Discussion:
Were I a Muslim
(too old to reply)
drahcir
2010-03-30 04:54:06 UTC
Permalink
First of all, thanks to the moderator for rejuvenating the group. From
today's news:

Double suicide bombings kill 37 on Moscow subway

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_russia_subway_blast

Done by Chechens.

Now, were I a Muslim, I'd be asking myself some questions. As we look
at the world in the past days, weeks, months, years, decades, we see a
nearly unique attitude in Islam - of all religions, only Islam
produces so many people who are so willing to kill innocents. To all
of you who want to start preaching about the Tamil Tigers or the Irish
Republican Army, stow it - if we look at the numbers, whether they be
the numbers of victims or incidents, there is simply no comparison.
Statistically, non-Muslim mass murderers who target innocents are
statiscally irrelevant. So we have to ask, why? It must be something
about Islam, since Chechens have little in common with Afghans or
Iraqis except for religion. Islam is clearly imparting an approach to
very many of its adherents whereby killing innocents is justified.
Now, normally, the killing of innocents is abhorrent to civilized men,
even areligious ones. Something in Islam is overcoming that natural
abhorrence, as is proven by the numbers. Given this singular
proclivity, if we then assume that the killing of innocents is by
definition evil, and we assume that God is good, then God cannot have
written the Koran. This is true regardless of whether one believes
that the Koran directly inspires evil acts, or whether those evil acts
are a result of "misinterpretation". This is because in addition to
being all-good, God is all-powerful, and as such is certainly capable
of writing a set of instructions that is not inclined to be
"misinterpreted". Neither can this proclivity be assigned to "free
will", because God is the God of all men, and he cannot possibly issue
instructions to some of his adherents that would cause, either
directly or by misinterpretation, the deaths of others of his
adherents.
iconoclast@yahoo.com
2010-04-04 06:00:54 UTC
Permalink
***@yahoo.com
View profile

Apr 3, 3:52 pm
Post by drahcir
First of all, thanks to the moderator for rejuvenating the group.
From
Post by drahcir
Double suicide bombings kill 37 on Moscow subway
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_russia_subway_blast
Done by Chechens.
Now, were I a Muslim, I'd be asking myself some questions. As we look
at the world in the past days, weeks, months, years, decades, we see a
nearly unique attitude in Islam - of all religions, only Islam
produces so many people who are so willing to kill innocents.
Drahcir mutters to himself:

"As a militant, politically active Jewish Zionist I must be prepared
to do this, to call for introspection but *instead* to actually make
clever assertions of fact such as those above. I must struggle to
limit "the killing of innocents" to religions. I must also exclude
relevant context when making my argument. After all it's justified by
the ideology and sowing hate of the Muslim World in the West is a
very
high priority. The term should never have gotten out on the street,
but yes, "It's good for the Jews." That's how we keep the United
States embroiled in its wars to maintain Israel's strategic position
in the region by battering our enemies."

To all
Post by drahcir
of you who want to start preaching about the Tamil Tigers or the Irish
Republican Army, stow it - if we look at the numbers, whether they be
the numbers of victims or incidents, there is simply no comparison.
"As a militant, politically active Jewish Zionist, the cause requires
me to assert unsustainable things about "numbers" and a failure of
"comparisons," while at the same time carefully avoiding relevant
context. I must strive mightily to put words in the mouths of Muslims
about what happens outside the region and then to tell them to "stow
it. This is consistent with all the best Hasbara principles."
Post by drahcir
Statistically, non-Muslim mass murderers who target innocents are
statiscally irrelevant. So we have to ask, why?
"I am a militant, politically active Jewish Zionist. Therefore I
must,
after taking several deep breaths, be willing to do things like this,
i.e., to assert that non-Muslim mass murderers of innocents are
'statistically irrelevant'! My personal reputation is distinctly
secondary. I know that the ends justify the means and that it's a
very
heavy responsibility in my capacity as a Zionist supporter of Israel
against Muslims. I shall have to soldier-on even to the extent of
following such an absurdity with a "Why?" and than answering it
myself
as I do below."

It must be something
Post by drahcir
about Islam, since Chechens have little in common with Afghans or
Iraqis except for religion.
"I really wanted to say that it must be something about Christianity
as that coincides with my amply justified attitude toward our history
with them, but again the cause of Greater Israel is more important.
So
I must minimize what I know to be the fact, that Islam is easily as
pervasive in the day to day lives of Muslims as is Judaism in the
lives of religious Jews. Divide and conquer is one of our oldest
rules."
Post by drahcir
Islam is clearly imparting an approach to
very many of its adherents whereby killing innocents is justified.
"Here I benefit from having limited my assertions about the killing
of
innocents to religion. I'm immune from discussion of the killing of
innocents by secular Jewish socialists such as Trotsky in the Red
Terror, by Jewish Stalinists who had a major role in the the Gulag
Archipelago, by Ben-Gurion and by military Zionist such as Sharon. I
further the Zionist cause in the Middle East by demonizing Muslims
who
are virtually all religious. Of course it's good for Israel that I do
this because the stupid Americans have actually come to believe that
the war they are fighting is against ISLAM per se. You see, we call
it
a "war on terror," but as that's idiotic it degenerates into a war
against the Muslim World, much in our interests, as the Americans are
duped into battering OUR enemies."
Post by drahcir
Now, normally, the killing of innocents is abhorrent to civilized men,
even areligious ones. Something in Islam is overcoming that natural
abhorrence, as is proven by the numbers.
"Of course I give no numbers but I must pretend to have them at my
fingertips. I also must pretend to the emotion of abhorrence which as
a hard Zionist revolutionary I don't entertain except in the case of
Gilad Shalit and the rare deaths of Jews killed by the Resistance."

Given this singular
Post by drahcir
proclivity, if we then assume that the killing of innocents is by
definition evil, and we assume that God is good, then God cannot have
written the Koran.
"Ha, they're in the palm of my hand now! They think only about "this
singular proclivity" of Islam, not of the 1,300,000 innocents killed
by foreigners in Iraq alone. Not about the calculated killings of
1,400 innocents in the Gaza prison camp recently. Not about the
massacres associated with the Naqba, not about the mass killing of
Egyptian prisoners at El Arish in 1967 or about any of the rest of
it.
We're focused only on THEIR religion and we're maligning its Prophet
to boot. I have to admit that I'm really something of an artist at
this."

This is true regardless of whether one believes
Post by drahcir
that the Koran directly inspires evil acts, or whether those evil acts
are a result of "misinterpretation". This is because in addition to
being all-good, God is all-powerful, and as such is certainly capable
of writing a set of instructions that is not inclined to be
"misinterpreted". Neither can this proclivity be assigned to "free
will", because God is the God of all men, and he cannot possibly issue
instructions to some of his adherents that would cause, either
directly or by misinterpretation, the deaths of others of his
adherents.
"Real Zionism was secular and socialist. That's where I learned to
manipulate the concept of God so cleverly. No mystery or faith was
permitted to us. Most of us were Marxists. We are permitted only
hostility to religions other than Judaism, and especially hostility
to
Christianity with which we were at war for 2,000 years. I know that
our relationship with Islam was much better, much less bloody, but we
must suppress that history right now because admitting to remembering
it is neither good for the Greater Israel project nor good for
keeping
the Americans fighting our Muslim enemies. We really did choose a
rough neighborhood for our Zion, and choosing East Prussia would have
been better, but that's all by the board. We must be adaptable and
remain clever enough to prevail for ever."
drahcir
2010-04-05 00:47:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@yahoo.com
View profile
=A0Apr 3, 3:52 pm
Post by drahcir
First of all, thanks to the moderator for rejuvenating the group.
Madame Moderator, I must say that I am simply shocked that you would
allow the post to which I here reply into this group. Over the years I
have gotten posts bounced from here for the most picayune reasons, so
why was this post, which had absolutely no valid content and was
posted by a frustrated person who cannot defeat me in civilized debate
at soc.culture.israel, allowed in? I don't get it. Only in some wild
fantasy could I ever be considered to be "militant" or "politically
active". But the fact that this post was nothing but a lie-filled,
insane diatribe is not even the most important reason it should have
been banned - the simple fact is that **it did not purport to reply to
my point about Islam and violence targeting innocents** - rather it is
a raving, fantastic musing about my motivation for posting it, having
exactly zero basis in fact. Needless to say, that musing is
ridiculous, but I will not demean this group by dignifying this post
with a reply. Madame Moderator, you have done this group a disservice
by posting it.

<snip>
Catherine Jefferson
2010-04-05 01:02:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by drahcir
Post by ***@yahoo.com
View profile
=A0Apr 3, 3:52 pm
Post by drahcir
First of all, thanks to the moderator for rejuvenating the group.
Madame Moderator, I must say that I am simply shocked that you would
allow the post to which I here reply into this group. Over the years I
have gotten posts bounced from here for the most picayune reasons, so
For reasons that you persisted in considering picayune, which probably
explains why you persisted in ignoring those rules. :/
Post by drahcir
why was this post, which had absolutely no valid content and was
posted by a frustrated person who cannot defeat me in civilized debate
at soc.culture.israel, allowed in?
I have no idea what is going on in soc.culture.israel, so please do not
expect me to moderate on the basis of what is happening in another
newsgroup that I've never read. That post was rather nasty, and I
almost bounced it for being overtly antisemitic, but IMHO it just
*barely* stayed within the bounds. It appeared to me to be deliberately
satirical. We don't ban satire in here; we never have.
Post by drahcir
I don't get it. Only in some wild
fantasy could I ever be considered to be "militant" or "politically
active". But the fact that this post was nothing but a lie-filled,
insane diatribe is not even the most important reason it should have
been banned - the simple fact is that **it did not purport to reply to
my point about Islam and violence targeting innocents** - rather it is
a raving, fantastic musing about my motivation for posting it, having
exactly zero basis in fact. Needless to say, that musing is
ridiculous, but I will not demean this group by dignifying this post
with a reply. Madame Moderator, you have done this group a disservice
by posting it.
<snip>
--
Catherine Jefferson <***@devsite.org>
Personal Home Page * <http://www.devsite.org/>
The SpamBouncer * <http://www.spambouncer.org/>
drahcir
2010-04-05 14:41:44 UTC
Permalink
On Apr 4, 9:02=A0pm, Catherine Jefferson <***@spambouncer.org>
wrote:
<snip>
Post by Catherine Jefferson
Post by drahcir
Madame Moderator, I must say that I am simply shocked that you would
allow the post to which I here reply into this group. Over the years I
have gotten posts bounced from here for the most picayune reasons, so
For reasons that you persisted in considering picayune, which probably
explains why you persisted in ignoring those rules. :/
Post by drahcir
why was this post, which had absolutely no valid content and was
posted by a frustrated person who cannot defeat me in civilized debate
at soc.culture.israel, allowed in?
I have no idea what is going on in soc.culture.israel, so please do not
expect me to moderate on the basis of what is happening in another
newsgroup that I've never read. =A0That post was rather nasty, and I
almost bounced it for being overtly antisemitic, but IMHO it just
*barely* stayed within the bounds.
First of all, thanks for your reply. Secondly, I will not be offended
if you don't post this reply - it's intended mainly for you. For me
personally, I don't care that this post appeared at SRI - it had
already appeared at SCI, where it was dealt with in the manner it
deserved. However, this group has always maintained high standards,
and this post's appearance here demeans it, in fact, I have never
witnessed anything close to it in the years I have participated here.
In my view, the reason to have bounced the post from SRI was NOT
because it was antisemitic, but rather, first, because it was a raving
attack on me personally. As I said, its SOLE motivation, which I don't
expect you to be acquainted with, was to lash out in frustration at
me. Honestly, I'd think that would have been crystal clear to you even
if you weren't familiar with the motivation. I have had posts bounced
for one phrase that possibly could be construed by some as an insult,
and maybe I sometimes do get carried away a bit, but here the entire
post is essentially one huge, contrived insult. Second, and perhaps
more importantly, it simply did not address the issue, which I think
is one of the most crucial in today's world.

=A0It appeared to me to be deliberately
Post by Catherine Jefferson
satirical. =A0We don't ban satire in here; we never have.
No matter what the device, a post should address the issue in the
thread, which was a simple, quite unoriginal one, but certainly one
that should in my opinion be discussed more at SRI (just look at the
news from Iraq from the last few days). I won't bore you with message-
messenger banality. Suffice it to say that this post did not address
the issue.

<snip>
Yusuf B Gursey
2010-05-07 19:47:18 UTC
Permalink
On Apr 4, 9:02=A0pm, Catherine Jefferson <***@spambouncer.org>
wrote:

all in all, I think this thread is going into a discussion of modern
politics, something thar SRI has been relativley free from.
Post by Catherine Jefferson
Post by drahcir
Post by ***@yahoo.com
View profile
=3DA0Apr 3, 3:52 pm
Post by drahcir
First of all, thanks to the moderator for rejuvenating the group.
Madame Moderator, I must say that I am simply shocked that you would
allow the post to which I here reply into this group. Over the years I
have gotten posts bounced from here for the most picayune reasons, so
For reasons that you persisted in considering picayune, which probably
explains why you persisted in ignoring those rules. :/
Post by drahcir
why was this post, which had absolutely no valid content and was
posted by a frustrated person who cannot defeat me in civilized debate
at soc.culture.israel, allowed in?
I have no idea what is going on in soc.culture.israel, so please do not
expect me to moderate on the basis of what is happening in another
newsgroup that I've never read. =A0That post was rather nasty, and I
almost bounced it for being overtly antisemitic, but IMHO it just
*barely* stayed within the bounds. =A0It appeared to me to be deliberatel=
y
Post by Catherine Jefferson
satirical. =A0We don't ban satire in here; we never have.
Post by drahcir
I don't get it. Only in some wild
fantasy could I ever be considered to be "militant" or "politically
active". But the fact that this post was nothing but a lie-filled,
insane diatribe is not even the most important reason it should have
been banned - the simple fact is that **it did not purport to reply to
my point about Islam and violence targeting innocents** - rather it is
a raving, fantastic musing about my motivation for posting it, having
exactly zero basis in fact. Needless to say, that musing is
ridiculous, but I will not demean this group by dignifying this post
with a reply. Madame Moderator, you have done this group a disservice
by posting it.
<snip>
--
Personal Home Page =A0 =A0 =A0* =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 <http://www.devsite.org/>
The SpamBouncer =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 * =A0 =A0 <http://www.spambouncer.org/>
DKleinecke
2010-05-08 00:35:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
all in all, I think this thread is going into a discussion of modern
politics, something thar SRI has been relativley free from.
I agree. I am going to stop contributing except on one point. I
intend to pursue the discussion of whether or not Islam possesses a
theory of government. I will follow that thread in my reply to another
post.

But I cannot resist one last Parthian shot:

Salafism is not a political movement.
iconoclast@yahoo.com
2010-04-29 01:42:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by drahcir
First of all, thanks to the moderator for rejuvenating the group. From
I thank the Moderator for permitting my satirical post in response to
drahcir. I realize it must have appeared to push the limit. This reply
to his original post in this thread will no so so.
Post by drahcir
Double suicide bombings kill 37 on Moscow subway
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_russia_subway_blast
Done by Chechens.
Now, were I a Muslim, I'd be asking myself some questions. As we look
at the world in the past days, weeks, months, years, decades, we see a
nearly unique attitude in Islam - of all religions, only Islam
produces so many people who are so willing to kill innocents.
How does the violence of regimes with essentially faith based
political ideologies (including Marxism/Leninsm and National Socialism
and Maoism as examples) come to be left out of the calculus? Zionism
after all began as a secular movement with utopian overtones in which
are found many people no less devoted to their old time religion than
are Muslims. They will soon dominate it by sheer birth rate. They tend
to both political and religious fanaticism which has undeniably been a
killer in the Israeli context.

How does one presume to focus on Islamic violence while leaving out
all but a few decades of its 1,400 year history and while ignoring the
violence of Zionism? What religious benchmark does one use for Islam
if Christianity is presumed less violent by nature at the very
beginning of the argument?

The history of Israel is measured by only six decades. That entire
period has been characterized by Arab resistance to Zionist
encroachment. Accordingly it has been a very turbulent time. How can
one judge the overall tendency of a religion to violence by
considering only a unique sixty year period of upheaval?

And then we have the current campaign being waged in the United States
by Israel's Lobby to focus on Islam itself as an implacable adversary
of the United States regardless of the particular circumstances,
provocations, etc. Not just an adversary of Israel, but of the US too,
based on an alleged organic hostility which is always violent and can
not be overcome. May we not be frank even about the grave dangers we
face?

To all
Post by drahcir
of you who want to start preaching about the Tamil Tigers or the Irish
Republican Army, stow it - if we look at the numbers, whether they be
the numbers of victims or incidents, there is simply no comparison.
Statistically, non-Muslim mass murderers who target innocents are
statiscally irrelevant.
According to French scholars of the moderate left who put together The
Black Book of Communism, a study which seems to have ended the
struggle over numbers between fellow travelers and anti-Communists,
its global 20th Century toll was 100,000,000 innocents. This is just
for Marxism in its various forms. The study excluded premature deaths
not attributable to the regimes. These victims were defenseless
subject populations killed through negligent homicide or sheer malice
for political purposes. Exempted from the count were the dead of the
WWI and II and the rest of the period's wars. The Nazis' genocides
were also not considered. Therefore, statistically, non-Muslim mass
murders which targeted innocents are not only relevant but
overwhelming.

In addition, drahcir has not supported his relatively benign picture
of Christianity's bloody past. I know more about it than I do of the
history of Islam, but I would be surprised if it overall were less
bloody.


So we have to ask, why? It must be something
Post by drahcir
about Islam, since Chechens have little in common with Afghans or
Iraqis except for religion. Islam is clearly imparting an approach to
very many of its adherents whereby killing innocents is justified.
Now, normally, the killing of innocents is abhorrent to civilized men,
even areligious ones. Something in Islam is overcoming that natural
abhorrence, as is proven by the numbers. Given this singular
proclivity, if we then assume that the killing of innocents is by
definition evil, and we assume that God is good, then God cannot have
written the Koran.
Here we have a perfectly gratuitous and profoundly trouble-making
attack directly against the Muslim religion generally and its Godhead
in particular. It is designed to defame the very faith itself. This
intellectual adventurism is aimed at continuing the anti-Muslim wars
at the most fundamental level of culture. It is irresponsible and
quite obviously driven by political calculations because the concept
is at the center of the ongoing campaign in the United States to keep
the country aimed at the enemies of Israel irrespective of the
American interest. Even irrespective of the true Israeli interest. The
success of this campaign so far has been catastrophic for the United
States. The struggle for control over our own foreign policy in the
Middle East remains currently at white heat. And it is by no means
assured at this point what the outcome will be.

This is true regardless of whether one believes
Post by drahcir
that the Koran directly inspires evil acts, or whether those evil acts
are a result of "misinterpretation".
In paraphrase Drahcir says: 'There is no hope for anything but
criminal negligence or conscious evil from any Muslims and there's not
a dime's worth of difference between them because the result is the
same. Therefore, America's support of Israel while she finishes the
Greater Israel project on the West Bank is justified.' No, that's not
too great a conceptual leap. It's what the demonization not just of
"terror" but of Islam itself is about. The arena is Washington DC, not
Iraq or Afghanistan or Iran.


This is because in addition to
Post by drahcir
being all-good, God is all-powerful, and as such is certainly capable
of writing a set of instructions that is not inclined to be
"misinterpreted". Neither can this proclivity be assigned to "free
will", because God is the God of all men, and he cannot possibly issue
instructions to some of his adherents that would cause, either
directly or by misinterpretation, the deaths of others of his
adherents.
IMHO one ought to declare himself on religious belief before making
speculations of this sort. They're patronizing and an insult coming
from a non-believer.
drahcir
2010-05-04 15:18:32 UTC
Permalink
sheesh, this is really so simple - most terrorists are Muslim.
Therefore, were I a Muslim, I'd ask myself why. Your second attempt at
reply is perhaps even more bizarre than your first, from which the
moderator kindly rescued you by suggesting you were being "satirical".
You and I know better, H, but that will remain our little secret.
iconoclast@yahoo.com
2010-05-05 05:18:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by drahcir
sheesh, this is really so simple - most terrorists are Muslim.
That's an unsupported and unargued assertion, and just as it was in
your first post it is also false historically. The nature of warfare
globally has shifted since WWII. International conflicts between
conventional national armies are fewer and fewer. The fighting has not
diminished. It's been replaced by civil wars primarily over resources,
ethnic and tribal struggles with a very heavy emphasis on terrorism.
What's happened on the African continent is an example. The pattern is
being acted out all over the world from Latin America to East Asia.
Were you responsive to my second post we would be dealing with the
history to see how your naked assertions about Muslims fit reality.
But this is not responsive.
Post by drahcir
Therefore, were I a Muslim, I'd ask myself why. Your second attempt at
reply is perhaps even more bizarre than your first, from which the
moderator kindly rescued you by suggesting you were being "satirical".
You and I know better, H, but that will remain our little secret.
"Bizarre" is an unargued conclusion. And your "I'd ask myself why" is
based on a suppressed, false premise. I urge you to actually make
arguments without built-in fallacies so that we can move your issues
forward.
.
I try to keep as few secrets as possible, R. I believe in the salutary
effect of daylight in politics. Your post was obviously political,
especially coming from a Zionist, and the vehicle you chose to your
political end was the the subtle maligning of one of the world's great
religious and intellectual traditions. I found that offensive and my
first post was satirical, an evaluation of your patterns and methods
as a political ideologue. I did put words in your mouth, but every
ideologue displays patterns of behavior related to the ideology and
they are all fair game for satire. In this case it was based on long
empirical observation of your style, priorities and content here on
usenet. As it also has a subjective element and isn't in the least
scientific, it's not perfect of course, but it's more true than not.
I''m prepared to defend it.

But better would be for you to actually reply in detail to my second
post. In this civilized environment we should be able to make
progress.
drahcir
2010-05-05 19:12:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by drahcir
sheesh, this is really so simple - most terrorists are Muslim.
That's an unsupported and unargued assertion, and just as it was in
your first post it is also false historically.
The verb "are", as in "most terrorists are Muslim", is in the present
tense, and is therefore irrelevant to whatever situations might have
happened "historically". Do you wish to challenge my assertion that
most terrorists active today ARE Muslim, an assertion based on the
percentage of acts of terrorism committed by Muslims in the RECENT
past? If so, present your argument. Before you do, I'll supply my
definition of "terrorist", just so that we don't have to play any
semantic games. A terrorist is a person who practices, has practiced,
or is preparing to practice terrorism. "Terrorism" is defined in US
law as

"premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against
noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents"

http://terrorism.about.com/od/whatisterroris1/ss/DefineTerrorism_5.htm

You may now proceed to challenge my assertion that most terrorists ARE
Muslim.


<snip>
DKleinecke
2010-05-06 02:23:44 UTC
Permalink
"Terrorism" is defined in US law as
"premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against
noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents"
That obviously misses all the Islamic extremists because they are
religiously motivated.

Or at least you would argue that way.

Myself I find the motives of extremists inscrutable. There is so much
ambiguity in the world. How is it possible to become extreme about
anything?
Count 1
2010-05-06 03:48:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by DKleinecke
"Terrorism" is defined in US law as
"premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against
noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents"
That obviously misses all the Islamic extremists because they are
religiously motivated.
Then you are forgetting, or ignoring, that Islam is as much a political
ideology as it is a religous one.
iconoclast@yahoo.com
2010-05-06 20:15:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Count 1
Post by DKleinecke
"Terrorism" is defined in US law as
"premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against
noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents"
That obviously misses all the Islamic extremists because they are
religiously motivated.
Then you are forgetting, or ignoring, that Islam is as much a political
ideology as it is a religous one.
It used to be true of Roman Catholocism in Italy and even Russian
Orthodoxy under the Tsars. What's unique Islam in that sense? When
Osama bin Laden speaks of the Caliphate of old being resurrected, what
is that but the union of church and state? There are readers here who
know the answer to this.
Count 1
2010-05-07 18:20:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Count 1
Then you are forgetting, or ignoring, that Islam is as much a political
ideology as it is a religous one.
It used to be true of Roman Catholocism in Italy and even Russian
Orthodoxy under the Tsars. What's unique Islam in that sense?
The fact that's it's not a 'used to be true'.


When
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Osama bin Laden speaks of the Caliphate of old being resurrected, what
is that but the union of church and state?
Actually he's speaking of a greater empire, a nation stretching from
Morrocco to Iran living under the ideology he adheres to. It's far more than
a 'union of church and state', it's a totalitarian dictatorship, every
element of which runs counter to modernity.
DKleinecke
2010-05-07 03:23:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Count 1
Then you are forgetting, or ignoring, that Islam is as much a political
ideology as it is a religous one.
That would be up to the Supreme Court to decide. If I were sitting
there I would find Islam to be a religion.

The principle difficulty in calling the Islam of the terrorists
political is that no one has established a political basis for the
terrorism of Islam extremists. What country or political party do
they represent? You might suggest that their goal is the political
one of setting up Usama Bin Ladin as Caliph over all Muslims. I, for
one, find that proposal laughable.

To say "Islam is as much a political ideology as it is a religious
one" demands a great deal of justification and you have offered none.
Islam has no recognizable teachings about any polity since Muhammad's
regime in Madina. Islam has no history of a coherent theory of
government and has a history of simple old-fashioned despotism.

You might be able to save your proposition by substituting judicial
for political. But then you would have to sacrifice the US definition
of terrorism.

My personal definition of terrorism is "unexpected violence". The 9/11
massacre was totally unexpected and is therefore terrorism. Iraqi
civilians killed by US attacks on Sadam Hussein, no matter how
regrettable, were to be expected (a war was going on) and not
therefore terrorism.
There does not seem to be a lot of agreement about what terrorism
means.
Count 1
2010-05-07 18:20:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by DKleinecke
Post by Count 1
Then you are forgetting, or ignoring, that Islam is as much a political
ideology as it is a religous one.
That would be up to the Supreme Court to decide. If I were sitting
there I would find Islam to be a religion.
Huh?
Post by DKleinecke
The principle difficulty in calling the Islam of the terrorists
political is that no one has established a political basis for the
terrorism of Islam extremists.
It's called Salafism.


What country or political party do
Post by DKleinecke
they represent? You might suggest that their goal is the political
one of setting up Usama Bin Ladin as Caliph over all Muslims. I, for
one, find that proposal laughable.
So do most Muslims.
Post by DKleinecke
To say "Islam is as much a political ideology as it is a religious
one" demands a great deal of justification and you have offered none.
Islam has no recognizable teachings about any polity since Muhammad's
regime in Madina. Islam has no history of a coherent theory of
government and has a history of simple old-fashioned despotism.
That would be the political outcome. Unfortunately you're not correct about
'Islam has no recognizable teachings about Polity since Muhannad's "regime"
in Medina'. Start here...

http://www.islam101.com/politics/politicalsystem.htm
Post by DKleinecke
You might be able to save your proposition by substituting judicial
for political. But then you would have to sacrifice the US definition
of terrorism.
I have no idea what you're talking about. For one there is 'US definition of
terrorism'. American's define terrorism in a multitude of ways. For two
there is no connection between how American's define terrorism and Islamic
political systems.
DKleinecke
2010-05-08 00:45:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Count 1
http://www.islam101.com/politics/politicalsystem.htm
Maududi does not speak for Islam.

He is a modern Muslim trying to make sense out of the essentially non-
existent Islamic teaching about government. There was at least one old
Muslim writer, a thousand years ago, who tried the same task -
unfortunately his name eludes me just now. Maududi is better than his
predecessor, but still grossly inadequate.

I don't have enough interest in his thought to comment on his little
talk. I would be interested in material from the formative days of
Islam.
drahcir
2010-05-06 20:15:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by DKleinecke
"Terrorism" is defined in US law as
"premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against
noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents"
That obviously misses all the Islamic extremists because they are
religiously motivated.
I think you are confusing motivation and justification. Beslan's
objective, as idiotic as it may sound, was secession, a political
motivation, but its depravity was justified by Islam. Normal folk who
ain't got religion couldn't conceive of doing such a thing no matter
what the objective.
Post by DKleinecke
Or at least you would argue that way.
Myself I find the motives of extremists inscrutable. =A0There is so much
ambiguity in the world. =A0How is it possible to become extreme about
anything?
You need an ideology that allows and encourages it. Remember,
according to the "holy" Koran, "persecution is severer than
slaughter" [2.191], so go ahead, have fun and slaughter! Enjoy
yourself! Regarding ambiguity, you know that the Koran slyly says
"there is no compulsion in religion"? Well, there cannot be ambiguity
either in a religion the primary document of which is supposedly
written by an omnipotent being - if "god" was cool enough to create
the universe, he was cool enough to write a book the meaning of which
is crystal clear to the most intelligent beings he supposedly created.
It's really quite simple: if the Koran is ambiguous, it wasn't written
by "god". Extremists know that much better than apologists (moderates)
- they read "kill them wherever you find them", and they do as they
were instructed by "god". No ambiguity whatever for them.
iconoclast@yahoo.com
2010-05-06 20:15:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by DKleinecke
"Terrorism" is defined in US law as
"premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against
noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents"
That obviously misses all the Islamic extremists because they are
religiously motivated.
Or at least you would argue that way.
He has must argue that way or he's finished. His claim is about an
alleged effect of Islam on the human mind, i.e., "Islam creates or
instills a drive to commit terrorist acts or Islam turns otherwise
normal humans into serial killers." So far he's shown no interest in
the Israeli or American side of the ledger, i.e., no interest in the
nature of the provocations and grievances in this world which trigger
the violence. They can't be eliminated from the calculus.
Post by DKleinecke
Myself I find the motives of extremists inscrutable. =A0There is so much
ambiguity in the world. =A0How is it possible to become extreme about
anything?
In 20th Century politics the greatest source of large scale violence
against innocents was political ideology. Beside it violence in the
Muslim World was paltry. It tended to be essentially faith based
because of its many almost mystical overtones and irrationalities. It
fueled the fallacy that the end justified the means. It justified the
crimes, neutralized moral opprobrium and even canceled "bourgeois"
systems of morality altogether. That made the crimes much easier.
Trotsky wrote a fascinating pamphlet on that subject entitled "Their
Morals and Ours." The irony of this analysis is that Zionism is the
secular political ideology in this mix.

You show a very interesting contradiction in drahcir's position. He's
obviously arguing that the "Muslims'" motivation is religious. He's
wrong on that because at minimum the motivation is mixed. To put it in
the words of the Zionists they want to "redeem" the Land of Palestine.
That's a political, geo-political goal.
iconoclast@yahoo.com
2010-05-13 15:04:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by DKleinecke
"Terrorism" is defined in US law as
"premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against
noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents"
That obviously misses all the Islamic extremists because they are
religiously motivated.
Or at least you would argue that way.
Myself I find the motives of extremists inscrutable. =A0There is so much
ambiguity in the world. =A0How is it possible to become extreme about
anything?
Not inscrutable. In fact profoundly scrutable, even prosaic. It's
patriotism:

http://www.danieldrezner.com/research/guest/Pape1.pdf
drahcir
2010-05-14 17:20:45 UTC
Permalink
try this:

http://www.eusec.org/su0001te.pdf

Unlike your cite, it truly addresses the issue.
DKleinecke
2010-05-15 04:38:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by drahcir
http://www.eusec.org/su0001te.pdf
Unlike your cite, it truly addresses the issue.
It does nothing of the kind. The islamophobia sticks out in almost
every sentence.

It does nothing to increase its creditability when it says the goal of
the terrorists is to re-establish the eighth-ninth century caliphate.
First off, they don't seem to know the caliphate ended in 1927 (or a
few years from that date). And, second, they seem to not understand
that the caliphate is not what the terrorists idolize - they long for
the world of the ansar and muhagarin - the world of Madina ruled by
the prophet. This was made explicit by the man speaking to Usama bin
Ladin in the video found in Afghanistan (but, having written in 2000,
or earlier, they cannot have seen that tape.)
drahcir
2010-05-20 14:57:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by drahcir
http://www.eusec.org/su0001te.pdf
Unlike your cite, it truly addresses the issue.
It does nothing of the kind. =A0The islamophobia sticks out in almost
every sentence.
Before you take refuge in your "islamophobia" cop-out, perhaps you had
better review the credentials of the authors. Simon is Assistant
Director is IISS:

http://www.iiss.org/

This organization's effectiveness depends on not engaging in any kind
of phobia.

Benjamin is Senior Fellow at the US Institute for Peace

http://www.usip.org/

Ditto for it. Both are formerly Directors at the US National Security
Council.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/nsc/

These organizations are deemed by much of the world as objective
analysts whose opinion MATTERS. YOU have a vested interest in
describing their work as Islamophobic, since it is evident from your
whitewashing of Islamic history in this thread, that you have the
ability to convince yourself that things are as you want them to be,
rather than as they are. The article obviously conflicts with your
world view. They, on the other hand, have an interest in objectivity.
We'll leave it at that.


<snip>
drahcir
2010-05-14 17:20:41 UTC
Permalink
On May 13, 11:04=A0am, "***@yahoo.com" <***@yahoo.com>
wrote:
<cnip>
Post by ***@yahoo.com
http://www.danieldrezner.com/research/guest/Pape1.pdf
Stupid paper for two reasons:

1) We've already distinguished between terrorism's goals, which are
political. albeit with quasi-religious underpinnings, and terrorism's
justification, which is, in the case of Muslim terrorists, religious.
If you don't understand the difference, say so and I'll explain
further.

2) In trying to make a case for other groups employing terrorism, he
cites the Tamil Tigers. One small problem: the Tigers more often
strike strategic targets. Purely civilian targets have been in the
minority. I can never recall even one Tamil attack that resulted in
double digit civilian deaths - if you can, cite it.

The simple question is, would women and children be attacked in
markets en masse, whatever the goal, without Islam? Simple question.
Your paper does exactly ZERO to answer it - if you deny this, cite.
Your paper is concerned with MEANS - suicide - rather than ENDS -
numbers of innocents killed. I don't need to research to know that in
numbers of innocents killed, Islamic terrorism DWARFS Tamil terrorism.
iconoclast@yahoo.com
2010-05-06 20:15:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by drahcir
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by drahcir
sheesh, this is really so simple - most terrorists are Muslim.
That's an unsupported and unargued assertion, and just as it was in
your first post it is also false historically.
The verb "are", as in "most terrorists are Muslim", is in the present
tense, and is therefore irrelevant to whatever situations might have
happened "historically".
Your statement that "most terrorists are Muslim" is necessarily
baseless without reference to history. There is no other tool whereby
one can determine such a thing. You may draw your *conclusion* in the
present but unless accuracy is "irrelevant" too, the history can not
be left out. And that is the way intelligent people will always read
such a conclusory comment. I.e., "If that's the conclusion if must be
based on data gathered over time. Anything else is nonsense unless you
first prove your own deity."

I note here your reluctance to to deal with my analogy between faith-
based terrorists who are religious but nevertheless have clearly
political goals, and faith-based, ideologically- driven secular
terrorists who have equally clear political goals. And also your
failure to deal with the unique period the Middle East is in currently
as a result of the ethnic cleansing and brutal occupation of
Palestine, mostly by European colonists. We can't pass these things
by. You make your arguments but if you can not address mine how can
you hope to prevail? Surely you don't want me to be given a default
judgement by the readership?

=A0Do you wish to challenge my assertion that
Post by drahcir
most terrorists active today ARE Muslim, an assertion based on the
percentage of acts of terrorism committed by Muslims in the RECENT
past?
I don't need permission, R. I'll challenge anything I please,
including the fact that you have already backed away from your
original assertion and in that lies an admission that you were wrong..

Let me predict where you are headed. You completely rejected
historical analysis a few paragraphs above and now you are saying that
you want to let history back into the calculations so long as it's
recent, probably from the 1890s or 1947-48 or 1967 to the present. You
will want only to tabulate what YOU will define as terrorism during
this War of Resistance to European Zionist Colonization of Palestine,
a when it has been intense for clearly discernible reasons you do not
acknowledge. You will argue that bombs dropped on civilians from
airplanes are good but such bombs carried on foot are bad. You will
argue that your Arab enemy and its allies have no right to RESIST the
Israelis because they have WON long since, i.e., in 1967. Your
argument will be that once a people are occupied and disarmed they
must simply submit. If they lob a mortar round into "Israel" from
their open air prisons it is terrorism, congenital criminality and
that it comes from Islam.

If so, present your argument. Before you do, I'll supply my
Post by drahcir
definition of "terrorist", just so that we don't have to play any
semantic games. A terrorist is a person who practices, has practiced,
or is preparing to practice terrorism. "Terrorism" is defined in US
law as
"premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against
noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents"
I'll argue that you will need to demonstrate that US domestic law is
germane to this situation. I don't know that yet and I'm confident
that you don't either.

And I'll argue that Israel, having by her own choice never committed
to recognized boundaries, is not yet a nation state, that the war
against the Palestinian people is essentially a civil war, that each
party is subnational and that conventional armies of nation states
perpetrate terrorist acts all the time anyway. They're called war
crimes and other than at the level of mere nomenclature they are
indistinguishable from terrorist acts.

I believe that we should check not only the US Code definitions of
"terrorism" and "international terrorism" but the many others
including the UN's and those which may be found in International Law.
The US Code definition is no doubt supplemental to a particular
domestic criminal statute. BTW I suspect it was of considerable
interest to Israel. I'd like to research if possible whether it
lobbied the issue, so as to read it in context. It's kind and generous
lobby writes lots of laws for us.
Post by drahcir
http://terrorism.about.com/od/whatisterroris1/ss/DefineTerrorism_5.htm
You may now proceed to challenge my assertion that most terrorists ARE
Muslim.
Not to make too legalistic a point of it, but you must first support
that assertion. You're the Plaintiff. You have the overall burden of
proof. You don't move an argument forward with naked assertions.
There's no evidence to refute. You had and still have the obligation
to go forward with proofs of your assertion. If you fail to do that
you won't even get to the jury. The judge will dismiss your case
summarily, and your ears will glow like fire. All of this is true of
debate too.
hajj abujamal
2010-05-07 02:18:40 UTC
Permalink
Salaam!
But since most terrorists in the last 10, 20, or 50 years have been
Muslim, it is reasonable to conclude that most terrorists ARE Muslim.
I repeat, if you wish to challenge that simple assertion, you may do
so by presenting evidence that most terrorists in the last 10, 20,
or 50 years were NOT Muslim.
The largest fraction of terrorists is in South America related to
the cocaine trade; muslims are, or at least were a year or so ago, the
smallest fraction. You can find the evidence on US Government websites,
there was a pie chart showing the actual incident distribution, and the
cocaine traffickers were far and away the majority of terrorists.

Deranged muslims simply get the most media exposure.

was-salaam,
abujamal
--
astaghfirullahal-ladhee laa ilaha illa
howal-hayyul-qayyoom wa 'atoobu 'ilaihi

Rejoice, muslims, in martyrdom without fighting,
a Mercy for us. Be like the better son of Adam.
hajj abujamal
2010-05-07 07:36:29 UTC
Permalink
Salaam!
Post by hajj abujamal
The largest fraction of terrorists is in South America related to
the cocaine trade; muslims are, or at least were a year or so ago,
the smallest fraction. You can find the evidence on US Government
websites, there was a pie chart showing the actual incident
distribution, and the cocaine traffickers were far and away the
majority of terrorists.
It's a bit strange to make an assertion that is contrary to popular
belief, and then say, "YOU can find the evidence..." Rather, if it
is you making the assertion, then it should be you providing the
evidence.
No, it is you who has been making an assertion based entirely on
popular belief with no evidence. You asked for contrary evidence, as if
you had provided some, and my response tells you what the reality has
been and where to find the evidence that you demanded.

I've been glancing at this nonsense discussion for as long as it's
been active, and it's just a rehash or replay of a virtually identical
discussion in this forum a year or two ago. As with the previous
discussion, I have seen nothing but naked assertion without the least
scrap of evidence from those who make your assertions. So when you ASK
for some "contrary evidence," it's perfectly legitimate to tell you
where to find some real evidence, since you don't have any of your own.

"Most terrorists in the last 10, 20, or 50 years have been Muslim"
is a false statement without evidence, and there is evidence to prove it
false. The source of the evidence is the United States Government, not
media hype, which is the source of "popular belief."

You are unable to provide any evidence for your assertions, since
there is none. Repetition of baseless assertions does not make them true.

The evidence is there, and personally, I don't care whether you go
find it or not, since it won't matter ~ you'll continue to make your
baseless assertions no matter what evidence is provided to you. I don't
need to "prove" anything to you or anyone else. It is sufficient to
note that you cannot prove your assertions, have provided nothing to
support them other than popular belief, and that there exists abundant
evidence to show that the cocaine cartels field more terrorists ~ and
have, consistently, for decades ~ than all others combined.

The reason is simple: cocaine is immensely profitable, while
apocalyptic delusions and political ambitions are not. There's more
money available to support cocaine terrorism than there is to support
any other variety. Cocaine terrorism is safer for the terrorist, as
well, since it is a "silent war" between organized parties and does not
attract public attention like a bomb in a pizza parlor inhabited by
Russian immigrants to Israel, or false flag attacks whose primary
purpose is to foster false propaganda against "the usual suspects" who
have nothing to do with such attacks.

But your purpose here is obvious, your rhetorical tactics are
recognizable, and your arguments are specious and irrelevant, as with
most hasbara propaganda. It really doesn't matter whether you know that
what you're saying is false, or are just duped by those who do know, the
result is the same: your assertions remain false.

However, I WILL take this opportunity to point out that this is NOT
a "discussion of Islam," but a reiteration of agenda-driven media
sycophancy and psychopathy aimed at Islam, a target it cannot reach.
How it has gone on for so long without the moderators simply sending the
posts to never-never land is the real mystery here, it's nonsense
wrapped up in surrealistic fantasy and has nothing whatever to do with
Islam.

was-salaam,
abujamal
--
astaghfirullahal-ladhee laa ilaha illa
howal-hayyul-qayyoom wa 'atoobu 'ilaihi

Rejoice, muslims, in martyrdom without fighting,
a Mercy for us. Be like the better son of Adam.
hajj abujamal
2010-05-07 16:16:56 UTC
Permalink
Incredibly ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism#Organizations_and_acts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism
... you must accept my statement as valid.
Here is a list of foreign terrorist organizations kept by the US State
Anyone opposing American invasion is classified as either a
terrorist or an insurgent. It's interesting that the list contains a
number of muslim groups trained by the CIA and educated in madrasas with
textbook materials written by the US Government.

Basically, anyone who opposes the Israeli occupation of Palestine is
classed as a terrorist; anyone who opposes a puppet government left
behind to look after the interests of European colonialism is classed as
a terrorist; anyone fighting American invading or occupation forces is
classed as a terrorist or an insurgent; and so on. You buy into the
imperialist propaganda; muslims don't.

Here's the State Department list with the 32 allegedly muslim groups
8. Aleph (formerly Aum Shinrikyo) (Japan)
9. Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA) (Spain, France)
10. Communist Party of the Philippines/New People's Army (CPP/NPA)
(Philippines)
11. Continuity Irish Republican Army (CIRA) (Northern Ireland)
23. Kahane Chai (Kach) (Israel)
31. National Liberation Army (ELN) (Colombia)
39. Real IRA (Northern Ireland)
40. Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) (Colombia)
41. Revolutionary Nuclei (formerly ELA) (Greece)
42. Revolutionary Organization 17 November (Greece)
43. Revolutionary People's Liberation Party/Front (DHKP/C) (Turkey)
44. Shining Path (Sendero Luminoso, SL) (Peru)
45. United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC) (Colombia)
... thirteen left. Of course, I shouldn't have removed the PFLP, which
has long since been identified as a Mossad operation, but 32 out of 45
does give us a valid statement:

The majority of groups listed as terrorist organizations by the US
State Department have muslim names.

They are still outnumbered by the ELN, FARC and AUC of Colombia,
together with the well-armed and well-financed terrorist forces of the
Colombian cocaine barons, although probably not by Peru's Shining Path.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._State_Department_list_of_Foreign_Terrorist_Organizations
I count 32 of 45 as Muslim. That equals 71%, a percentage that would
correspond to "most" as most people understand the word. Do you agree?
If so, you must accept my statement as valid.
71% of the groups labeled as terrorists. Not real numbers
supporting your assertion.
The ball is in your court.
There's no ball. Just fat-rap having nothing whatever to do with
discussion of Islam. Fox News comes to soc.religion.islam with the same
old demonization propaganda.

I wasted twenty minutes looking for the pie chart showing the actual
incidence of terrorist mayhem ~ the results on the ground ~ to be
dominated by cocaine terrorism. Except for 9/11, which was about as
"muslim" as a pork chop with a sprinkling of salt, all those 32 muslim
"terrorist" groups (some also known as CIA front organizations) don't
show much competence or ambition to top the list.

But keep on, Richard backwards. Such an appropriate depiction ...
backwards.

NOTHING WHATEVER TO DO WITH DISCUSSION OF ISLAM. The moderators
must be starved for traffic ...

was-salaam,
abujamal
--
astaghfirullahal-ladhee laa ilaha illa
howal-hayyul-qayyoom wa 'atoobu 'ilaihi

Rejoice, muslims, in martyrdom without fighting,
a Mercy for us. Be like the better son of Adam.
drahcir
2010-05-07 18:20:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by hajj abujamal
Incredibly ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism#Organizations_and_acts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism
... you must accept my statement as valid.
Here is a list of foreign terrorist organizations kept by the US State
=A0 =A0 Anyone opposing American invasion is classified as either a
terrorist or an insurgent. =A0
Um, no, actually anyone who commits, has committed, or is planning to
commit terrorism is classified as a terrorist. Their political
philosophy is irrelevant.

It's interesting that the list contains a
Post by hajj abujamal
number of muslim groups trained by the CIA and educated in madrasas with
textbook materials written by the US Government.
It's YOU who kept harping about US Government sites, so that's what I
searched for. Now it seems you don't like them anymore.
Post by hajj abujamal
=A0 =A0 Basically, anyone who opposes the Israeli occupation of Palestine=
is
Post by hajj abujamal
classed as a terrorist; anyone who opposes a puppet government left
behind to look after the interests of European colonialism is classed as
a terrorist; anyone fighting American invading or occupation forces is
classed as a terrorist or an insurgent; and so on. =A0You buy into the
imperialist propaganda; muslims don't.
I get the picture, hajj. You've made yourself perfectly clear. Your
point of view: terrorism is justifiable when there are Muslims
involved. Precisely my point. We are in complete agreement. Thank you.
<snip>
drahcir
2010-05-10 20:05:11 UTC
Permalink
BAGHDAD =96 A suicide bomber blew himself up outside a textile factory
Monday in a crowd that gathered after two car bombings at the same
spot in the worst of a series of attacks that killed at least 84
people across Iraq, the deadliest day this year.

(...)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100510/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iraq

You want to believe this has nothing whatever to do with Islam so that
you are not forced to confront the reality.
DKleinecke
2010-05-11 03:31:26 UTC
Permalink
BAGHDAD =3D96 A suicide bomber =A0blew himself up outside a textile facto=
ry
Monday in a crowd that gathered after two car bombings at the same
spot in the worst of a series of attacks that killed at least 84
people across Iraq, the deadliest day this year.
You want to believe this has nothing whatever to do with Islam so that
you are not forced to confront the reality.
I have no trouble facing the reality of suicide bombers. But I admit I
will probably never understand their motivation. I believe you think
that if we had interviewed him immediately before the atrocity he
would have babbled about Allah and virgins in Paradise and similar
things. We cannot be sure, but it seems likely to me as well.

And in that sense it does have a connection with Islam. But it is a
one-way connection. The bomber points to Islam - but Islam does not
point to the bomber.

Much of this depends on what you mean by Islam. Islam is not a single
unified monolithic entity.
There seem to be about as many different Islams as there are different
Muslims. There are somewhere around a billion conscious Muslims of
which at most a few thousand are into terrorism. Talking the way you
seem to want to talk identifies a tiny minority with the whole.

We are all on this world together. I think we should make an effort
to get along with one another.
drahcir
2010-05-11 19:42:02 UTC
Permalink
On May 10, 11:31=A0pm, DKleinecke <***@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
Post by DKleinecke
The bomber points to Islam - but Islam does not
point to the bomber.
I have noticed that you often make statements stating your opinion as
fact. i don't think you do this willfully - I just think that you
have constructed your world in such a way that if you don't rely on
assumptions, things fall apart. The bomber, were he still with us,
would say that your moderate approach points to Islam, but Islam does
not point to your moderate approach. For the bomber, his Islam, the
one that obliged him to kill scores of people so that he got his
reward in a world that's far less unpleasant than this one, is the
true Islam. To you it isn't. That's all anyone can say. And the fact
that that's all anyone can say leads inexorably to the conclusion that
Islam is a lie - yours as well as his.
Post by DKleinecke
Much of this depends on what you mean by Islam. Islam is not a single
unified monolithic entity.
There seem to be about as many different Islams as there are different
Muslims. There are somewhere around a billion conscious Muslims of
which at most a few thousand are into terrorism. Talking the way you
seem to want to talk identifies a tiny minority with the whole.
First of all, you grossly underestimate those muslims who are "into"
terrorism. They include not just suiciders and other terrorists, but
also potential or preparing terrorists as well as millions of
terrorism supporters. Islam has poisoned them, has controverted man's
innate aversion to causing suffering and death and replaced it with
the obligation to do exactly those things. And all this supposedly
stems from a "good" god. It's too silly for words. I've read much of
the Koran. I am not in the least surprised by what Muslims are doing.
It's perfectly predictable. What is amazing is that if you read a
history of Islam, the very first result is violence. I don't know what
goes through a Muslim's head, why he cannot see what stares him in the
face. It's simply astounding to me.
Post by DKleinecke
We are all on this world =A0together. =A0I think we should make an effort
to get along with one another.
What a nice thought. Somehow it didn't turn out that way with the
inception of islam, the first effect of which was the Muslim
Conquests. Maybe we should get some Muslims of the variety you don't
agree with and sit them down in front of the TV and make them watch
Barney.
DKleinecke
2010-05-12 01:02:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by drahcir
Post by DKleinecke
The bomber points to Islam - but Islam does not
point to the bomber.
I have noticed that you often make statements stating your opinion as
fact. =A0i don't think you do this willfully - I just think that you
have constructed your world in such a way that if you don't rely on
assumptions, things fall apart.
I think I do it willfully. Everything i say has an implicit "in my
opinion". Everybody does it and Ieverybody understands the implicit
caveat. Your own posts are full of examples. It's a waste of time
pointing them out in each others posts.
Post by drahcir
The bomber, were he still with us,
would say that your moderate approach points to Islam, but Islam does
not point to your moderate approach. For the bomber, his Islam, the
one that obliged him to kill scores of people so that he got his
reward in a world that's far less unpleasant than this one, is the
true Islam.
For example, here you just did it again - stated your opinion as
though it were a fact. I think we are on extremely iffy ground trying
to guess what a suicide bomber thinks. It is hard enough to guess what
he would say. I have only watched one farewell video by a Muslim
suicide bomber and he went on at some length about why he was doing
it. But he actually never really motivated the suicide. After a lot
of word about his devotion to Usama bin Ladin he suddenly said "I had
been seeking for a long time for a suicide mission". Frankly I don't
get it.
Post by drahcir
To you it isn't. That's all anyone can say. And the fact
that that's all anyone can say leads inexorably to the conclusion that
Islam is a lie - yours as well as his.
Very low grade reasoning. From the fact two people (are alleged to)
disagree you conclude that the thing they are talking about is a lie.
You and I might disagree about the US government - does that make the
government a lie? I think the obvious corollary to your leap is that
everything is a lie. I cannot go there.
Post by drahcir
First of all, you grossly underestimate those muslims who are "into"
terrorism. They include not just suiciders and other terrorists, but
also potential or preparing terrorists as well as millions of
terrorism supporters. Islam has poisoned them, has controverted man's
innate aversion to causing suffering and death and replaced it with
the obligation to do exactly those things.
Your opinion.
Post by drahcir
And all this supposedly
stems from a "good" god. It's too silly for words. I've read much of
the Koran. I am not in the least surprised by what Muslims are doing.
It's perfectly predictable. What is amazing is that if you read a
history of Islam, the very first result is violence. I don't know what
goes through a Muslim's head, why he cannot see what stares him in the
face. It's simply astounding to me.
Have you ever read Voltaire's Candide? At the very end they all
retired to a farm beside the Bosphorus - in Muslim Turkey. A Turk
they meet explains how to live in the Ottoman Empire.
I think Voltaire is free of any suspicion of Islamophilia - but he did
know a lot about living under a hostile and violent government. As
far back as our records go most Muslims, by headcount, were peaceful
people just trying to get along.
Post by drahcir
Post by DKleinecke
We are all on this world =3DA0together. =3DA0I think we should make an =
effort
Post by drahcir
Post by DKleinecke
to get along with one another.
What a nice thought. Somehow it didn't turn out that way with the
inception of islam, the first effect of which was the Muslim
Conquests.
Only the elite - a tiny minority - were impacted by the conquest. To
most of the people one set of
rulers was replaced by another. The Muslims were apparently welcomed
into Egypt and so little changed in Syria that Mu'awiya's "vizier" was
a Christian. A century or so later Islam became the way for oppressed
peasants and the like to gain immediate respectability. The amazing
thing about the Empire was that it endured so long. It jumped the
shark about the year 100 and was reduced to a nonentity around the
year 300.
Post by drahcir
Maybe we should get some Muslims of the variety you don't
agree with and sit them down in front of the TV and make them watch
Barney.
If you mean the purple "dinosaur" I do not agree. Such a regime is
almost guaranteed to make them terrorists. In the immortal words of
the Usenet - alt.barney.kill.kill.kill.
drahcir
2010-05-13 15:04:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by DKleinecke
Post by drahcir
Post by DKleinecke
The bomber points to Islam - but Islam does not
point to the bomber.
I have noticed that you often make statements stating your opinion as
fact. =3DA0i don't think you do this willfully - I just think that you
have constructed your world in such a way that if you don't rely on
assumptions, things fall apart.
I think I do it willfully. Everything i say has an implicit "in my
opinion". Everybody does it and Ieverybody understands the implicit
caveat. =A0Your own posts are full of examples. It's a waste of time
pointing them out in each others posts.
Post by drahcir
The bomber, were he still with us,
would say that your moderate approach points to Islam, but Islam does
not point to your moderate approach. For the bomber, his Islam, the
one that obliged him to kill scores of people so that he got his
reward in a world that's far less unpleasant than this one, is the
true Islam.
For example, here you just did it again - stated your opinion as
though it were a fact.
Funny thing is, I don't see it that way. Now, it's true that the
bomber is dead, so we can't ask him why he did what he did. Let's
review. Above, you pronounced that the bomber's Islam is not the
"true" Islam (these were not your words, but I presume they are a fair
interpretation of your "pointing" imagery). I made the point that
that's simply your opinion, because, judging by what he did, obviously
the bomber would have disagreed. You want to claim that it is simply
my opinion that the bomber would have disagreed, that it is possible
that he believed his Islam was not the true Islam and that your Islam
is true. Do you think it's reasonable to believe that the bomber
believed that his own Islam, the Islam that led him to take his own
life as well as tens of innocent strangers, was not the true Islam?
You truly think that it's just my opinion that he thought his Islam
was the true one, and was so convinced of it he did what he did?


I think we are on extremely iffy ground trying
Post by DKleinecke
to guess what a suicide bomber thinks. It is hard enough to guess what
he would say. =A0I have only watched one farewell video by a Muslim
suicide bomber and he went on at some length about why he was doing
it. =A0But he actually never really motivated the suicide. =A0After a lot
of word about his devotion to Usama bin Ladin he suddenly said "I had
been seeking for a long time for a suicide mission". Frankly I don't
get it.
Nah, you get it. You're an intelligent person. Anyone with half a
brain gets it - it's not that complicated.
Post by DKleinecke
Post by drahcir
To you it isn't. That's all anyone can say. And the fact
that that's all anyone can say leads inexorably to the conclusion that
Islam is a lie - yours as well as his.
Very low grade reasoning. =A0From the fact two people (are alleged to)
disagree you conclude that the thing they are talking about is a lie.
Absolutely. Let me fill you in on my low grade reasoning. Islam claims
that "allah" is the god of all men. That was the justification of the
wars of conquest that immediately followed its inception, and remains
as a core philosophy of Islam today. If we accept the Koran as the
word of "god", and that god is good, and that god is all-powerful, how
can it be that this word leads some men of god to kill other men of
god? Aren't the victims at least as valued to god as the perpetrators?
Either god is evil, which is impossible if god is good, or he didn't
do a very good job imparting his message clearly in the koran, which
is impossible if god is omnipotent, or he is the god of only some men,
which is impossible if god is the god of all men.

The alternative to the above impossibilities, of course, is that the
koran was written by men. Simple.
Post by DKleinecke
You and I might disagree about the US government - does that make the
government a lie?
No. It is not our disagreement that makes Islam a lie. It is the
logical contradictions of my low grade reasoning specified above. The
difference between the US government and Islam is the the government
makes no claim for divine origin.

=A0I think the obvious corollary to your leap is that
Post by DKleinecke
everything is a lie. I cannot go there.
Think again.
Post by DKleinecke
Post by drahcir
First of all, you grossly underestimate those muslims who are "into"
terrorism. They include not just suiciders and other terrorists, but
also potential or preparing terrorists as well as millions of
terrorism supporters. Islam has poisoned them, has controverted man's
innate aversion to causing suffering and death and replaced it with
the obligation to do exactly those things.
Your opinion.
What, precisely, is in your opinion my opinion? That millions of
muslims support terrorism? No, that's not my opinion, that's fact:

"Large majorities in many of the
countries polled specifically denounce
the use of attacks on American
civilians, whether in the US or in a
Muslim country. Asked whether they
approved, disapproved, or had mixed
feelings about attacks on civilians in
the United States, 84 percent
disapproved of such attacks in Egypt,
73 percent in Indonesia, and 55
percent in Pakistan. Attacks on =93US
civilians working for US companies
in Islamic countries=94 are also rejected
though a by a slightly lower margin:
85 percent of Egyptians disapproved,
as did 68 percent of Indonesians and
48 percent of Pakistanis."

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/feb09/STARTII_Feb09_rpt.pdf

I'm sure you can do the math.
Post by DKleinecke
Post by drahcir
And all this supposedly
stems from a "good" god. It's too silly for words. I've read much of
the Koran. I am not in the least surprised by what Muslims are doing.
It's perfectly predictable. What is amazing is that if you read a
history of Islam, the very first result is violence. I don't know what
goes through a Muslim's head, why he cannot see what stares him in the
face. It's simply astounding to me.
Have you ever read Voltaire's Candide? =A0At the very end they all
retired to a farm beside the Bosphorus - in Muslim Turkey. =A0A Turk
they meet explains how to live in the Ottoman Empire.
I think Voltaire is free of any suspicion of Islamophilia - but he did
know a lot about living under a hostile and violent government. =A0As
far back as our records go most Muslims, by headcount, were peaceful
people just trying to get along.
I'm sure that's true. All it takes is a minority of terrorist-
supporting muslims to comprise "millions".
Post by DKleinecke
Post by drahcir
Post by DKleinecke
We are all on this world =3D3DA0together. =3D3DA0I think we should ma=
ke an =3D
Post by DKleinecke
effort
Post by drahcir
Post by DKleinecke
to get along with one another.
What a nice thought. Somehow it didn't turn out that way with the
inception of islam, the first effect of which was the Muslim
Conquests.
Only the elite - a tiny minority - were impacted by the conquest. =A0To
most of the people one set of
rulers was replaced by another. =A0The Muslims were apparently welcomed
into Egypt and so little changed in Syria that Mu'awiya's "vizier" was
a Christian.
Couldn't help but notice you haven't mentioned India. Why?


A century or so later Islam became the way for oppressed
Post by DKleinecke
peasants and the like to gain immediate respectability. =A0The amazing
thing about the Empire was that it endured so long. It jumped the
shark about the year 100 and was reduced to a nonentity around the
year 300.
You completely lost me...
Post by DKleinecke
Post by drahcir
Maybe we should get some Muslims of the variety you don't
agree with and sit them down in front of the TV and make them watch
Barney.
If you mean the purple "dinosaur" I do not agree. =A0Such a regime is
almost =A0guaranteed to make them terrorists. In the immortal words of
the Usenet - alt.barney.kill.kill.kill.
DKleinecke
2010-05-14 02:33:54 UTC
Permalink
On May 13, 8:04=A0am, drahcir <***@gmail.com> wrote:

Iconoclast answered a lot of your points
Post by drahcir
The alternative to the above impossibilities, of course, is that the
koran was written by men. Simple.
I believe the Qur'an was written by men (possibly women, too) who had
had an experience of Allah and tried to pass it on. I believe that
some of it pre-dates Muhammad and some of it post-dates Muhammad and,
most likely, some of it is an account of the revelation that came to
Muhammad. I believe the Bible is a similar document (although I feel
sure that Paul would be appalled to see his letters treated as the
Word of God).
Post by drahcir
Post by drahcir
What a nice thought. Somehow it didn't turn out that way with the
inception of islam, the first effect of which was the Muslim
Conquests.
Only the elite - a tiny minority - were impacted by the conquest. =3DA0=
To
Post by drahcir
most of the people one set of
rulers was replaced by another. =3DA0The Muslims were apparently welcom=
ed
Post by drahcir
into Egypt and so little changed in Syria that Mu'awiya's "vizier" was
a Christian.
Couldn't help but notice you haven't mentioned India. Why?
I didn't mention the entire Sassanian empire. It would be nice to have
better knowledge of what went on in the old Persian empire. Coins
indicate that it continued to be administered in Persian in Persian
style until Abd al-Malik arabized everything. Nor did I mention the
far west. Spain was turned upside down but the thrust of the attack
there moved north over the Pyrenees.
Post by drahcir
A century or so later Islam became the way for oppressed
peasants and the like to gain immediate respectability. =3DA0The amazin=
g
Post by drahcir
thing about the Empire was that it endured so long. It jumped the
shark about the year 100 and was reduced to a nonentity around the
year 300.
You completely lost me...
The Islamic conquest originally had next to nothing to do with Islam.
As I indicated the empire reached its zenith under Walid. It was
Walid's father Abd al-Malik who strengthened his regime by making
Islam the state religion (unless it was Abd al-Malik's rival Abd Allah
bn al-Zubayr). Initially, and in Walid's time, it was strictly an
Arabic empire. The Arab's grabbed all the power and left the common
people exactly where they always had been - oppressed by a set of
rulers with whom they had nothing in common.

But the Arab regime had a fatal flaw. Islam is a religion for all
peoples and some of the non-Arabs became Muslims. As more and more
became Muslim the demand to, so to speak, de-arabize Islam became
irresistible. We are now around the middle of the second century. The
Arabic facade cracked and anybody could be a Muslim - subject only to
the usual biases and prejudices. There were major financial and status
advantages to being a Muslim. So whole populations converted. The
conversion at the point of a sword is a later fantasy.
drahcir
2010-05-14 17:20:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by DKleinecke
Iconoclast answered a lot of your points
Post by drahcir
The alternative to the above impossibilities, of course, is that the
koran was written by men. Simple.
I believe the Qur'an was written by men (possibly women, too) who had
had an experience of Allah and tried to pass it on.
Nah, that's not reasonable. See below.

I believe that
Post by DKleinecke
some of it pre-dates Muhammad and some of it post-dates Muhammad and,
most likely, some of it is an account of the revelation that came to
Muhammad. I believe the Bible is a similar document
Not likely, but since there are no terrorists murdering innocents
because they've been instructed to by the bible, my low grade
reasoning does not apply.

(although I feel
Post by DKleinecke
sure that Paul would be appalled to see his letters treated as the
Word of God).
DK, you do realize, I hope, that you completely fail to address the
impossibilities I've detailed with my low grade reasoning, snipping
them away in the process. That's not reasonable, nor is it honest
debate technique. Here they are again, from above:

If we accept the Koran as the
word of "god", and that god is good, and that god is all-powerful, how
can it be that this word leads some men of god to kill other men of
god? Aren't the victims at least as valued to god as the perpetrators?
Either god is evil, which is impossible if god is good, or he didn't
do a very good job imparting his message clearly in the koran, which
is impossible if god is omnipotent, or he is the god of only some men,
which is impossible if god is the god of all men. >
Post by DKleinecke
Post by drahcir
Post by drahcir
What a nice thought. Somehow it didn't turn out that way with the
inception of islam, the first effect of which was the Muslim
Conquests.
Only the elite - a tiny minority - were impacted by the conquest. =3D=
3DA0=3D
Post by DKleinecke
To
Post by drahcir
most of the people one set of
rulers was replaced by another. =3D3DA0The Muslims were apparently we=
lcom=3D
Post by DKleinecke
ed
Post by drahcir
into Egypt and so little changed in Syria that Mu'awiya's "vizier" wa=
s
Post by DKleinecke
Post by drahcir
a Christian.
Couldn't help but notice you haven't mentioned India. Why?
I didn't mention the entire Sassanian empire. It would be nice to have
better knowledge of what went on in the old Persian empire. Coins
indicate that it continued to be administered in Persian in Persian
style until Abd al-Malik arabized everything. Nor did I mention the
far west. Spain was turned upside down but the thrust of the attack
there moved north over the Pyrenees.
Very nice blahblah, but you seem to be again quite dishonest in your
non-acknowledgment that the muslims were not exactly welcomed into
India - or at least, given the level of carnage that they inflicted,
so one would assume.
Post by DKleinecke
Post by drahcir
A century or so later Islam became the way for oppressed
peasants and the like to gain immediate respectability. =3D3DA0The am=
azin=3D
Post by DKleinecke
g
Post by drahcir
thing about the Empire was that it endured so long. It jumped the
shark about the year 100 and was reduced to a nonentity around the
year 300.
You completely lost me...
The Islamic conquest originally had next to nothing to do with Islam.
I need you to answer one question clearly and simply. A yes or no will
suffice. Do you believe that what we refer to as the Islamic Conquests
would have occurred without the invention of Islam?
Post by DKleinecke
As I indicated the empire reached its zenith under Walid. It was
Walid's father Abd al-Malik who strengthened his regime by making
Islam the state religion (unless it was Abd al-Malik's rival Abd Allah
bn al-Zubayr). =A0Initially, and in Walid's time, it was strictly an
Arabic empire. The Arab's grabbed all the power and left the common
people exactly where they always had been - oppressed by a set of
rulers with whom they had nothing in common.
But the Arab regime had a fatal flaw. =A0Islam is a religion for all
peoples and some of the non-Arabs became Muslims. As more and more
became Muslim the demand to, so to speak, de-arabize Islam became
irresistible. =A0We are now around the middle of the second century. The
Arabic facade cracked and anybody could be a Muslim - subject only to
the usual biases and prejudices. There were major financial and status
advantages to being a Muslim. So whole populations converted. =A0The
conversion at the point of a sword is a later fantasy.
You are very deluded if you truly believe the above. So deluded that
it is impossible to help you via the internet. The history, if not
clear, is at least clearly indicative that what you say is total
fabrication.
DKleinecke
2010-05-15 04:20:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by drahcir
But the Arab regime had a fatal flaw. =3DA0Islam is a religion for all
peoples and some of the non-Arabs became Muslims. As more and more
became Muslim the demand to, so to speak, de-arabize Islam became
irresistible. =3DA0We are now around the middle of the second century. =
The
Post by drahcir
Arabic facade cracked and anybody could be a Muslim - subject only to
the usual biases and prejudices. There were major financial and status
advantages to being a Muslim. So whole populations converted. =3DA0The
conversion at the point of a sword is a later fantasy.
You are very deluded if you truly believe the above. So deluded that
it is impossible to help you via the internet. The history, if not
clear, is at least clearly indicative that what you say is total
fabrication.
In India there was a bloody invasion by Muslims - or perhaps several,
I forget the details. There was also a bloody invasion by the
British. It was advantageous, under the Muslims, to be a Muslim. It
was advantageous under the British to be a Christian. I can't see
much difference. All invasions are immoral. But they have been very
popular throughout history.

Compare Alexander's invasions. He brought a very large part of the
known world under his thumb and the thumbs of his successors. There
is no record of any attempt to turn the subject people into Greeks.
But turn they did - in large numbers. Or the Romans. Likewise they
made small effort to make the subject people Romans - in fact they
seem to have ridiculed the ides - but the world the Germans invaded
was a Roman World. There are more examples if you look.
drahcir
2010-05-17 16:29:21 UTC
Permalink
On May 15, 12:20=A0am, DKleinecke <***@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
Post by DKleinecke
In India there was a bloody invasion by Muslims - or perhaps several,
I forget the details.
This sort of reminds me of a Monty Python routine. It went something
like this:

News reporter interviewing a suspected felon:
(To be read with British accents).

"Is it true that you killed 3 members of the Gambozzi family?"
"NO, NEVER!!!"
"But the police have film of you actually pulling the trigger and the
three members falling dead."
"Oh, yeah, I did that..."

You started out by saying how wonderful the arab conquests were for
the victims, that "whole populations converted". Then when I why you
made no mention of India, I get "Oh yeah, they did that".

There was also a bloody invasion by the
Post by DKleinecke
British. =A0It was advantageous, under the Muslims, to be a Muslim. =A0It
was advantageous under the British to be a Christian. =A0I can't see
much difference.
I know nothing of the British invasion of India. Here's a description
I found on the web:

http://www.indianchild.com/british_invasion_in_india.htm

Does that sound particularly bloody to you? If you know otherwise,
please cite. In contrast here is a description of the various Muslim
invasions:

http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/books/negaind/index.htm

You might as well say you can't see much difference between an ingrown
toenail and pancreatic cancer.
Post by DKleinecke
All invasions are immoral. =A0
D-Day was an invasion. Do you consider it immoral?

But they have been very
Post by DKleinecke
popular throughout history.
I have snipped the remainder of your post because, let's be honest, no
one is suggesting that only Muslims murder en masse for the sake of
plunder and enrichment. What you fail to acknowledge is, first, the
scope of Muslim murder throughout history, and perhaps more
importantly, the fact that all of your analogies, Alexander and
whatever, do NOT share the religious premise of conquest with Islam.
You simply don't want to see that. I understand why. Do you?
Saqib Virk
2010-05-22 05:32:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by drahcir
I know nothing of the British invasion of India.
SV
Your lack of knowledge is proof of nothing except that you lack knowledge.
You are hardly to be blamed; propaganda succeeds in both whitewashing and
brainwashing. I assign you the task of researching the British invasion of
India and its effects on the population.
Post by drahcir
In contrast here is a description of the various Muslim
SV
Muslim power in India lasted about 1000 years. The Hindus, their religion
and their places of worship thrive today. The first 250 years of White
man/Christian rule in North America resulted in the practical genocide of
the the Native Americans. Compare and keep this in mind when you read the
words of those attempting to sow discord between Muslims and Hindus by lying
about their history together.
Post by drahcir
What you fail to acknowledge is, first, the
scope of Muslim murder throughout history
SV
The history of man is a history of chaos, murder and bloodshed. They are
hypocrites and liars those who attempt to portray Muslims to be worse than
their own selves.

"Behold, thy Lord said to the angels: "I will create a vicegerent on earth."
They said: "Wilt Thou place therein one who will make mischief and shed
blood?- whilst we do celebrate Thy praises and glorify Thy holy (name)?" HE
said: "I know what ye know not."" [Quran 2:30]

--
S Virk
hajj abujamal
2010-05-23 01:32:37 UTC
Permalink
Salaam!
I suppose the group will have to endure empty, silly
statements from you that contribute nothing to the debate.
As we have to endure empty, silly, propagandistic nonsense from you?

was-salaam,
abujamal
--
astaghfirullahal-ladhee laa ilaha illa
howal-hayyul-qayyoom wa 'atoobu 'ilaihi

Rejoice, muslims, in martyrdom without fighting,
a Mercy for us. Be like the better son of Adam.
DKleinecke
2010-05-15 04:44:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by drahcir
I need you to answer one question clearly and simply. A yes or no will
suffice. Do you believe that what we refer to as the Islamic Conquests
would have occurred without the invention of Islam?
Yes.

To give that answer more substance: I think it did occur without the
invention of Islam. By that I mean that I believe the revelation that
Muhammad preached was known to some of the Arabs (the rulers in
particular) but it was so different from what you think of as Islam as
to deserve to be called non-Islam. It appears that the Islam you are
referring to was invented around the Islamic year 75 and cooked for
another 100 years before it can be really and truly called invented.
Yusuf B Gursey
2010-05-15 06:18:13 UTC
Permalink
In soc.religion.islam DKleinecke <***@gmail.com> wrote in <6728b920-5c24-48cd-8922-***@h20g2000prn.googlegroups.com>:
: On May 14, 10:20=A0am, drahcir <***@gmail.com> wrote:
:>
:> I need you to answer one question clearly and simply. A yes or no will
:> suffice. Do you believe that what we refer to as the Islamic Conquests
:> would have occurred without the invention of Islam?

: Yes.

: To give that answer more substance: I think it did occur without the
: invention of Islam. By that I mean that I believe the revelation that
: Muhammad preached was known to some of the Arabs (the rulers in
: particular) but it was so different from what you think of as Islam as
: to deserve to be called non-Islam. It appears that the Islam you are
: referring to was invented around the Islamic year 75 and cooked for
: another 100 years before it can be really and truly called invented.

if you mean the details of the Sharia and Hadith yes, otherwise, no. see
the conclusions of Hoyland and Donner.
DKleinecke
2010-05-16 03:07:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
:>
:> I need you to answer one question clearly and simply. A yes or no will
:> suffice. Do you believe that what we refer to as the Islamic Conquests
:> would have occurred without the invention of Islam?
: Yes.
: To give that answer more substance: I think it did occur without the
: invention of Islam. By that I mean that I believe the revelation that
: Muhammad preached was known to some of the Arabs (the rulers in
: particular) but it was so different from what you think of as Islam as
: to deserve to be called non-Islam. It appears that the Islam you are
: referring to was invented around the Islamic year 75 and cooked for
: another 100 years before it can be really and truly called invented.
if you mean the details of the Sharia and Hadith yes, otherwise, no. see
the conclusions of Hoyland and Donner.
We have disagreed on this before. The answer depends on what you mean
by details of Shariah and hadith. I see Islam as mostly the shariah
and hadiths with the Qur'an mostly used as a source for proof texts
and that only after the middle of the second century). I am unclear
how either Hoyland or Donner see it.
Yusuf B Gursey
2010-05-16 17:50:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by DKleinecke
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
:>
:> I need you to answer one question clearly and simply. A yes or no will
:> suffice. Do you believe that what we refer to as the Islamic Conquests
:> would have occurred without the invention of Islam?
: Yes.
: To give that answer more substance: I think it did occur without the
: invention of Islam. By that I mean that I believe the revelation that
: Muhammad preached was known to some of the Arabs (the rulers in
: particular) but it was so different from what you think of as Islam as
: to deserve to be called non-Islam. It appears that the Islam you are
: referring to was invented around the Islamic year 75 and cooked for
: another 100 years before it can be really and truly called invented.
if you mean the details of the Sharia and Hadith yes, otherwise, no. see
the conclusions of Hoyland and Donner.
We have disagreed on this before. The answer depends on what you mean
by details of Shariah and hadith. I see Islam as mostly the shariah
and hadiths with the Qur'an mostly used as a source for proof texts
the Qur'an is the source for the fundamental theology.
Post by DKleinecke
and that only after the middle of the second century). I am unclear
how either Hoyland or Donner see it.
the conclusions of Hoyland based on early non-muslim sources p. 549:

<<

Non-Muslim sources writers of the first century AH attest that it was
strictly monotheistic (sebeos, John bar Penkaye, Anastasius of Sinai)
and iconoclastic (anti-Jewish polemicists, Germanus); that its
adherents had a sanctuary, their "House of God" (Bar Penkaye), of
Anrahamic association (Chronicler of Khuzistan, Jacob of Edessa),
called the Ka`ba (jacob of Edessa)), towards which they prayed (Jacob
of Edessa) and at which they sacrificed (Anastasius of Sinai) and
reveranced a stone (Anastasius of Sinai, Germanus); and that they
followed Muhammad (thomas of Presbyter, Sebeos, Chronicler of
Khuzistan), who was their 'guide' and 'instructor' (Bar Penkaye),
whose 'tradition' and 'laws' they fiercely upheld (Bar Penkaye) and
who prescribed for them abstinence from carrion, wine, falsehood and
fornication (Sebeos). It is also noted that the Muslims held Jerusalem
in honour (John Moschus, Arculf, Maronite Chronicler, Anastasius of
Sinai), denied that Christ was the son of God (Isaac of Raboti,
Hnanishoi`, Anastasius of Sinai, Jacob fo Edessa) and conducted their
prayers in specific places bearing the name masjid (John Marchus,
Anastasius of Sinai).
notice also << whose {of Muhammad} 'tradition' and 'laws' they upheld
Post by DKleinecke
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
. so there were the essentials of Hadith and Shariah as well.
all in all sounds pretty familiar, and the basics of Islam the average
uneducated muslim would follow.
drahcir
2010-05-17 16:29:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by DKleinecke
Post by drahcir
I need you to answer one question clearly and simply. A yes or no will
suffice. Do you believe that what we refer to as the Islamic Conquests
would have occurred without the invention of Islam?
Yes.
To give that answer more substance: I think it did occur without the
invention of Islam. By that I mean that I believe the revelation that
Muhammad preached was known to some of the Arabs (the rulers in
particular) but it was so different from what you think of as Islam as
to deserve to be called non-Islam. It appears that the Islam you are
referring to was invented around the Islamic year 75 and cooked for
another 100 years before it can be really and truly called invented.
Oh please, that's nothing but a cop-out. We'll leave it in the public
record that you believe the Islamic Conquests (they, not it) happened
without Islam. Here's the first paragraph from the wikipedia entry on
Muslim Conquests:

Muslim conquests (632=E2=80=93732), (Arabic: =D9=81=D8=AA=D8=AD=E2=80=8E, F=
ata=E1=B8=A5, literally opening,)
also referred to as the Islamic conquests or Arab conquests,[1] of
non-Arab peoples began after the death of the Islamic prophet
Muhammad. He established a new unified political polity in the Arabian
Peninsula which under the subsequent Rashidun (The Rightly Guided
Caliphs) and Umayyad Caliphates saw a century of rapid expansion of
Muslim power.

THere's this from a Muslim site:

Abu Bakr succeeded the Prophet (peace be upon him) and, in his short
period as Caliph, completed the unification of the Arabs of the
peninsula. Under the command of the second Caliph, Umar bin Al-
Khattab, the Arabs, now united and a formidable, battle-hardened
force, swept north into Iraq and Syria, and west into Egypt. In 636
CE, at the Battle of Yarmuk, the Muslims defeated the Byzantine army
and Muslim control of Palestine was established. The fate of the
Persian Empire, under the Sassanids, was determined in 637 CE at the
battle of Qadisiyyah where another Muslim victory led to the fall of
the Sassanid capital Ctesiphon. In the period 639 to 641 CE, Muslim
rule was extended to Egypt. By 641 CE, the Muslim empire covered the
whole of the Arabian peninsula, Syria, Palestine and Egypt. Muslim
armies then marched on along the north African coast. In 642 CE, the
Muslim commander Amr bin al Aas conquered Cyrenaica. By the end of the
decade, Muslim control extended across all of Libya. In 670 CE, the
Muslims swept into Tunisia, finally taking Carthage in 693 CE. By 710
CE the Muslims had reached Morocco. Two years leter, the victorious
Muslim army crossed the Meditarranean into Spain and, in three years,
extended the Muslim writ to all of Spain except for the mountainous
northern region.

I'm sorry, DK, your answer is shockingly dishonest, your equivocating
completely unacceptable. I personally don't care about why you felt
compelled to provide it, but perhaps you'd better think about it.
Yusuf B Gursey
2010-05-15 01:38:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by DKleinecke
Iconoclast answered a lot of your points
Post by drahcir
The alternative to the above impossibilities, of course, is that the
koran was written by men. Simple.
I believe the Qur'an was written by men (possibly women, too) who had
had an experience of Allah and tried to pass it on. I believe that
some of it pre-dates Muhammad and some of it post-dates Muhammad and,
there is no evidence that there were interpolsations in the Qur'an.
M.Cook confirms this.
Post by DKleinecke
most likely, some of it is an account of the revelation that came to
Muhammad. I believe the Bible is a similar document (although I feel
sure that Paul would be appalled to see his letters treated as the
Word of God).
the Qur'an and the Bibleneed not have similar histories.
Post by DKleinecke
Post by drahcir
Post by drahcir
What a nice thought. Somehow it didn't turn out that way with the
inception of islam, the first effect of which was the Muslim
Conquests.
Only the elite - a tiny minority - were impacted by the conquest. =3DA0=
To
Post by drahcir
most of the people one set of
rulers was replaced by another. =3DA0The Muslims were apparently welcom=
ed
Post by drahcir
into Egypt and so little changed in Syria that Mu'awiya's "vizier" was
a Christian.
Couldn't help but notice you haven't mentioned India. Why?
I didn't mention the entire Sassanian empire. It would be nice to have
better knowledge of what went on in the old Persian empire. Coins
indicate that it continued to be administered in Persian in Persian
style until Abd al-Malik arabized everything. Nor did I mention the
far west. Spain was turned upside down but the thrust of the attack
there moved north over the Pyrenees.
Post by drahcir
A century or so later Islam became the way for oppressed
peasants and the like to gain immediate respectability. =3DA0The amazin=
g
Post by drahcir
thing about the Empire was that it endured so long. It jumped the
shark about the year 100 and was reduced to a nonentity around the
year 300.
You completely lost me...
The Islamic conquest originally had next to nothing to do with Islam.
As I indicated the empire reached its zenith under Walid. It was
Walid's father Abd al-Malik who strengthened his regime by making
Islam the state religion (unless it was Abd al-Malik's rival Abd Allah
bn al-Zubayr). Initially, and in Walid's time, it was strictly an
Arabic empire. The Arab's grabbed all the power and left the common
people exactly where they always had been - oppressed by a set of
rulers with whom they had nothing in common.
many were Arabs under Byzaantine or Persian rule. the Jacobite,
Armenian, Coptic churhces, the Jews were allowed freedomof worship. it
was not all negative.
Post by DKleinecke
But the Arab regime had a fatal flaw. Islam is a religion for all
peoples and some of the non-Arabs became Muslims. As more and more
became Muslim the demand to, so to speak, de-arabize Islam became
irresistible. We are now around the middle of the second century. The
Arabic facade cracked and anybody could be a Muslim - subject only to
the usual biases and prejudices. There were major financial and status
advantages to being a Muslim. So whole populations converted. The
conversion at the point of a sword is a later fantasy.
DKleinecke
2010-05-15 04:54:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
there is no evidence that there were interpolsations in the Qur'an.
M.Cook confirms this.
I didn't say that there were interpolations in the Qur'an - I think
there were but, so far as I know of any great importance. I said the
Qur'an was a collection of material from multiple sources. Is there a
reason why I should be interested in M.Cook's opinion?
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
the Qur'an and the Bible need not have similar histories.
Their histories seem quite different to me - but the nature of what
they contain seems very similar. As I said before - a record of men's
experiences of God written by men who had such experiences and did
their best to convey what happened.
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
many were Arabs under Byzaantine or Persian rule. the Jacobite,
Armenian, Coptic churhces, the Jews were allowed freedomof worship. it
was not all negative.
Relatively few Arabs were under rule by either Empire before the
Conquests. I am unsure whether there were any advantages to being a
non-Muslim Arab. The early Madina laws are very punitive toward what
they call Nabateans - I imagine that means Christian Arabic
sedentaries.
Yusuf B Gursey
2010-05-15 06:09:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by DKleinecke
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
there is no evidence that there were interpolsations in the Qur'an.
M.Cook confirms this.
I didn't say that there were interpolations in the Qur'an - I think
there were but, so far as I know of any great importance. I said the
Qur'an was a collection of material from multiple sources. Is there a
reason why I should be interested in M.Cook's opinion?
he is, or was, in the Wansbrough tradition. it is not just Cook's
opinion,
Post by DKleinecke
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
the Qur'an and the Bible need not have similar histories.
Their histories seem quite different to me - but the nature of what
they contain seems very similar. As I said before - a record of men's
experiences of God written by men who had such experiences and did
that's a tehological question, I am now dealing with history.
Post by DKleinecke
their best to convey what happened.
there is no proven case that the Qur'an was authored by other than
more than one man, Muhammad.
Post by DKleinecke
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
many were Arabs under Byzaantine or Persian rule. the Jacobite,
Armenian, Coptic churhces, the Jews were allowed freedomof worship. it
was not all negative.
Relatively few Arabs were under rule by either Empire before the
quite a significant number in greater Syria (under Byzanine rule) and
in southern Iraq (under Persian rule).
Post by DKleinecke
Conquests. I am unsure whether there were any advantages to being a
non-Muslim Arab. The early Madina laws are very punitive toward what
never heard of Nabataeans being mentioned in the Constitution of
Mecca.

the Arabs chose tribal / ethnic solidarity over religion, and most
converted to Islam.
Post by DKleinecke
they call Nabateans - I imagine that means Christian Arabic
sedentaries.
DKleinecke
2010-05-16 03:11:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
there is no proven case that the Qur'an was authored by other than
more than one man, Muhammad.
Nor is there any proof it was. It does not claim to be. Zero equals
zero. It is all speculation.
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by DKleinecke
Conquests. I am unsure whether there were any advantages to being a
non-Muslim Arab. =A0The early Madina laws are very punitive toward what
never heard of Nabataeans being mentioned in the Constitution of
Mecca.
Too early. Try the Muwatta.
Yusuf B Gursey
2010-05-16 18:32:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by DKleinecke
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
there is no proven case that the Qur'an was authored by other than
more than one man, Muhammad.
Nor is there any proof it was. It does not claim to be. Zero equals
zero. It is all speculation.
early sources non-Muslim sources name Muhammad as the Prophet. so does
the Qur'an.

to say that it was authored by several hands, one has to provide
reasons for it. one cannot provide further proof that Muhammad was the
author. the burden of proof falls on th eopposite claim. though, from
a secular point of view, I would agree that Muhammad took advice, or
had sources for his revelation. of course, the muslim pointof view, it
was non other than God through Gabriel.
Post by DKleinecke
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by DKleinecke
Conquests. I am unsure whether there were any advantages to being a
non-Muslim Arab. =A0The early Madina laws are very punitive toward what
never heard of Nabataeans being mentioned in the Constitution of
it refered to Aramaeans or Aramaeanised Arabs.
Post by DKleinecke
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Mecca.
Too early. Try the Muwatta.
that, would indeed be likely a later fabrication.
iconoclast@yahoo.com
2010-05-13 15:04:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by drahcir
<snip>
First the snip which trims away context for Mr. Kleinecke's
conclusion.
Post by drahcir
Post by DKleinecke
The bomber points to Islam - but Islam does not
point to the bomber.
Then the launching into a kind and gentle but nevertheless ad hominem
evaluation of his opponent's personality.
Post by drahcir
I have noticed that you often make statements stating your opinion as
fact. =A0i don't think you do this willfully - I just think that you
have constructed your world in such a way that if you don't rely on
assumptions, things fall apart.
Following that we find pure speculation stated as if fact as to what a
bomber "would say," which eliminates any mention of the political and
international issues which drive Jihad, the political issues which in
fact are specific preconditions to Defensive Jihad in the doctrine.
Thrown in is the assertion, straight from the imaginary Jihadi, that
all Muslims are Jihadis.

The bomber, were he still with us,
Post by drahcir
would say that your moderate approach points to Islam, but Islam does
not point to your moderate approach.
And then comes a repetition of the imagined testimony of the dead man,
dragged back onto the stage by drahcir, that he was obliged BY ISLAM
to be motivated by heavenly virgins, not by the defense of Islam and
Muslim lands. As the man is manifestly dead and no one else but his
enemy is speaking about him, there is no way that a shred of honor or
manhood can be attached to him. There is not even anyone here to point
out that the ancient doctrine, crafted perhaps a thousand years ago,
has been inevitably distorted by modern technology and might, perhaps,
be in the process of being reconsidered as we speak.

For the bomber, his Islam, the
Post by drahcir
one that obliged him to kill scores of people so that he got his
reward in a world that's far less unpleasant than this one, is the
true Islam.
Near the end there is a return to the main theme, the ad hominem
argument, this time not at all kind and gentle but passive-aggressive,
that Mr. Kleinecke's own words lead to the conclusion that Islam is a
lie. And as if that weren't enough, the dead man whose testimony was
concocted by drahcir himself, is a liar (!) and so is Mr. Kleinecke.

To you it isn't. That's all anyone can say. And the fact
Post by drahcir
that that's all anyone can say leads inexorably to the conclusion that
Islam is a lie - yours as well as his.
Clip debris

And finally, the argument from sarcasm.
Post by drahcir
What a nice thought. Somehow it didn't turn out that way with the
inception of islam, the first effect of which was the Muslim
Conquests. Maybe we should get some Muslims of the variety you don't
agree with and sit them down in front of the TV and make them watch
Barney.
Which in sum suggests that anyone who sees any connection between the
dispossession and occupation of the Palestinian people and Jihad is
functioning at the level of comedy for toddlers.
DKleinecke
2010-05-14 02:03:55 UTC
Permalink
On May 13, 8:04=A0am, "***@yahoo.com" <***@yahoo.com>
wrote:

I think you have done a good job of expressing the issues between
drachir and me so I do not have to repeat them..

Thank You.
drahcir
2010-05-15 04:44:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by drahcir
<snip>
First the snip which trims away context for Mr. Kleinecke's
conclusion.
Post by drahcir
Post by DKleinecke
The bomber points to Islam - but Islam does not
point to the bomber.
Then the launching into a kind and gentle but nevertheless ad hominem
evaluation of his opponent's personality.
Post by drahcir
I have noticed that you often make statements stating your opinion as
fact. =3DA0i don't think you do this willfully - I just think that you
have constructed your world in such a way that if you don't rely on
assumptions, things fall apart.
Following that we find pure speculation stated as if fact as to what a
bomber "would say," which eliminates any mention of the political and
international issues which drive Jihad,
<snip>

I'm going to snip away this post of icono because there's something
rather funny going on. The gist of icono's post is that the assertion
about the religious motivation of the bomber is purely speculative.
Only one small problem. BOTH MR. KLEINECKE AND I ARE IN AGREEMENT
ABOUT THIS!

Here is the context that was snipped, solely to correspond to the
rules at SRI:

I have no trouble facing the reality of suicide bombers. But I admit I
will probably never understand their motivation. I believe you think
that if we had interviewed him immediately before the atrocity he
would have babbled about Allah and virgins in Paradise and similar
things. We cannot be sure, but it seems likely to me as well.

And in that sense it does have a connection with Islam. But it is a
one-way connection. The bomber points to Islam - but Islam does not
point to the bomber.

*****
So, IT SEEMS LIKELY to Mr. Kleinecke as well as me that the motivation
of the bomber was at least in part religious. Therefore, since both
parties are in agreement, the point CANNOT BE ARGUED IN THE CONTEXT OF
THIS DISCUSSION. That fact inexplicably seems to jhave completely
eluded icono, and completely invalidates his entire "argument", if
that's what it can be called. Of course, were I a petty person, I'd
state the obvious - aside from the one substantive thing he said,
which as I have shown is irrelevant, his "argument" is nothing but a
fantastic and wildly presumptive attempt to analyze my "methods and
motives", i.e. has NOTHING to do with addressing my points.
drahcir
2010-05-07 18:20:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by hajj abujamal
Salaam!
=A0>> The largest fraction of terrorists is in South America related to
=A0>> the cocaine trade; muslims are, or at least were a year or so ago,
=A0>> the smallest fraction. =A0You can find the evidence on US Governmen=
t
Post by hajj abujamal
=A0>> websites, there was a pie chart showing the actual incident
=A0>> distribution, and the cocaine traffickers were far and away the
=A0>> majority of terrorists.
=A0> It's a bit strange to make an assertion that is contrary to popular
=A0> belief, and then say, "YOU can find the evidence..." =A0Rather, if i=
t
Post by hajj abujamal
=A0> is you making the assertion, then it should be you providing the
=A0> evidence.
=A0 =A0 No, it is you who has been making an assertion based entirely on
popular belief with no evidence. =A0
But that is my prerogative. I repeat, the assertion that most
terrorists are Muslim is popular belief That belief is instilled by
the nearly daily news reports of tens or sometimes hundreds of
innocent people, most often Muslim women and children at markets,
being murdered by Muslims. Since it is popular belief instilled by
verifiable news reports, I need no evidence - it is self-evident. If
you wish to contradict it, you must provide the evidence, otherwise
the assertion stands.

You asked for contrary evidence, as if
Post by hajj abujamal
you had provided some, and my response tells you what the reality has
been and where to find the evidence that you demanded.
Self-evident statements, especially those that correspond to popular
belief based on valid news sources, by definition do not require
external evidence. It would be as if I stated that most Sumo wrestlers
are Japanese. I don't need external evidence - it is a self-evident
statement. Your response contradicts my self-evident statement without
providing a scrap of evidence. You did not say where to find this
supposed evidence. You said it can be found on "government websites".
You may as well have said, just go onto the web, the evidence is
there. Why are you so unwilling to provide the source(s) of this
evidence? Are you certain that it exists?
Post by hajj abujamal
=A0 =A0 I've been glancing at this nonsense discussion for as long as it'=
s
Post by hajj abujamal
been active, and it's just a rehash or replay of a virtually identical
discussion in this forum a year or two ago. =A0As with the previous
discussion, I have seen nothing but naked assertion without the least
scrap of evidence from those who make your assertions. =A0
Self-evident statements do not require further evidence.

So when you ASK
Post by hajj abujamal
for some "contrary evidence," it's perfectly legitimate to tell you
where to find some real evidence, since you don't have any of your own.
That statement makes no sense. You did not tell anyone where to find
this supposed evidence - if you had a cite, you'd post it. I provided
a self-evident statement. I require no further evidence in support.
Had I stated that most terrorists are Eskimos, then you'd have a right
to ask me to provide evidence. But providing evidence that most
terrorists are Muslim is silly - every news story about terrorism in
the recent past involves Muslim perpetrators - you know it as well as
I do. Frankly I'd be impressed if you could provide ONE story about a
terrorist event with non-Muslim perpetrators in the last year. Why you
feel compelled to play this game is anyone's guess.
Post by hajj abujamal
=A0 =A0 "Most terrorists in the last 10, 20, or 50 years have been Muslim=
"
Post by hajj abujamal
is a false statement without evidence,
No, it's not. It's a self-evident statement. However, I will for the
moment play your silly game. For your reading pleasure, here's an
extremely incomplete list of recent Muslim terrorism from Wikipedia:

* 26 February 1993 =96 World Trade Center bombing, New York City. 6
killed.
* 13 March 1993 =96 1993 Bombay bombings. Mumbai, India. The single-
day attacks resulted in over 250 civilian fatalities and 700 injuries.
* 28 July 1994 =96 Buenos Aires, Argentina. Vehicle suicide bombing
attack against AMIA building, the local Jewish community
representation, leaves 85 dead and more than 300 injured.
* 24 December 1994 =96 Air France Flight 8969 hijacking in Algiers
by 3 members of Armed Islamic Group of Algeria and another terrorist.
7 killed including 4 hijackers.
* 25 June 1996 =96 Khobar Towers bombing, 20 killed, 372 wounded.
* 17 November 1997 =96 Luxor attack, 6 armed Islamic terrorists
attack tourists at Egypts famous Luxor Ruins. 68 foreign tourists
killed.
* 14 February 1998 =96 The 1998 Coimbatore bombings occurred in the
city of Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India. 46 people were killed and over
200 were injured in 13 bomb attacks within a 12 km radius.
* 7 August 1998 =96 1998 United States embassy bombings in Tanzania
and Kenya. 224 dead. 4000+ injured.
* 4 September 1999 =96 A series of bombing attacks in several cities
of Russia, kills near 300 people.
* 12 October 2000 =96 Attack on the USS cole in the Yemeni port of
Aden.
* 11 September 2001 =96 4 planes hijacked and crashed into World
Trade Center and The Pentagon by 19 hijackers. Nearly 3000 dead.[154]
* 13 December 2001 =96 Suicide attack on India's parliament in New
Delhi. Aimed at eliminating the top leadership of India and causing
anarchy in the country. Allegedly done by Pakistan-based Islamist
terrorist organizations, Jaish-E-Mohammad and Lashkar-e-Toiba.
* 27 March 2002 =96 Suicide bomb attack on a Passover Seder in a
Hotel in Netanya, Israel. 30 dead, 133 injured.
* 7 May 2002 =96 Bombing in al-Arbaa, Algeria. 49 dead, 117 injured.
* 24 September 2002 =96 Machine Gun attack on Hindu temple in
Ahmedabad, India. 31 dead, 86 injured.[155][156]
* 12 October 2002 =96 Bombing in Bali nightclub. 202 killed, 300
injured.[157]
* 16 May 2003 =96 Casablanca Attacks =96 4 simultaneous attacks in
Casablanca killing 33 civilians (mostly Moroccans) carried by Salafaia
Jihadia.
* 11 March 2004 =96 Multiple bombings on trains near Madrid, Spain.
191 killed, 1460 injured (alleged link to Al-Qaeda).
* 1 September 2004 Approximately 344 civilians including 186
children, are killed during the Beslan school hostage crisis.[158]
[159]
* 2 November 2004 =96 Ritual murder of Theo van Gogh (film director)
by Amsterdam-born jihadist Mohammed Bouyeri.
* 4 February 2005 =96 Muslim terrorists attacked the Christian
community in Demsa, Nigeria, killing 36 people, destroying property
and displacing an additional 3000 people.
* 7 July 2005 =96 Multiple bombings in London Underground. 53 killed
by four suicide bombers. Nearly 700 injured.
* 23 July 2005 =96 Bomb attacks at Sharm el-Sheikh, an Egyptian
resort city, at least 64 people killed.
* 29 October 2005 =96 29 October 2005 Delhi bombings, India. Over 60
killed and over 180 injured in a series of three attacks in crowded
markets and a bus, just 2 days before the Diwali festival.[160]
* 9 November 2005 =96 2005 Amman bombings. Over 60 killed and 115
injured, in a series of coordinated suicide attacks on hotels in
Amman, Jordan.[161][162] Four attackers including a husband and wife
team were involved.[163]
* 7 March 2006 =96 2006 Varanasi bombings, India. An attack
attributed to Lashkar-e-Taiba by Uttar Pradesh government officials,
over 28 killed and over 100 injured, in a series of attacks in the
Sankath Mochan Hanuman temple and Cantonment Railway Station in the
Hindu holy city of Varanasi.[164] Uttar Pradesh government officials.
* 11 July 2006 =96 Mumbai, India. 11 July 2006 Mumbai train bombings
were a series of seven bomb blasts that took place over a period of 11
minutes on the Suburban Railway in Mumbai (formerly known as Bombay).
209 people lost their lives and over 700 were injured in the attacks.
* 14 August 2007 =96 Qahtaniya bombings: Four suicide vehicle
bombers massacred nearly 800 members of northern Iraq's Yazidi sect in
the deadliest Iraq war's attack to date.
* 26 July 2008 =96 Ahmedabad, India. Islamic terrorists detonate at
least 16 explosive devices in the heart of this industrial capital,
leaving at least 49 dead and 160 injured. A Muslim group calling
itself the Indian Mujahideen claims responsibility. Indian authorities
believe that extremists with ties to Pakistan and/or Bangladesh are
likely responsible and are intent on inciting communal violence.[165]
Investigation by Indian police led to the eventual arrest of a number
of terrorists suspected of carrying out the blasts, most of whom
belong to a well-known terrorist group, The Students Islamic Movement
of India.[166]
* 13 September 2008 =96 Delhi, India. Pakistani extremist groups
plant bombs at several places including India Gate, out of which the
ones at Karol Bagh, Connaught Place and Greater Kailash explode
leaving around 30 people dead, followed by another attack two weeks
later at the congested Mehrauli area, leaving 2 people dead.
* 26 November 2008 =96 Mumbai, India. Muslim extremists kill at
least 174 people and wound numerous others in a series of coordinated
attacks on India's largest city and financial capital. A group calling
itself the Deccan Mujaheddin claims responsibility, however, the
government of India suspects Islamic terrorists based in Pakistan are
responsible. Ajmal Kasab, one of the terrorists, was caught alive.[167]
[168]
* 25 October 2009. Baghdad, Iraq. During a terrorist attack, two
bomber vehicles detonated in the Green Zone, killing at least 155
people and injuring 520.
* 28 October 2009 =96 Peshawar, Pakistan. A car bomb is detonated in
a woman exclusive shopping district, and over 110 die with 200 or more
injured.
5 November 2009 - Fort Hood, Texas, USA. U.S. Army Major Nidal Malik
Hasan, an American Muslim of Palestinian descent, shot and killed 13
people and wounded 30 others at a U.S. Army base.
* 3 December 2009 =96 Mogadishu, Somalia. A male suicide bomber
disguised as a woman detonates in a hotel meeting hall. The hotel was
hosting a graduation ceremony for local medical students when the
blast went off, killing four government ministers as well as other
civilians.[169]
* 1 January 2010 =96 Lakki Marwat, Pakistan. A suicide car bomber
drove his explosive-laden vehicle into a volleyball pitch as people
gathered to watch a match killing more than 100 people.[170]
1 May 2010 - New York, New York, USA. Faisal Shahzad, an Islamic
Pakistani American who received U.S. citizenship in December 2009,
attempted to detonate a car bomb in Times Square.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism#Organizations_and_acts

Most of the above have death tolls, others can be estimated. Please
provide evidence of terrorist deaths perpetrated by a group other than
Muslims that outweighs the above. If you cannot, you must accept my
statement as valid.

Here is a list of foreign terrorist organizations kept by the US State
Department:

1. Abu Nidal Organization (ANO) (International, Palestinian)
2. Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG) (Philippines)
3. Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades|Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade (Palestinian)
4. Al-Shabaab (Somalia)
5. Ansar al-Islam (Iraqi Kurdistan)
6. Armed Islamic Group (GIA) (Algeria)
7. Asbat an-Ansar (Lebanon)
8. Aleph (formerly Aum Shinrikyo) (Japan)
9. Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA) (Spain, France)
10. Communist Party of the Philippines/New People's Army (CPP/NPA)
(Philippines)
11. Continuity Irish Republican Army (CIRA) (Northern Ireland)
12. Gama=92a al-Islamiyya (Egypt)
13. HAMAS (Islamic Resistance Movement) (Palestinian)
14. Harakat ul-Jihad-i-Islami/Bangladesh (HUJI-B) (Bangladesh)
15. Harakat ul-Mujahidin (HUM) (Pakistan)
16. Hizballah (Party of God) (Lebanon)
17. Hizbul Islam (Somalia)
18. Islamic Jihad Group (Palestinian)
19. Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) (Uzbekistan)
20. Jaish-e-Mohammed (Army of Mohammed) (JEM) (Pakistan)
21. Jemaah Islamiya organization (JI) (South East Asia)
22. al-Jihad (Egyptian Islamic Jihad) (Egyptian Islamic Jihad)
(Egypt)
23. Kahane Chai (Kach) (Israel)
24. Kongra-Gel (formerly Kurdistan Workers' Party) (KGK, formerly
PKK, KADEK, Kongra-Gel) (Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Syria)
25. Lashkar-e Tayyiba (Army of the Righteous) (LT) (Muridke,
Pakistan)
26. Lashkar i Jhangvi (Pakistan)
27. Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) (Sri Lanka)
28. Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) (Libya)
29. Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group (GICM) (Morocco)
30. Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK) (Iran)
31. National Liberation Army (ELN) (Colombia)
32. Palestine Liberation Front (PLF) (Palestinian)
33. Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) (Palestinian)
34. Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)
(Palestinian)
35. PFLP-General Command (PFLP-GC) (Palestinian)
36. Tanzim Qa'idat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn (QJBR) (al-Qaida in
Iraq) (formerly Jama'at al-Tawhid wa'al-Jihad, JTJ, al-Zarqawi
Network) (Iraq)
37. al-Qa=92ida (Global)
38. al-Qa=92ida in the Islamic Maghreb (formerly GSPC) (The Maghreb)
39. Real IRA (Northern Ireland)
40. Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) (Colombia)
41. Revolutionary Nuclei (formerly ELA) (Greece)
42. Revolutionary Organization 17 November (Greece)
43. Revolutionary People's Liberation Party/Front (DHKP/C) (Turkey)
44. Shining Path (Sendero Luminoso, SL) (Peru)
45. United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC) (Colombia)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._State_Department_list_of_Foreign_Terroris=
t_Organizations

I count 32 of 45 as Muslim. That equals 71%, a percentage that would
correspond to "most" as most people understand the word. Do you agree?
If so, you must accept my statement as valid.

The ball is in your court.

<snip>
Post by hajj abujamal
was-salaam,
abujamal
--
astaghfirullahal-ladhee laa ilaha illa
howal-hayyul-qayyoom wa 'atoobu 'ilaihi
Rejoice, muslims, in martyrdom without fighting,
a Mercy for us. =A0Be like the better son of Adam.
drahcir
2010-05-07 02:31:03 UTC
Permalink
m>
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by drahcir
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by drahcir
sheesh, this is really so simple - most terrorists are Muslim.
That's an unsupported and unargued assertion, and just as it was in
your first post it is also false historically.
The verb "are", as in "most terrorists are Muslim", is in the present
tense, and is therefore irrelevant to whatever situations might have
happened "historically".
Your statement that "most terrorists are Muslim" is necessarily
baseless without reference to history.
It does refer to RECENT history. You inserted your comment to quickly.
"Do you wish to challenge my assertion that most terrorists active
today ARE Muslim, an assertion based on the percentage of acts of
terrorism committed by Muslims in the RECENT past?"

If most terrorists were Hindu 1500 years ago, it would not be logical
to conclude that most terrorists ARE Hindu. But since most terrorists
in the last 10, 20, or 50 years have been Muslim, it is reasonable to
conclude that most terrorists ARE Muslim. I repeat, if you wish to
challenge that simple assertion, you may do so by presenting evidence
that most terrorists in the last 10, 20, or 50 years were NOT Muslim.
All other nonsense, as the entirety of the post to which I am not
replying, is irrelevant and does nothing to refute my assertion.

Do you agree with the assertion that most terrorists are Muslim? YES
OR NO?

<snip>
Count 1
2010-05-07 18:20:39 UTC
Permalink
And also your
Post by ***@yahoo.com
failure to deal with the unique period the Middle East is in currently
as a result of the ethnic cleansing and brutal occupation of
Palestine, mostly by European colonists.
But that's a propagandistic fantasy. There is no 'brutal occupation of
Palestine', there has been no 'ethnic cleansing', and the people who created
the state of Israel and continue to live and build the most progressive
country in the region are not 'European colonists'

Therefore there is no logical connection between Islamic terrorism and
Israel. It simply doesn't exist except where Hamas and various other groups
operating from the disputed zones use Islamic justifications for blowing up
teenagers. For a greater understanding I encourage you to read Hanson on the
issue;

http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/ibrahim101409.html

(...)

For all his OBL's) talk of Israel being the heart of the problem, he exposed
his true position in the following excerpt, which he directed to fellow
Arabic-speaking Muslims not long after the 9/11 strikes:

Our talks with the infidel West and our conflict with them ultimately
revolve around one issue - one that demands our total support, with power
and determination, with one voice - and it is: Does Islam, or does it not,
force people by the power of the sword to submit to its authority
corporeally if not spiritually?

So much for bin Laden's insistence that Israel is the "reason for our
conflict with you." Now we see that the conflict ultimately revolves around
whether Islam is obligated to dominate the world by force. Well, is it? Bin
Laden continues:

Yes. There are only three choices in Islam: [1] either willing submission
[conversion]; [2] or payment of the jizya, through physical, though not
spiritual, submission to the authority of Islam; [3] or the sword - for it
is not right to let him [an infidel] live. The matter is summed up for every
person alive: Either submit, or live under the suzerainty of Islam, or die.
(The Al Qaeda Reader [4], p. 42)

This threefold choice, then - conversion, subjugation, or the sword - is the
ultimate source of problems. All Islamist talk of jihad being a product of
U.S. foreign policy is, therefore, false. When bin Laden asserted in this
last message that it is the "neocons" who "impose the wars upon you - not
the mujahideen [i.e., jihadis]," he lied. Islamic law, as he himself
delineated, imposed war between Muslims and non-Muslims well over a
millennium before the "neocons" - let alone the state of Israel - came into
being.
(...)
***

As you can see Islamic terrorists aren't really concerned with Israel.
Israel is just a speed bump to them, something that will slow them down from
their ultimate goal. The greatest obstacle they face is the Muslim world,
which has largely rejected their message of violence as a means of being
obedient to Allah.
Count 1
2010-05-06 03:48:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by drahcir
sheesh, this is really so simple - most terrorists are Muslim.
That's an unsupported and unargued assertion, and just as it was in
your first post it is also false historically. The nature of warfare
globally has shifted since WWII.
He's not talking about 'warfare', he's talking about 'terrorism'. And he is
right, these days the vast majority of terrorist acts are attributed to
Muslims.

That's not a critique of the religion, it's simple fact. Now most Muslims -
especially in North America - will respond by saying their terrorism isn't
ideologically connected to Islam, and their actions negate their deen,
rendering them non-Muslims. That's a debate between Muslims.

However none of it changes the fact that most terrorists today use Islamic
arguments to justify their actions. It's called 'Salafism' and you should
read up on it to understand why what drahcir wrote was perfectly correct.
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by drahcir
Therefore, were I a Muslim, I'd ask myself why.
your "I'd ask myself why" is
Post by ***@yahoo.com
based on a suppressed, false premise.
Actually it's not based on a false premise at all. And Muslims - in fact all
people - need to ask themselves 'why'? Just a couple of days ago another
Muslim tried to kill a whole lot of people in Times Square with a crude
bomb. What was he upset about? He wanted retaliation for Predator drone
attacks on terrorist leaders operating in Pakistan. This is the level of
logic we're dealing with, attacks on militants warrants attacks on civilians
as 'retaliation'. Instead of pretending these facts don't exist, you should
learn about them and try to garner a broader view of what's going on the
world. It's not all about a 'lobby' or all about a small country called
Israel. This is a multi-dimensional conflict and you don't do yourself any
favours with ostrich like behaviour.

(Interesting side note, ostriches don't actually bury their heads in the
dirt, they swallow rocks to aid with the digestion of their food, which is
where the myth comes from.)
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...