What should be the exact difference between "Islamic religion" and "Islamic culture"?
I noticed repeatedly you express this attitude of "I do not know nothing", and you give me the impression you think that this somewhat enobles your attitude. But it doesn't. I see it often as a way in which you somewhat stun or paralyse yourself. You do not want to give up a thinking that is showing inner conflicts or contradictons, but you then say something liek the above and seem to think that then you can stay witgh that thinking without needing to give solid reasons for it. At least that is the way you get perceived by me sometimes. I do not see you struggling for ending this status of "I don't know it", instead you turn it into an argument of defending yourself.

I reserve the right to take somebody who time and again illustrates he does not know the basics of Islam and/or constantly ignores them and ignores the theoretical/written fundaments of it and it's history, as somebody whose opinion I must value and seriously negotiate in debate. In other wordfs, diufferent to you I am not too shy to claim informational superiority of mmine if I think I have all good reason to think I know more about soemthing than somebody else. I sometimes chnage my mind, or correct my views and informationalö satndard. But I do not do that on the basis of the other using rethorical tricks, opportunistic ignoring of unwanted truths and facts and a general inability to found his different opinion on solid grounds.

At least I have more answers on the issue of Islam than you have, and I do not exaggerate my politeness to hide it endlessly. I call the totalitarianism by its name, and I am in good company of many even more insightful experts for Islam - apostates and academically trained critics - when doing so. I base oin both inout from plenty of literature and some commonly agree bysicv academic literature, and on experiences with Islam both in Muslim countries, and here in Germany. I am also directly and most personally confronmted with Islam, it'S most ugly face of threats and intimidation.

I know what I think of it, and why I think that way and not in another way. Like I readiuly admitted repeatedly to not know too much about Judaism and itz'S rites, I also say I know more about Islam than most ordinary people who are not professionally busy with it. Others know more about things where they have had more input and experience than I had. Maybe you think that attitude of mine is arrogant, or unpolite. But to be honest, this does not worry me too much, because beyond some certain point it simply is beyond me to make you or others holding me in good esteem or not. There is more important things on my mind, and I face quite some more real and imminent threats to me. Integrity means not to be liked by others, but to be true about my own ideals and thougthts and motives - no matter whether I am liked for that, or not.

In the end, I have taken quite some years of "odysseing" before I reached my current views on Islam, and many thioghts voiced by people here defending it naively and kind-heartedly, are familiar to me, for I once have shared them due to confusing input-overload, too. When I finally settled it by seeing the grim face of it, all the former contradictions resolved themselves and disappeared, and former contradictpory infromation pieces suddenly fell into their places. Since then it is that I see Islam being much more consitent in its natuzre, and mission. It's just that this nature is not friendly, and its mission is nothing I will bow my knee to, but I am putting up a fight about it. I have done that in real life, and in this forum, and in my social life as well, and I have taken quite some serious risks in doing so. But still - I live by what I say.

So what do you want to tell me? That I should make myself smaller than I am, and make others who are smaller on this issue indeed bigger beings/minds in relation to me? I am what I am and I think what I thinkl for reasons I have explained. You can like me for that, or you can hate me for that. But don't expect me to change my views and my knowledge basis just because you like or you hate me. That would be a lousy excuse for me to change my mind over the issues disputed here.

What it prgmatically can be summed up as is this: when inactivity and passivity have become the major threats in themselves, then anything seems to be better than just sitting still and doing nothing. The Burkha debate is a political propaganda weapon of Islamic jihad to enforce more concessions from the West in an attempt to weaken it's willingness to resist in general. Add the arguments I have made in earlier postings in this thread. It is the attitude of being undetermined and undecided that is expressed by statements like "I do not know the answers" that helps the Islamisation in the West more than anything else. And that's why I do not value such a confession, in this case. If you do not know about the issue of Islam, then have the decency to get yourself educated, that at least can be expected from everybody in the face of the biggest threat since the Third Reich and the Turks at Vienna and the Muslim invasion armies in Central France. The Western tradition has formed a superior toolkit of analytical research and examination, and until the 60s of last century, oriental studies, including the analysis of Muhammedanism, were well-reputated and strong disciplines especvially in the Francophone and Germanistic as well the Anglossaxon academic tradition. This can and should be trusted much more more than narcisstic and opportunistic self-descriptions of an ideological tradition that got stuck in a time more than a thosuand years ago, has strangled every evolution in the cradle since then and thus has most extreme deficits in critical self-reflection and self-analysis.

Thats typical western attitude.
We think that we are so superior... that every one will simply want play by our rules.
Just because its best thing to do.
It seems we are maybe wrong....

I have the same inner conflict that you have but i think that this attitude needs to be reviewed.
I'm not talking about wearing hats with horns and starting making human sacrifices to Germanic gods.I don't hate Muslims-maybe i should for many reasons but i really dont....

I thing that each country with its peoples has a right to decide what sort of life style and values it wants for its citizens.
If French by next election decide to ban the burka law its their choice.
They have choice....and next election.
In US they debate abortion laws and health care which may be seen as stupid and conservative as hell.
French ban burka because they have enough of people who bring Taliban life style to their country.They multicultural experiment(that is being western but having Humus in the baguette:DL) has failed them.
Integration has failed them...now instead of blaming themselves for even more lack of tolerance they say "khallas"(enough)
Baning burka should not really affect moderate Muslims and the ones that it does affect maybe have no room and business in living in France.

:har::har::har::har::har::har::har:
Given that Steve has never once linked to a lunatic website full of hate and nonsense and described it as an "academic source" it shows that even if he has no answers at all it is a far better answer than the answers Skybird thinks he has.

MH, that is exactly what was said about the jews.

1. Nobody is ignoring what is written in the Quran. We know what it says, there's a lot of violence there and all that. But you seem to think that every single person that is Islamic, automatically and literally will carry out everything that's said or commanded the Quran. Just like Christian people won't automatically attack people that don't believe in God with a sword...

2. I'm curious where you get your self proclaimed expertise on this subject. Putting other people down because they're 'less informed' then you is just ridiculous. There's also a lot of UFO people out there on the net that use the same argument...
Do you have any personal experience with Arabic or Muslim people?

3. All you're doing here is typing one monologue after another. If you're not even willing to consider other peoples views, and you think you know the 'truth', then the only reason you're still on this topic seems to be to convert us non-believers. Thanks, but I'll pass.

update:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=386_1302518440


Terrorists ‘will attack’ France after burka ban

It is only a matter of time before Islamic terrorists mount a successful attack on France, the country’s top spy believes.

The recent burka ban means all the ‘red lights are now flashing’ in regard to a possible atrocity, domestic intelligence boss Bernard Squarcini said.

Speaking after the evacuation of the Eiffel Tower last week following a bomb scare, Mr Squarcini warned: ‘France’s role in Afghanistan, its foreign policy and the debate over the law banning the burka have all increased the risk.’

He said security services foiled an average of two planned attacks every year, but added: ‘One day or another, we’re going to get hit.

‘The risk of a terrorist attack on French soil has never been higher and, objectively, there are reasons for worry.’

Leaders of al-Qaeda’s north African network have vowed revenge on France if it outlawed the full Islamic face veil from its streets. Muslim women have a six-month ‘grace period’ to adapt to the new burka rules without facing prosecution.

Meanwhile, security has been stepped up around Jewish institutions in Paris following the arrest of a suspected terrorist who planned to bomb an Israel defence forces fundraising event in the capital.

There have been 47 attacks against synagogues, Jewish schools, creches and association buildings in France so far this year, and 190 threats.

Well, that was bound to happen.
France inevitably drawing attention to itself by the hardliners, fascists and nutcases.
No surprises there, really.
I feel this is just the tip of the ice berg. This could get very ugly.

In other news......
It is only a matter of time before Islamic terrorists mount a successful attack on Iceland, the country’s top spy believes.

It is only a matter of time before Islamic terrorists mount a successful attack on Iran, the country’s top spy believes.

Thats low, are they having a quiet year?

I'm not sure. That's why I said it's an interesting question.

No, it doesn't, and your impression is incorrect.

I only bother defending myself when I'm attacked. I simply don't trust people who claim to know the answers, because in my experience if there is the slightest chance they might be wrong they turn very ugly very quickly.

When I say I don't know anything, I mean that sincerely. The more I learn, the less I know, which means the more I learn the more I realize how many things I don't understand. You're still young enough to think you know everything, and you're perfectly willing to tell everyone exactly what's wrong with them and exactly why they should listen to you if they want to save themselves, which is why in the past I've accused you of religious-like fanaticism. The truth is I agree with you on a lot of this, but I don't see it clearly enough to join your crusade.

Yes, Islam is dangerous. Is it all as dangerous as you say? I don't know. But the questions that arise concerning rights and freedoms are still questions as far as I'm concerned. If someone wants to build a mosque, should I be concerned? I don't know. If a woman wants to cover herself completely, should I be concerned? I don't know. A bank or an airline is a private establishment, and if they want faces uncovered for security reasons then they have the right to make that demand. Should there be a law demanding that women not cover their faces on a public street? Some might think it's a good idea, but what happens when the next law is passed? When does protection turn into totalitarianism?

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that you don't seem to take into account the possibility that you might be wrong, and that is as dangerous as anything.

Since you didn't actually point out any particular rhetorical tricks your claim seems to be lacking in honesty and character, which is why I brought it up in the first place.

The problem there that it's not a question of being liked, it's a question of respect. You may also not care whether you are respected, but if people don't respect you then they won't listen to you, and if they don't listen to you because of the way you talk down to them then what's the point of making an argument in the first place? You accuse people who argue with you of twisting words and using rhetoric, but you in turn seem to treat the rest of us as inferior beings, whose only purpose is to listen to you.

I agree with you about the dangers. But as we've argued before, while you talk about the dangers of giving so much freedom that we give it all away, I'm also concerned about restricting freedom so much that we remove all of it in the attempt to remove some of it.

Both are fine lines, lines that need to be discussed. I'm not the blind fool you sometimes try to make me out to be, but neither will I not discuss the dangers I see of going too far in either direction.

I don't expect you to change anything, except perhaps to heed the old saying "It's not what you say, it's how you say it." I agree with you on a lot of your concerns, but you seem to refuse to see the problems of the other side. If I try to show why I'm worried about going to far, you start arguing your side again and don't see that I agree with you, just the points that you want to see, and you attack those points relentlessly. That's what I mean by "arrogant."

Possibly. But if someone doesn't see it, or disagrees, you dismiss them and accuse them of "rhetoric". You don't admit the possiblility that they might be honest in their beliefs, and you don't allow for the slightest possibility that you might be wrong.

So if I really don't know the answers I should listen only to you and take it on faith that you know what you're talking about? What if you're wrong?

As I said, I agree with you. My problem is that, in my country at least, no matter how dangerous the speech may be we allow it, at the same time keeping a close watch on the speaker. It's a fine line, but we're not willing to cross it, simply because the opposite may be just as dangerous.

Muslims that clkaim to be Muslim by faith but do not follow that faith's rules must ask themselves what then is elft to make them Muslim. Muhammad left little room for opinion manouverings. The Quran is clear in its message of aggressively seeking the subjugation of other cultues and their destruction, the subjugation of women, it'S hate for Jews especially. Sharia'S role is not available as an object to be moderated as well. For males, participation in in the outer jiohad - the pacificaiton of the world be deleting the house of war - is not volunatry, but mandatory, it is an obligation. You are not free to chose whether or not to take part or to accept this going - you must. So when a Muslim claims to be following this ideology, but then rejects parts of it (or claims to do so), then it is no wonder that I see a contrtadiction between his claim and his behavior. What is Muslim and what not, is not object of personal opinion, but gets decided by Quran and this personal decisioin making process gets further pushed by Sharia. Islam is what Quran says that Islam is. And that is my criterion, and always was.

Like I do not care for church prayers and pastor'S sermons and the pope'S speeches, but take the bible and read Jesus words as quoted there, if I want to know what he was teaching.

As a matter of fact, fi you follow Muhhad'S teaching you follow into a behavior of intolerance, hate, aggression and violence, and if you behave in a non-viiolent, passive, tolerant, "mutlicultural" way - then you need to violate Muhammad'S teachings.

I am not Christian, btw, but atheist, but that muist not stop me to see what is of wisdom

Oh dear, again - damned if I do and damned if I don't. Well, I get bashed when I list my "record", and I get bashed as well when I don'T. So be it, maybe you have not arrived earlier here and really did not witness earlier debates in past years. I "studied" (=extensively read and privately researched) Islam and its history, and did so by an input of roughly three dozen books, mostly in German, some in English, some of that considered to be academic standard literature on the matter. Some years ago I somewhere posted the list of the most important ones I am bvasing on. I have had several years of repeated long travels in Muslim countries, not tourist tours, but offroad expeditions, sometimes for professional reasons when i travelled with a team of Belgian and British sorrespondents. I had long (several months) stays in Turkey and Iran, and shorter ones in Algeria, Egypt, Syria, as well as transfer trips through Lybia, Jpordan, Israel, even one short hop to Afghjanistan. All that in the 90s. One of my best schoiolfriends was Armenian, one of my martial arts trainers was a Turk, I trusted and pout my safety into the hands of a young guy who came from Iran, I have supported two Muslims in germnany to become apostates despite the high social cost they payed for that, and I was part of a citizen movement in my hiometown that confronted a Muslim community over a fraud by which they wanted to increase the local mosque illegally and enforce it upon a neighbourhood where even no Muslims are living. I have been threatened with murder for that in written hate letters, the leading spokesman of our movement was mangled on the streets, his wife was harassed and intimiadted on open street. I liked Iranmost , I strongly disliked Turkey, I had friendly and unfriendly experiences with local people, and I see the diversity, but also the uniformity in both places.

I do not claim to be an expert in an academic meanikng, I am not. But I have no reason to think that all other ordinary people have digested as much literature input as well as I have, and IU have no reason to b eleive that the majority of those people who make themselves heared on the issue of Islam have had as much experience in Muslim countries than I have had. Some may have had even more, sure. But the point is - most have not, no doubt on that. And I - listen to and weigh what is said by those who have a similar or even better background than I have. I do not listen to those who fantasize on Islam and cannot differ between their fantasy and reality, and distort what it is and illustrate a lack of knowledge about it. And who would want to criticise me for doing like this...?

So yes, I claim to know some things a little bit better than somebody whos eonly input is the daily news on TV and the daily late night talk shpow wherre the usual hinch of opportunistic propagandists spray their usualy mixture of narcissism and lacking education on the matter of Islam. Stzangely, I am in good company-by-opinion with those experts who maybe know it better than any other: apostates who can explain quite precisely why and how they decided to turn their back on Islam even if this brought high risks and loss of family for them.

Monologues - well, the same could be said about the constan t islamophile "Islam is harmless" babbling that our media is printing everya day, really every single day. I consider pother people'S views - when I get aware that they are basing their views on reasonable thinkling or factual information. When I see them distorting facts, or completely ignore them and just stick with their habit of opportunistically beloiueving only thta propaganda that serves thgeir opinion, then I do not take them serious, even less when I see by what they say they lack the education and also the experience.

I take oyu serious as a cooking master when the recipe you tell, by the list of ingredients, gives the impression of being something reaosnmable. But when you tell me that IU should put two spoons of salt into my coffee, and use garic in that Schwarzwälderkirsch, then I probably stop listening. I take nobody'S opinion as valuable jst becasue he has his precious porvate opinion. I at least need to see reason in why he holds that opinion, there needs to be a reasonable chain of thoughts and conclusions, and a basing on facts, even if he disagrees with me, in order for me to seriously deal with it. But just claims that ignore facts, rethorical attacks that do not reveal any insight of the speaker, but are onlöy tailored to hurt the opposing opinion-holder, and parroting the media mainstream of "Islam is peace", "Islam is kind", "whastever it is, it has nothing to do with Islam" - this kind of babbling I refuse to take serious. And the media are full and full of that.

The debate about Islam in the West - is fully based on a discouraging lack of education and information and realistic perception. Instead we have plenty and plenty of opportunistic ignorring unwanted truths, mistaking imaged fanatasy of what Islam is with real Islam, and a basic attitude of "vorauseilendem Gehorsam", and the desire to appease and to appeased and then to appease some more.
The truth is - nobody in the West has any recipe how to deal with this monster one has let in withiout need, without thinking, and now people are so scared that they instead prefer to assume that there is no beast in the house at all. It'S something lioke a diustant a variaton of the Stockholm syndrome.

Steve, I'm coming back to you later, I now need to leave and get some businesses done.

your record is blemished by third reich rants, "academic sources" that complain about black people and rabidly anti muslim articles by extremist terrorst supporting religious nuts.:woot:

Yet when challenged recently about a pretty basic claim which was clearly false he first quoted some nut then said he had looked briefly at a german translation of the koran and even if he was wrong he was right:yep:

:har::har::har::har::har:
academic standard:rotfl2:

So Bakkels his "expertise" is that he read some stuff.
Now if you consider that if you take his present favourite "philosophy" from Popper you will notice that he has reading problems as he completely misses the core element of the paradox and goes off on one in the wrong direction entirely at a very extreme level.
It doesn't put much strength in his "expertise" does it. In fact such basic errors would convince an ordinary person that they might indeed be wrong and it is them and not the rest of the world who has a problem.

@ Steve,

Quote:

I'm not sure. That's why I said it's an interesting question.

The claimed religion IS the culture in this case. Islam does not tolerate other cultural qualities beside itself.

Quote:

No, it doesn't, and your impression is incorrect.

I don’t think so. You sometimes try to get too opportunistically gains from politely admitting that you do not know something. Nevertheless you give your admittance of you own lack of knowledge in the same way as one would give a convincing argument. Functionally you use it as a surrogate for argument – and expect to get the same reaction and credit as if you had given an argument. Clever – but I don’t buy it! :)

I may attack your positions, but I hope you see I do not attack you on a personal level. I also do not claim to know the ultimate and final answers. But I claim I have good reason to think that I have a better informational and experience basis than many other non-specialists for the issues discussed here who only parrot what they get fed in the mainstream media and its propaganda output. It is very obvious to me that most people simply have no clue of what they are talking about when they say Islam is this, Islam is that, and that they do not have any understanding of of the general tone and message of it’s fundaments in scripture. Most people think of it as something being an oriental pendant to Western churches, and the relation between church and state as it changed over the centuries. And that impression could not be more wrong.

I know precisely what you mean, becaue I feel the same when I deal with sicnc es, astronomy, physics as far as I dive into the latter by popular science books for the broad audience. Indeed, the mnore I learn about astronomy, the more I learn to be amazed again, and wonder, and how little we know. I had a sig until some weeks ago, saying that science does not help to know us more, but to know in different ways, if you remember. However, Islam is no science, nor is any religion, even if you apply scientific methodology to examine its creation and tradition. And the truth is, I shared man opinions I meet in this forum and in the media, many years ago, at the beginning of my stuggle with Islam. Back then I wanted tzo see it as something good and misunderstood, and was confused by the many contradictions between this desire, and the grim reality I was confronted with by the books and by it’S history. Not before I had started to travel and not before I sdpend some time to digest those very different impressions and experiences and allowing myself the conclusion that maybe it is not that positive a thing at all, but something bad, it all started to fall into its place and then it all made sense. I do not oppose Islam because I have not learned anything about it and am prejudiced – I oppose Islam right because the more I have learned about it the more I had to realize how bad it is.

The immense amount of things you claim to not know, and your fatalistic passivity and tolerance you ground on that, makes you a very dangerous man. May I call you top press harder to learn about these things – because different to big bang theories and theoretical physics, you can know these things about Islam for sure. Or would you say that you still do not know whether or not Nazism was evil and whether or not apartheid was bad and whether or not slavery should be forbidden?

Quote:

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that you don't seem to take into account the possibility that you might be wrong, and that is as dangerous as anything.

You are basing on false assumptions there. I do take into account that I could err quite often, on many things, and if you go back over the years ion this forum you can see that on some things I indeed have admitted that I have changed my mind over them. But there are also other issues on which to change my mind I so far have not been shown any need or reason or argument – quite the opposite, in case of Islam. I do not make it a general attitude to assume I could be wrong, but I make differences, probabilities, if you want. And the probability that I will need to see that I am wrong about Islam, I now rate as very, very low.

You seem to think the paragraph you replied to was aimed at you, and that I accused you of rhetorical tricks. Neither did I do that, nor was it meant that way, but I was talking in general, pointing at5 several different people here and over many years and threads where they have shown this kind of behavior their debating strategy of choice. Some of these names are now on my ignore list, or meanwhile got fired by Neal. Some of these names are put on ignore by many other people as well, so it cannot be just me - Tribesman may serve as an example.

I deliberately refuse to respect all and everything and everybody, no matter what and who. I will never respect neo-Nazis for example, or scientology, and I am not interested in whether they think this or that way about me. So, in some cases I also do not care for being listened to by those I oppose. I do not want any more time being wasted with discussions with how Islam could be integrated. I want it to shut up and leave, and whether it’s fan community likes me for that or not, is not important – they have proven and they are characterized by their attitude that no matter what you tell them they will not change Islam and integrate. I also do not accuse everybody disagreeing with my of twisting words. I accuse some people of doing so, and these are the ones I feel strong personal antipathy for. They claim to argue and debate or seeking dialogue, but in fact they betray, cheat and attempt character assassination. There are others who also do not agree with me, but with whom I can live and debate, and whom I may even like. James, for example – we could not be more apart on many issues, and still we had some very long exchanges via PM. Even August and me have learned to not collide with each other anymore, although we know quite well that we differ on certain things. Live and let live. But if you deal with somebody or something that wants to live but not let live the other, then my tolerance comes to a quick and total end. And Islam is such a thing.

Let me ask you if you would have thought the same way if you had lived in Europe in 1935? Would you have refused to oppose Germany and the NSDAP like Chamberlain refused to do, because you would have been too concerned about damages to your homegrown freedom?
What you just said illustrates what I mean when I say you encircle yourself and doom yourself to dangerous passivity (see above, and earlier post). In principle you can refuse all action forever – for fears of losing something that you have gained in the past. But life is not that way. You must decide. You must live with the consequences. And yes, nobody guarantees that you will be in the winning team that way. But you can be assured that you will suffer guaranteed defeat and ultimate loss if you never act at all. I, I have come to conclusions that lead me to confront Islam and to get engaged in fighting against it – without remorse, without wanting to negotiate with it anymore. That is because I directly compare it to proven historic evils like Stalinism, fascism, and the like. It’s not that you can never know sufficiently about things, Steve. Alweays claiming to not know and needing more information can also be a strategy to avoid action and not choosing a side and not deciding your own stand on something.

I never said nor indirectly implied you were a fool, Steve. And I do not even think that way in the silence of my hidden cabin. But as I said above: I think by dealing in absolutes, you run the risk of encircling yourself and ending up in paralysis.

Quote:

I don't expect you to change anything, except perhaps to heed the old saying "It's not what you say, it's how you say it." I agree with you on a lot of your concerns, but you seem to refuse to see the problems of the other side. If I try to show why I'm worried about going to far, you start arguing your side again and don't see that I agree with you, just the points that you want to see, and you attack those points relentlessly. That's what I mean by "arrogant."

That’s exactly what I thought about you in that debate about total freedom versus limited freedom, just that I did not concluded for myself to see you as “arrogant”, but as “locked in place”, or paralyzed.

Quote:

So if I really don't know the answers I should listen only to you and take it on faith that you know what you're talking about? What if you're wrong?

I often said it before and I say it again: this is an important conflict that will be decisive for whether or not our children and children’s children will live in decency and freedom, or as human property of an enslaving, primitive and totalitarian ideology that bases on hate, intolerance, sexual discrimination and monoculturalism, and claims all globe for itself to be subjugated in order to bring its “peace” to mankind. So if you find all what I have written over the years as unconvincing, but still admit you do not know the things yourself (how can you then know I am wrong, btw?), then at least you can take this as a signal for getting started yourself and get yourself educated on the matters. Read the Quran, and one or two secondary books of academic comment of it. Read two or three books about Islam’s history, and about Muhammad’s biography as far as we think to know about it. Just do not believe me, and just do not believe what politicians with an agenda and what Muslims clerics with their agenda as well are telling you. Get up and check it out yourself. It takes time and energy, yes, but it is an important issue, and we all are being effected by it, whether we want to be effected and want to care for it, or not – we do not get asked whether we like it that way, or not. So stop needing to say “I do not know”. Get started. How can you form any opinion about for example the Wilders trials if you cannot assess whether or not Wilder’s claims are true, or not? The matter is not only about free speech, it also is about whether or not he is right in what he accuses Islam of, or not. I say, of course, he is right, and that it is a show trial to implement that unjustified amount of censorship and limitation of freedom that you fear so much.

Quote:

As I said, I agree with you. My problem is that, in my country at least, no matter how dangerous the speech may be we allow it, at the same time keeping a close watch on the speaker. It's a fine line, but we're not willing to cross it, simply because the opposite may be just as dangerous.

Some days ago, I quoted in full that essay on Locke and Madison and Popper, if you remember. I can only point at that essay’s description of the three and the differences, and can only say once again that I think you encircle yourself and somewhat paralyze yourself by thinking too much in absolutes – absolutes that in this world are unrealistic to be expected. You and me are not the first struggling with this tolerance paradoxon, but I find a pragmatic approach like the one I defend much more convincing than that all-or-nothing-at-all approach that you represent. It’s an example of the binary (or polaristic) American thinking, as I have called it in past discussions.

A perfect illustration of Skybird the "expert".
Are burqas an islamic thing or a culture thing?
If its an islamic thing then what are all the other forms of dress?
Are those others cultural things or other islamic things?
How can there be more than one thing if everthing is set out in stone with only one interpretation.
Are women who don't go the whole hog on the saudi culture thing somehow not muslims?

I realize that, but even in Islam not everyone thinks exactly alike, and I don't find the dress itself as insidious as you do. Of course I could be wrong.

Quote:

I don’t think so. You sometimes try to get too opportunistically gains from politely admitting that you do not know something. Nevertheless you give your admittance of you own lack of knowledge in the same way as one would give a convincing argument. Functionally you use it as a surrogate for argument – and expect to get the same reaction and credit as if you had given an argument. Clever – but I don’t buy it! :)

Are you my therapist? Do you want to be? Whether you buy it or not is your business. I just don't trust people who talk as if they're absolutely convinced they're right.

Quote:

I may attack your positions, but I hope you see I do not attack you on a personal level. I also do not claim to know the ultimate and final answers. But I claim I have good reason to think that I have a better informational and experience basis than many other non-specialists for the issues discussed here who only parrot what they get fed in the mainstream media and its propaganda output. It is very obvious to me that most people simply have no clue of what they are talking about when they say Islam is this, Islam is that, and that they do not have any understanding of of the general tone and message of it’s fundaments in scripture. Most people think of it as something being an oriental pendant to Western churches, and the relation between church and state as it changed over the centuries. And that impression could not be more wrong.

Fair enough. As I've said, I agree with you about the dangers of Islam, but I know that I could be wrong, and I hesitate to make absolute decisions concerning how to deal with them. As I've also said, there is a fine line between restricting one segment and restricting all of us. I'm not sure exactly where that line is, and I don't believe you do either. I'm just trying to balance the equation of going to far and not going far enough. This makes me question people at either extreme end of any discussion.

Quote:

I know precisely what you mean, becaue I feel the same when I deal with sicnc es, astronomy, physics as far as I dive into the latter by popular science books for the broad audience. Indeed, the mnore I learn about astronomy, the more I learn to be amazed again, and wonder, and how little we know. I had a sig until some weeks ago, saying that science does not help to know us more, but to know in different ways, if you remember. However, Islam is no science, nor is any religion, even if you apply scientific methodology to examine its creation and tradition. And the truth is, I shared man opinions I meet in this forum and in the media, many years ago, at the beginning of my stuggle with Islam. Back then I wanted tzo see it as something good and misunderstood, and was confused by the many contradictions between this desire, and the grim reality I was confronted with by the books and by it’S history. Not before I had started to travel and not before I sdpend some time to digest those very different impressions and experiences and allowing myself the conclusion that maybe it is not that positive a thing at all, but something bad, it all started to fall into its place and then it all made sense. I do not oppose Islam because I have not learned anything about it and am prejudiced – I oppose Islam right because the more I have learned about it the more I had to realize how bad it is.

I understand, and I actually don't oppose your opinion on this. I do, however, question exactly what needs to be done, and again I stress the dangers I see of going too far.

Quote:

The immense amount of things you claim to not know, and your fatalistic passivity and tolerance you ground on that, makes you a very dangerous man. May I call you top press harder to learn about these things – because different to big bang theories and theoretical physics, you can know these things about Islam for sure. Or would you say that you still do not know whether or not Nazism was evil and whether or not apartheid was bad and whether or not slavery should be forbidden?

I know that Naziism was evil in hindsight. I can't say that I would have recognized it at the time. That said, we did and still do tolerate it in my country, as shown by my links to the Skokie incident.

As to slavery, of course it should be forbidden; but here we are talking about the practice itself, not the people who practiced it. Is Islamic terror bad? Yes. Should it be stopped? Of course. On the other hand, is the burqua evil? I don't see it. Is Islamic worship evil? Should all mosques be banned from the country? I don't know, and until I do I still see intolerance as the greater evil.

Quote:

You are basing on false assumptions there. I do take into account that I could err quite often, on many things, and if you go back over the years ion this forum you can see that on some things I indeed have admitted that I have changed my mind over them. But there are also other issues on which to change my mind I so far have not been shown any need or reason or argument – quite the opposite, in case of Islam. I do not make it a general attitude to assume I could be wrong, but I make differences, probabilities, if you want. And the probability that I will need to see that I am wrong about Islam, I now rate as very, very low.

As I said, I'm not talking about your beliefs, but the way you express them. If you don't discuss the issue reasonably, no one will listen, you won't ever get your point across and your comments become ultimately useless. Shouting the other guy down only serves to encourage him to try to shout you down, and nothing is accomplished.

Quote:

You seem to think the paragraph you replied to was aimed at you, and that I accused you of rhetorical tricks. Neither did I do that, nor was it meant that way, but I was talking in general, pointing at5 several different people here and over many years and threads where they have shown this kind of behavior their debating strategy of choice. Some of these names are now on my ignore list, or meanwhile got fired by Neal. Some of these names are put on ignore by many other people as well, so it cannot be just me - Tribesman may serve as an example.

Actually that was my first reply to you in this thread, and I knew you didn't mean me. I am somewhat obtuse, and I don't see the rhetorical tricks you mentioned. On the other hand it looks to me like you were indeed accusing people of that just because they disagreed with you; and some of that disagreement looks to me like a reaction to your style of argument.

I never put anyone on my ignore list. Well, one person, once.

Quote:

I deliberately refuse to respect all and everything and everybody, no matter what and who.

I edited out the whole block of text just for the sake of brevity. I fully understand your opposition to certain people, but it's hard to know who you meant when you generalize. My problem is that I see other people accuse each other of playing games, and the other accuses the first of the same. I respect others' arguments because I know I don't have all the answers, and I've been wrong as often as I've been right. I do lose respect for people who obviously play games such as changing tactics in mid-thread and using personal attacks. Most of them are gone now.

Quote:

Let me ask you if you would have thought the same way if you had lived in Europe in 1935? Would you have refused to oppose Germany and the NSDAP like Chamberlain refused to do, because you would have been too concerned about damages to your homegrown freedom?

I honestly don't know. The real question is whether I would have recognized it at the time. On the other hand this leads us back to modern Naziism in the US. We allow them their freedom of speech and it doesn't seem to be causing any overt harm. So should they be outlawed here? Again I have to ask "Where do we draw that line?"

Quote:

What you just said illustrates what I mean when I say you encircle yourself and doom yourself to dangerous passivity (see above, and earlier post). In principle you can refuse all action forever – for fears of losing something that you have gained in the past. But life is not that way. You must decide. You must live with the consequences. And yes, nobody guarantees that you will be in the winning team that way. But you can be assured that you will suffer guaranteed defeat and ultimate loss if you never act at all. I, I have come to conclusions that lead me to confront Islam and to get engaged in fighting against it – without remorse, without wanting to negotiate with it anymore. That is because I directly compare it to proven historic evils like Stalinism, fascism, and the like. It’s not that you can never know sufficiently about things, Steve. Alweays claiming to not know and needing more information can also be a strategy to avoid action and not choosing a side and not deciding your own stand on something.

Again you misunderstand exactly how passive I am. The evils of Naziism, Stalinism and Islam are real, but the first two exist here in the United States without causing any real harm, mainly because we see them, recognize them for what they are and keep them where we can see them. But I also recognize what you seem not to: That the real dangers of those were not the philosophies themselves, agree or disagree as we may. The real danger was the use they were put to, which was to form a government that used absolute totalitarianism as the tool to forward their agendas. What you seem to miss is the danger of taking us down that same road, and opening the door to banning me right after you get done banning them. This is why I've said in the past that I see you as being just as dangerous as them. This is also why I've asked in the past for guarantees that that won't happen. All crusades are dangerous, and the people who lead and follow them usually don't see those dangers.

So yes, I hesitate, not because I believe you are wrong, but because you are single-minded in this quest, and single-mindedness is inherently dangerous, whether it comes from them or from you.

Quote:

I never said nor indirectly implied you were a fool, Steve. And I do not even think that way in the silence of my hidden cabin. But as I said above: I think by dealing in absolutes, you run the risk of encircling yourself and ending up in paralysis.

Yes I do, and I'm aware of that. But you're the one who absolutely believes that Islam is absolutely evil, and I think you run the risk of throwing out the baby with the bathwater, meaning destroying the rest of us along with your intended target. And that frightens me.

Quote:

That’s exactly what I thought about you in that debate about total freedom versus limited freedom, just that I did not concluded for myself to see you as “arrogant”, but as “locked in place”, or paralyzed.

And I told you more than once that my "absolute" is just a starting point, and that I believe nothing is truly absolute. But you ignored that part. I firmly believe that there is a lot of give-and-take involved, but you seem to want to do all the taking and none of the giving, so true debate is impossible.

Quote:

I often said it before and I say it again: this is an important conflict that will be decisive for whether or not our children and children’s children will live in decency and freedom, or as human property of an enslaving, primitive and totalitarian ideology that bases on hate, intolerance, sexual discrimination and monoculturalism, and claims all globe for itself to be subjugated in order to bring its “peace” to mankind.

And I agree. What I disagree with is what exactly needs to be done.

Quote:

So if you find all what I have written over the years as unconvincing, but still admit you do not know the things yourself (how can you then know I am wrong, btw?), then at least you can take this as a signal for getting started yourself and get yourself educated on the matters.

I don't know that you're wrong. But I don't know you're right either, and I'm not willing to take your word for it.

Quote:

Read the Quran, and one or two secondary books of academic comment of it. Read two or three books about Islam’s history, and about Muhammad’s biography as far as we think to know about it. Just do not believe me, and just do not believe what politicians with an agenda and what Muslims clerics with their agenda as well are telling you. Get up and check it out yourself. It takes time and energy, yes, but it is an important issue, and we all are being effected by it, whether we want to be effected and want to care for it, or not – we do not get asked whether we like it that way, or not. So stop needing to say “I do not know”. Get started. How can you form any opinion about for example the Wilders trials if you cannot assess whether or not Wilder’s claims are true, or not? The matter is not only about free speech, it also is about whether or not he is right in what he accuses Islam of, or not. I say, of course, he is right, and that it is a show trial to implement that unjustified amount of censorship and limitation of freedom that you fear so much.

I've tried to read the Quran, and found it confusing and hard to understand. I have read some of Islam's history, and I'm well aware of their attempts to take over everywhere they went, and of their successes and failures. Perhaps I haven't read enough, but I do know that I agree with you more than you think.

As I said, my problem isn't with your assessment, it's with your destination. What should be done? Banning all things Islam from the Western World entirely? Another Crusade? That's what I don't know, and that's what you've never fully explained.

Quote:

Some days ago, I quoted in full that essay on Locke and Madison and Popper, if you remember. I can only point at that essay’s description of the three and the differences, and can only say once again that I think you encircle yourself and somewhat paralyze yourself by thinking too much in absolutes – absolutes that in this world are unrealistic to be expected. You and me are not the first struggling with this tolerance paradoxon, but I find a pragmatic approach like the one I defend much more convincing than that all-or-nothing-at-all approach that you represent. It’s an example of the binary (or polaristic) American thinking, as I have called it in past discussions.

Again you say I have an absolute, "all-or-nothing" philosophy, yet accuse me at the same time of holding nothing absolutely. You are the one who is absolutely convince you are right on this. I'm convinced of nothing.

And you side with Popper, while I side with Locke and Madison. Criticize American thinking all you want. So far, in spite of problems, disagreements and even a civil war, it has worked pretty well. I believe we're strong enough to stay our course and defeat any threat, and smart enough to see the threat for what it is, and wise enough to tolerate that which is different while at the same time keeping a watchful eye on it, just in case.

That you believe that none of the above is true is why Americans and Europeans of all stripes will never truly understand each other. We managed to do something that most "experts" at the time said was impossible, and we continue to hold that philosophy. That you keep saying we can't keep doing it just shows your lack of understanding of our culture. Yes, we may fail, and we may be wrong in our version of "tolerance", but we may also be right, and you can't face that possibility, so you continue to hold onto your own absolutes, and accuse me of the same.

Sorry, but I'm not who you insist on thinking I am, and you may never understand that. Your loss.

I agree that its all matter of interpretation that comes from core meaning.
When it says that woman must be modest you can interpret it in dress contex or/and behavior contex.
When some one does interpret modesty to extreme which means wearing Burka it usually comes with the rest of the package where imagination is a limit.
When you see a women wearing Burka in Iran(law enforced by revolutionary guards) let say there is a chance that she is having alcohol and drugs parties at home while having sex with husband and an neighbor.:)
When you see an women in burka in free state like France its something that should be looked into because it will come usually with extreme interpretation just about any aspect of Koran.