Obama supports "Ground Zero Mosque" (of course he does)

[razark]

Where's Murphysville ? didn't catch the state apparently they don't want one built there either. http://www.13wmaz.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=88301&catid=175
It's in Tennessee. The site of the new mosque is about a mile and a half from the site of a mosque that has existed for decades...

:nope:

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

And you still haven't shown how you're going to accomplish this tightrope walk without destroying everything you claim to be protecting.

By setting limited objectives. Despite the sometimes slippery slope nature of this, Western society play this "tightrope walk" all the time. For example, in Germany, public denial of the Holocaust is IIRC a crime. That will actually of course be a crimping of freedom of speech. But it doesn't necessarily destroy the rest of free speech in Germany.

I know that the radical Islamists are dangerous. Here in America we lock up people for what they do, not for what they say.

Let me try an analogy. I'm not too familiar with the finer points of American law, but I suppose that considering all the freedom of speech and religion provisions, it would be legal for a certain major TV-station to allocate say 4-hours of prime time to radical Islam propaganda. Of course, it'll be just as legal not to allot them the time.

Now, given that the above is indeed legal, do you think that this is all hunky-dory?

IMO, it is one thing to not arrest a radical, be it a Islamist, Creationist, Communist or whatever as soon as he opens his big mouth. But a society can rightly choose not to give them the bright part of day, to allocate them less than prime-cuts of land, to make them put their propaganda in the relative recess of the Internet rather than on national TV, without necessarily harming freedom of speech.

[Sailor Steve]

By setting limited objectives. Despite the sometimes slippery slope nature of this, Western society play this "tightrope walk" all the time. For example, in Germany, public denial of the Holocaust is IIRC a crime. That will actually of course be a crimping of freedom of speech. But it doesn't necessarily destroy the rest of free speech in Germany.
I believe that Germany is far over the line in making things like that a crime. To me it shows the same exact lock-step mindset that created those things in the first place.

But that's just my opinion, and since I don't live there it's none of my business.

Let me try an analogy. I'm not too familiar with the finer points of American law, but I suppose that considering all the freedom of speech and religion provisions, it would be legal for a certain major TV-station to allocate say 4-hours of prime time to radical Islam propaganda. Of course, it'll be just as legal not to allot them the time.

Now, given that the above is indeed legal, do you think that this is all hunky-dory?
Absolutely. Just as the courts approved right of modern Neo-Nazis to hold a rally in a predominately Jewish neighborhood, this would engender contoversy and open discussion. And it would ruin the station's reputation, which is why none of them would ever do it in the first place.

IMO, it is one thing to not arrest a radical, be it a Islamist, Creationist, Communist or whatever as soon as he opens his big mouth. But a society can rightly choose not to give them the bright part of day, to allocate them less than prime-cuts of land, to make them put their propaganda in the relative recess of the Internet rather than on national TV, without necessarily harming freedom of speech.
And in my opinion it's just the opposite. Society can choose not to watch, but if a station is stupid enough to air somebody's racist crap, that's their problem. And it will be a problem, because most people aren't as stupid as some like to think.

[tater]

Freedom of (political) speech in the US is absolute as long as you are not suborning a crime. It's the 1st Amendment. Ditto religion, though the "establishment clause" can certainly be read to prevent government sponsorship of religion—since personal belief is a "Natural Right" and the government can't grant you something you already have. I find the german laws which ban some speech abhorrent. I understand the context, but the end result is to treat citizens like children—which is always the wrong answer, IMHO. I suppose it is easier to accept in societies that are fine with the State as mommy and daddy. Myself, I'll willing to takes some lumps in the name of liberty. If that means listening to idiots I disagree with, so be it.

This puts the US in a pickle vs Islam. I won't even say "radical" Islam, because even so-called "moderate" Islam is "radical" by Western standards. Look at the "moderate" cleric in question's remarks (translated from Arabic media, not the BS he throws at the US press) regarding apostasy, etc. What % of Christian churches would be considered "radical" if their doctrine included death for leaving the church, or publicly denouncing it's beliefs? Right, 100% would be.

The best solution, IMHO, is to have a strict separation. Dump all special treatment of religion. Tax them. If they engage in activity that is dangerous for national security, shut them down. Note that many religious people in the US would happily have the government do this to "cults"—a cult being some silly belief system that is not YOUR silly belief system as far as I can tell.

Hold all religions to the same standard. Christians are hated (by some) as fundamentalists for Biblical literalism. The same people should equally hate any muslim sects that hold the same literalist beliefs. Instead, here, we routinely see people that hate Christians, defending a far worse fundamentalism. Boggles the mind, frankly.

We have to make sure we don't defend enemies of enlightened, democratic pluralism in the name of political correctness (which is what the left here bends over backwards to do—and the right often times, too, look at W's talk about Islam being "hijacked"—what rubbish, it was Islam being itself).

[Skybird]

I won't even say "radical" Islam, because even so-called "moderate" Islam is "radical" by Western standards. Look at the "moderate" cleric in question's remarks (translated from Arabic media, not the BS he throws at the US press) regarding apostasy, etc.
It is a radical, a conqueror's ideology. Muslims indeed obeying it's dogma and rules, necessarily must be radicals. Muslims refusing to be that, thus are jus that: Muslims disobedient to (and not representative for) the dogma. Islam itself is as radical as the term "radical" can mean.

I also point out that many muslims are offended by this Western deamnd to differ between radical and moderate Islam. On eof the ost prominent voices who have very angrily protested aginst this wetsern idiocy, is Turkey'S pr9me momsiter Erdoghan, who said in real word that it is an offence that the Wesat constantly refers to a distinction between moderate and radical Isalam. He insisted that it is an offence, and that there is and always have been just one islam.

Of curse, the usual band of western idiots and braindead suicide candidates did not consider one minute the possibulity that he might be right and that he might know it better than them. they know so much better what Islam is, these hyperintellectual supermen.

Well, that is what defines an idiot, amongst other criterions: he never listens, he is fully immune to learning, and he always thinks he knows it better.

The West knows better what Islam is than Islam knows itself. :haha: :har: Yeah. Sure.

The West is a mental asylum where doctors and patients are one and the same. :03:

[mookiemookie]

Reminds me of people around here:

SALINA, KS—Local man Scott Gentries told reporters Wednesday that his deliberately limited grasp of Islamic history and culture was still more than sufficient to shape his views of the entire Muslim world.

...

"I almost gave in and listened to that guy defend Islam with words I didn't want to hear," Gentries said. "But then I remembered how much easier it is to live in a world of black-and-white in which I can assign the label of 'other' to someone and use him as a vessel for all my fears and insecurities."

http://www.theonion.com/articles/man-already-knows-everything-he-needs-to-know-abou,17990/

[SteamWake]

Reminds me of people around here:



http://www.theonion.com/articles/man-already-knows-everything-he-needs-to-know-abou,17990/

So we are to infer that this man is representative to all those that are in opposition to this location?

[mookiemookie]

So we are to infer that this man is representative to all those that are in opposition to this location?

*whoosh*

[Aramike]

*whoosh*:D

Although I would say that many around here have far more than just a limited grasp...

[Tribesman]

Well, that is what defines an idiot, amongst other criterions: he never listens, he is fully immune to learning, and he always thinks he knows it better.

A description of Skybird in a nutshell.

And you still haven't shown how you're going to accomplish this tightrope walk without destroying everything you claim to be protecting.


You simply missed the post, Sky explained it all with the help from his bestest buddy popper who read your questions.
Some might say that the post was never there and doesn't exist, but those are just the silly people who can't see things the same as Sky does, after all only a super intellectual is able to undestand like Sky does as he reads lot, he proves this by many amazing feats....like reciting laws thatnormal mere mortals think don't exist , magic treaties that ordinaryy people believe were never written and events and happenings worldwide that all them regular folk just have no knowledge of because they foolishly believe Sky is just making it up again.

[Cohaagen]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaQBrTROj2w

The eloquence - and if I'm being frank, catchiness - of this man's masterwork has persuaded me, at least.

:yeah:

[Skybird]

Klick for video:
Stop the mosque from being build at Ground Zero (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eo3_c97Bdpg&feature=related)

Bull's eye. :yeah:

(...) any religion that endorses violence, is incapable to deliver spiritual enlightenment - how obvious does that have to be? And it has no right to even call itself a religion. without the shield of religion to hide behind, Islam would be banned in the civilised world as a political ideology of hate, and we have no obligation to make allowances for it anymore than we do for Nazism. It's a bigger threat to our freedom than Nazism ever was, yes: both are totalitarian, and both seperate the world unnecessarily into "us" and "them", the "pure" and the "impure", and both make no secret of their desire to exterminate the Jews. But we roll more or less on the same side against the Nazis, whereas the Islamo-Nazis have got plenty of friends amongst people in the West who ougth to know better. American politics is now regularly making the kind of dhimmi-noises about "diversity" as an excuse for Islamisation, the same kind of thing that we've become so depressively familiar with in europe. It's true that diversity has been good for America, it's been the making of that country, but American diversity has always been grounded in respect for the values, the individual liberties that make America what it is. Islam rejects those values, and that's the difference, and it's a very important difference. Islam despises what america is, it rejects everything america stands for - including freedom and diversity. And any Muslim denying that - is a liar.

the organisation behind this scheme is called the Cordoba Initiative, and the building is to be called Cordoba House. And this is because Cordoba is this city in southern Spain where Muslims built their first great mosque at the start of and as a symbol of their conquest of Spain. The Ground Zero mosque is intended to serve the same purpose in America. Building mosques on conquered sacred ground is standard practice, it's what Islam always has done to ascertain supremacy , and that is what's happening here. And of course they know how insulting it is, how offensive it is - are you kidding me? why do you think they chose a site as close as possible to Ground Zero - or do you think that that was just an accident? And they also know that once it's build it will be there forever, as a permanent affront to all Americans, gloating in triumph, and a major bridgehead for ongoing stealth jihad, that's how the Muslim world will see it, and that's how they will be encouraged to see it, and to be fair to them - that's exactly what it will be, confirming what they always suspected: that America is a soft country, a decadent country, crippled by political correctness, confused and guilt-ridden, with no backbone and no pride.

They plan to open it next year on 9/11, the 10th anniversary of the atrocity - is that tasteless enough for you...? I am surprised they haven't organised a 757-fly-past.

[Tribesman]

Bull's eye
So that sad failed comedian is at it again.:yawn:

[Sailor Steve]

Of curse, the usual band of western idiots
That's sure going to win people to your side.

hyperintellectual supermen.
Well, that is what defines an idiot, amongst other criterions: he never listens, he is fully immune to learning, and he always thinks he knows it better.
But those are exactly the terms I would use to describe you. See the problem?

It's not what you say, it's how you say it. Old and trite saying, but true. And you're still talking down to everybody.

[Dimitrius07]

Another skipe88 alert.

"Everyone who against Ground zero mosque is a secret Israeli agent who never been in Germany :88)." Over and out :salute:

[August]

Another skipe88 alert.

"Everyone who against Ground zero mosque is a secret Israeli agent who never been in Germany :88)." Over and out :salute:

You know this witch hunt you're on isn't making you or Israel any friends. I'm just sayin...

[Skybird]

The enemy within (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUiysSau8Qk&feature=related)

For you, Steve.

[Sailor Steve]

He doesn't say much I don't already agree with. But does that mean we need to change our laws so someone can't erect a building?

And you still haven't explained why I shouldn't fear you as much as I should fear them.

[Tchocky]

The enemy within (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUiysSau8Qk&feature=related)

For you, Steve.


"in every Western country Islamic extremists are allowed to exploit religious privilege for political ends by claiming to represent all muslims, and the media always treats them as if they do"

Every. Always. When this guy isn't lobbing himself softball questions ("people always ask me - why do you hate Muslims?"), he seems to be making odd generalisations like this.

"there is no debate, there is no common ground to find, there is (sic) no American-Islamic relations"

And that one. Which follows on his idea that every immigrant group to US/UK/Australia can do what they like, except if you happen to carry a koran.

Obviously there are American-Islamic relations. The pure factual nature of the "War on Terrorism" tells you that there is some sort of dialogue taking place. Say what you want about CAIR, personally I don't know too mbout it, there is place for an organisation with it's stated purpose.

"if you read only one book this year, or even in your entire life, make it Muslim Mafia"

What can I say, the guy knows how to market.

And of course, the book is ignored precisely because of it's very prescience. Which explains the massed ranks of Islamists in the US political machine, law enforcement bodies, and media.
Also, Dave Gaubatz, now there's a guy you don't want to be leaning on for facts. Crikey.

"in publishing this book the authors have done more for their country and the civilised word, than all the politicians on Capitol Hill, combined, will acheive in their entire careers"

Wow. I'm impressed.
You'd think they would at least give out free copies, or Pat would arrange something. Surely he can't let those of us too poor to buy go unenlightened?

[Skybird]

He doesn't say much I don't already agree with. But does that mean we need to change our laws so someone can't erect a building?

And you still haven't explained why I shouldn't fear you as much as I should fear them.


I am more in defence of your freedom than you are yourself, Steve - while you are busy in defending "their" freedom to destroy it.

That's what it is coming down to. You will protest, you will object and say that I do not understand you. the point is: I understand perfectly how you tick on this issue. And that is why I see that it makes no sense how you tick, and thus there is no point in doing another round around the block with you.

There is nothing more I have to say on this issue. I will not do another repetition cycle, all from the start of it. The reason of my argument is clear since weeks, it was the first thing I adressed you with on that first occasion some weeks ago, you can still read it in my sig, and nowhere you have shown to invalidate it by reasonable argument - just days ago you even asked me instead why it is a tolerance-dilemma and why it is called the freedom-paradoxon. If you cannot even see that formal basis, not to mention the inner logic of the thought in it, then there is no basis established on which communication can be exchanged. Means: from here on, it is not a question of argument anymore, but a question of power.

You may see that again as me talking down to people or to you, and lecturing, and this, and that and whatever. But the truth is that I do refuse to give up elemental reason in order to meet those who lack elemental reason on that level of lacking reason. If that earns me the description of looking down on people, then I cannot help it - the accusation alone is no reason for me to abandon either reason - or freedom. To me, your opinion is one of the most dangeorus things the West currently has to deal with, causing an identity crisis that paralyses it and makes it unable and unwilling to defend itself against those wanting to see it fall.

[Skybird]

Every. Always.
Indeed. In every Western country, from Belgium ovber germany to sweden, from Spain over the United Kingdom to the Netherlands. even orthodox Poland is softening up.

When this guy isn't lobbing himself softball questions ("people always ask me - why do you hate Muslims?"), he seems to be making odd generalisations like this.
There are around 60 videos by him. It seems you have not read some of those tens of tbosuands of comments. Plus youtube is not his only activities.


"there is no debate, there is no common ground to find, there is (sic) no American-Islamic relations"
For Islam, relations to the infidels are a necessary evil at times of own weakness. If "own weakness" is over and rpalced with "own strength" again, the others getvtaken over if possible. that is no relation in the meaning of contacting th eother on same eye level, and a basis of tolerance and coextsince. Islam wants to dominate, it wants to be the only thing in power. Everything else is just "lesser being". It is self-declared supremacism as pure as you can imagine it. A Herrenkultur.

Obviously there are American-Islamic relations. The pure factual nature of the "War on Terrorism" tells you that there is some sort of dialogue taking place. Say what you want about CAIR, personally I don't know too mbout it, there is place for an organisation with it's stated purpose.
Yes, you state the obvious. you indeed do not know about CAIR. That's why you fall for their "stated purpose".
Ask yourself if maybe it could be possible, maginable, if there is any chance for their stated purpose and their real purpose not being the same, and then start some search for informaitoj about them that is not coming from the giovernment spokesman or sources liniked to CAIR. If you want objective information on a suspect, maybe it is a good idea not to ask the suspect himself.

If I had my will, CAIR and orgsanisation would be immediately shut down and their staff arrested due to conspiracy and anti-constitutional activities in order to destroy the state. What Spetznatz was meant to be in a war against NATO, organisations like CAIR are meant in the jihad to take over the West: infiltrating, disrupting communication, deceive action, seize bridges and vital keypoints. Nothing else such organsiations are doing as well with regard to manipulation of public opinion and perception of islam deceiving jihad, infiltration education, legislation, manipulating politics, and erode resistence to Sharia.


"if you read only one book this year, or even in your entire life, make it Muslim Mafia"

What can I say, the guy knows how to market.

And of course, the book is ignored precisely because of it's very prescience. Which explains the massed ranks of Islamists in the US political machine, law enforcement bodies, and media.
Also, Dave Gaubatz, now there's a guy you don't want to be leaning on for facts. Crikey.
I can and do not comment on a book I have not and most likely will not read.

[Sailor Steve]

I am more in defence of your freedom than you are yourself, Steve - while you are busy in defending "their" freedom to destroy it.
And again you avoid the simplest question. Can you not answer it, or will you not answer it?

I protest nothing, and you understand nothing, except what you want to see. You only answer what you want to answer, and none of what I actually say. You are as dangerous to me as they are, and you won't even answer that.

Yes, they are dangerous. How many times must I agree on that. But your way is tyrrany, and you don't see it.

[Dimitrius07]

But your way is tyrrany, and you don't see it.


Then maybe you can enlighten us with your personal ideas on how to deal with religious fanatics who want to kill all infidels in the name of Allah. I hope you will not going to give us Obama solutions.) With fanatics it doesn`t work, in case you don`t know or don`t want to know.

--------
This will be probably ignored, but worth a try.;)

[Tribesman]

There are around 60 videos by him. It seems you have not read some of those tens of tbosuands of comments. Plus youtube is not his only activities.

:har::har::har::har::har::har:
Pat and Popper are skys heroes, all we need now is a nice rant about securing the freedom of soccer by banning blacks and muslims to save the western world

[tater]

Pat Condell hits the mark in many cases where I've heard him, but he also misses at times. His attitude regarding religious freedom, or perhaps freedom in general is "wrong" from an American standpoint—it strikes me as very european, in fact.

In that one he mentions nazis being outlawed in Europe, and I have to say that as much as I hate Nazis (heck, I've never even looked at the SH4 u-boats since I don't play even play nazis in games, lol), I disagree with banning them, 100%. OTOH, in that same video, he mentions the propriety of said Muslims building their mosque. he's right on that, if they really wanted to pay even the slightest lip service to local sensitivities, they'd never have considered the project in the first place. Also his observation that they themselves are hyper-sensitive to ANY perceived slight of Islam is also spot-on.

I remember seeing one of his vids where he talks about freedom of expression being "sacred" to Westerners, and demanding that the Muslims in the West respect THAT. I liked that one quite a bit.

[Tribesman]

Also his observation that they themselves are hyper-sensitive to ANY perceived slight of Islam is also spot-on.

thats strange as when that pillock wilders wanted to cause offence by going out of his way in slighting Islam he managed to get bugger all reaction really apart from lots of people saying his film was crap.

But then again those danish cartoons got a big reaction....eventually after many weeks of trying to get a crowd going to take real offence and weven then they had to make up additional fake cartoons to say they were so outraged.

if they really wanted to pay even the slightest lip service to local sensitivities
Its the people ranting against the mosque that are ones ignoring local sensitivities. The locals buck the national trend of manufactured outrage

[Skybird]

And again you avoid the simplest question. Can you not answer it, or will you not answer it?

I protest nothing, and you understand nothing, except what you want to see. You only answer what you want to answer, and none of what I actually say. You are as dangerous to me as they are, and you won't even answer that.

Yes, they are dangerous. How many times must I agree on that. But your way is tyrrany, and you don't see it.

http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/7682/livemealonelion.jpg (http://img827.imageshack.us/i/livemealonelion.jpg/)

[Skybird]

Pat Condell hits the mark in many cases where I've heard him, but he also misses at times. His attitude regarding religious freedom, or perhaps freedom in general is "wrong" from an American standpoint—it strikes me as very european, in fact.
Yes, he is another one of these tyrannic dictators who say that tolerance is a deal on reciprocity, and freedom must end where it is abused by the enemy to destroy freedom. How unreasonable. How unfree. How - tyrannic!

In that one he mentions nazis being outlawed in Europe, and I have to say that as much as I hate Nazis (heck, I've never even looked at the SH4 u-boats since I don't play even play nazis in games, lol), I disagree with banning them, 100%.
Why? Have 56 million dead still not been enough?

I remember seeing one of his vids where he talks about freedom of expression being "sacred" to Westerners, and demanding that the Muslims in the West respect THAT. I liked that one quite a bit.
What - now limiting their freedom a bit, suddenly is - not tyrannic?

[Tribesman]

Watch out Steve, if you keep pushing for him to discuss topics and answer questions instead of lecturing from a high horse he will put you on ignore:har::har::har::har::har:

[Platapus]

So 19 pages.

Has anyone's opinion on this matter been changed? :nope:

[Tribesman]

So 19 pages.

Has anyone's opinion on this matter been changed?
No, but I learned something.
I knew about the Japanese war memorials at Pearl harbour but I didn't know about the Shinto shrines or the courts ruling on them

[tater]

Yes, he is another one of these tyrannic dictators who say that tolerance is a deal on reciprocity, and freedom must end where it is abused by the enemy to destroy freedom. How unreasonable. How unfree. How - tyrannic!

You have freedom of expression—or you don't. Pick one.


Why? Have 56 million dead still not been enough?

Again, political freedom is political freedom. If they did not violate you constitution, they are no threat. If they violate the constitution, you jail them. Hateful talk... is just talk. This is interesting, because you are in fact now making the same arguments some are making about Islam WRT nazism. SOME belief systems are incompatible, and must be disallowed. Interesting.


What - now limiting their freedom a bit, suddenly is - not tyrannic?

It doesn't limit their freedom in the least. In the US, expression is explicitly guaranteed. They can complain all they like, but actually ACTING instead of complaint is the problem. Make some art that shows Jesus doing something horrible. See how many people get killed. Do the same with the pedo Muhammad and see what happens. Or you could just do a body count for the Brooklyn Art Museum anti-Christian stuff vs the Danish cartoons.

NBo one cares in the least about muslims complaining. It's their hateful actions in response that are disgusting.

[Sailor Steve]

Then maybe you can enlighten us with your personal ideas on how to deal with religious fanatics who want to kill all infidels in the name of Allah. I hope you will not going to give us Obama solutions.) With fanatics it doesn`t work, in case you don`t know or don`t want to know.
I've never said I have answers, or even ideas. In case you missed it, I hate this thing as much as anyone. All I've ever done is defend the legal right to build a building. If the law turns around and denies them that right, I'll probably defend the law in that case as well.

I fight enemies of freedom wherever I find them. Are you one?

This will be probably ignored, but worth a try.;)
You? Ignore me?

I can only hope.

I thought you said goodbye. Three or four times.

[Sailor Steve]

http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/7682/livemealonelion.jpg (http://img827.imageshack.us/i/livemealonelion.jpg/)

Still hiding from the question, eh?

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

I believe that Germany is far over the line in making things like that a crime. To me it shows the same exact lock-step mindset that created those things in the first place.

But that's just my opinion, and since I don't live there it's none of my business.

I'll say you are missing the point. The point is that:
1) Even nominally free-speech countries often have limitations already imposed.
2) While such limitations may be debated on their merits, the historical evidence suggests that limited restrictions do not necessarily landslide into Gestapo II.

Absolutely. Just as the courts approved right of modern Neo-Nazis to hold a rally in a predominately Jewish neighborhood, this would engender contoversy and open discussion. And it would ruin the station's reputation, which is why none of them would ever do it in the first place.

If we grant that a station will perform the scenario, then there would be a significant viewership making it worthwhile. And after a few years, you'll be used to the fact a major TV station is running 4-hours of radical Islam a day, which opens the path for them to be running it six hours a day, then 8, and so on.

And in my opinion it's just the opposite. Society can choose not to watch, but if a station is stupid enough to air somebody's racist crap, that's their problem. And it will be a problem, because most people aren't as stupid as some like to think.

Having a lot of faith in people, are you? But if you have that much faith, certainly it can be possible to block Islam without necessarily leading to a cascade.

I'll say that people are creatures of habit, and while there may be significant numbers that groan at first, if it is kept up eventually they'll adapt, thus freeing the path for another advance.

You do have to remember just a hundred fifty years ago, not particularly immoral humans thought having slaves was a-OK.
====
As a rule, the slippery slope is a fallacy, mostly because its proponent would tend to skip over or understate counterbalancing forces which will stop the "ball" before it reaches an dangerous position.

However, IMO there is an exception case, and that's when one side continuously feels compelled to lift their counterforce away from the balance. In such a case, the slippery slope has the potential to become fact.

That, IMO the essence of Skybird's position (and if I have indeed determined his position through his Walls of Text approximately correctly, I am sympathetic to it), and that, I'll say is why Skybird's position is ultimately less dangerous than Islam. The average Westerner is indoctrinated from birth to be extremely careful about freedom restriction (as we can see here), and though the potential may be reduced as Skybird's proposals open a passage, there will still probably be a fair counter-force left to stop further advance. The average Westerner is indoctrinated from birth to not feel the same away about Islam (and in fact most other religions for the matter no matter what ugliness may be in their Holy Scripts), so there is only a low reserve counter-force, which leaves us vulnerable to Islam.

So, what to do about it? AFAIK It is the Constitution of Western countries to either "grant" the right to free speech and religion, or "guarantee" it. However, nobody mandates that every speech and every religion must be equally well supported by society. Some views go on TV in front of 200 million citizens while others are on a fringe Internet site or a local pamphlet that only a few would have real access to. And I'm certain it won't do Western countries great harm to make Islam closer to the latter.

[Aramike]

I'll say you are missing the point. The point is that:
1) Even nominally free-speech countries often have limitations already imposed.
2) While such limitations may be debated on their merits, the historical evidence suggests that limited restrictions do not necessarily landslide into Gestapo II.



If we grant that a station will perform the scenario, then there would be a significant viewership making it worthwhile. And after a few years, you'll be used to the fact a major TV station is running 4-hours of radical Islam a day, which opens the path for them to be running it six hours a day, then 8, and so on.



Having a lot of faith in people, are you? But if you have that much faith, certainly it can be possible to block Islam without necessarily leading to a cascade.

I'll say that people are creatures of habit, and while there may be significant numbers that groan at first, if it is kept up eventually they'll adapt, thus freeing the path for another advance.

You do have to remember just a hundred fifty years ago, not particularly immoral humans thought having slaves was a-OK.
====
As a rule, the slippery slope is a fallacy, mostly because its proponent would tend to skip over or understate counterbalancing forces which will stop the "ball" before it reaches an dangerous position.

However, IMO there is an exception case, and that's when one side continuously feels compelled to lift their counterforce away from the balance. In such a case, the slippery slope has the potential to become fact.

That, IMO the essence of Skybird's position (and if I have indeed determined his position through his Walls of Text approximately correctly, I am sympathetic to it), and that, I'll say is why Skybird's position is ultimately less dangerous than Islam. The average Westerner is indoctrinated from birth to be extremely careful about freedom restriction (as we can see here), and though the potential may be reduced as Skybird's proposals open a passage, there will still probably be a fair counter-force left to stop further advance. The average Westerner is indoctrinated from birth to not feel the same away about Islam (and in fact most other religions for the matter no matter what ugliness may be in their Holy Scripts), so there is only a low reserve counter-force, which leaves us vulnerable to Islam.

So, what to do about it? AFAIK It is the Constitution of Western countries to either "grant" the right to free speech and religion, or "guarantee" it. However, nobody mandates that every speech and every religion must be equally well supported by society. Some views go on TV in front of 200 million citizens while others are on a fringe Internet site or a local pamphlet that only a few would have real access to. And I'm certain it won't do Western countries great harm to make Islam closer to the latter.Well done, KSII. You've decided that pragmatism is the best approach to the situation.

[Skybird]

Still hiding from the question, eh?
When the free in an act of defending that freedom, limits the other's option to destroy freedom, than that is no tyranny, but simply: self-defence.Something nthat to claim if being attcked is the most natural thing in the world. Your question - which came as your only reaction to my question that was going first - as well as your whole argument, thus is Quatsch. Blödsinn. Stuß. Dummes Zeug.

Sorry for the harsh words, but it cannot be said any different. To me, your whole thinking on the issue is nuts, and ridden with destructive self-contradiction. Totally nuts, self-contradicting, and suicidal. So go on and crucify yourself over your demands for this idea of yours. Reality will roll over you anyway. And it will be defined by your enemy, because he is stronger, more patient and more determined than you are willing to defend yourself. Islam has already successfully established it's prerogative of interpretation (=Deutungshoheit )in the public debate.

The only reason why I even care is becasue with your fall you seal the doom of all us others as well.

[Tribesman]

When the free in an act of defending that freedom, limits the other's option to destroy freedom, than that is no tyranny
Straight from My struggle, though of course uncle adolf was on about jews and communists decadent politicians plus the enemy within who foolishly facilitate them wheras Sky is on about muslims the left the decadent politicians and the enemy within who foolishly accomodate them.

I'll say is why Skybird's position is ultimately less dangerous than Islam.
But the thing is that the threat he is fighting isn't that real so he is proposing rather dangerous solutions to a frightening danger that is not that real.
His paranoia and phobia has convinced him of the need for radical action to fight off threats that he largely has to invent.
That is what sets his seemingly "balanced and reasoned" step towards tyranny such a frightening prospect and the fact that he makes up so much rubbish and insists its real when it is easily disproved makes it even more of a frightening prospect.

[Skybird]

If we grant that a station will perform the scenario, then there would be a significant viewership making it worthwhile. And after a few years, you'll be used to the fact a major TV station is running 4-hours of radical Islam a day, which opens the path for them to be running it six hours a day, then 8, and so on.

The use of spreading propaganda is to influence the other, and to turn him around. And if it is done in the underhanded and lying waylike islam sells itself in the West, then it is a highly effective way that enables them to infiltrate education, legislation, policy forming, and finally claiming the authority to define public opinion (prerogative of interpretation)- which you can see in the fact that today criticism of Islam automatically qualifies as hate speech and racism, and as islamic speakers and officials state: as crimes against mankind. If islam is not given the freedom to seek total dominance and rulership, that is "tyranny" and a perverting of western values, so they claim. Sounds familiar, Steve? You are a formidable Mitläufer of their intentions, opening them their breaches and ways. They turn our own ideals, our values on which we base, our own laws against us - i order to destroy us. And they are successful, as to be seen in the example of the Islamophilia of the EU, the UN, the islamisation of public opinion, and Steve'S thinking that standing up against this is "tyranny".


Having a lot of faith in people, are you? But if you have that much faith, certainly it can be possible to block Islam without necessarily leading to a cascade.

TV quality has constantly detoriated since 20 years and more. It becomes more and more stupid. So, that faith in the reaosnability of the people is highly unjustified, I would say, because the relation between media entertainment and audience is that of mutual feedback. People get kicked into dumbness by showing them stupid programs (or manipulative ones: see news), and stupid programs become more stupid becasue people want it. "Racist crap", as Steve puts it, can be highly successful - that's why it is systemtically spilled out on the streets. The Nazis in Germany are very successful in recuriting new, young people, their numbers are climbing and climbing. Even more since they started to dress themselves into burgeois appearance, hiding their Nazism behind conservatism and seriousness. The modern Nazis doe snot show up in army jackets and black boots, but in ordinary business suits. they copied the infiltration tactics of psycho-sects and abusive slaveorganisations like Scientology. Islam acts in this deceptive way since much longer. In the other thread I linked to an essay on the organsiation behind the Cordoba House - and showed the difference between the sweetsweet words they pour into American ears, and the preaching of conquest and jihad and subjugation of america that they, the very same people, preach on the other side of the planet in support of the GZ mosque. Irritating, not anyone cared for it, nobody mentioned it, nobody saw a motivation of trying to counter it - although I referred to it five times, in links and even quoting the full text, everybody ignored it. So, having faith in the reasonability of people? Sorry, not with me. I have a bit of faith in the reasonability of some people. and these people form the group that is loosing the battle for defining the public opinion-climate. Because they disturb the illusion of this elusive peace that all is okay and nothing must be done and we can keep on hanging around lazy and comfortably. Defending freedom? "What - me...?"

Reason and argument alone have no voice in this insane world anymore. The noise made from the yelling of the others is too loud. Sometimes I think one should let it all go to hell. It's just that there are two young, sweet ladies of age 8 and 5, whose future worries and frightens me. The older one is at school, and I see how the poltical correct appeasement of Isamic demands already is being pumnped into her brain. Of course she is too young to question it, and when she is older she is so used to it and knows it not any different so that it is unlikely that she will start to ask questions by herself. Seeing it that way sometimes puts me into a murderous angry mood. there are not even that many muslims at her school, so WTF did she - as a non-Muslim - already need to obey rules of Halal food during school party in spring this year...??? So far I only read about such things in Britain. It seems the plague has spread further East.


I'll say that people are creatures of habit, and while there may be significant numbers that groan at first, if it is kept up eventually they'll adapt, thus freeing the path for another advance.

You do have to remember just a hundred fifty years ago, not particularly immoral humans thought having slaves was a-OK.
====
As a rule, the slippery slope is a fallacy, mostly because its proponent would tend to skip over or understate counterbalancing forces which will stop the "ball" before it reaches an dangerous position.

However, IMO there is an exception case, and that's when one side continuously feels compelled to lift their counterforce away from the balance. In such a case, the slippery slope has the potential to become fact.
Indeed, and in the case of Islam in the West we do not talk about intention, but proven example, action that is taken and maintained since years and decades. The question is neither "if..." nor "when" but only: "for how long anymore?" answer is this: as long as it takes them to copmplete theirt taks, or as long as it takes us to stand up in strength and make them stop and go away, setting up as much pressure as is needed to stop islam, and push it back to the standards every other culture and religion in our home culture has to accept and obey.

That, IMO the essence of Skybird's position (and if I have indeed determined his position through his Walls of Text approximately correctly, I am sympathetic to it), and that, I'll say is why Skybird's position is ultimately less dangerous than Islam. The average Westerner is indoctrinated from birth to be extremely careful about freedom restriction (as we can see here), and though the potential may be reduced as Skybird's proposals open a passage, there will still probably be a fair counter-force left to stop further advance. The average Westerner is indoctrinated from birth to not feel the same away about Islam (and in fact most other religions for the matter no matter what ugliness may be in their Holy Scripts), so there is only a low reserve counter-force, which leaves us vulnerable to Islam.
Indeed. I again refer to the german constitution that both declares an ammount of freedom that makes germany one of the freest societies in the world - but it also specifies the case when somebody can lose these freedom guarantees - and that is when he sues them to try overwhelming the constitutional order or destroy right these freedoms. If that is what makes germany a tyranny or dictaorship, then that means the necessary end of communicating, because people do not speak the same language then.

So, what to do about it? AFAIK It is the Constitution of Western countries to either "grant" the right to free speech and religion, or "guarantee" it. However, nobody mandates that every speech and every religion must be equally well supported by society. Some views go on TV in front of 200 million citizens while others are on a fringe Internet site or a local pamphlet that only a few would have real access to. And I'm certain it won't do Western countries great harm to make Islam closer to the latter.
Once again I remind of this: that Western constitutions tend to base on the separation of religion and politics, and that this is the basis on which they guarantee or grant the right of free speech and free religion. A constitution that does not also specify that these guarantees are void and invalid for everybody who does not fully submit to this principle and thus tries to push policies under the protection of free religion, thus making his political goals untouchable to opposition and criticism, is highly vulnerable to such an enemy, and cannot defend itself against him: it gets beaten by its own rules. Like Steve does, it opens the enemy the lane to turn right this constitution against itself, eroding it from inside, and destroy the order of the state that bases on it.

And that is what is happening: first in Europe, and now also in America. Islam neither knows nor accepts nor cares for the separation of relgion and poltics. In Islam, politics, socialness (?), privateness and religion all are one and the same. we have no equivalent for this model in Western culture as far as I know, not even the uniformity of totalitarian regimes like fascism.

[Tribesman]

whcih you can see in the fact that today criticism of Islam automatically qualifies as hate speech and racism
Wow he can't help himself , making up more rubbish and having the front to call it "fact":doh:

[Dimitrius07]

I've never said I have answers, or even ideas. In case you missed it, I hate this thing as much as anyone. All I've ever done is defend the legal right to build a building. If the law turns around and denies them that right, I'll probably defend the law in that case as well.

I fight enemies of freedom wherever I find them. Are you one?


So you don`t have an answer but you claim that others hiding from a question. Or you just call it "tyranny".
Well maybe you can tell me why when people suggest to build a mosque somewhere else (not near ground zero) your politician disagree? I know the answer and you know the answer, because it will lose it main goal, spit on faces of the dead. So what next comrade? We will also have a program building large Hitler statue in the middle of Auschwitz? Many individuals here will agree with that probably.:D

The last thing i want to mention is your claim that you are fighting for freedom. Ok fighter
http://merrillmarkoe.com/wp-content/gallery/main/freedom%20go%20to%20hell.jpg

have any suggestions ?

[Castout]

Don't worry it just needs someone to open a stripper club next to it or even yet a block away, with Marketing such Free Friday for Muslims.


Oh come on don't be offended I was just kidding.

[SteamWake]

The man behind the Mosque...


Developer Of Community Center Has Lengthy Record, With Numerous Arrests Dating Back To 1990


http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2010/08/30/who-is-the-man-behind-the-ground-zero-mosque/

[AVGWarhawk]

He has been very busy.

[tater]

El-Gamal also owes over $227,000 in unpaid real estate taxes and a spokesman for the Department of Finance said interest will be added for each and every day its unpaid

They'll give a permit to people who owe back taxes? Yeesh.

I suppose he could get an Obama cabinet position, though, tax evasion seems to be a prerequisite.

[Sailor Steve]

I'll say you are missing the point. The point is that:
1) Even nominally free-speech countries often have limitations already imposed.
2) While such limitations may be debated on their merits, the historical evidence suggests that limited restrictions do not necessarily landslide into Gestapo II.
1) True. We don't shout "Fire" in a crowded theater and we don't threaten the lives of public officials. I've never said otherwise.

2) No, not necessarily, but it is possible, and needs to be watched. My comments to Skybird are based less on historical statistics than on his projected attitude, which to me seems to be that he will save us from the bad guys by restricting them for what they say, and he offers no guarantee that I won't be next.

So what point exactly am I missing?

If we grant that a station will perform the scenario, then there would be a significant viewership making it worthwhile. And after a few years, you'll be used to the fact a major TV station is running 4-hours of radical Islam a day, which opens the path for them to be running it six hours a day, then 8, and so on.
And your point is? That's the price we accept when we guarantee free speech. We accepted the possibility when we allowed the Nazis to march in Skokie. We accept it every time someone burns an American flag in the streets.

Personally I think that is what makes America different from anyplace else in the world. It's what made us what we are today, and the only thing that keeps us from monarchy and dictatorship.

Having a lot of faith in people, are you? But if you have that much faith, certainly it can be possible to block Islam without necessarily leading to a cascade.
Possibly, but I don't see that it has worked in the past.

I'll say that people are creatures of habit, and while there may be significant numbers that groan at first, if it is kept up eventually they'll adapt, thus freeing the path for another advance.
Possibly, but I also see that as true of Skybird's way.

You do have to remember just a hundred fifty years ago, not particularly immoral humans thought having slaves was a-OK.
True, and we created laws to protect those slaves. And to protect everyone else. And that means everyone.

As a rule, the slippery slope is a fallacy, mostly because its proponent would tend to skip over or understate counterbalancing forces which will stop the "ball" before it reaches an dangerous position.
:yep:

You're absolutely right. Now tell that to Herr Niemöller.


However, IMO there is an exception case, and that's when one side continuously feels compelled to lift their counterforce away from the balance. In such a case, the slippery slope has the potential to become fact.
And I see Skybird's arguments in exactly that light.

That, IMO the essence of Skybird's position (and if I have indeed determined his position through his Walls of Text approximately correctly, I am sympathetic to it), and that, I'll say is why Skybird's position is ultimately less dangerous than Islam.
That may well be true, but in spite of repeated requests from me he has declined to defend his position or offer any guarantees that that is not exactly where his ideas will end up. Instead he has repeatedly told me that my beliefs are stupid and suicidal, and that if I don't accept his pronouncements without question then I am my own worst enemy.

I don't have any problems with his ideas, though I do disagree somewhat. My problem is with his arrogant proclamations of my ignorance and stupidity.

The average Westerner is indoctrinated from birth to be extremely careful about freedom restriction (as we can see here), and though the potential may be reduced as Skybird's proposals open a passage, there will still probably be a fair counter-force left to stop further advance. The average Westerner is indoctrinated from birth to not feel the same away about Islam (and in fact most other religions for the matter no matter what ugliness may be in their Holy Scripts), so there is only a low reserve counter-force, which leaves us vulnerable to Islam.
But I'm not the average Westerner. I've been a solid Law-And-Order type, and I've been a borderline Anarchist. I've been a devout Liberal and a devout Conservative. I've been a devout Christian and a devout Atheist.

All of which has left me with the realization that I don't really know anything, and a firm distrust of anyone who claims that they do. It's the absolutist of any stripe who garners my enmity, because the person who believes something absolutely will do anything, and I mean anything, to defend his belief.

That includes Islam, and includes (for me, anyway) people who devoutly hate Islam. Both, to me, are equally dangerous.

So, what to do about it? AFAIK It is the Constitution of Western countries to either "grant" the right to free speech and religion, or "guarantee" it. However, nobody mandates that every speech and every religion must be equally well supported by society. Some views go on TV in front of 200 million citizens while others are on a fringe Internet site or a local pamphlet that only a few would have real access to. And I'm certain it won't do Western countries great harm to make Islam closer to the latter.
America does mandate exactly that. We come from a background of Official State Religions, and that is exactly what the First Amendment to our Constitution means. We do not interfere with religious teachings or practices (as long as they don't violate any other guaranteed rights, such as human sacrifice), and they are not allowed to interfere with the Government. Something as dangerous as Islam indeed needs to be watched, but the same laws apply to everyone, and ultimately this particular discussion is about nothing more than whether they should be allowed to build a mosque in a place they have legally purchased. We don't legislate morality here, and that includes declining building permits because we are offended by the reasons or the locations.

Denying that is indeed a 'slippery slope'. Who do you exempt next?

[Cohaagen]

http://merrillmarkoe.com/wp-content/gallery/main/freedom%20go%20to%20hell.jpg

have any suggestions ?

http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/6841/townies.jpg

[HomkaDurdomka]

http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/6841/townies.jpg

Well thats number two. And no suggestion. Instead all we get is a typical double talk about human rights and Osama ben Laden. Two things don`t work together, whatever you like it or not :yeah:.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

So what point exactly am I missing?

1) Your previous response, which was concentrated on attacking the particular example, did not seem to grasp the point. Rather than debate fine points, I'm glad we can confirm we are roughly on the same page 'cept that bit about Skybird, which I'll consolidate below.

And your point is? That's the price we accept when we guarantee free speech. We accepted the possibility when we allowed the Nazis to march in Skokie. We accept it every time someone burns an American flag in the streets.2) I'll actually argue that we do not have to accept all these prices while guaranteeing free speech.

Possibly, but I don't see that it has worked in the past.3) First half of answer: The fact that you have agreed in the 1st section that we have already restricted freedom of speech in some areas, and that there is the possibility of doing so w/o necessarily going into the drink, I'll consider this point contradicted by yourself.

Possibly, but I also see that as true of Skybird's way.4) Less so than yours, for reasons I've already gone over in the previous post.

True, and we created laws to protect those slaves. And to protect everyone else. And that means everyone.5) That's the 2nd half of the answer to Section 3. The fact that we can, from a very adverse position relative to today advance towards freedom should provide some counterpotential in countering "Skybird's threat".

You're absolutely right. Now tell that to Herr Niemöller.6) Skybird already read the message. That leaves you.

And I see Skybird's arguments in exactly that light.7) And I'll argue you shouldn't.

That may well be true, but in spite of repeated requests from me he has declined to defend his position or offer any guarantees that that is not exactly where his ideas will end up.I'm not Skybird, but here are my speculations for what they are worth:

He's too well-read in history to not be aware of the danger. He's also too intellectually honest to, in a debate which is basically two people pitching their respective slippery slopes to ignore the fallacy (and ineffectiveness) of declaring his own concerns as a near certainty while dismissing his opponent's with blithe, blind-faith one-liners like:
...because most people aren't as stupid as some like to think.
when the very value of this debate arguably rests on "most people" being stupid - otherwise, either solution will be exercised with intelligence and the correct balance of forces and neither lead to authoritarianism nor the Rule of Sharia.

Further, he's a veteran enough debater to recognize that you are unfairly trying to put the burden of proof entirely on his side and not play your game.

Given this, one of his best Course of Action to substitute for the obvious impossibility of a 100% guarantee is to improve the substantiation of the Islamic threat (this presumably is the reason for all those Walls of Text)

IMO, the lack of explicit answer is also one of the best honest answers to your request for a guarantee. Skybird is also indoctrinated in the Western school of freedom, and there are realistic limits to how far he can deviate to one side. The lack of answer actually is a sign that he is bound by those counterforces. While those counterforces exist, it is unlikely he would go too far. So relax.

Instead he has repeatedly told me that my beliefs are stupid and suicidal, and that if I don't accept his pronouncements without question then I am my own worst enemy.

I don't have any problems with his ideas, though I do disagree somewhat. My problem is with his arrogant proclamations of my ignorance and stupidity.The way I see it, if you start from his positions and your pronouncements, that you are suicidal and stupid is a given conclusion. Watch this analogy:

Skybird's premises (Estimate of Situation):


Islam's strategic objective is the alteration of the world to its values [stated by some, and reasonable; this is probably universal objective among ideologies], and those values are entirely incompatible with Western concepts of freedom.
Steve's and Skybird's (and the West's) strategic objective is (for the West, "should be") to defend that freedom [all basically state this].
Islam is moving actively, and knows it is at an adverse correlation of force versus the West, so will in the main choose tactics that avoid going head-to-head with the West [reasonable to assume the enemy actually has a brain] - instead choosing infiltration type tactics.
Our current Western values (rear) provide ample room for such infiltration [we will not be having this discussion if that were not the case]. Infiltration reduces the stability of the rear.
While a real military line of defense has absolute references and its troops will at least know when forced into a retreat, the front edge of defending freedom is amorphous and actually moves forward and back without being aware of it based on the stability of the rear (read: When too much Islam infiltrates the line can potentially move back to behind the strategic objective, often without anyone even noticing). [Our history suggests this to be a characteristic of our "moral lines of 'warfare'"].
Due to the composition of the rear and line, the infiltration can't even be stopped without harming the defense's stability. The stronger the infiltration stopped, the more it'll hurt. All else being even, "Counterattack" hurts more than "stop" (extra "penalty" is proportional to "violence" of counterattack).

If one of the infiltrating columns prematurely attack, the attacking column may be stopped or counterattacked with reduced loss of stability, all other factors being even - however, penalties for stopping or counterattacking other columns remain fundamentally unchanged.

The above means a general counterattack might realistically occur without fatal consequences for stability only if a vast number of infiltrating enemy columns simultaneously go to attack - if the defense stability hadn't been too weakened by the infiltrations by then.







Given the above estimate of the situation, Skybird assesses the risk of 6 as acceptable and less than the dangers of 4&5, and decides to move quickly to block the penetrations followed by gentle squeeze out actions (rapid blocking action = minimal movement and cost). Of course, if some of the Islamist infiltrators genuinely change sides when pressed, all the better though he doesn't think many will.

Now he sees Steve. Steve claims to not object to Skybird's general estimate (though he may vary on finer points of magnitude and weighting assessment), and even says he has the same objective, but he refuses to move his troops, apparently due solely to his fear of Item 6. He even tries to stop Skybird from moving, asking him to guarantee Item 6 will never occur, a clearly impossible task. Any attempt to point out the dangers of Item 4-5 is met with more questions about Item 6, almost as if Item 6 is the sole element of the situation, rather than just one part of it.

Instead, he will keep observing (read: do nothing) and hope Islam will give him a victory on a silver platter by deploying prematurely, allowing him to exterminate them on the cheap. Of course, due to Item 4&5, Islam may not have to deploy at all, and can certainly choose its time.

What adjectives do you recommend for Steve?

But I'm not the average Westerner. I've been a solid Law-And-Order type, and I've been a borderline Anarchist. I've been a devout Liberal and a devout Conservative. I've been a devout Christian and a devout Atheist.The average Westerner probably has at least one trait that deviates from the average Westerner. However, since you are obviously more fearful of affecting freedom's stability than the threat of Islam, that makes you an average Westerner on this matter.

By the way, you do realize that "devout" is actually oxymoronic with "atheist", do you?

because the person who believes something absolutely will do anything, and I mean [I]anything, to defend his belief.

That includes Islam, and includes (for me, anyway) people who devoutly hate Islam. Both, to me, are equally dangerous.First, you are not distinguishing here between a "belief", which is based mostly on thin-air, and a conclusion founded on knowledge. Given that Skybird apparently has spent substantial time studying Islam, his may be a conclusion more than a belief.

I'm not even sure if Skybird hates (unthinking emotion) Islam. Certainly, he's not advocating the gas chambers for them. He does, however, apparently have an understanding of the Sha'ria that makes him conclude that it is best kept far from Western society.

America does mandate exactly that.If America's constitution actually mandates "support" in the way I used the word in my previous post, then it is a mandate that has never been kept, and thus it'll be effectively "affirmative action" (read: unfair) to rejuvenate it just for Islam.

The fact of life, as previously mentioned, is that not every view gets equal representation (support). Of course, a lot of it is based on commercial considerations, but ethics and the community interest also play a role.

We come from a background of Official State Religions, and that is exactly what the First Amendment to our Constitution means. We do not interfere with religious teachings or practices (as long as they don't violate any other guaranteed rights, such as human sacrifice), and they are not allowed to interfere with the Government. Something as dangerous as Islam indeed needs to be watched, but the same laws apply to everyone, and ultimately this particular discussion is about nothing more than whether they should be allowed to build a mosque in a place they have legally purchased. We don't legislate morality here, and that includes declining building permits because we are offended by the reasons or the locations.

Denying that is indeed a 'slippery slope'. Who do you exempt next?I'll say your debate with Skybird has left the mosque in the dust since Round 1.

The granting of a building permit, as I understand it, is bound by legality, but within the "legal zone", there is substantial maneuvering area to rule whether the new building is in the interests of the community ... etc. Or whether a certain old building that happens to be on the site may be more worthy as a historical monument than this new mosque...

And any such room should be used in the best interests of community.

[Skybird]

Wowh. We must play chess, KSII. That tactical flow analysis reads like the screenplay for a mission plan, and for me it is almost frightening :) to see a stranger whom I never met personally but who nevertheless seems to read my mind inside out.

And me hating Islam, you mentioned it somewhere. you are right, in principle I do not "hate" Islam or Nazism or Scientology. I am just determined in my resistence to them in full. That sometimes people see me as "xyz-phobic" or hatefilled may come from the contrast of this determination not to negotiate compromise, while today always endlessly negotiating and relativising and in the wake of this: giving ground constantly, is pretty much the standard way of solving conflicts, and forming the impression by that that no conflicts even exist. In such a climate, a total determination to resist and not to trade ground for favours given by the enemy, must appear to be unsuual, maybe even anachronistic. thus the usual labels: "he is irrational" (driven by fear, islamophobic, etc), or he is "hatefilled".

tolernce and freedom are deals on reciprocity, and where the other is not giving back as much as he is receiving, the deal becomes first more and more off balance, and finally results in the one side overthrowing the other. again, the deciding difference is that the one side is determined, while the other is not.

I refuse to play by such suicidal rules and conditions. Either all palyers obey the same rules and noone cheats, or just a single player cheats - and the whole match is busted for all.

Well done description of my position. I feel perfectly described. Thank you!

[August]

Eh, anyone that describes such a wide ranging and varied group as "Muslims" in the singular is stereotyping.

Except nazis that is. There are no nazis worth saving.

[tater]

Stereotyping what people believe based on what set of beliefs they claim to hold is OK by me. If they disagreed with the doctrine, they'd not belong, that would be silly.

[Webster]

The man behind the Mosque...



http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2010/08/30/who-is-the-man-behind-the-ground-zero-mosque/


if he was a waiter in 2005 then how is he qualified and has anyone checked if he is even licensed to build such a project? i dont expect him to be the engineer just to oversee such a project but he does have to know something and have some qualifications to run such a project, or is New York really that screwed up?

[August]

Stereotyping what people believe based on what set of beliefs they claim to hold is OK by me. If they disagreed with the doctrine, they'd not belong, that would be silly.

So you're trying to say that if they don't believe that flying airplanes into buildings is ok then they're not a true Muslim? Talk about silly... :dead:

[tater]

So you're trying to say that if they don't believe that flying airplanes into buildings is ok then they're not a true Muslim? Talk about silly... :dead:

I didn't say that.

If their doctrine supports flying airplanes into buildings, then it does, though. They have to live with it, change their doctrine, or dump the religion.

What about things like apostasy?

You sign up for a religion that supports murdering apostates, and guess what, you deserve the stereotype.

My point was that when you join a religion, you are telling the world that their beliefs are your own. The prepackaged set of ideas is itself nothing if not a stereotype.

[Webster]

i must agree with tater on this one, the muslums say they arent extremists yet the true teachings of the religeon say they should be so.

we are told not all muslums are extremists yet if they dont believe in the faith they belong to then they should start a new religeon that doesnt follow the karan which is not tollerant of any other belief or religeon.

if you are a jew who celebrates christmas and doesnt believe in honika or barmitsfas then are you really a jew?

if you are a christian who doesnt celebrate christmas but instead celebrates honika and doesnt believe in baptism then are you really a christian?

the reason we have so many different religeons here in the US is we believe what we believe and find a religeon that follows the same beliefs as us.

its time for muslums to either stop calling themselves muslums or stop calling the radicals muslums, if they arent willing to distinguish themselves as not part or those who belive in hate and murder then they are endorsing it with their silence and apathy to it

[Blood_splat]

I like what Thunderf00t, has to say about it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQE4orNMDAw:up:

[mookiemookie]

i must agree with tater on this one, the muslums say they arent extremists yet the true teachings of the religeon say they should be so. Just like the parts of the bible that say you should kill unbelievers and sinners? (Deuteronomy 17:5) Or the genocidal parts? 1 Samuel 15:2-3

its time for muslums to either stop calling themselves muslums or stop calling the radicals muslums, if they arent willing to distinguish themselves as not part or those who belive in hate and murder then they are endorsing it with their silence and apathy to it

I could find thousands of quotes from muslims who condemn terrorist actions, but instead, I'll just leave this here.

http://snarla.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/venn-diagram-al-qaeda-islam-muslims.jpg

[MH]

Talking about stereotyping- can any one point me to even one Arab/Muslim country which isn't run by some kind of dictatorship or Islamic "democracy".
Not all Arab coutures are run by Islamic fundamentalist just because they are run by some sort of dictators.
Do western countries want to be an proving ground to ability of coexistence between Islam and freedom?
Arabs cant sort it out even at home-middle east.
Democracy can work as long as people want to play by its rules and are educated to play by the rules.
Most of western countries fought for their freedom while Muslims ones are fighting for the opposite-as it seems.

[tater]

Just like the parts of the bible that say you should kill unbelievers and sinners? (Deuteronomy 17:5) Or the genocidal parts? 1 Samuel 15:2-3



I could find thousands of quotes from muslims who condemn terrorist actions, but instead, I'll just leave this here.

http://snarla.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/venn-diagram-al-qaeda-islam-muslims.jpg

Nice, but substantial percentages of muslims worldwide support AQ when polled.

[tater]

More importantly, the real question is one of compatibility with western culture in the long term, not just suicidal whack jobs.

What % think shar'ia is a good idea?

What % think women need to be treated as they are in muslim countries (as property)?

What % hold views that you'd consider backwards, etc, if held by Christians?

^^^ I ask this because I know many people who will jump all over fundies, but bend over backwards to give muslims a pass. There are no significant sects of Islam that are not "fundamentalist" by the same criteria used to assign that title to christians. (that goes both ways, any christian fundies share loads of beliefs with muslims that they might consider "extremists")

[Tribesman]

What about things like apostasy?

You sign up for a religion that supports murdering apostates, and guess what, you deserve the stereotype.

You keep coming up with the same bull again and again, the punishment for apostacy comes in the afterlife.
Nice, but substantial percentages of muslims worldwide support AQ when polled.
Yet again , list the questioins and the answers from the polls, don't just repeat bull you already have been challenged on:doh:

What % think shar'ia is a good idea?

Errrrrr....what is sharia and which of the many many thousands of interpretations of sharia are you talking about?

[August]

I didn't say that.

If their doctrine supports flying airplanes into buildings, then it does, though. They have to live with it, change their doctrine, or dump the religion.

What about things like apostasy?

You sign up for a religion that supports murdering apostates, and guess what, you deserve the stereotype.

My point was that when you join a religion, you are telling the world that their beliefs are your own. The prepackaged set of ideas is itself nothing if not a stereotype.

I understand your point Tater but the problem with it is there isn't one set of beliefs in any religion. Look at the differences between Catholics and Protestants for example. Heck there are 5 major denominations amongst the Protestants alone.

So whose prepackaged set of ideas are you talking about and tell me again why an American Muslim who is just as patriotic as you or I deserves the Jihadi stereotype?

[Webster]

Just like the parts of the bible that say you should kill unbelievers and sinners? (Deuteronomy 17:5) Or the genocidal parts? 1 Samuel 15:2-3



you proved my point :salute:


the bible is a "guide" to religeous beliefs written by men as they understod it

it is a reason why there are so many different forms of faith that sprang from it for the very reason that is is a guide and not a LAW that must be followed to the strict letter to which it was written.

the karan was written by men also and unfortunately for those who grew up believing in it it was written by men who held some very screwed up ideas of the world which to them may have made sense back then but in todays world they are just barbaric, unjust, and cruel.

[Konovalov]

If their doctrine supports flying airplanes into buildings, then it does, though. They have to live with it, change their doctrine, or dump the religion.
Can you be specific to which doctrine you are referring to that instructs Muslims to fly planes into buildings?

[Skybird]

Can you be specific to which doctrine you are referring to that instructs Muslims to fly planes into buildings?
There were no airplanes at the time when the Quran was put together. ;)


[QUOTE=August;1482632]Eh, anyone that describes such a wide ranging and varied group as "Muslims" in the singular is stereotyping.

Except nazis that is. There are no nazis worth saving.

Sounds-self-contradciting to me, but anyhow. In case you meant me with the above, please note that for the most I approach Islam on it's basis as an ideology, and what this ideology does with and to people. i think I said that often enough over times. However, that does not mean that I save the people holding this ideology alive, no matter in what individual way of theirs, from being confronted over certain critical points. that islam today is like it was over a thousand years ago, is because it has been saved from confrontation and thus: the need to critically ask questions about itself, for way too long.

There are no two Qurans. Not even an old and a new testament in one Quran. The Quran-as-is needs to be known and interpreted in historical sequence, which is difficult without help, because the Suras are not sorted in the sequence of their historic creation, but are wildly mixed in timeline, because it was decided to sort them by length. Both Sunni and Shia traditions have concensus in all their dominant major lines since the 9th or 10th century, that contradicting passages need to be sorted out by the socalled abrogation principle, that is if you have to contradicting passages, the one that came last is the one to go with. By this, many of the internal contradictions of the Quran get sorted out, and the often assumed "freedom of interpreation" already is massively reduced.

Unfortunately even many ordinary Muslim people do not know this - but it is historic fact that is accepted in the six major schools of law since almost a thousand years

If you refer to Islam in search of how to regulate your life, you first look at the Quran, and next at the hadith or prophet tradition. Also, the Shariah is a source to consult, but we in the West ofteh have a queer understanding of it. It is not a book of laws and rules. Let's adress all this one by one to see if there is any real foundation in the islamic theology that would allow different versions of Islam (Islam as defined and understood by the Quran, the Shariah and the life and living exmaple of muhammad - this and only this is what could be claimed to be "Islam")

There is only one Quran. They have an eons-long civil war, which is caused by and is about nothing but political power and claimed leadership, it is not founded on controversy over the Quran and how to "interpret" it. The existence of sunni and shia camps does not compare to the separation of protestants and catholics. The churchlings, to call them precisely, did not seperate just over political powers, but over different views of the teaching itself, and it's meaning. The Islamic shism was about who becomes boss of the board of directors. Theologic dispute played little role in the early caliphs' fight over the validity of their claims to be seen as the successor of muhammad, leading all muslims. Muhammad did not leave orders that regulated his succession after his death, the only hint there is, is questionable: there is a snippet of an old document where he should have said that his cousin Ali should become his successor, but the translation from the Arabic is not possible to be done linear, and already it arabic it is daid to be very ambigous (but that probably still was before introduction of the linguatsic riot when over three centuries they introeduced the idiosyncratic punctuation which has chnaged the meaning of arbaic according to estimations to at least 25 and maybe even up to 70% (of the word'S meanings. academic research has not one gneral agreement on the issue, it is difficult to examine.) . Also, the claim of Ali's power resulting from this, already represents the Shia interpretation of the story - after the shism. So it all is questionable and not without doubt. Ali became the fourth caliph after Uthman was assassinated (that was the Uthman who had major influence as third caliph that various local manipulations and different versions of the Quran were molten back into just one book, the one Quran that we know today), but Ali's claim was not accepted by several rivalling leaders, that is why short after Muhammad's death there already was the first clash in battle, the so called battle of the camel. Short time later, a series of more battles, known as the battles of Siffin, took place over several months, and after some military and diplomatic manouvers that are not of interest here, it ended with the assassination of Ali, who then became known as the missing Imam for whose return his followers - the Shia - are waiting. when he comes, he will unleash the holy war all over the world. So: if you ever hear of somebody gaining wide acceptance by shia to be the missing imam they have waited for, then you know that they are going into carzy mode soon and that we are in trouble. It would be like an imposter who is believed to be Jesus, and then is able to manipulate the crowds in all world. Ali'S predecessor btw was an Ummayadh, and Ali'S enemy at Siffin again represented and fought for the Ummayadh. That are the Ummayadhs who later rose a terror reign of Islam in Spain that was one of the most excessice periods of brutalitiy and violent excesses in islam's history and stood in contrast the islamic rule in Spain before their arrival, which was at least not as brutal as that of the Ummayadhs.

Tis explains why there are shia and Sunni. Two Qurans or two Sharias have nothing to do with it. Ah, and onsharia, I just refer to myself:


http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1265146&postcount=63

Sharia is not so much a closed canon of Islamic scriptures in itself. It includes descriptions and understandings of deeds and thoughts that are desirable, deeds and thoughts that are not desirable, and deeds that must be punished. In the West, usually only the latter is meant by us infidels when reference is made to Sharia, the other four "categories" usually are left unknown. But that is wrong, and misleading. For example, Sharia does not include the penalties for punishable deeds, only the description of punishable deeds. For the penalties, it instead directly refers to the Quran which desribes them and from which the adequate penalty for a punishable crime is taken. for any penalty ever given, not Sharia, or Hadith is the fundament, but the Quran - and only the Quran.

[ Back then you implied that there are different versions of Sharia itself, and different traditions of interpreting it, which described in these words also is wrong again.] Sharia is Sharia, and there is only one Sharia like there is only one Quran. Sharia gets "handled" and "used" by the scholars of islamic law, of which there are maybe around half a dozen major schools that indeed have influence. There are more lineages or schools of law, but we talk about those acutally having any noticable influence in the islamic world, and that are not many. On many questions of interpretation, these schools agree, however, on others not, which is misleading anyway, since the Quran does not leave much room for "interpretation", the legal schools' differences only vary in the degree to which they quote references from the Quran in completeness, or opportunistically only that stuff that serves their wanted purpose.
(...)
All of them [these schools] handle one and the same Sharia, and one and the same Quran. There are not different forms of Sharia, therefore. there are no different traditions of sharia, as you implied back then. there are only different legal traditions that have different habits of quoting relevant references in more or less completeness. Sharia itself - is left uneffected from that, as is the Quran.

Even more, Sharia serves as a system of interlinking various parts of Islamic scripture (Quran, Hadith, Sira -> Sunnah) and the people's code of behavior rules, which are very total and complete and cover every aspect of life an individual could stumble into, this is to maximise control of the islamic dogma over the individual, the family, and every level of social collectives. This is what makes Islam a totalitarian ideology, and more so than that of fascism, Nazism or Stalinism, because none of these great evils went as far in their demand to control every aspect of life, behavior, thinking. compared to Islam, they all were relatively shallow and superficial, caring only for the functioning of the individual inside the collective. Islam's intended regulation reaches much deeper.

Sharia is a system of interlinking all these aspects and parts of scripture, and puts them into relation to each other. It also is understood to be the tool that helps the faithful to stay on the right path (by telling him what to do and letting him know the sanctions he has to suffer when he strays off). for a muslim, Sharia is guidance and assistance. For a psychologist, it is classical conditioning. For Christains, the focus is on beloieving in the right things - in Islam, the focus is on the correct way or process of believing. The first is about the object of belief, the latter prioritizes the process of believing. Without Sharia, the rules of Quran, so it is understood, cannot correctly be followed, which would mean failure in the understanding and following of Allah's will. and that truly is a worst case scenario. So, Sharia is inevitable.

Sharia is like the mortar in the wall that keeps the stones of islamic scripture, rules and dogma together. Take Sharia away, and the wall collapses. That'S why it is said that you cannot imagine an Islam without Sharia, or a "modernised" Sharia. Imagining that you can have a tame Islam by altering Sharia (that is heresy!) is nonsense from minds not knowing what they are talking about. You could as well try to imagine a christian meaning without the content of the sermon on the mount. Some things are so vital to an idea that you cannot take them away or alter them without rendering that idea meaningless and pointless.

On the grounds of real Islam, August, that means: on the basis of Quran and Sharia, there can be only one Islam. And quite some Muslim spokesman and politicians tells you that right into your face. You may have noted that I quoted Turkey's premier Erdoghan repeatedly on his outburst on the offendind habit of the west to always differe between moderate and radical islam. I refer to him only becasue he is the latest and currently most known - but he is just one in a long line of names. He angrily insisted that this differentiation is offensive, and that there is only one Islam. He has the support of several hundred million muslims in his region now. Who are you to tell him, or them, that he/them understands Islam wrong? ;)

I recommend to follow Occam's razor. It served us so damn well in western sciences. So: why do you not simply take Islam by its words?

One thing you really should not do: compare it to history in the West. The doogma of the church and islam do not compare. the histories of both cultural sophere do not compare. To think of islam in terms of equivalents for western examples, is a heavily misled attempt. and without wanting to start a fight here, I would say that especially Americans are extremely vulnerable to attempt right this, more than any other western people - maybe due to their american missonary spirit. Don't! ;)

[Konovalov]

There were no airplanes at the time when the Quran was put together. ;)
Well I have to admit that through all my readings of the Quran and the Hadiths I too have never come across airplanes. Double wink.

But seriously take out the mechanical method of the airplane and replace it with any other tool or mechanism to achieve the same result on that terrible day. Again I ask what are the specifics of this ideology that instruct Muslims to commit such an act as this?

[tater]

Can you be specific to which doctrine you are referring to that instructs Muslims to fly planes into buildings?

I said if.

[Tribesman]

Again I ask what are the specifics of this ideology that instruct Muslims to commit such an act as this?
Its the secret bit that only Sky and al-Qaida know about and its taken from Sky wahibi interpretation which is without doubt the only real interpretation.

[tater]

And of course tribesman is in to defend medieval, misogynist, literalist religion against the reason. Gotcha.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam

The traditional schools of Islamic jurisprudence are unanimous in holding that apostasy by a male Muslim is punishable by death. They differ on whether to execute the apostate immediately or grant the apostate a temporary reprieve in order to allow him to repent and avoid the penalty. The schools also differ on whether a female apostate is to be killed, or only imprisoned until she re-embraces the faith.[1]

[Tribesman]

And of course tribesman is in to defend medieval, misogynist, literalist religion against the reason. Gotcha.

So you have reading problems ?
Did you even read what you liinked?
your posted line is contradicted straight away and repeatedly throughout the article:rotfl2:

[Sailor Steve]

1) 2) I'll actually argue that we do not have to accept all these prices while guaranteeing free speech.
And I argue that we do. So we both make a claim without backing it up. Where does that leave us?

I'll consider this point contradicted by yourself.
How kind of you. Dismissal is not proof.

4) Less so than yours, for reasons I've already gone over in the previous post.
And I disagree. Neither one of you has shown my why I shouldn't be araid of his agenda.

6) Skybird already read the message. That leaves you.
Has he? His agenda seems to me to lead directly down that road.

7) And I'll argue you shouldn't.
Again, show me why I should not be afraid. I'm not debating here. He scares me as much as they do. You say he shouldn't, but you don't tell my why.

He's too well-read in history to not be aware of the danger.
As am I. I agree with him on the danger of Islam. What I disgree on is the danger of German absolutism. I firmly believe he will destroy everything I believe in to prove his point. That though terrifies me, as I've seen it done before. Show me that I'm wrong.

He's also too intellectually honest to, in a debate which is basically two people pitching their respective slippery slopes to ignore the fallacy (and ineffectiveness) of declaring his own concerns as a near certainty while dismissing his opponent's with blithe, blind-faith one-liners like:
No, he only calls me idiotic and suicidal. Not a one-liner, just flat-out condemnation, coupled with fire-and-brimstone preaching. I don't find him intellectually honest at all, as long as he keeps ignoring the parts where I agree with him, steering the conversation back to his one-sided condemnation of everything I say, and dismissing me as his inferior. And if you deny that he has done that repeatedly you haven't been reading his every word.

Further, he's a veteran enough debater to recognize that you are unfairly trying to put the burden of proof entirely on his side and not play your game.
:rotfl2:

Sorry. I've said more than once that my 'belief', while couched as an absolute, is for me just a starting point. And when I've done so he has ignored it and gone straight back to calling me a absolutist, and started right in again shouting about all the things I don't understand. I'm not playing any games. In fact, I've only had one point through all of this, and that is that there is no reason they should legally not be allowed to erect this building. That's the only answer I've ever really asked for.

Given this, one of his best Course of Action to substitute for the obvious impossibility of a 100% guarantee is to improve the substantiation of the Islamic threat (this presumably is the reason for all those Walls of Text)
He can't improve substantiation of the Islamic threat by much, since I've already said I agree that it's real. But so, to me, is the Germanic threat of absolute control in the name of protecting us. And if he can't guarantee that then I have to keep considering him just as dangerous an enemy as those he would protect me from.

IMO, the lack of explicit answer is also one of the best honest answers to your request for a guarantee. Skybird is also indoctrinated in the Western school of freedom, and there are realistic limits to how far he can deviate to one side. The lack of answer actually is a sign that he is bound by those counterforces. While those counterforces exist, it is unlikely he would go too far.
Prove it. He sounds to me like the very person who would establish a dictatorship in the name of destroying another one. I'm not debating or intellectualizing when I say he scares me. He really does, and if he wishes to convince me otherwise he will have to come up with not only a definitive answer to that charge, but proof that it's true.

So relax.
I am relaxed.

The way I see it, if you start from his positions and your pronouncements, that you are suicidal and stupid is a given conclusion. Watch this analogy:
Very cute and clever from an intellectual standpoint, but this all started from my questioning why they should not be allowed to erect a building. Will you answer that? Will he? This is a simple question.

Also your analogy doesn't hold up for the simple reason that I'm not holding my troops back and hoping for a "silver platter". I'm keeping them solidly in place and saying "You have my permission to say anything you like, but that's as far as it goes. Mess with me in any real way and face the consequences."

I'll say your debate with Skybird has left the mosque in the dust since Round 1.
This has never been a debate. This has been me pointing out a simple legality and him spending twenty-two pages telling me how ignorant I am.

The granting of a building permit, as I understand it, is bound by legality, but within the "legal zone", there is substantial maneuvering area to rule whether the new building is in the interests of the community ... etc. Or whether a certain old building that happens to be on the site may be more worthy as a historical monument than this new mosque...

And any such room should be used in the best interests of community.
Very true, and I've never disagreed with that. In fact, if it can be blocked legally I'm all for it. But I'm being told that that's not good enough, and if I disagree I'm a blind fool, because I once said something in regard to an ideal starting point and he wants to prove me wrong even when I agree with him.

Unfortunated his starting point seems to be that he can monkey around with our liberties all he wants, and it's okay because he says he's doing it for the "right reasons".

As far as freedom goes, whether of speech or anything else, I've already agreed that there have to be limits. The big difference for me is that for me the limits are codified and fairly explicit, whereas for him (from my point of view) they are subject to any interpretation he cares to give them. Which for me means that Muslims are the target today, but I might be next.

And neither of you has done anything to assuage my fears.

[Skybird]

Well I have to admit that through all my readings of the Quran and the Hadiths I too have never come across airplanes. Double wink.

But seriously take out the mechanical method of the airplane and replace it with any other tool or mechanism to achieve the same result on that terrible day. Again I ask what are the specifics of this ideology that instruct Muslims to commit such an act as this?
I've been to Rome and back several times now, so understand that I shortcut it this time, even at the price of lacking details. I am aware of context-sensitivity of quotes, but question the ratio behind the contexts that are usually given to excuse said quotes. Becasue there is one basic problem with Islam: it talks of defence against persecution, and reacting if being challenged or attacked. However, in islam a case of aggression or persecutuon is given whenever somebody dares not to give islam its demanded ways and resists to it, by that offending it in it's divine self-understanding. there cannot be peace as long as there is something that is still not islamic, because the other, by itS' mere existence, already is a challenge, an offence, that must be overcome in order to establish peace - Islam'S unchallenged dominance that is.

that is both a theologic implication, and a historic observation. terms like tolerance, peace, coexistence, persecution , mean totally different things in islam, and non-Islam.

Anyhow, as said, I cut it short with links only:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Myths-of-Islam.htm#jihad

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Top-10-Reasons.htm

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/009-friends-with-christians-jews.htm

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/011-taqiyya.htm

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/014-loyalty-to-non-muslim-government.htm

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm

etc etc etc etc etc. The site is long.

[Tribesman]

You only have to look at the links page on Skys site to see what a bunch of crazy bigots are on there, no better than the fundy nuts.

He's also too intellectually honest to,

If sky was intellectually honest he wouldn't repeatedly and blatantly lie in his favourite topic in an attempt to support his position.

[Konovalov]

The Quran-as-is needs to be known and interpreted in historical sequence, which is difficult without help, because the Suras are not sorted in the sequence of their historic creation, but are wildly mixed in timeline, because it was decided to sort them by length. The Surahs (chapters) within the Quran are not sorted by length as you claim. I don’t know where this claim popped up from that the verses are sorted on length from longest to shortest chapters. For a start the very first surah within the Quran Surah Al-Fatiha (The Opening) contains only seven ayaat (verses). At the other end the last Surah of the Quran Al-Nas contains 6 verses. And finally for the record the shortest chapter within the Quran is Surah Al-Kawthar being at 3 verses long. So I'm afraid that this very simple statement of yours is quite simply false. Why do I know this. I've read it more times than I can count. Speaking of which must go now to read before catching a few hours of zzzzz's. :)

Perhaps when I have time I may get a chance to look at that site (links) mentioned by Skybird and provide some form of rebuttal. Not easy however as time is limited with 16 hours of fasting during the day while also trying to run a business from 8am to 6pm. But let's see. Goodnight.

[Skybird]

Then you have different Qurans over there than we have here. You are right, the first sura is the exception fromt he rule (as I said earlier I cut this short and leave out details), but from the second on until the end, the longest are at the beginning, and shortest at the ending, and from beginning to end they become shorter. In the last qurater of the Quran you even have verses that give the impression to be incomplete, unfinished, and scribbled down carelessly as if in a hurry.

More insightful analysts also would line out that the langauge chnages from the beginning to the end, the suras whose origin lies in muhammad's later years in Medina,are said to be written in a different, briefer, shorter, more craelss style, than the early Suras from the time in Mekka. Well, I cannot judge that. I only see that it is as if there are more and more "holes" in the later Suras.

I own one Quran, and saw several others. Also, my claim is not only supported by these, but in secondary literature as well. If your Quran is diffrent, than you have a manipulated version. These versions exist, they differ in translation by using euphemisms that in orginal quran sound more harsh and brutal, and even have whole passages and paragraphs deleted. Usually these are being distributed at missionary desks in the pedestrian zone. They have a deceptive, lulling function. Even in Islam their distribution sometimes is being disputed. Some say it is okay since it helps to make islam accepted and spread it, others say it is a sacrileg. I say it is an act of deception.

It's been a long while since I saw one of these missionary stands. Good.

[Tribesman]

Classic, when caught out in his lies again he digs himself even deeper:har::har::har::har:

[Konovalov]

Then you have different Qurans over there than we have here.. Mate, I have a dozen plus different copies of the Quran be they in Arabic along with also English translations. I recite both Arabic and also in English. They are all exactly the same and consistent in this respect that I pointed out in my earlier post with regards to the false claim that the chapters start longest and end shortest.

but from the second on until the end, the longest are at the beginning, and shortest at the ending, and from beginning to end they become shorter... What is chapter 108 in your copy and how many verses does it contain? Then tell me what the next chapter is (chapter 109) and again tell me how many verses it contains? Finally what copy of the Quran are you referring to?

I own one Quran, and saw several others. Also, my claim is not only supported by these, but in literature as well. And did you ever get around to reading it front to back or back to front? I ask as I remember that you dismissed the idea claiming you didn't need to read it to pass critique on it. And as I asked earlier what "version" of the Quran do you own? Finally what literature that you allude to can you provide that supports your claim?

If yours is diffrent, than you have a manipulated version. These versions exist, they differ in translation by using euphemisms that in orginal quran sound more harsh and brutal, and even have whole passages and paragraphs deleted. Usually these are being distributed at missionary desks in the pedestrian zone.
As I said I have over a dozen different copies of the Quran in both English translation and Arabic. I must be terribly unucky to strike out with all my copies of the Quran as being 'manipulated' versions. Never picked up a copy from a misionary desk in a pedestrian zone.

It's been a long while since I saw one of these missionary stands. Good.
You seem to have been flooding the forums with missionizing of your own here for quite some time as you would define it. So what do I do? Keep my mouth shut or offer an alternative view? Discuss and debate and offer an alternative viewpoint I say.

[tater]

So you have reading problems ?
Did you even read what you liinked?
your posted line is contradicted straight away and repeatedly throughout the article:rotfl2:

No it's not. That is the traditional view. It then cites individuals who differ. Not major sectarian branches.

Throughout the entire article it says the same. The traditional view is that death is it for men, but this guy, or that guy disagrees.

That's putting lipstick on a pig.

While mainstream scholars uphold capital punishment for apostates for Islam,[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam#cite_note-EI_Murtadd-16) a number of scholars argue the punishment is reserved for those who have committed treason against the Muslim community, or who rejected Islam during the time of the prophet Muhammad.

It then breaks down the thoughts of the others---who as it said right above, are outside the mainstream of thought on the issue.

[August]

Who are you to tell him, or them, that he/them understands Islam wrong?

But i'm not telling them that.

Who are you to tell me that you understand all of Islam right?

Maybe it comes from living in a uni-ethnic society but you have this wierd belief, call it "German Absolutism" (props to Steve) if you will, that every group, no matter how far flung and diverse, shares a completely unified way of thinking. As if they are controlled by a single (evil) master mind and ready willing and able to march once the orders are given.

Well if you want to think that almost 2 billion people living around the world are actively plotting the overthrow of western society then that's your business, but I know that you can't get that many people to agree on much of anything, let alone some detailed plan to take over the world.

I also know that at least half of those Turks that you say support that Turkish potentate would happily slit his throat if they had a chance to take his place.

One thing you really should not do: compare it to history in the West. The doogma of the church and islam do not compare.Yeah right, which church? Here in the states we have thousands of churches, some radical, most not. Like I said earlier, the Protestants alone have 5 major sects and each one of those can be divided into sub-sects who more often than not are barely on speaking terms with each other let along able to agree on a specific dogma.

This is what i'm talking about. I just don't see the world the same way you do.

[Konovalov]

The Surahs (chapters) within the Quran are not sorted by length as you claim. I don’t know where this claim popped up from that the verses are sorted on length from longest to shortest chapters. For a start the very first surah within the Quran Surah Al-Fatiha (The Opening) contains only seven ayaat (verses). At the other end the last Surah of the Quran Al-Nas contains 6 verses. And finally for the record the shortest chapter within the Quran is Surah Al-Kawthar being at 3 verses long. So I'm afraid that this very simple statement of yours is quite simply false. Why do I know this. I've read it more times than I can count. Speaking of which must go now to read before catching a few hours of zzzzz's. :)

Perhaps when I have time I may get a chance to look at that site (links) mentioned by Skybird and provide some form of rebuttal. Not easy however as time is limited with 16 hours of fasting during the day while also trying to run a business from 8am to 6pm. But let's see. Goodnight.
Again going to your claim that the Quran is sorted by length of chapters (starting with longest to ending with shortest) as I earlier stated this is not true. Indeed I used a link from the rather questionable website that you mentioned ReligionofPeace to a online Quran at the University of Southern California (USC). Chapter 1 has 7 verses, chapter 2 has 286, chapter 3 has 200, chapter 8 has 75, chapter 13 have 43 verses, chapter 16 has 128, chapter 24 has 64, chapter 26 has 227 verses, chapter 60 has 13, chapter 68 has 52, chapter 103 has 3, and the final chapter 114 has 6 verses. It's pretty obvious that the Quran is not strictly structured from longest to shortest as you claim. Would you now accept that your statement is incorrect?

[Tribesman]

No it's not. That is the traditional view. It then cites individuals who differ. Not major sectarian branches.

Can you run through the numerous major sectarian branches and then place the 4 from the piece?

Throughout the entire article it says the same. The traditional view is that death is it for men, but this guy, or that guy disagrees.

No it says that there is disageement and there is nothing in the koran itself to support the view given by the 4.

It then breaks down the thoughts of the others---who as it said right above, are outside the mainstream of thought on the issue.
just 4 views out of many many schools do not equal "mainstream".


Would you now accept that your statement is incorrect?
Don't be silly. It is his long held view and he is always right as he is an expert:rotfl2:
though isn't it funny that he always says there is only one version and one interpretation yet now says you have a different version, plus of course as he says the writing of the texts becomes increasingly vague and careless as it progresses where does that leave his claim about the clear meaning and only interpretation of the text?

What is the betting there will follow a wall of text which is a cut and paste of a wall of text insisting that he is an expert on your religion so you are wrong as he read a book and you havn't read a book ?:hmmm:

[Skybird]

Again going to your claim that the Quran is sorted by length of chapters (starting with longest to ending with shortest) as I earlier stated this is not true. Indeed I used a link from the rather questionable website that you mentioned ReligionofPeace to a online Quran at the University of Southern California (USC). Chapter 1 has 7 verses, chapter 2 has 286, chapter 3 has 200, chapter 8 has 75, chapter 13 have 43 verses, chapter 16 has 128, chapter 24 has 64, chapter 26 has 227 verses, chapter 60 has 13, chapter 68 has 52, chapter 103 has 3, and the final chapter 114 has 6 verses. It's pretty obvious that the Quran is not strictly structured from longest to shortest as you claim. Would you now accept that your statement is incorrect?
Although I should have known better, I checked my copy and checked again with two academic books of secondary literature. I am right. where you count the number of Suras, I count the number of pages, this is what I mean with "length".

In the opened book, the copy I have has german left and arabic right on the pages. It does not matter if I focus on the one or the other when counting. I counted the first ten suras, then took a few samples in the middle, and looked at the end of it, where the Suras are just a third or a fourth of one page in length.

Still, I have not counted the pages of every sura now. My major basis thus remains to be founded in academic secondary literature where it also is claimed that the suras in the Quran are sorted by length (of text), with the exception of the introductory first sura, which is even not one full page.

It would have been a little sensation if the research tradition in the West on the Islam and the Orient, and what we call "Orientalistik" in german, would have gotten this detail wrong for over 150 years.

So, by "length", I - and obviously also at least a big majority of authors in the field - refer to length of text. Number of verses in one Sura is just that - number of verses. But the verses can be long or short, so that is no qualified criterion to judge the length of a Sura.

If you would have asked me about how many verses there are in the Suras, I would have agreed with you from the beginning on.

Anyhow. Small little escapades like this help nobody anything. The content of the ideology and the question if the general trend of history caused by them reflects this content or not - that is what it is about. Unfortunately, it does. And while there may be many Muslims not firing an active gun in jihad, and stay peacefully at home, right this peacefulness may be the great problem with them - becasue they do nothing to confront Islam with critical questions and do not help one bit to overcome it's old dogma, but with their passivity they create the window of opportunity for Islam to carry on like it has done since ever, and their devout and fataloistic attitude is both conseqeunce of past stagnation, and cause stagnation not to end.

what is needed indeed, like quite some critical Muslims and apostates say, i s a wide-ranging, big sexual revolution. For one reason, to end the slavery of women which islam propagates, and for another, to blow some fresh air through the crusty ignition plugs of this old rotten brain.

[Aramike]

In some papers I've written on this subject, I've recommended that people attempt to look at the situation through a lens I like to call the "Alien Effect". Despite the fact that it clearly sounds hokey, it certainly helps me at least find perspective on such unclear issues.

The Alien Effect essentially means attempting to consider the same arguments with the same circumstances except as one would apply them to unknown aliens from outerspace. The reason this works for me is that sometimes I believe its necessary to remove oneself's intuitive reactions from the discussion and that's quite difficult to do when considering one human to the next - we tend to think in terms of "how would I feel?" while dismissing that there are cultural differences which preclude such an elemantary comparison.

For example, let's say we discovered an inhabited island in the Pacific where the humans there tortured and killed their children for such transgressions as, say, slow educational development. This would universally be considered an outrage. However, say we discovered an alien species from another planet doing the same thing - this would be a mere curiousity.

So in the case of Islam, let's consider the Alien Effect. If we discovered aliens who's constitution required for the elimination of our way of life, would we allow them to construct icons to that constitution in our cities?

Absolutely not.

See, Steve is correct via the letter of the law, and he has a valid concern - if we take action against Islam, what's to stop any majority from taking action against any other group on the grounds that they believe it's dangerous? He is quite justified in having that concern.

On the other hand, the letter of the law can only take you so far, than the law's spirit must take over, ultimately giving way to common sense. In the end, giving in to the slippery slope argument is a cop-out. It allows us to not make difficult stands on things that we really should. If the alternative is to allow the subversion of freedom in support of freedom we approach a dangerous paradox which does not allow freedom to exist at all, thereby precluding the original concept of freedom rendering it irrelevant to the context.

So what's the solution? Do we allow aliens to build their icons of our destruction? Is there an absolute right or wrong answer?

Does freedom even matter when freedom allows for itself to be destroyed?

Personally, I believe that freedom needs reasonable limits, one of which is that the preservation of its primary functions is imperative. Islam IS a threat to that - just like the aliens would be.

However, pragmatism demands we coexist. Hence the difficulty of the discussion.

[Tribesman]

Although I should have known better, I checked my copy and checked again with two academic books of secondary literature. I am right.
So very short, long longest 2nd longest shorter longer longer shorter longer is sorting by length and sky is right :har::har::har::har:

So, by "length", I - and obviously also at least a big majority of authors in the field -
But what about popper, surely he has some comment to make?:rotfl2:

refer to length of text.
Length of text? So one with more words with more letters might be longer than one with the same amount of words but less letters.
Oh dear Sky is really digging himself a hole instead of just saying ...."OK I was full of crap":yeah:



Anyhow. Small little escapades like this help nobody anything.
Getting caught again making stuff up and still insisting its true doesn't help you at all. Its the repeated escapades like this that destroy what very little credibility sky retains.:up:

[Konovalov]

Although I should have known better, I checked my copy and checked again with two academic books of secondary literature. I am right.
And your copy of the Quran is what exactly? Can you please provide bibliography of your ‘two academic books of secondary literature? Are you sure you are right? It might be you who has a dodgy copy of the Quran. But please see further below.
where you count the number of Suras, I count the number of pages, this is what I mean with "length".
I think you are confusing surahs (chapters) with ayaats (verses). Yes I counted the number of ayaats (verses) as a quick and simple visible demonstration that there are surahs that are longer in length than earlier ones. This directly contradicts your assertion that the Quran goes from longest to shortest even when you then later changed your mind and said with the exception of the first chapter surah Al-Fatihah. But more detail on this below.
In the opened book, the copy I have has german left and arabic right on the pages. It does not matter if I focus on the one or the other when counting. I counted the first ten suras, then took a few samples in the middle, and looked at the end of it, where the Suras are just a third or a fourth of one page in length.
That doesn’t seem a very precise or mathematical way of drawing your conclusion.

Still, I have not counted the pages of every sura now. My major basis thus remains to be founded in academic secondary literature where it also is claimed that the suras in the Quran are sorted by length (of text), with the exception of the introductory first sura, which is even not one full page.
Again I ask that you provide details of this ‘academic secondary literature’ that you keep referring to? And yes I am in agreement with you that the best and accurate method of measuring length is by the amount of text. And by that I mean the number of words, not the number of pages. After all academic thesis are measured by word count and not page count for obvious reasons. As is what constitutes a novel or short story is dictated by word count and not page count. So let’s look at word count within the Quran.

Again for this exercise I will use the online translation of the Quran that is linked to from the very un-academic website TheReligionofPeace that you referenced with a multitude of links in one of your earlier posts. The actual link itself (http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/) to the University of Southern California looks credible as all three translations offered online (Abdullah Yusuf Ali, Marmaduke Pickthall, and MH Shakir) all match the hard copies that I own at home. As Skybird and various unknown academic secondary literature claim, the Quran is written from longest chapter (excluding chapter 1 as now admitted by Skybird) to shortest chapter. This is a patently false claim as demonstrated many times within the Quran.

Let’s look at surah 32 (chapter 32) titled As-Sajdah. It contains 30 ayaat (30 verses). And here it is below in full from the Yusaf Ali translation:
1. A. L. M.
2. (This is) the Revelation of the Book in which there is no doubt,- from the Lord of the Worlds.
3. Or do they say, "He has forged it"? Nay, it is the Truth from thy Lord, that thou mayest admonish a people to whom no warner has come before thee: in order that they may receive guidance.
4. It is Allah Who has created the heavens and the earth, and all between them, in six Days, and is firmly established on the Throne (of Authority): ye have none, besides Him, to protect or intercede (for you): will ye not then receive admonition?
5. He rules (all) affairs from the heavens to the earth: in the end will (all affairs) go up to Him, on a Day, the space whereof will be (as) a thousand years of your reckoning.
6. Such is He, the Knower of all things, hidden and open, the Exalted (in power), the Merciful;-
7. He Who has made everything which He has created most good: He began the creation of man with (nothing more than) clay,
8. And made his progeny from a quintessence of the nature of a fluid despised:
9. But He fashioned him in due proportion, and breathed into him something of His spirit. And He gave you (the faculties of) hearing and sight and feeling (and understanding): little thanks do ye give!
10. And they say: "What! when we lie, hidden and lost, in the earth, shall we indeed be in a Creation renewed? Nay, they deny the Meeting with their Lord.
11. Say: "The Angel of Death, put in charge of you, will (duly) take your souls: then shall ye be brought back to your Lord."
12. If only thou couldst see when the guilty ones will bend low their heads before their Lord, (saying:) "Our Lord! We have seen and we have heard: Now then send us back (to the world): we will work righteousness: for we do indeed (now) believe."
13. If We had so willed, We could certainly have brought every soul its true guidance: but the Word from Me will come true, "I will fill Hell with Jinns and men all together."
14. "Taste ye then - for ye forgot the Meeting of this Day of yours, and We too will forget you - taste ye the Penalty of Eternity for your (evil) deeds!"
15. Only those believe in Our Signs, who, when they are recited to them, fall down in prostration, and celebrate the praises of their Lord, nor are they (ever) puffed up with pride.
16. Their limbs do forsake their beds of sleep, the while they call on their Lord, in Fear and Hope: and they spend (in charity) out of the sustenance which We have bestowed on them.
17. Now no person knows what delights of the eye are kept hidden (in reserve) for them - as a reward for their (good) deeds.
18. Is then the man who believes no better than the man who is rebellious and wicked? Not equal are they.
19. For those who believe and do righteous deeds are Gardens as hospitable homes, for their (good) deeds.
20. As to those who are rebellious and wicked, their abode will be the Fire: every time they wish to get away therefrom, they will be forced thereinto, and it will be said to them: "Taste ye the Penalty of the Fire, the which ye were wont to reject as false."
21. And indeed We will make them taste of the Penalty of this (life) prior to the supreme Penalty, in order that they may (repent and) return.
22. And who does more wrong than one to whom are recited the Signs of his Lord, and who then turns away therefrom? Verily from those who transgress We shall exact (due) Retribution.
23. We did indeed aforetime give the Book to Moses: be not then in doubt of its reaching (thee): and We made it a guide to the Children of Israel.
24. And We appointed, from among them, leaders, giving guidance under Our command, so long as they persevered with patience and continued to have faith in Our Signs.
25. Verily thy Lord will judge between them on the Day of Judgment, in the matters wherein they differ (among themselves)
26. Does it not teach them a lesson, how many generations We destroyed before them, in whose dwellings they (now) go to and fro? Verily in that are Signs: Do they not then listen?
27. And do they not see that We do drive rain to parched soil (bare of herbage), and produce therewith crops, providing food for their cattle and themselves? Have they not the vision?
28. They say: "When will this decision be, if ye are telling the truth?"
29. Say: "On the Day of Decision, no profit will it be to Unbelievers if they (then) believe! nor will they be granted a respite."
30. So turn away from them, and wait: they too are waiting. Now I determined the word count on this to be 841 or 809 if you deduct the ayaat (verse) numbers. Hence you would expect that the next chapter will be shorter based on the claims of Skybird and undisclosed academic sources.

Continued on next post below.

[Konovalov]

So let’s have a look at surah 33 (chapter 33) titled Al-Ahzab which contains 73 ayaat (verses). Again this is from the Yusaf Ali translation:
1. O Prophet! Fear Allah, and hearken not to the Unbelievers and the Hypocrites: verily Allah is full of Knowledge and Wisdom.
2. But follow that which comes to thee by inspiration from thy Lord: for Allah is well acquainted with (all) that ye do.
3. And put thy trust in Allah, and enough is Allah as a disposer of affairs.
4. Allah has not made for any man two hearts in his (one) body: nor has He made your wives whom ye divorce by Zihar your mothers: nor has He made your adopted sons your sons. Such is (only) your (manner of) speech by your mouths. But Allah tells (you) the Truth, and He shows the (right) Way.
5. Call them by (the names of) their fathers: that is juster in the sight of Allah. But if ye know not their father's (names, call them) your Brothers in faith, or your maulas. But there is no blame on you if ye make a mistake therein: (what counts is) the intention of your hearts: and Allah is Oft-Returning, Most Merciful.
6. The Prophet is closer to the Believers than their own selves, and his wives are their mothers. Blood-relations among each other have closer personal ties, in the Decree of Allah. Than (the Brotherhood of) Believers and Muhajirs: nevertheless do ye what is just to your closest friends: such is the writing in the Decree (of Allah).
7. And remember We took from the prophets their covenant: As (We did) from thee: from Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus the son of Mary: We took from them a solemn covenant:
8. That (Allah) may question the (custodians) of Truth concerning the Truth they (were charged with): And He has prepared for the Unbelievers a grievous Penalty.
9. O ye who believe! Remember the Grace of Allah, (bestowed) on you, when there came down on you hosts (to overwhelm you): But We sent against them a hurricane and forces that ye saw not: but Allah sees (clearly) all that ye do.
10. Behold! they came on you from above you and from below you, and behold, the eyes became dim and the hearts gaped up to the throats, and ye imagined various (vain) thoughts about Allah!
11. In that situation were the Believers tried: they were shaken as by a tremendous shaking.
12. And behold! The Hypocrites and those in whose hearts is a disease (even) say: "Allah and His Messenger promised us nothing but delusion!"
13. Behold! A party among them said: "Ye men of Yathrib! ye cannot stand (the attack)! therefore go back!" And a band of them ask for leave of the Prophet, saying, "Truly our houses are bare and exposed," though they were not exposed they intended nothing but to run away.
14. And if an entry had been effected to them from the sides of the (city), and they had been incited to sedition, they would certainly have brought it to pass, with none but a brief delay!
15. And yet they had already covenanted with Allah not to turn their backs, and a covenant with Allah must (surely) be answered for.
16. Say: "Running away will not profit you if ye are running away from death or slaughter; and even if (ye do escape), no more than a brief (respite) will ye be allowed to enjoy!"
17. Say: "Who is it that can screen you from Allah if it be His wish to give you punishment or to give you Mercy?" Nor will they find for themselves, besides Allah, any protector or helper.
18. Verily Allah knows those among you who keep back (men) and those who say to their brethren, "Come along to us", but come not to the fight except for just a little while.
19. Covetous over you. Then when fear comes, thou wilt see them looking to thee, their eyes revolving, like (those of) one over whom hovers death: but when the fear is past, they will smite you with sharp tongues, covetous of goods. Such men have no faith, and so Allah has made their deeds of none effect: and that is easy for Allah.
20. They think that the Confederates have not withdrawn; and if the Confederates should come (again), they would wish they were in the deserts (wandering) among the Bedouins, and seeking news about you (from a safe distance); and if they were in your midst, they would fight but little.
21. Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah.
22. When the Believers saw the Confederate forces, they said: "This is what Allah and his Messenger had promised us, and Allah and His Messenger told us what was true." And it only added to their faith and their zeal in obedience.
23. Among the Believers are men who have been true to their covenant with Allah: of them some have completed their vow (to the extreme), and some (still) wait: but they have never changed (their determination) in the least:
24. That Allah may reward the men of Truth for their Truth, and punish the Hypocrites if that be His Will, or turn to them in Mercy: for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
25. And Allah turned back the Unbelievers for (all) their fury: no advantage did they gain; and enough is Allah for the believers in their fight. And Allah is full of Strength, able to enforce His Will.
26. And those of the People of the Book who aided them - Allah did take them down from their strongholds and cast terror into their hearts. (So that) some ye slew, and some ye made prisoners.
27. And He made you heirs of their lands, their houses, and their goods, and of a land which ye had not frequented (before). And Allah has power over all things.
28. O Prophet! Say to thy Consorts: "If it be that ye desire the life of this World, and its glitter,- then come! I will provide for your enjoyment and set you free in a handsome manner.
29. But if ye seek Allah and His Messenger, and the Home of the Hereafter, verily Allah has prepared for the well-doers amongst you a great reward.
30. O Consorts of the Prophet! If any of you were guilty of evident unseemly conduct, the Punishment would be doubled to her, and that is easy for Allah.
31. But any of you that is devout in the service of Allah and His Messenger, and works righteousness,- to her shall We grant her reward twice: and We have prepared for her a generous Sustenance.
32. O Consorts of the Prophet! Ye are not like any of the (other) women: if ye do fear (Allah), be not too complacent of speech, lest one in whose heart is a disease should be moved with desire: but speak ye a speech (that is) just.
33. And stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former Times of Ignorance; and establish regular Prayer, and give regular Charity; and obey Allah and His Messenger. And Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, ye members of the Family, and to make you pure and spotless.
34. And recite what is rehearsed to you in your homes, of the Signs of Allah and His Wisdom: for Allah understands the finest mysteries and is well-acquainted (with them).
35. For Muslim men and women,- for believing men and women, for devout men and women, for true men and women, for men and women who are patient and constant, for men and women who humble themselves, for men and women who give in Charity, for men and women who fast (and deny themselves), for men and women who guard their chastity, and for men and women who engage much in Allah's praise,- for them has Allah prepared forgiveness and great reward.
36. It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision: if any one disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path.
37. Behold! Thou didst say to one who had received the grace of Allah and thy favour: "Retain thou (in wedlock) thy wife, and fear Allah." But thou didst hide in thy heart that which Allah was about to make manifest: thou didst fear the people, but it is more fitting that thou shouldst fear Allah. Then when Zaid had dissolved (his marriage) with her, with the necessary (formality), We joined her in marriage to thee: in order that (in future) there may be no difficulty to the Believers in (the matter of) marriage with the wives of their adopted sons, when the latter have dissolved with the necessary (formality) (their marriage) with them. And Allah's command must be fulfilled.
38. There can be no difficulty to the Prophet in what Allah has indicated to him as a duty. It was the practice (approved) of Allah amongst those of old that have passed away. And the command of Allah is a decree determined.
39. (It is the practice of those) who preach the Messages of Allah, and fear Him, and fear none but Allah. And enough is Allah to call (men) to account.
40. Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Messenger of Allah, and the Seal of the Prophets: and Allah has full knowledge of all things.
41. O ye who believe! Celebrate the praises of Allah, and do this often;
42. And glorify Him morning and evening.
43. He it is Who sends blessings on you, as do His angels, that He may bring you out from the depths of Darkness into Light: and He is Full of Mercy to the Believers.
44. Their salutation on the Day they meet Him will be "Peace!"; and He has prepared for them a generous Reward.
45. O Prophet! Truly We have sent thee as a Witness, a Bearer of Glad Tidings, and Warner,-
46. And as one who invites to Allah's (grace) by His leave, and as a lamp spreading light.
47. Then give the Glad Tidings to the Believers, that they shall have from Allah a very great Bounty.
48. And obey not (the behests) of the Unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and heed not their annoyances, but put thy Trust in Allah. For enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs.
49. O ye who believe! When ye marry believing women, and then divorce them before ye have touched them, no period of 'Iddat have ye to count in respect of them: so give them a present. And set them free in a handsome manner.
50. O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makka) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her;- this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large); We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess;- in order that there should be no difficulty for thee. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
51. Thou mayest defer (the turn of) any of them that thou pleasest, and thou mayest receive any thou pleasest: and there is no blame on thee if thou invite one whose (turn) thou hadst set aside. This were nigher to the cooling of their eyes, the prevention of their grief, and their satisfaction - that of all of them - with that which thou hast to give them: and Allah knows (all) that is in your hearts: and Allah is All-Knowing, Most Forbearing.
52. It is not lawful for thee (to marry more) women after this, nor to change them for (other) wives, even though their beauty attract thee, except any thy right hand should possess (as handmaidens): and Allah doth watch over all things.
53. O ye who believe! Enter not the Prophet's houses,- until leave is given you,- for a meal, (and then) not (so early as) to wait for its preparation: but when ye are invited, enter; and when ye have taken your meal, disperse, without seeking familiar talk. Such (behaviour) annoys the Prophet: he is ashamed to dismiss you, but Allah is not ashamed (to tell you) the truth. And when ye ask (his ladies) for anything ye want, ask them from before a screen: that makes for greater purity for your hearts and for theirs. Nor is it right for you that ye should annoy Allah's Messenger, or that ye should marry his widows after him at any time. Truly such a thing is in Allah's sight an enormity.
54. Whether ye reveal anything or conceal it, verily Allah has full knowledge of all things.
55. There is no blame (on these ladies if they appear) before their fathers or their sons, their brothers, or their brother's sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or the (slaves) whom their right hands possess. And, (ladies), fear Allah; for Allah is Witness to all things.
56. Allah and His angels send blessings on the Prophet: O ye that believe! Send ye blessings on him, and salute him with all respect.
57. Those who annoy Allah and His Messenger - Allah has cursed them in this World and in the Hereafter, and has prepared for them a humiliating Punishment.
58. And those who annoy believing men and women undeservedly, bear (on themselves) a calumny and a glaring sin.
59. O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
60. Truly, if the Hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and those who stir up sedition in the City, desist not, We shall certainly stir thee up against them: Then will they not be able to stay in it as thy neighbours for any length of time:
61. They shall have a curse on them: whenever they are found, they shall be seized and slain (without mercy).
62. (Such was) the practice (approved) of Allah among those who lived aforetime: No change wilt thou find in the practice (approved) of Allah.
63. Men ask thee concerning the Hour: Say, "The knowledge thereof is with Allah (alone)": and what will make thee understand?- perchance the Hour is nigh!
64. Verily Allah has cursed the Unbelievers and prepared for them a Blazing Fire,-
65. To dwell therein for ever: no protector will they find, nor helper.
66. The Day that their faces will be turned upside down in the Fire, they will say: "Woe to us! Would that we had obeyed Allah and obeyed the Messenger!"
67. And they would say: "Our Lord! We obeyed our chiefs and our great ones, and they misled us as to the (right) Path.
68. "Our Lord! Give them double Penalty and curse them with a very great Curse!"
69. O ye who believe! Be ye not like those who vexed and insulted Moses, but Allah cleared him of the (calumnies) they had uttered: and he was honourable in Allah's sight.
70. O ye who believe! Fear Allah, and (always) say a word directed to the Right:
71. That He may make your conduct whole and sound and forgive you your sins: He that obeys Allah and His Messenger, has already attained the highest achievement.
72. We did indeed offer the Trust to the Heavens and the Earth and the Mountains; but they refused to undertake it, being afraid thereof: but man undertook it;- He was indeed unjust and foolish;-
73. (With the result) that Allah has to punish the Hypocrites, men and women, and the Unbelievers, men and women, and Allah turns in Mercy to the Believers, men and women: for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. You don't even need to know the word count of this chapter. It is simple to compare it to the earlier quoted chapter and realize that it's length is much much greater. But for sake of accuracy and methodology the word count on this next chapter is 2744 or 2671 if you deduct the ayaat (verse) numbers. So what we see here is that the following chapter is over three times the length of the previous chapter. Now this completely goes against the claim that the Quran is written from longest to shortest chapter. There are many other examples that also underline this claim as nothing more than a falsehood or myth.


So, by "length", I - and obviously also at least a big majority of authors in the field - refer to length of text.
And using that length of text methodology I have demonstrated above that your claim and indeed that of a so-called ‘big majority of authors in the field’ is patently and totally false.
Number of verses in one Sura is just that - number of verses. But the verses can be long or short, so that is no qualified criterion to judge the length of a Sura.
Indeed you are correct. Hence why I used the methodology that you and I agree is the most accurate and only true way of measuring length. I was simply lazy earlier when I referred to ayaat (verses) as an indication of length as I thought that it would have been obvious looking at the original source being the Quran. So here I have shrugged off that laziness and documented in full.

Anyhow. Small little escapades like this help nobody anything.
You mean that the facts are not important. Simple fundamental facts regarding the structure of the Quran are escapades. In final conclusion as mentioned a couple of paragraphs earlier, the claim that the Quran is structured beginning with the longest chapter and concluding with the shortest chapter is completely false and without any foundation. Skybird, would you now accept that you are wrong on this issue?

[Skybird]

Sigh.

I must not take this "discussion" overly important, must I? So again I shortcut it, it really is not worth to invest so much time into it:

http://www.truthnet.org/islam/Watt/Chapter4.html

The length of the verses, like the length of the suras, varies much. In some suras, and these generally the longer ones, the verses are long and trailing; in others, especially the shorter ones near the end of the book, the verses are short and crisp. This, however, is not an invariable rule. Sura 98, which is comparatively short, consists of 8 long verses; sura 26, which is long, has over 200 short verses. It may be noted, however, that as a rule the verses in the same sura, or at least in the same part of a sura, are of approximately the same length. There are exceptions even to this generalization, but on the whole it remains valid, particularly where the verses are short.
(...)
Consideration of the lengths of the suras tends to confirm this. A glance at the table will show that on the whole the suras stand in order of decreasing length, and this almost looks like the principle on which the suras have been arranged. It is equally evident that there are many deviations from the strict sequence, and it is necessary to guard against laying too much stress on a mechanical rule of this kind, which is not likely to have been carefully carried through. Some of the deviations from the rule of decreasing length, however, seem to be connected with these groups of suras. Thus, if we take the group 40-46, we find that the first is a little longer than 39, while 45, and especially 44, are short for their position. It looks as if the order of decreasing length had been departed from in order to keep the hawamim øawåmæm group as it stood before the final arrangement was undertaken. Again, taking the alif, lam låm, ra råŸ group, we find that 10, 11, 12 stand approximately in their proper position according to the length, but 13, 14, 15 are short, and with 16 we return again to something like the length of 10. It looks as if this group had been inserted as a solid block. On the other hand, the alif, lam låm, mim mæm suras are placed in different positions, suras 2 and 3, the longest, at the very beginning, 29-32 in a group much farther on, as if the deviation from the rule would have been too great, and the group had therefore been broken up.

http://www.religionfacts.com/islam/texts/quran.htm


The Qur'an is roughly the length of the Christian New Testament. It is divided into 114 surahs (chapters) of widely varying length, which, with the exception of the opening surah (fatihah), are generally arranged from longest to shortest. As the shortest chapters seem to date from the earlier period of Muhammad's revelation, this arrangement results in a reverse chronological order.

Use Google, you will find many sites, blogs, transcriptions like this. The general rule is like I say and like Western traditon of academic research on Islam sees it since 150 years: the whole thing generally follows the rule of decreasing length of suras from start to end, and the chronological order being ignored. If you do not believe that latter as well, google for it, there are many sites that give you Quran versions in which the Suras are sorted in chronological sequence. It helps to use such a version in order to solve contradictions between different passages, because you can easily see which of the two statements in different suras is the later one and thus: the valid (abrogation principle).

This cosmetic detail on length of suras is so very important, isn't it?! You just picked it because you thought you could easily discredit me when showing that I was "wrong" on something, even such an unimportant detail, eh? Well, mission failed, I would say.

I'll leave it to that, Konovalov. You are a Western convert, and you married a Muslim woman. I do not judge the one or the other decision and I do not attack you over it (though by attitude I question the wisdom of the first decision, but it is your life, not mine). But I conclude from both these decisions you made that it is extremely unlikely that you, as a voluntary convert to Islam , will ever gain an objective stand towards Islam. I talked a very few original Muslims into apostacy, but with a convert I would not even try that. Fact is that converts tend to behave even more in conformity with the dogma as they see it then the original followers of said dogma, because they are driven by a desire or a feeling that they must "prove" how really devout they are indeed. That makes converts often even more orthodox than original orthodox - and not just in case of Islam, but in case of any religous converting.

Seen that way, the discussion is probably doomed to be lost from start on. You are defending Islam, and I would ideally favour a solution of no Islam in the West at all, or any other part of the world. I am adamant on this, and you are on your position. that makes the issue a question of what camp has the greater power to push back the other. and that is what puts us into different teams, forever. Personally, I do not have something against you, and in the first contatcs of ours I learned to know you as a kind and friendly guy, I assume you indeed mean it well. But that cannot change the fact that I think you are basing on dangerous illusions. I also see you as somebody who is dangerous himself but is not aware of it, because by your mere presence Islam in the west is by the number of heads in your family stronger than it would be if you would chose to live with your wife in Pakistan, which was her home, if I remember correctly, or any other Muslim country.

So, maybe we stay separate, you and me. I really do not enjoy colliding with you - but I also refuse to give ground to you, and if collision is the price for that, so be it. ;)

However, for today I have to leave.

[tater]

Can you run through the numerous major sectarian branches and then place the 4 from the piece?


No it says that there is disageement and there is nothing in the koran itself to support the view given by the 4.

No, it says the traditional view, that is "unanimous" is that death is it. It then lists specific people who disagree, and at every turn says they are outside the mainstream of islamic thought.

Below, it list countries. Saudi—death, Iran, death (there are sunni and shia right there--the vast majority of muslims).

[Konovalov]

Skybird,

Why do you bring my personal life into this? You have no reason or need to. And no my wife is not from Pakistan. You say that you do not judge or attack me for decisions yet in the same breath you draw wacked out conclusions that I am extremely dogmatic and unobjective. You'd think that you had sat me down on the nutters couch for hours on end to come up with this psycho babble stuff. Really poor form from you. :down:

You weren't man enough to answer Sailor Steve's simple questions over god knows how many pages of this topic. And now you avoid mine. The facts have been laid bare on such a basic and minor issue yet still you cannot simply accept that what you claimed was false. I asked some very straightforward questions on this subject and not once in post after post did you answer them. Instead you go off on all these tangents regarding Islam and then you scrape the bottom of the barrel by bringing my personal life and family into it. As someone who once was so hurt by other members breaching your trust by leaking Skybird PM's onto the GT forum you appeared to have changed your tune. Again how lame. :down:

The bottom line is that you do not know me and what is just as obvious is that you do not know your subject matter. Heaven forbid that you put me on your ignore list because you can't handle being challenged on occasion. Again I would request that you refrain from trying to draw conclusions on me as a person and my family. I have diligently stayed on topic here and I would appreciate if you would do the same in future. Play the ball and not the man please.

[Tribesman]

Sigh.


Liar:har::har::har:
I must not take this "discussion" overly important, must I?

No, you have already been exposed again as a liar so your carrying on lying isn't important as it is increasingly well established.

So again I shortcut it, it really is not worth to invest so much time into it:

wow , so for your secondary educational source of academic wisdom you post a link to some complete fruitloop:rotfl2:
Convert the jews to jesus as the 70th week of armageddon is at hand?????:doh:
Still I suppose its better than a link about blacks and muslims ruining soccer



No, it says the traditional view, that is "unanimous" is that death is it.
How can it be unanimous when it is only 4 besides which a traditional view means nothing if you are talking of the scriptural view, and after all your point was that the problem was the scriptures themselves not the various interpretations some have put on them.


It then lists specific people who disagree, and at every turn says they are outside the mainstream of islamic thought.

Mainstream??? there is no mainstream.

Below, it list countries. Saudi—death, Iran, death (there are sunni and shia right there--the vast majority of muslims).
Saudi, what flavour is saudi?
Iran, well done, their "spiritual leader" and "great religious teacher" last month said music was wrong and should not be indulged in an Islamic country. Pretty damning stuff really, after all you can use that as a measurefor Irans other "religious" rulings.
The Grand ayaytollah had to admit that his ideass actually had no scripture to back them up and that music was indeed halal....but that it was unislamic:doh:

What you have succeeded in doing tater is insisting that it is the scriptures that are the problem on several points but demonstrating that it is the people who are claiminng to follow scripture on those points when they are not that is the problem.

[Skybird]

Konovalov,


I'm just be back from an afternoon and evening in town (btw. with a Syrian "Muslim", if that is not ironic, who gives as much for Ramadan and Quran as I do - nothing :haha: ), and here I find you now with a red face and a glow in your eyes - and over what? Bean counting, and a good ammount of personal animosity.

Why do you bring my personal life into this? You have no reason or need to. And no my wife is not from Pakistan. You say that you do not judge or attack me for decisions yet in the same breath you draw wacked out conclusions that I am extremely dogmatic and unobjective.

"Dogmatic?" You? Where have I claimed that? My problem with your claimed Muslimhood is that you are not "dogmatic" with regard to Islam'S real dogma! That was always my assessement of you, since five years or so! but you got stuck elsewhere, but on that: later.

I said that voluntary converts tend to be more holy than the original followers of the relgion they converted to, which is a known phenomenon in all religions, contributing often to the amusement of the original followers who may see things and rules more relaxed, maybe. I did not say I see you as a wacko, nor is my assessement of you just wacked. If you want to know it, I see you as somebody who indeed strongly believes what he has converted to, the problem just is that you are beautifying it and do not realise it for what it really is. You always gave me the impression to simply and blindly follow what somebody has told you about it, and you did not give me an impression to crticially pout it into question. That i mean not as an attack or offence, that is simply a sober description of the impression you gave me.

I have no doubt that you do not beat your wife, and that you do not propagate armed subjugation of us infidels and that you do not support terrorism. And that is - what you also do not like to be told, i know - why I do not see you as a real Islamic Muslim, but a self-defined Muslim who understands the term not by the original rules, but by hiw own romantic imagination about what it is - I see you as somebody who just wants to claim he is Muslim, but defines "Muslim" in a way that he must not rethink his opinion on it and must not realise its harsh and barbaric essence. Because islam - orders you to supress your wife and beat her if she is disobedient, islam demands you since your converting that you must seek the subjugation of the infidels in the name of islam, this is no voluntary option for you as a male, but a mandatory duty that you have to obey to. The history of a whole cultural sphere reflects right this, since over one millenium: intolerance, sexual slavery and supression, supremcist claims for dominance. I do not see you as a Muslim wacko. I see you as a naive Westerner who is trying to make something seeming better than it is. Why you were attracted to Islam, I do not know. But if I recall it correctly, you have introduced yourself as a convert to islam several times over the years and again just short time ago in one posting after your long absence here. So I do not see that I am giving away great secrets from your private life.

You also said in public in earlier times that you are married to a Muslim woman from a Muslim family, and I seemed to recall that it was a Pakistani family. You say that is wrong, okay I recalled it wrong (I also recall a certain old email of yours, but maybe I remember it wrong, too). I do not comment on your wife beyond this and in no way pulled her into all this or wished to minimise her in a derogatory way. And I didn't. So what is your problem? I explicitly said that I do not judge this family aspect, and that I just referred to your act of voluntary converting. and that is public part of your biography - you gave it away all yourself. And since you made that decision, you cannot expect me or the public or anybody to ignore that. You did it, and also: you voluntary made it known to a wide public. so I do not see your problem when I refer to what you have given away yourself, and not in a private mail to me, but on the public board. If you do not want people knowing all this, you should not have released it to the public. On other aspects of your private life I have not commented. first, I never would do that, and second, I also do not know it.


You weren't man enough to answer Sailor Steve's simple questions over god knows how many pages of this topic

Oh, now it is not a question of reason or logic, but manhood, well, that I was confronted with quite often in oriental countries: manhood. Plenty of men running around, constantly being obsessed with "manhood".

Well, manhood certainly was not the problem between Steve and me.

Here you show what queer spirit's brainchild you have become. Maybe indeed you have become more muslim over the past couple of years than I would have thought back those years: a certain ammount of islamophile opportunism I certainly cannot deny to testify in your favour. but Steve constructed a very absurd argument and opushed his defintion to self-contradictory, absiolute extreme, while leaving unadressed until the end my initial question to him at the same time what he will do against freedombeing abused to destroy freedom, because his model of absolute freedom does not give him a solution to the dilemma I pointed at. Read again the attempt of Kazuaki to moderate, his summary of Steve's and my position in that analogy of armies that he used. He described Steve and me perfectly. Not every question has or even needs an answer. Steve's "question" was one of these.

When now you think you must fall back to Steve'S undefendable claim, then I suspect this is for pure opportunism: because Steve's model of unlimited freedom gives Islam what it wants: the space and opportunity to unfold without giving others the chance of resistence, and becoming stronger and stronger, more influential, more powerful. You support this, because you seem to have a very beautified idea of what islam is, while violating some of its basic rules at the same time - those rules that to you would demonstrate to what degree it is on confrontation course with the values that you, as a Westerner, has been raised with (at least I assume you have been risen in the western cultural value tradition of humanism and the meaning of terms like freedom, liberty, dignity, tolerance, peace, science, reason).

My thesis is that you are locked in the classical case of cognitive dissonnance, and you avoid the conflicting part by refusing to realise reality, but creating your own idea of reality that then replaces true reality in your thinking. that is a problem that is widespread amingst socalled, and often seld-claimed, "moderate" Muslims. I have des cribed it often enough, and as i see it, you also fall into this category. That's why i do not think that you have turned violent or radical, and that you probably never will: you really believe what you say, and you really believe Islam is like you see it: but as I see it we are not talking about islam itself, but about a brainchild of yours, let's call it Konovalovism. You indeed mean it well, I am perfectly aware of that: its just that i also see that in your reasonable and kind attitude you are not about the islam that Ii over the years have learned to realise, that is led out in Quran and Sharia, that is anything but klind and reasonable as long as oyu do not fully submit to it, and that Western orientalists have analysed and described since long time.

By this you do not want to be dangerous to the West, but nevertheless you help to create space for manouvering, and opportunity to advance for Islam - the real, the grim, the conquering, the subjugating, the totalitarian Islam. You do that, because you base on your "idea" only. Quite some muslims in the West do like you do. Often I have said that I am perfectly aware of such "Muslims" being non-violent (but also actively refusing to integrate, on the other hand). but right in this passivity of theirs lies the problem: by silently tolerating islam and not standing up against it, they help it to move on, and their refusal to itegration also establishes parrallel societies and subcultures that want to remain closed and separate, and turn the hosting nation upside down in hte hotspots where they gain sufficient strength in numbers. and this porblem is almost infectous, and spreading in cities throughout europe.

And now you avoid mine. The facts have been laid bare on such a basic and minor issue yet still you cannot simply accept that what you claimed was false.

If you cannot see why 21 pages is considered to be "longer" than let'S say 18 pages, then I cannot help it. Until the laws of mathematics are changed, I stick with what I see with my eyes when I hold that book in my hands, and I stick with the academic tradition and the literature of analysing Islam that it has produced over the past 150-200 years. The statetment stands, not just because I say it, but because it has been found to be true over and over again, in so many books in so many nations and languages written by so many people who know islam better than me (or you). As a general trend oyu see the longest suras in the beginning, and the shortest at the end. And length usually is not defined by number of suras, but by printed space in a book. Like at school or university the duration of a lesson is not measured in number of sentences spoken by the prof, or avergae sentence length, but total time in hours and minutes. At least that's how we do it in the West - counting Australia as a western-influenced nation.

I asked some very straightforward questions on this subject and not once in post after post did you answer them. Instead you go off on all these tangents regarding Islam and then you scape the bottom of the barrel by bringing my personal life and family into it. As someone who once was so hurt by other members breaching your trust by leaking Skybird PM's onto the GT forum you appeared to have changed your tune. Again how lame.

I will not repeat ONCE AGAIN long topics and essays of mine which cost me time and will not be welcomed by most people anyway - it has all been done several times now over the years (search button ;) ). I told you that from beginning on, that therfore I answer your question on Quran references to violence or what it was, by taking a shortcut and just linking just any site listing you quotes and quotes and quotes. I told you that I am aware of the context-sensitivity, and I explained why often the claimed context of Islam just acting in defence, to me all too often is no non-starter: due to islam'S queer understanding of what an offense and what an attack by the other is: and that is to resist to Islam, that already qualifies as an attack or offence. By that, islam claims that every victim of it - is actually the agressor against which islam just defends, like the girl that gets victim of a gang rape - is punished for being raped and the male rapists benefitting from double-counted witness testimonies anyway.

The bottom line is that you do not know me and what is just as obvious is that you do not know your subject matter.

I wonder what you believe to know on the subject. Just being indoctrinated by an imam who is imam just for that: to indoctrinate and give Islam a good polish, is nothing that wins too much respect from me. If you want an objective assessement of catholicism - would you consider it to be a good idea if you ask especially the vatican about it...? IknowIknow, there are also some good folks. But you get the general idea of my point. the imam and the vatican, both have an interest-conflict if being asked for objectivity.


Heaven forbid that you put me on your ignore list because you can't handle being challenged on occasion. Again I would request that you refrain from trying to draw conclusions on me as a person and my family. I have diligently stayed on topic here and I would appreciate if you would do the same in future.

No, never anybody has been put on my ignore list because of just a disagreement that became loud, or different arguments, never, not a single time. All people on that list are there mostly for either repeated offendings, or just one offending but that one already being a good ammount of callibre, and some also for time and again using trolling tactis or verbal cheats and tricks, misquoting me intentionally, putting it into incorrect contexts while ignoring the correct one. So in short: I put people on ignore lists for questions of heavily offending behavior, or trolling - not becaseu they disagree with me or I do not like their argument. It's as if you are giving aparty. If a guest behaves too badly, you throw him out. If I am tired of an argument, I simply leave the debate in question sooner or later. Mostly later. :) BTW, sometimes, if after a longer time I do not remember anymore what it was about, I even release a name from that list again. :) doesn't happen often, but it happens.

Play the ball and not the man please.

Again, I cannot see that i played foul against you personally. I mentioned two facts about you, both of which you have given away to the public, not just in an email to me. I made it clear that I link no moral or personal judgement with the one, and sticked with the other. And that is no secret at all, as far as I see it. If I once told the board my starsign is Aquarius, I cannot complain if people at occasion may refer to that.

I am on topic, but you have imagined I would play ball in a way that you can shoot at my goal with my goalie taking a time-out. I also refuse to put so much attention and energy into bean-counting, like you do: the Quran's suras in general sorted by length. I stick with what I and many authors say on that, and I think it is totally unimportant. the lngth of various suras is the smallest of all porblems with the Quran. You make it a sky-high issue trying to squeeze something out of that that you can use against me. that is - distracting and irritating at best. we could as well debate why a Quaran printed in bigger letters on the same paper size has more pages inside it. And if I do not ONCE AGAIN answer that second question of yours what version I have, then this is because over the years you have asked me at least THREE TIMES now. This may be very important to you, this kind of bean-counting. To me, it is not. what counts to me is the content of the IDEOLOGY, what it makes people do when they obey it, how people'S behavior must be in order that this ideology claims them to be heretics und punishes them, and whether or not the unfolding of history is in conformity with the declared aims and goals of that ideology, or not, whether the historic example confirms or falsifies said claims of said ideology. And you count words, over that collide with the basic fact that the Suras in general are sorted by length (sorry, my untrustworthy eyes, the mad academics at university, we all are mad you know) and make a big show of when somebody referes to one piece of info about yourself that you have released to the board yourself at least twice in the distant past, and i think once again just shorter time ago. Forgive my lacking precison on time and date, but I do not write it all down in a little notebook.

It comes down to this, Konovalov. whether you are aware of it or not, for you, Shariah has to be the top authority in life if you really want to be Muslim in real isalami understanding. that has to be your priroity, before the nationaliuty porinted in you passport, before your loaylaty to any country, and before your symoathy for wetsern values. If you want to be a real Muslim, you have no choice than to place all this below the absolute do,mancance of shriah. You cannot avoid Shariah, and just poick of it what occasionally, opportunistacally, sometimes may fit your needs - it'S claim is that of total, absolute, unconditional dominance. the moment you convrted to islam, islam's demand that you have to leave behind nationality and loyxalty to Wetsern constitutional orders and value systems has won authorit yover you. where oyu do not obey that, you are violating the very heart and essence of islam, and thus are not rerally a muslim. either you never was, or you already have become an apostate again, no matter whether oyur realise that or not.

you are either unconditionally for Shariah and against wetsern law and nation, or you are not unconditinally for shariah - then you are a traitor to islam's self-understanding. that's bitter. That's harsh. that's merciless.

But that is where i see you hang gotten stuck in.

And I think about you that way since long time. If your muslim friends that influenced you to convert, did not tell you these consequences in full clearness, or glossed over them, then they have misled you, and are false friends.

---

This reply only becasue I feel unlegitimately targetted by you with claims of violating your personal sphere.

Today I had one non-Muslim Muslim admitting he is non-Muslim and pumped me up with steak and beer, and another non-Muslim Muslims who denies to be non-muslim and tries to be very strict a Muslim and who pumps me even more up up with words. that's a bit too much of non-Musliminism for just 12 hours, so I now leave it here, relax and then go to bed. :DL

Take care of yourself, Konovalov. ;)

[Tribesman]

If you cannot see why 21 pages is considered to be "longer" than let'S say 18 pages, then I cannot help it.
Errrrrr, number of pages have nothing to do with length of text.
Though I am sure that in antiquity religious scholars decided to sort scripture on the basis of how many pages it would take in a printed german translation:yeah:
You lied again and were caught out again, live with it:haha:

[Konovalov]

Errrrrr, number of pages have nothing to do with length of text.
Though I am sure that in antiquity religious scholars decided to sort scripture on the basis of how many pages it would take in a printed german translation:yeah:
You lied again and were caught out again, live with it:haha:
Yep, caught out again and again. Sadly his way of dealing with that is to turn the subject personally onto me and my muslimhood (whatever the heck that means). Of course the mass volumes of text on me and my personal faith had absolutely nothing to do with the debate. Again we are confronted by another wall of text and obfuscation. :zzz:

[Tribesman]

Yep, caught out again and again.
I know its so sad to see the way he carries on.
His phobia has so taken over that his mind is losing function.
I do like the way that he manages to destroy his own arguements though

[Skybird]

Yep, caught out again and again. Sadly his way of dealing with that is to turn the subject personally onto me and my muslimhood (whatever the heck that means). Of course the mass volumes of text on me and my personal faith had absolutely nothing to do with the debate. Again we are confronted by another wall of text and obfuscation. :zzz:

Okay, let's see what I have so far: your Quran is different than the Qurans used by various authors in the field or the one that I have (all of these seem to share a certain characteristic that you deny), you ignore what I say, instead you continue to wrongly accuse me of turning personally against you, you release a personal info about yourself and then accuse others when they come back to that in an originally absolutely harmless context, you become personal yourself by now calling me a liar, and what I can see with my own eyes is just hallucination and the Western specialists of oriental studies who have written long books about the structure of the Quran and the order in which the suras are presented, in general presented in sequence of declining length, all have gotten it wrong since several generations, since they all used to read forged or manipulated Qurans.

That you now even think it is a clever idea to line up with the board'S most prominent and probably most often ignored troll, is just the cream on the cake.

You might be irritated, but I still trust my eyes more than I would trust you, and I also trust more those authors studying an object on basis of western academic tradition, than voices that are in - necessarily biased - defence of said object because they have chosen to submit to it. Yes, your choice and your "Muslimhood" has something to it, even if you claim you cannot see it. Opportunistically selective perception, maybe?

Before typing this, I once again googled a bit on the original issue - and again only found references, links, blogs, book quotes, speeches or whatever it was that all agree on what I say, what I see with my eyes, and what is printed in the books I know as well: that in general the suras are given in sequence of declining length from beginning to end, with the first sura being mentioned as the prominent exception (it is not even one full page).

Suras' length is so much more important than what they say. :yep: :yeah: Bean counting.

I used to think of you as a reasonable guy over the past years, but maybe I overestimated you, or you have changed. And this now is - finally, because you accused me of that so repeatedly - indeed a personally aimed statement, so you can enjoy that I finally fulfill your advanced expectation. Waiting so long should be rewarded, i think.

This debate is absurd, and about nothing important at all, sura length is nothing I see as overly important, this has become about you being snapped over something that you see as somehow personally offending although it is basing on something you have released to the wide public yourself, and when I defend myself against your false accusations, then you call it a wall of text and claim it is non-relevant. Well, this scheme of behavior reminds me of unpleasant experiences I have had with certain people in real life, or read about in the media almost every day.

So the only reasonable consequence at this state of things can be this: bye.

[Konovalov]

More of the same old dross. :zzz::zzz:

[Tribesman]

That you now even think it is a clever idea to line up with the board'S most prominent and probably most often ignored troll, is just the cream on the cake.

Which doesn't cjhange the fact that you are repeatedly caught out lying:rotfl2:
Isn't it amazing that Sky has twice tried to alter his claim to make it more trueish, yet still managed to only make two more false claims on top of his original lie but ridiculously claims that his lies are correct.

You might be irritated, but I still trust my eyes more than I would trust you, and I also trust more those authors studying an object on basis of western academic tradition
errrrrr....your "academic" source was a loony blog about the end of the world and the urgent need to convert jews to jesus

So the only reasonable consequence at this state of things can be this: bye.
Is that a slightly more legible version of the rant Dimitrius07 has been using of late?:yeah:

[August]

You might be irritated, but I still trust my eyes more than I would trust you

Quoting for the next time you try to tell me how things are in my own country based on a Speigel article. :DL

[MH]

Is that a slightly more legible version of the rant Dimitrius07 has been using of late?:yeah:

Why dont you come up with some respectfull opinion yourself.
Somthing Sailor Steve style.
Lets asume that islam is not evill and can coexist peacfully.Still the extremist are the most influential ones and most voiced type of religus leaders.
I see the ones that talk jihad and those that just dont and they do it freely in the name of free speech and liberty.
Where are all those great INFLUENCIAL leaders who preach for peace and tolerance?

[Tribesman]

Why dont you come up with some respectfull opinion yourself.

There are two lengthy topics on the "ground zero mosque" read them

[AVGWarhawk]

There are two lengthy topics on the "ground zero mosque" read them

And everyones opinion has not changed from the looks of it. :O:

[HunterICX]

And everyones opinion has not changed from the looks of it. :O:

Changed Opinions after a debate here in the GT.....when that day comes it'll be the end of the world I tell ya.

HunterICX

[MH]

And everyones opinion has not changed from the looks of it. :O:
Still it is good and intresting to know what others think allover the world.
If this mosgue got build i thing that arabs in middle east would laugh their asses off marveling american stupidy
What better brain washing material you can ask for.
I really dont think it would be seen as act of good will but weakness.
Mentality here is kind of scewed..

[Sailor Steve]

Still it is good and intresting to know what others think allover the world.
If this mosgue got build i thing that arabs in middle east would laugh their asses off marveling american stupidy
What better brain washing material you can ask for.
I really dont think it would be seen as act of good will but weakness.
Mentality here is kind of scewed..
But what someone far away thinks of us has never been the reality. They get it wrong almost every time. It is neither good will nor weakness, but strength born of honor.

Ask the Japanese of 1941.

[Tribesman]

If this mosgue got build i thing that arabs in middle east would laugh their asses off marveling american stupidy

If the mosque got blocked the extremists would be laughing at the propoganda coup.
I really dont think it would be seen as act of good will but weakness.

The weakness would be in violating the constitution on the basis of a media storm built from nothing of substance.

[MH]

If the mosque got blocked the extremists would be laughing at the propoganda coup.

That would put you still with no points lost in the game and show you cant be pushed around.
Its all about exploring the limits of tolerance.

[AVGWarhawk]

Changed Opinions after a debate here in the GT.....when that day comes it'll be the end of the world I tell ya.

HunterICX

:har: How true. It is the art of the 'win' and not the art of meaningful debate!

[Tribesman]

That would put you still with no points lost in the game and show you cant be pushed around.

It would another step in losing the game and show just how easy it is to push America around.

[JU_88]

He backs it possibly because....

1) Its not a Mosque?
2) Its not on ground zero?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/23/charlie-brooker-ground-zero-mosque

*Ducks for cover*

-----------------

Things seem awfully heated in America right now; so heated you could probably toast a marshmallow by jabbing it on a stick and holding it toward the Atlantic. Millions are hopping mad over the news that a bunch of triumphalist Muslim extremists are about to build a "victory mosque" slap bang in the middle of Ground Zero.

The planned "ultra-mosque" will be a staggering 5,600ft tall – more than five times higher than the tallest building on Earth – and will be capped with an immense dome of highly-polished solid gold, carefully positioned to bounce sunlight directly toward the pavement, where it will blind pedestrians and fry small dogs. The main structure will be delimited by 600 minarets, each shaped like an upraised middle finger, and housing a powerful amplifier: when synchronised, their combined sonic might will be capable of relaying the muezzin's call to prayer at such deafening volume, it will be clearly audible in the Afghan mountains, where thousands of terrorists are poised to celebrate by running around with scarves over their faces, firing AK-47s into the sky and yelling whatever the foreign word for "victory" is.

I'm exaggerating. But I'm only exaggerating a tad more than some of the professional exaggerators who initially raised objections to the "Ground Zero mosque (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/18/ground-zero-mosque-republican-attacks)". They keep calling it the "Ground Zero mosque", incidentally, because it's a catchy title that paints a powerful image – specifically, the image of a mosque at Ground Zero.
When I heard about it – in passing, in a soundbite – I figured it was a US example of the sort of inanely confrontational fantasy scheme Anjem Choudary (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/jan/04/anjum-choudary-wootton-bassett) might issue a press release about if he fancied winding up the tabloids for the 900th time this year. I was wrong. The "Ground Zero mosque" is a genuine proposal, but it's slightly less provocative than its critics' nickname makes it sound. For one thing, it's not at Ground Zero. Also, it isn't a mosque.

Wait, it gets duller. It's not being built by extremists either. Cordoba House, as it's known, is a proposed Islamic cultural centre, which, in addition to a prayer room, will include a basketball court, restaurant, and swimming pool. Its aim is to improve inter-faith relations. It'll probably also have comfy chairs and people who smile at you when you walk in, the monsters.

To get to the Cordoba Centre from Ground Zero, you'd have to walk in the opposite direction for two blocks, before turning a corner and walking a bit more. The journey should take roughly two minutes, or possibly slightly longer if you're heading an angry mob who can't hear your directions over the sound of their own enraged bellowing.
Perhaps spatial reality functions differently on the other side of the Atlantic, but here in London, something that is "two minutes' walk and round a corner" from something else isn't actually "in" the same place at all. I once had a poo in a pub about two minutes' walk from Buckingham Palace. I was not subsequently arrested and charged with crapping directly onto the Queen's pillow. That's how "distance" works in Britain. It's also how distance works in America, of course, but some people are currently pretending it doesn't, for daft political ends.
New York being a densely populated city, there are lots of other buildings and businesses within two blocks of Ground Zero, including a McDonald's and a Burger King, neither of which has yet been accused of serving milkshakes and fries on hallowed ground. Regardless, for the opponents of Cordoba House, two blocks is too close, period. Frustratingly, they haven't produced a map pinpointing precisely how close is OK.

That's literally all I'd ask them in an interview. I'd stand there pointing at a map of the city. Would it be offensive here? What about here? Or how about way over there? And when they finally picked a suitable spot, I'd ask them to draw it on the map, sketching out roughly how big it should be, and how many windows it's allowed to have. Then I'd hand them a colour swatch and ask them to decide on a colour for the lobby carpet. And the conversation would continue in this vein until everyone in the room was in tears. Myself included.
That hasn't happened. Instead, 70% of Americans are opposed to the "Ground Zero mosque", doubtless in many cases because they've been led to believe it literally is a mosque at Ground Zero. And if not . . . well, it must be something significant. Otherwise why would all these pundits be so angry about it? And why would anyone in the media listen to them with a straight face?

According to a recent poll, one in five Americans believes Barack Obama is a Muslim, even though he isn't. A quarter of those who believe he's a Muslim also claimed he talks about his faith too much. Americans aren't dumb. Clearly these particular Americans have either gone insane or been seriously misled. Where are they getting their information?
Sixty per cent said they learned it from the media. Which means it's time for the media to give up.

Seriously, broadcasters, journalists: just give up now. Because either you're making things worse, or no one's paying attention anyway. May as well knock back a few Jagermeisters, unplug the autocue, and just sit there dumbly repeating whichever reality-warping meme the far right wants to go viral this week. What's that? Obama is Gargamel and he's killing all the Smurfs? Sod it. Whatever. Roll titles.

[AVGWarhawk]

He backs it possibly because....

1) Its not a Mosque?
2) Its not on ground zero?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/23/charlie-brooker-ground-zero-mosque

*Ducks for cover*

No. Freedom of religion. The wisdom of building this "community center" at this spot he will not comment on.

[JU_88]

No. Freedom of religion. The wisdom of building this "community center" at this spot he will not comment on.

Sure but its either on ground zero or its not. (read the full artical)
If you think about it, there was already a mosque inside the WTC building prior to the destruction of the complex at the hands of Islamic fundmentalists.
Just for arguments sake - if 9/11 had been carried out by extremist Christians does that mean no Church would be allowed to be built nearby?

Probabaly not, Im sure a people would seperate those responsible from the majority of Christians - who are good people.
Likewise there is more than one flavour of Muslim...

But its your country - so whatever man.

I cant help but feel that all this resentment towards Islam....
-Is EXACTLY what the 9/11 organsiers wanted.

[AVGWarhawk]

No need to read the article. Obama is supporting the idea of freedom of religion. We can't skirt around the 'wisdom' of building it there that BO will not talk about. The reason is...there is no wisdom in building it there.

I'm guessing the article is only beating a dead horse anyway.

[AVGWarhawk]

Muslim cleric calls for beheading of Dutch politician


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100903/wl_nm/us_dutch_wilders

[JU_88]

No need to read the article.
Then you wont understand my orginal post (which you quoted)

I'm guessing the article is only beating a dead horse anyway.
You geussed wrong, but it sounds like you have already made up your mind - so forget it

[AVGWarhawk]

Then you wont understand my orginal post (which you quoted)


You geussed wrong, but it sounds like you have already made up your mind - so forget it


Will do! :DL

[JU_88]

Will do! :DL

Ha
Everyone just belives what they want I guess.

[AVGWarhawk]

Ha
Everyone just belives what they want I guess.

Too true. Look at the entire thread. No one has changed or formulated an different opinion concerning this building. I think we truly have created a thread were we agree to disagree fits the bill perfectly. :up:

[Tribesman]

No need to read the article.
Charlie Brooker is very funny, you miss out by choosing to not read.

I cant help but feel that all this resentment towards Islam....
-Is EXACTLY what the 9/11 organsiers wanted.
Spot on.

[AVGWarhawk]

Charlie Brooker is very funny, you miss out by choosing to not read.

I read the article on your say so. I did not find it humorous. Then again, my humor is probably not like yours.

[MH]

Sure but its either on ground zero or its not. (read the full artical)
If you think about it, there was already a mosque inside the WTC building prior to the destruction of the complex at the hands of Islamic fundmentalists.
Just for arguments sake - if 9/11 had been carried out by extremist Christians does that mean no Church would be allowed to be built nearby?

Probabaly not, Im sure a people would seperate those responsible from the majority of Christians - who are good people.
Likewise there is more than one flavour of Muslim...

But its your country - so whatever man.

I cant help but feel that all this resentment towards Islam....
-Is EXACTLY what the 9/11 organsiers wanted.

How come that with all the bilions of christians no one crashed into Mecca for example or there aree no terrorist organisations agains Muslims.
Well...im sure there just some natzi freaks that beat Arabs on the street.
Is it a matter of education again.I dont think that there are too many priests nowdays that preach to kill Muslims
If a chrystian crashed plane into Mecca would Vatican aprove it.Would thousands of peaple celebrate on the streets.
I would like to see a Muslem pro American rally with thousands of peaple and their religus leaders.
For too many Ben Laden is like a Pope while there is no one equal to contradict him fore strange reason.

[Tribesman]

How come that with all the bilions of christians no one crashed into Mecca for example or there aree no terrorist organisations agains Muslims.
Have you been to planet earth lately?

[MH]

Have you been to planet earth lately?
Hmm...guess so ill recheck my location again.

Comon you know what i mean here.

[JU_88]

How come that with all the bilions of christians no one crashed into Mecca for example or there aree no terrorist organisations agains Muslims.
Well...im sure there just some natzi freaks that beat Arabs on the street.
Is it a matter of education again.I dont think that there are too many priests nowdays that preach to kill Muslims
If a chrystian crashed plane into Mecca would Vatican aprove it.Would thousands of peaple celebrate on the streets.
I would like to see a Muslem pro American rally with thousands of peaple and their religus leaders.
For too many Ben Laden is like a Pope while there is no one equal to contradict him fore strange reason.

Yeah but wait, Are you impliying that Muslims celebrated the 9/11 attacks? I'm pretty sure the vast majority did not.
If any thing it was a scary time for them too (for obvious reasons.) I do remember CNN showed palastinians celbrating in the street - I was shocked, but then it turned out that footage had nothing to do with 9/11. It was actually taking before the attack. :-/ - I would did up some proof, but there little point and people believe what they want regardless of proof.

I have a 'freind who is muslim. He was on one of the bombed trains in London in 2005, he was not hurt, but psycologically he was messed up and in shock for weeks afterwards - he wouldnt even leave the house, it was maybe 6 month before he could bring himself to set foot on a tube train.
He was interviewed by a reporter at the time, they asked him how he felt as British Muslim? he replied : the same way I feel as a human being.

Yeah it's so easy to lable and brand people of a particular background that you dont really understand, I dont really understand Islam and Im not intrested to learn more as I regelgion is not for me. But I do understand indervidual people and that is only fair way you can judge somebody.
you get to know one of 'those people' and it's not so easy to stick a lable on them.

I expect there were a few idiot Muslims that did celebrate 9-11, as I expect the were even some idiot non-Muslims that did too.
It's apples and oranges. There are good people and bad people in this world, and they can be of any nationality or relegion or whatever.

[MH]

I never said that ALL muslims celebrated.
For many Palestynias Ben Laden is an ******* as Arafat was.
Is just that general trend toward extremist is silent aproval passivnes or symphaty.
Just becouse im Israeli dosnt mean i want all muslims to be wiped off the earth.
I just want more muslim leaders to be more like your British friend.

[Fish]

Mau-Mauing the MosqueThe dispute over the "Ground Zero mosque" is an object lesson in how not to resist intolerance.

By Christopher Hitchens

The dispute over the construction of an Islamic center at "Ground Zero" in Lower Manhattan has now sunk to a level of stupidity that really does shame the memory and the victims of that terrible day in September 2001. One might think that a mosque or madrassa was being proposed in the place of the fallen towers themselves or atop the atomized ingredients of what was once a mass grave. (In point of fact, the best we have been able to do with the actual site, after almost a decade, is to create a huge, noisy, and dirty pit with almost no visible architectural progress. Perhaps resentment at the relative speed of the proposed Cordoba House is a subconscious by-product of embarrassment at this local and national disgrace.)

I don't like anything much about the Cordoba Initiative or the people who run it. The supposed imam of the place, Feisal Abdul Rauf, is on record as saying various shady and creepy things about the original atrocity. Shortly after 9/11, he told 60 Minutes, "I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened." He added, "In the most direct sense, Osama Bin Laden is made in the USA." More recently, he has declined to identify the racist and totalitarian Hamas party as being guilty of the much less severe designation of terrorist. We are all familiar by now with the peddlers of such distortions and euphemisms and evasions, many of them repeated by half-baked secular and Christian spokesmen. A widespread cultural cringe impels many people to the half-belief that it's better to accommodate "moderates" like Rauf as a means of diluting the challenge of the real thing. So for the sake of peace and quiet, why not have Comedy Central censor itself or the entire U.S. press refuse to show the Danish cartoons?

This kind of capitulation needs to be fought consistently. But here is exactly how not to resist it. Take, for example, the widely publicized opinion of Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League. Supporting those relatives of the 9/11 victims who have opposed Cordoba House, he drew a crass analogy with the Final Solution and said that, like Holocaust survivors, "their anguish entitles them to positions that others would categorize as irrational or bigoted." This cracked tune has been taken up by Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin, who additionally claim to be ventriloquizing the emotions of millions of Americans who did not suffer bereavement. It has also infected the editorial pages of the normally tougher-minded Weekly Standard, which called on President Obama to denounce the Cordoba House on the grounds that a 3-to-1 majority of Americans allegedly find it "offensive."

Where to start with this part-pathetic and part-sinister appeal to demagogy? To begin with, it borrows straight from the playbook of Muslim cultural blackmail. Claim that something is "offensive," and it is as if the assertion itself has automatically become an argument. You are even allowed to admit, as does Foxman, that the ground for taking offense is "irrational and bigoted." But, hey—why think when you can just feel? The supposed "feelings" of the 9/11 relatives have already deprived us all of the opportunity to see the real-time footage of the attacks—a huge concession to the general dulling of what ought to be a sober and continuous memory of genuine outrage. Now extra privileges have to be awarded to an instant opinion-poll majority. Not only that, the president is urged to use his high office to decide questions of religious architecture!

Nothing could be more foreign to the spirit and letter of the First Amendment or the principle of the "wall of separation." In his incoherent statement, Foxman made the suggestion that it might be all right if the Cordoba House was built "a mile away." He appears to be unaware that an old building at the site is already housing overflow from the nearby Masjid al-Farah mosque.


I notice that even the choice of the name Cordoba has offended some Christian opponents of the scheme. This wonderful city in Andalusia, after the Muslim conquest of southern Spain, was indeed one of the centers of the lost Islamic caliphate that today's jihadists have sworn in blood to restore. And after the Catholic reconquista, it was also one of the places purged of all Arab and Jewish influence by the founders of the Inquisition. But in the interval between these two imperialisms it was also the site of an astonishing cultural synthesis, best associated with the names of Averroes ibn-Rushd and Moses Maimonides. (The finest recent book on the subject is María Rosa Menocal's The Ornament of the World.) Here was a flourishing of philosophy and medicine and architecture that saw, among other things, the recovery of the works of Aristotle. We need not automatically assume the good faith of those who have borrowed this noble name for a project in lower Manhattan. One would want assurances, also, about the transparency of its funding and the content of its educational programs. But the way to respond to such overtures is by critical scrutiny and engagement, not cheap appeals to parochialism, victimology, and unreason.
http://www.slate.com/id/2263334

[Konovalov]

Good piece by C hitchens. :up: I struggle to disagree with almost any of what he said in the article. :yep:

[Tribesman]

Comon you know what i mean here.
Yes, you mean you are saying things to make your point but you know they are not really true...which is counterproductive to any point you are trying to make isn't it.

[MH]

Yes, you mean you are saying things to make your point but you know they are not really true...which is counterproductive to any point you are trying to make isn't it.

Sorry for my ignorace maybe i been feed wrong informatin or been brain washed-please explain im curius.

[Platapus]

So we are back to burning churches.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/03/tennessee-mosque-site-fire-an-arson-feds-say/?hpt=T2

Awesome, this is exactly why I spilled my blood for in the cause of "freedom". NOT.

So sad. This is not what Americans are supposed to do. :nope: