anyone who has ever watched a WWII documentary or war movie understands the concept of planes as missles (Kamikaze). If you want to flog Condi for her choice of words that's fine but the true issue is what could have been done to prevent it?

Good point, and you're absolutely right. It just cheeses me off when she (and Rummy) keep saying that. It's not only an outright lie, but the fact they both used almost the exact same phrasing, and both issued the same retraction, tells me they were both instructed to say these things. That's playing politics with 9/11. To quote Fry from Futurama:

I'm literally angry with rage!

If they [the FAA] had [been alerted to be aware of anything suspicious], they could have gotten word to officials sooner. Those planes could have been shot down.

You can truly say that with a straight face?!?! Imagine the backlash and repurcussions had a civilian passenger jet (or four) been shot down by the US military with the administration's consent and based upon suspicions and vague intelligence.

It's exactly what we'd do now; and yeah, hindsight is 20/20. I just wanted to point out that it could have been done, at least 1500 lives could have been saved in the second tower, and those who died at the Pentagon. The immediate reaction would been shock and outrage sure, but as the facts came to light we would have been thankful for the lives saved. GWB would have been a hero.

Those air traffic controllers knew for some time that these planes were going way off course. But they weren't warned about a potential terrorist plot, so they just sat there scratching their asses. And dammit, when that first plane hit, Bush should have known it wasn't just "some bad pilot". That's just outright incompetance. This wasn't a Cesna, it was a freaking 747. And four of them went drastically off course at almost the same time.

If there was no USA would the KSA still be a target?

If there was no USA there would be no al Qaeda... maybe I'm missing the point here.

The simple fact is that the things they hate are the direct result of respect for individual rights and subordination of church to state. You can couch your words or spin it any way you like but when you peel away the rhetoric and the trappings you see that individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and freedom of the individual unconstrained by religion are the root cause of the problems.

Here's a question I'm not sure I know the answer to: What if the US was a strict Christian theocracy, with none of the freedoms we currently enjoy. Would they hate us more or less?

How about if we were a "godless" communist nation with no rights or freedoms?

(I guess my point here is that it's probably a combination of our freedom, the society that rises from that freedom, and our "infidelity" that they hate)

That is the understatement of understatements. Read up on Sharia law and its view on homosexuality. Your comparison of fundamental christianity and Islam, even with the "matter of degree" qualification you've added is ludicrous. The vast majority of fundamental Christians oppose homosexuality but do not advocate torture or execution.

Perhaps not, but the bible makes it pretty clear. If we're going to judge Muslims by their doctrine, then we should judge Christians and Jews by theirs. And as was pointed out, Fred Phelps very much thinks gays should be executed. I don't know if fundamentalists such as Pat Robertson would go that far, or if they just won't go that far publicly. I stand by my statement - it's just a matter of degree.

Until islam secularizes education and closes the madrases, allows for scholarly criticism of the Koran instead of crying "infidel" at every occasion, accepts religious tolerance instead of forcing compliance through fear and persecution, and encourages democracy over theocracy and/or tyranny you will not see the reformation you hope for. And that's no bull!

Agreed.

[Brinn]

Gunslinger,

Excellent post. It's one of the most interesting reads on Islam and terrorism that I've seen in a while. Spencer, IMHO has the problem nailed although solutions seem few and far between. Having posted that, I would like your editorial view on the subject. Based upon your previous post it seems that we share similar views on this issue but I 'm not certain and I want to make sure I slander you if we disagree.

[Brinn]

Tranquil. Thank you for the kind words. I don't have time right now but I'll address your most recent post shortly. Thanks for the reply and the interesting discussion all. Talk to ya'll soon.

[Tranquil Hegemony]

It's funny, I joined this discussion back when we were talking about Michael Moore, and I criticized him for being full of hot air. I expected someone to point out that most of the stuff I've said is as out there as he is :) It's just that since he's a public figure, and I'm just some guy, I hold him to a higher standard than I hold myself to ;)

[[Syl]]

...christianity as an institution, does not support murder and torture as appropriate ways to punish homosexuality.

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus 20:13.

In my opinion, just about any religion that runs with the bit between the teeth is going to kill people - Jainism being the only exception that comes to mind. For every religion created, there is the beautiful side which seeks to elevate and the ugly side which seeks to subjugate. Law keeps clerics civil.

Anyway... yeah, voted for Nader last time, though I don't regret it. I'd rather vote by my conscience and lose than vote against a candidate and win (though in the case of 2000, it would've just been one more vote that didn't matter). My conscience isn't telling me Nader this time, though. I'd vote for McCain, too, but I have no qualms voting for Kerry (yes, I'm a veteran, and don't get me started on veteran groups).

[duchess of malfi]

Brinn, I'm sorry if I upset you or made you feel as if I were targetting you for something. I was in a hurry to make it to an appointment this morning when I made that post.

I was responding to this:
Brinn said:

____________________________________________________________
tranquil wrote:
even gay marriage probably pisses them off as much as any fundie here at home. (In fact I don't see much difference in the fundamentalist Islamic and fundamentalist Christian ideals, except as a matter of degree.)
_____________________________________________________________
That is the understatement of understatements. Read up on Sharia law and its view on homosexuality. Your comparison of fundamental christianity and Islam, even with the "matter of degree" qualification you've added is ludicrous. The vast majority of fundamental Christians oppose homosexuality but do not advocate torture or execution. Fundamental Islam and Sharia law condemn homosexuality and advocate imprisonment, torture and execution as appropriate punishment for practicing it. I guess you could say that they both dislike homosexuality and the difference lies in the degree or severity of response but that's like saying the difference between a splinter and open heart surgery is only a matter of degree. It may be true at the most basic level but it is not indicative of the drastic differences that truly exist.

I wasn't aware if you knew that there are (hopefully a very, very few) supposed Christians here in the US who would definately not mind the death of homosexual people.
I certainly don't think the majority of Christians, fundamental or otherwise, would feel like the God Hates Gays group, even those that think homosexuality is a sin -- most of them would, I believe, think that murder would be a much more heinous sin.

And none of the Muslims I have personally known would think like the gods hate Gays people, either, for that matter. Perhaps coming to America and mixing with Muslims of other sects, not to mention coming to know Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc, as coworkers and friends might make a difference? Or perhaps it is because the people I have known are very well educated (a nuclear engineer, three pharmacists, a variety small business owners, etc), all of whom came to America from other lands for economic and other freedoms to begin with? It also makes me wonder how many members of a potential intellectual/upper middle class of some nations (such as Egypt) might have come to the West to persue these freedoms? And if such people as the ones I have known, could have a moderating effect on their homelands if they were able to stay and make anything like the lives they have made for themselves here? If they had been able to build their businesses and provide decent employment for others?

I would also point out that the roots of all terrorism is something that needs to be addressed. We have our own home grown terrorists here, too. Examples could include the Oklahoma City bombing and the people who shoot doctors and bomb clinics that provide abortions. Certainly they have not killed as many people as happened on 9/11 -- but as far as I know, they are still a background threat. And you really don't hear much about those people after 9/11...

What causes these people to act this way???? Whether an Islamic terrorist or an American who would blow up a federal building with a day care center inside it? Where does such hatred and anger come from?

[SoulBiter]

Im a Republican but I wont be voting for Bush. After the election I had some hope that things would turn out well especially with the Republicans controlling both houses of congress and a Republican president. But this has been a disappointing 4 years....

What happened to fiscal conservatism? Gone out the window. This is a spend happy administration who when raises the debt ceiling at the drop of a hat without even considering cuts. Didnt Bush learn his lesson from Ronald Reagan. Reagan had the right ideas... make a smaller govt, strong military, states rights, and one of his biggest regrets was not being able to follow through on lowering the debt. (A borken campaign promise)Instead, in order to pass legislation for his tax cuts, he had to allow the Democratic congress of the time to get some pork for their states.

Where is President Bush's Veto pen? Did someone steal it so he cant Veto anything? That is one of the most valuable tools a president has is that pen and yet he hasnt even threatened a veto.. much less put pen to it!!!

What happened to smaller govt? We have seen the largest increase in the size of govt in many years.

What happened to states rights? The administration seems to think the answer to all ills is to get the federal govt involved.

No.. this is a Republican administration in name only. Are they liberal? No.. but they surely arent conservatives!

And tax cuts to promote spending which will raise production.. only good for the short term. VERY short term. Business only raises production with SUSTAINED spending on goods and services.. not on a spike of spending, which is what those tax cuts were.

I could go on and on but you can see that this year.. I hold my nose and vote for Kerry.[/b]

[Brinn]

The old testament also condones genocide and many other practices that are no longer part of church canon. Christianity has undergone a reformation and now, save for Christian Reconstructionists and other fringe hate groups, modern christian scholars and theologians go out of their way to reinterpret that verse of Leviticus so as to invalidate the notion that death is a just punishment for homosexuality.

When was the last time a homosexual was put to death for his/her sexuality with church approval in the US? Where are the instances of state condoned executions of gays? If these types of things occur at all, they occur well outside of mainstream religion and society.

Fact Index.com estimates that the Iranian government has executed more than 4000 homosexuals since the Islamic revolution and that the Taliban has publically executed at least 10 homosexuals for their sexual conduct.

Respectfully, there is no comparison.

[Brinn]

No problem Duchess...

[[Syl]]

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified [it] by his angel unto his servant John: Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw. Blessed [is] he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time [is] at hand. Revelation 1:1-3

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.

Dunno, almost everybody I've met (no theologians) believes that though much of it is symbolism and metaphor, the bible is the Word of God, and you can't really argue with it. I believe the West is just enlightened enough to conveniently skip the parts of the bible that they don't jibe with.

Granted, most of the ugly stuff is in the Old Testament, but considering Leviticus (Vayikra) is in the Torah, it's pretty much in the roots of Judaism, and hence, judeo-christian beliefs. "Our" book, despite our interpretations, is no better than "their" book.

[Brinn]

IMHO, the validity of the Bible or the Koran as factual or metaphorical is not germane to the discussion. My contention is that the interpretation and the consequences of such interpretation are very different in the two religions. Christianity has undergone reformation and modernization and it's pracitioners, for the most part, are enlightened and have moved away from or reinterpreted those questionable verses. A significant portion of Muslim society has not and the religion, on the whole, has not experienced any significant or widespread reformation.

Furls herself is an excellent example of the christain side of this argument. I can't think of a more compassionate or devout person on this board and yet it appears that she has no difficulty reconciling her christian faith and her views on homosexuality. I would be very interested to hear her thoughts on the subject.

[[Syl]]

Ok, Brinn, but I was going off your statement of "Christianity as an institution," not Christianity as it exists today or Christianity as it's practiced. Your argument made it sound as if Christianity is inherently better than Islam. If some people had their way (if our socio-economic status wasn't what it is), it would be and has been remarkably similar. It's about the mindset of the populace and about the laws that govern them, not the religion.

[Brinn]

I probably should have referred to it as "modern christianity as an institution". I agree that the mindset of the populace and the laws of the governing society are of paramount importance and I think this speaks diirectly to and supports my contention. Most Islamic states don't have a seperation of church and state, most efforts at reformation are not moving islam towards liberalization but rather towards stricter interpretation (e.g. wahabism), and most importantly, in islamic society, sharia law amongst other things (Haddiths etc...) form the basis for law, government and society and cannot be seperated from the religion.