Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > GoP defends his claim about muslim intergration

Pages: (12) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2006,11:48    Dear All, Ghosty made the following claim: Quote For example, I claim that Muslims, as a group, do not assimilate as well as other groups, and in fact their culture often damages civil liberties. Is this bigotry or simply stating an unpleasant truth? You obviously think the former, but if you're right you should point to evidence (not isolated examples) that Muslims do in fact assimilate, or that we are more free to speak our minds than previously. Bold mine. Since Ghosty is convinced that nobody has refuted any of his political views, and since Ghosty is keen for me deal with his politics as I have stated that they are based on his obvious prejudices, this debate has been arranged as a means to accomplish this. There are several reasons I have picked this political claim over many others. 1) To be fair to Ghosty,I think there is a chance of him defending this one. Zombie Pinko Hitler is a different beast! 2) It's not something I have any special knowledge of, but I am inclined to grant anyone, including muslims and even Ghosty, the benefit of the doubt until I see evidence to the contrary. I am happy to be persuaded by Ghosty that the positive claim is the case, and I hope he is equally happy to be persuaded by me that it isn't, should that be the position I take. It is possible that Ghosty will present such compelling evidence that I agree with the original claim, and thus with him. 3) This claim at least is relativey specific. Many of the other claims,including the attempt by Ghosty to widen this claim, are more vague. Vague claims make for poor debates. So the key claim is that muslims do not integrate as well as other groups. I expect Ghosty to present evidence for this claim and to clearly compare and contrast the integration into Western society of several groups. I also expect Ghosty to define what he means by "muslims" and "integrate", just for starters. Take it away Ghosty. Louis -------------- Bye.

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2006,12:05    don't take a lack of response in this thread to be a lack of disagreement with gawp. It's just that the premise of what he stated is so stupid as to be singularly unworthy of response. to be blunt, it's simply boring in its inanity. -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

MidnightVoice Posts: 380 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2006,12:39    As a raging Liberal, my gut reaction is that Paley is wrong.  But certainly in Europe, the massive Muslim immigration since WW II is not going well.  Obviously part of the cause is racism and discrimination by the host country, and lack of economic advancement (compare it to the African American population post Civil War to now – integration comes only when BOTH sides want it). But there is also the problem of religion.  Muslims are probably much closer to comfortable in an authoritarian theocratic country like the States than they are in very liberal and secular Europe.  That very liberalism can be seen as threatening their core beliefs.  And, again in Europe with its high density Muslim areas, everything has worsened since 9/11.  There have been very significant signs of lack of integration, and WHATEVER THE CAUSE, it is something that needs to be thought about and dealt with. So while I don’t like the idea, I am willing to consider it.  I am not going to reject it out of hand.  Unlike Bush I don’t believe in truthiness – I need to try and look at this seriously. -------------- If I fly the coop some time And take nothing but a grip With the few good books that really count It's a necessary trip I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2006,13:08    Although it is always fun to watch Paley make a blithering idiot of himself (yet again), I do question the need to continually offer our intestines to the tapeworm. . . . -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2006,13:17    I deleted the other topic, since everyone said they were moving over to this one.

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2006,13:41    Ok, let's get a few ground rules out of the way. Don't sweat, Louis, I think you'll find them rather palatable. 1) I will assume for the purposes of this debate that all mainstream science, including evolution, is true. Why? Because I want to demonstrate that even "rational" sciency types can agree with me on this issue. I don't perceive a problem here, as Evos never tire of telling us that their Theory is the bestest of all time. 2) I will assume for the purposes of the debate that the Bible is not an authoritative source for truth claims. This doesn't mean I'm assuming its falsity; only that the Bible is just a holy book no different from other scriptures -- it may be true but it has to prove its validity to the "objective skeptic". Thus, you don't have to be a "Bible-thumping fundie" to embrace my position. 3) Except on immigration and possible instances of profiling, I will assume that Muslims should get full and equal treatment under the law (whether this actually occurs is another issue, of course, and open to debate). Actually, this one's easy because it represents my personal beliefs, not that anyone's noticed. 4) Louis and I are free to use any source we wish, and it is up to the opposing side to point out its inherent weakness, bias, or irrelevancy. No source may be ruled inadmissable without a rational objection. Relax, Louis, I'm not planning on using bonehead sources; I'm just trying to keep PC out of this as much as possible. 5) I will assume all racial and ethnic groups are precisely equal in mental ability, emotional stability, etc. No biological determinism. Once again, not much of a stretch. 6) Since Steve has deleted the other thread (which confuses me, since I thought Stevestory said he wasn't a moderator. Did he get promoted?), I am going to completely ignore anything that doesn't flow directly from Louis's pen. He is free to cut n' paste other posts to his heart's content, however, and then I will respond. My lack of response to any poster is not to be taken as a lack of ability to respond. Whine to Louie if you want an answer. 7) Last thing. I'm planning on breaking my initial statement into manageable segments. This should cut down on frustration due to software glitches and make the debate easier to follow. Louis can respond to my first post whenever he wishes, of course; I don't expect him to wait around forever. Louis, if you have any problem with any of this, let me know now. Thanks. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2006,14:09    I will watch this thread with interest, since my country provides a 'peculiar' example of muslim minorities, old and new, their potential assimilation to western culture, and their possible link to crime and civil disorder. I would however like to poropose another rule, which will make things simpler, if both wish to follow it. Supplementing Ghost's "no inadmissable source" rule, I propose, if he and Louis agree, that the context in point for each source provided should be readily admissable and examined- that is, no indirect quotes. Let's not have a link to a thread that mentions an article about a book that refers to a study that is supposed to mention (A); Let's see a link to the study. It's not that much to ask, and it would help to settle much possible dispute on the evidence, especially in such a heated issue. What do you think? -------------- A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty: "The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information" "...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2006,14:16    I would also like to say that "poropose" is too a word, and an awesome one at that. -------------- A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty: "The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information" "...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2006,14:27    Quote 6) Since Steve has deleted the other thread (which confuses me, since I thought Stevestory said he wasn't a moderator. Did he get promoted?), I am going to completely ignore anything that doesn't flow directly from Louis's pen. He is free to cut n' paste other posts to his heart's content, however, and then I will respond. My lack of response to any poster is not to be taken as a lack of ability to respond. Whine to Louie if you want an answer. If I read everything correctly, Midnight Voice, who started the other and very similar thread, said in the comments that he was ditching it and switching to this one. So I pruned it under the rule against unnecessary multiplication of topics. This thread is about GoP's claim about muslim integration, the other was like an open thread about muslim integration, so I presume all comments relating to both GoP's claim and the more general topic can coexist here.

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2006,14:38    OK. The software has been playing me for a mark lately, but I'll try to get at least one substantial post in tonight. Since the debate hasn't officially started, I'd like to unignore Faid fer a sec. Faid:     Quote I would however like to poropose another rule, which will make things simpler, if both wish to follow it. Supplementing Ghost's "no inadmissable source" rule, I propose, if he and Louis agree, that the context in point for each source provided should be readily admissable and examined- that is, no indirect quotes. Let's not have a link to a thread that mentions an article about a book that refers to a study that is supposed to mention (A); Let's see a link to the study. Yes, I should have thought about this issue; this came up on Thordaddy's gay marriage thread. Sometimes things do get taken out of context and then the diseased info zooms around the internet like a horny teen. Repeating hard-to-check-factoids can be worse than useless. My tentative proposal is that it's OK, but the debater should mention that he can't locate the original source, and that the reader should exercise due caution. All I demand is that anything that applies to me also applies to Louis. The reason why the evidentiary standards might have to be loosened is that many European countries have become dodgy about reporting crime statistics at all, especially by ethnic/religious breakdown. Now I have grave suspicions as to the cause of this, but putting that aside the truth is statistics are not easy to come by, so one is forced to rely on what's available. In any case, I will rely on primary documentation as much as possible. Next post: opener. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2006,15:51    Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Aug. 23 2006,19:38) OK. The software has been playing me for a mark lately, but I'll try to get at least one substantial post in tonight. Since the debate hasn't officially started, I'd like to unignore Faid fer a sec. Faid:     Quote I would however like to poropose another rule, which will make things simpler, if both wish to follow it. Supplementing Ghost's "no inadmissable source" rule, I propose, if he and Louis agree, that the context in point for each source provided should be readily admissable and examined- that is, no indirect quotes. Let's not have a link to a thread that mentions an article about a book that refers to a study that is supposed to mention (A); Let's see a link to the study. Yes, I should have thought about this issue; this came up on Thordaddy's gay marriage thread. Sometimes things do get taken out of context and then the diseased info zooms around the internet like a horny teen. Repeating hard-to-check-factoids can be worse than useless. My tentative proposal is that it's OK, but the debater should mention that he can't locate the original source, and that the reader should exercise due caution. All I demand is that anything that applies to me also applies to Louis. The reason why the evidentiary standards might have to be loosened is that many European countries have become dodgy about reporting crime statistics at all, especially by ethnic/religious breakdown. Now I have grave suspicions as to the cause of this, but putting that aside the truth is statistics are not easy to come by, so one is forced to rely on what's available. In any case, I will rely on primary documentation as much as possible. Next post: opener. My goodness, Paley, you sure do love center stage . . . . -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2006,16:10    All right. The first objection I hear to complaints about lack of Muslim assimilation is that it's an answer in search of a problem....in other words, who cares? The justification is simple: a healthy nation must first have a coherent vision that is accepted by the vast majority of the populace. Without a single identity, it often divides into warring factions, leading to political and military instability. There are several prominent historical examples: Egypt:     Quote 13th Dynasty, 1786-1633 BCE    With the decline of the 13th Dynasty, Egypt lost much of its power and cohesion. The military leaders and soldiers stationed in Nubia became more and more independent. Some of them may even have permanently settled in Nubia. The fortresses built along the Eastern border were either abandoned, or control over who passed the borders was not as strict as it used to be. Canaanite nomads entered the country freely.    Most of these Canaanites settled and became traders, farmers or craftsmen, but at least one of them, Khendjer, became a king. By the end of the 13th Dynasty, the Eastern Delta was populated mostly by Asiatics. 15th and 16th Dynasties: the Hyksos, c. 1684-1567 BCE     Weakened by internal problems, Lower Egypt was taken over seemingly with little fighting by the invading or perhaps just immigrant Hyksos, who set up two contemporaneous dynasties. The 15th dynasty (1674-1567) of the great Hyksos kings dominated the Hyksos vassal chiefs of the 16th dynasty (1684-1567).    Greek writers, beginning with Manetho, called them "Hyksos," which was mistranslated as "shepherd kings." Egyptians seem to have called these kings heqa-khasut, rulers of foreign lands, but they generally referred to invading foreigners as amu, asiatics or shamu, sand-dwellers.    The Hyksos were a Semitic (Canaanite or Amorite) people and may have come from southern Canaan or Syria. Evidence seems to point to their having had a nomadic life style. Some primary documentation from the same site. Rome:     Quote Roman citizenship carried responsibility, more or less analogous to what is called noblesse oblige today. Many historians agree that a key cause of Rome's decline was the decline in this sense of civic responsibility -- particularly military service. After 212 AD that was farmed out more and more to German tribesmen and other distant peoples -- whose loyalty to Rome was questionable. Defenses weakened accordingly, which makes sense, because how could non-Romans be entrusted with the defense of Rome? This is all the more the case when barbarian soldiers were called upon to defend Rome from other barbarians. True, some were heroes; Stilicho immediately comes to mind. But it just wasn't quite the same thing as the noble days when Romans defended their own country, and the Roman army was headed by Roman officers. I am not arguing that this phenomenon was the sole cause of something as complex as Rome's decline, but I think it likely that psychologically, it was conducive to the decay (ironically) of classical values among the Romans themselves: In The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, noted historian Edward Gibbons masterfully describes this decline of virtue: "That public virtue which among the ancients was denominated patriotism, is derived from a strong sense of our own interest in the preservation and prosperity of the free government of which we are members. Such a sentiment, which had rendered the legions of the republic almost invincible, could make but a very feeble impression on the mercenary servants of a despotic prince" (1: 9). In fairness, Gibbon doesn’t imply that such changes are irreversible and goes on to describe a time when "For a while the angry and selfish passions of the soldiers had been suspended by the enthusiasm of public virtue" (281). In reality, most of these upturns in Roman virtue were short-lived and the overall trend was away from the classical values so eloquently depicted in Virgil’s Aeneid. The decline of Rome has been considered to include in its origin Caracalla's Constitutio Antoniniana -- which diluted the once-privileged status of Roman citizenship by conferring it to everyone in the Empire with the exception of slaves. This source is biased, but the facts aren't. Caracalla's policy didn't solve Rome's decline; in fact, it might have been one of the key factors of its decline. The Former Yugoslavia:   Quote The history of the Balkans has been fraught with ethnic conflict as well as wars of conquest. Once thought of as an ill-charted zone separating Europe’s civility from the chaotic maelstrom of the Orient, in recent centuries, the area became a theater of intrigue for the great international powers. Indeed, the region of the Balkans was historically contested by the Ottoman and Hapsburg empires, as well as the Third Reich and the Allies, all of whom exploited and exacerbated existing tensions. Yet some international relations experts have suggested that the collapse of Yugoslavia into nationalist regimes was not solely due to ethnic conflict and religious discord, or even a history of animosity for that matter. Rather, the disintegration of political and civil order, in conjunction with economic problems, together contributed to Yugoslavia’s breakdown. Certainly the perspective seems to bolster the argument that national movements and their ensuing balkanizing influences are not simply identity-based circumstances, born out of clashes between historically-polarized majority and minority groups, but also are exacerbated by economic and political circumstances of the present. Other analysts suggest that during the rule of Yugoslavia by Tito in the communist years, measures taken to decentralize the country’s decision making processes (rather than democratize the country) ultimately led to the collapse. That is to say, decentralization bred ethnic nationalism and fueled identity politics, while the lack of real democratization efforts accelerated the increasing climate of fragmentation. Regardless of the actual cause of balkanization in the former Yugoslavia, the regions remains one of the most volatile in the world, and functions as an ongoing exemplar of identity politics, micronationalism and balkanization. These are not the only incidents I could cite, and I'm certainly not trying to prove that multiculturalism always fails; Louis could cite the Qing dynasty as a counterexample.* I'm just trying to establish that multiculturalism can have grave consequences, especially if it's enacted haphazardly. *But be careful with those counterexamples, because these nations overcame these difficulties by enacting lefty-unfriendly policies:   Quote Though trade with China grew rapidly, Britain became increasingly unhappy with the terms of business. China’s ruling Qing dynasty viewed foreigners as barbarians and imposed tight restrictions on foreign merchants. Warehouses were allowed only outside city walls; Canton was the sole permitted trading port; and a clutch of Chinese merchants, called the Cohong, kept a stern eye on trading activities. Equally discouraging was the balance of trade: Britain had little to exchange for China’s tea and silk, except silver. This meant a steady drain on the royal treasury. More.   Quote To establish unquestioned authority in his empire, he wrote an imperial edict called 'Sacred Edict', a set of sixteen ethical guidelines for exemplary behavior to be followed by the population, which had to be studied by everybody after its publication in 1681. Aged 16 at the time when he wrote the 'Sacred Edict', he initiated with this document not only a new educational practice but a wave of conservatism that ended the free-spirited exaltations of the Late Ming. [...] Yongzheng also kept strict censorship over the publishing industry which reduced the amount of novels of morally doubtful contents. Rule of Emperor Qianlong (r. 1736-1796) Under emperor Qianlong the Sacred Edict was published in a tri-lingual edition (Chinese, Manchu, Mongol). A supporter of Chinese culture and a patriot engaged for the Manchu cause at the same time, emperor Qianlong commissioned dictionaries of the Manchu language and genealogies of the Manchu aristocracy. In a book inquisition that lasted for fifteen years (1774 -1789) critique of Manchu rule as well as morally disturbing publications were eliminated from the imperial collection of all Chinese books in the four categories  of the Classics, historical works, philosophical works, and belle-lettres.  About 2,000 Chinese works were eliminated through this inquisition beyond recovery. More later. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2006,21:44    Ghosty, I can live with those rules, they seem pretty fair. Nice first post. And whilst this is by no means a reply to the interesting points you raise about multiculturalism, I have a few initial thoughts before I go away and read up on the topic so I can better discuss it. What does it have to do with muslims? I thought we were discussing why muslims integrate less well than other groups onto western society. Multiculturalism, whilst a relevant overarching topic isn't dealing with the specifics of your claim. Your claim was black and white: muslims integrate less well than other groups. This isn't a debate about the virtues (or lack of) of multiculturalism. Shouldn't you compare and contrast the historical integration of muslims with the historical integration of other groups? Shouldn't you also be defining just what you mean by "muslims" in terms of a group identity. Are there differences between Pakistani muslims and Iraqi muslims in their ability to integrate? What about Bangladeshi? Precisely what do you mean by "integrate" anyway? For example does a muslim have to renounce his/her faith and adopt the local majority faith in order to "integrate"? Do they have to dress similarly? Do they have to speak the host nation's language? Do they have to forgo halal food etc etc etc? What I am trying to do is not present you with problems, but to understand precisely what we are discussing. Multiculturalism is a much broader issue than muslim integration for example, there are more groups than muslims and westerners (obviously otherwise you wouldn't be contrasting them! Duh Louis, that's a clever comment! ). I think before we get into the to and fro we should define clearly what we are discussing. Cheers Louis -------------- Bye.

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2006,00:15    Eek. Tough topic. The diversity of "Muslims" is a real sticking point. It's not like..well, Ruth Benedict did a study on the Japanese around WW2 that was amazingly good for the time (The Chrysanthemum and the Sword..still a #### good read)..but trying to do the same for Muslims as a whole..from Indonesia to Lebanon...do black muslims here in the States count? This should be interesting. The only work that I have on the socio-historical "mindset" of Muslims is Raphael Patai's " The Arab Mind" which got a lot of shit from people like Edward Said. Offhand, I'd say there is a greater degree of isolationism due to religion, modernism, prejudice, etc. but the Jews had their shtetls and shtots once, too...yet seem to have done pretty well in the long run. Bring on the stats! Although I'm as socially liberal as anyone I know, I think large-scale (larger than now) conflict between Islam and the largely Xian west is near-inevitable. Cultures resist change and one of the things archaeology tends to point out is that very, very often disaster is required to force changes in perceptions and action/behavior. Even if global warming doesn't force a mass movement from the arid regions of Eurasia..the absolutist mindsets of extremist factions, along with the booming birthrate in Islamic groups...well...it doesn't look good for peace and loving groovy good vibrations to me. -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2006,04:20    By the way, I fixed some of the most embarrassing spelling and grammatical lapses in the first installment. "Halfhazardly"? What the heck is that? Quote What does it have to do with muslims? I thought we were discussing why muslims integrate less well than other groups onto western society. Multiculturalism, whilst a relevant overarching topic isn't dealing with the specifics of your claim. Your claim was black and white: muslims integrate less well than other groups. This isn't a debate about the virtues (or lack of) of multiculturalism. Yes, I realise this first post was very general. It all goes back to the Bugliosi conjecture, which is that unless people recognise that there's a problem worth investigating, they're not going to listen to a solution. Please understand that when I argue this issue with my more liberal friends, it usually comes back to: "Well, even if what you're saying is true, don't we have serious problems to worry about?" I'm trying to anticipate this counter, because even if you don't bring it up, many people will still think it. Also, I'm not denying that people can interpret historical events in different ways. For example, here's a source that discusses the conflicting points of view about what the Hyksos invasion was and what it contributed to later Egyptian growth and military expansion. Certainly, Egypt was a notoriously insular civilisation that probably benefited from Hyksos military technology and culture, so it's improper to portray this event as a long-term disaster. The main is simply that the Egyptians themselves thought that expelling the invaders was necessary to reclaim their society. More later. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

lawman Posts: 8 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2006,05:31    Very interesting topic Paley. I may be able to jump in occasionally with some info as I have lived all my life in a predominantly muslim nation. The racial composition of my country is something like native 60%, ethnic chinese 30%, ethnic indians 9% and 1% europeans, eurasians and others. Also, note there are a lot of ethnic indians and chinese who are also muslims. so i guess you would first define what you mean by a muslim, especially the ones who do not integrate as easily as other religions. anyway, i do think your posts are quite intriguing and i await your next one...over to you paley!

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2006,05:55    Quote (lawman @ Aug. 24 2006,10:31) Very interesting topic Paley. I may be able to jump in occasionally with some info as I have lived all my life in a predominantly muslim nation. The racial composition of my country is something like native 60%, ethnic chinese 30%, ethnic indians 9% and 1% europeans, eurasians and others. Also, note there are a lot of ethnic indians and chinese who are also muslims. so i guess you would first define what you mean by a muslim, especially the ones who do not integrate as easily as other religions. anyway, i do think your posts are quite intriguing and i await your next one...over to you paley! Malaysia? -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2006,10:09    Quote Shouldn't you compare and contrast the historical integration of muslims with the historical integration of other groups? Shouldn't you also be defining just what you mean by "muslims" in terms of a group identity. Are there differences between Pakistani muslims and Iraqi muslims in their ability to integrate? What about Bangladeshi? Precisely what do you mean by "integrate" anyway? For example does a muslim have to renounce his/her faith and adopt the local majority faith in order to "integrate"? Do they have to dress similarly? Do they have to speak the host nation's language? Do they have to forgo halal food etc etc etc? This will probably be my last post for today, but tomorrow I will have plenty of time to post installments. Here's the outline: First Installment: I will explain why a fair and thoughtful consideration of Islamic beliefs and practices reveals that Muslims make poor candidates for assimilation into Judeo-Christian/secular societies. I will focus on the Sunnis and Shi'ites (hereafter Shiites) because these two sects comprise 95 - 96% of the world's Muslim population. I will follow the Hadith collections and Fiqh rulings that these sects consider authoritative, as well as the relevant Qur'an (or Koran) suras (of course, Muslims view all non-Arabic translations as commentary, but I don't see any other way. I'll try to find good translations, which include my copy at home). Of course, I will also contrast the liberal followers within these sects with the more orthodox believers. If you want to discuss minority sects as well, let me know. Second Installment: This will examine the empirical evidence of nonassimilation. I'll provide a little historical perspective as well, and even attempt to differentiate between different nationalities. My hypothesis, however, is that all Sunni and Shiite Muslims, as a group, are incompatible with Western societies regardless of nationality. In order to become compatible, they must discard their religion, and nothing less will do. I don't care about fashion and culinary preferences so long as they are not motivated by religious belief. I hope this helps -- see you tomorrow. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

Chris Hyland Posts: 705 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2006,10:25    Muslims as opposed to who specifically? Also before you start a good definition of 'incompatible' as it applies in this case would be useful.

lawman Posts: 8 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2006,14:38    Yes arden, malaysia it is. have you been here by any chance? i guess if paley is only going to be talking about integration/ assimilation into western culture i won't have much to add. although defining what exactly is western culture may be of value...as far as i can see integration into another society is not that much of a problem here in asia-pac, barring the odd radical, but who doesn't have them anyway.i've travelled much in asia, muslim integration is not really a problem, but you need to specify what you mean by integration. indonesia is the most populous muslim nation in the world, we get a lot of workers and even domestic help from over there, all the maids in our household have been from indonesia and are muslims, no integration problem whatsoever. so i really don't know what paley is on about. but i speak from experience of a small sample. if integration into "western culture" is a problem then maybe it could be that "western culture" is the problem? but from the way that paley is going on i am guessing that he will be talking of arabians more than muslims? sorry i can't reply on time, i'm mostly sleeping or at work when the battles are raging at atbc...

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2006,02:49    Ghosty, Great, I'll await your evidence then. BTW, in the interest of helping you out, you might want to rephrase this: Quote My hypothesis, however, is that all Sunni and Shiite Muslims, as a group, are incompatible with Western societies regardless of nationality. In order to become compatible, they must discard their religion, and nothing less will do. I don't care about fashion and culinary preferences so long as they are not motivated by religious belief. Bolding mine. Because all I have to do is find one Shi'ite or Sunni muslim who operates well within Western societies and yet still practices his/her faith and co-exists amicably, compatibly and productively. I think I know what you are going to get at here btw, I just think in the interest of nitpickery that rephrasing this will benefit you. Cheers Louis -------------- Bye.

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2006,06:43    Doing a cursory search, "Western" stats on public education, employment and crime incorporating religious affiliation seem pretty #### hard to find. Good luck, GoP -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2006,06:48    Quote My hypothesis, however, is that all Sunni and Shiite Muslims, as a group, are incompatible with Western societies regardless of nationality. Why didn't you include Sufis? You are aware of that branch of islam, aren't you? I mean, it's not like you'd go shooting your mouth off without knowing what you're talking about, is it? (considers previous geocentric statements) Uh nevermind.

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2006,07:39    Quote Bolding mine. Because all I have to do is find one Shi'ite or Sunni muslim who operates well within Western societies and yet still practices his/her faith and co-exists amicably, compatibly and productively. Get rid of the "all" then. I'm talking about groups, not individuals. I'm glad that you're not trying to lawyer me to death; I dislike endless semantic battles.         Quote Great, I'll await your evidence then. OK, two things to reiterate: (1)most Muslims do not consider non-Arabic editions of the Koran authoritative; (2) I am no expert on Islam, and am completely illiterate in Arabic. This forces me to depend on the expertise of others, a fact that the skeptic should always keep in mind when evaluating my case. Now. In order to get a feel for what Muslims believe, you can't do any better than the Koran itself. In fact, a few Muslims do not consider any other text authoritative, and virtually all consider this book a backbone to their religion. So what does it teach? Many Muslims claim that Islam's peaceful nature is proved by passages within the Koran, and that anyone who paints it as an uncompromisingly militant and intolerant scripture is taking its message out of context. Since the Koran does not preach violence and intolerance against outsiders, Muslims are fundamentally open to core Western values. Let's listen:       Quote Because the Koran was revealed in the context of an all-out war, several passages deal with the conduct of armed struggle. Warfare was a desperate business on the Arabian Peninsula. A chieftain was not expected to spare survivors after a battle, and some of the Koranic injunctions seem to share this spirit. Muslims are ordered by God to "slay [enemies] wherever you find them!" (4: 89). Extremists such as Osama bin Laden like to quote such verses but do so selectively. They do not include the exhortations to peace, which in almost every case follow these more ferocious passages: "Thus, if they let you be, and do not make war on you, and offer you peace, God does not allow you to harm them" (4: 90). In the Koran, therefore, the only permissible war is one of self-defense. Muslims may not begin hostilities (2: 190). Warfare is always evil, but sometimes you have to fight in order to avoid the kind of persecution that Mecca inflicted on the Muslims (2: 191; 2: 217) or to preserve decent values (4: 75; 22: 40). The Koran quotes the Torah, the Jewish scriptures, which permits people to retaliate eye for eye, tooth for tooth, but like the Gospels, the Koran suggests that it is meritorious to forgo revenge in a spirit of charity (5: 45). Hostilities must be brought to an end as quickly as possible and must cease the minute the enemy sues for peace (2: 192-3). Islam is not addicted to war, and jihad is not one of its "pillars," or essential practices. The primary meaning of the word jihad is not "holy war" but "struggle." It refers to the difficult effort that is needed to put God's will into practice at every level--personal and social as well as political. A very important and much quoted tradition has Muhammad telling his companions as they go home after a battle, "We are returning from the lesser jihad [the battle] to the greater jihad," the far more urgent and momentous task of extirpating wrongdoing from one's own society and one's own heart. Islam did not impose itself by the sword. In a statement in which the Arabic is extremely emphatic, the Koran insists, "There must be no coercion in matters of faith!" (2: 256). Constantly Muslims are enjoined to respect Jews and Christians, the "People of the Book," who worship the same God (29: 46). In words quoted by Muhammad in one of his last public sermons, God tells all human beings, "O people! We have formed you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another" (49: 13)--not to conquer, convert, subjugate, revile or slaughter but to reach out toward others with intelligence and understanding. Mustafa Akyol adds:     Quote Islam presents the principles of just war, and kidnapping noncombatants, killing them, or threatening to do so are overtly against those principles. In the Koran, there are several verses about prisoners of war. First of all, you can't take noncombatants as captives. On the contrary, another verse makes it clear that non-Muslims, even the least sympathized pagans, are to be protected whenever they ask for asylum: "If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of God; and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge" (Koran, 9:6). [...] Let's assume that they were regarded as combatants. Berg, Johnson, and Sun-il should therefore have been regarded as prisoners of war. The verdict of the Koran is clear about them: They should be taken as captives during the battle, then, after the war, they should be released for free or ransomed (Koran, 47:4). There is no justification for the killing, or even the ill treatment, of POWs in the Koran. On the contrary, a verse tells that good Muslims are the ones who give the best of their food "to the poor and the orphan and the captive" (Koran, 76:8). There are also historical accounts reporting Prophet Muhammad ordering his men to treat captives very humanely. According to one account: "After the Battle of Badr, prisoners of war were brought. Among them was al-Abbâs. He did not have a shirt on, so the Prophet looked for a shirt for him. It turned out that a shirt of Abd Allah bin Ubayy was the right size, so the Prophet gave it to al-Abbâs to wear and compensated Abdullah with his own shirt" [Al-Bukhârî (3008)]. In a separate essay, he writes:     Quote THE KORAN IN CONTEXT Context is crucial. To understand and interpret the war verses in the Koran, one has to keep in mind that they were revealed in seventh-century Arabia, where battles were fought by swords and spears. Winning a battle meant killing a great number of your enemies. Any reluctance during the battle to attack and kill the enemy could bring defeat, and, in Muslims' case, annihilation of the whole umma, or community of believers. The first verse that McCarthy quotes should be understood in this context. After a detailed analysis of manpower on the battlefield, the Koran states: It is not fitting for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he hath thoroughly subdued the land: Ye look for the temporal goods of this world, but Allah looketh to the Hereafter: and Allah is Mighty, Wise. (8:67) Here we see a military strategy that was necessary in a battle of swords: If Muslims started to take prisoners in the middle of the encounter — which would mean collecting ransoms or "temporal goods," later — it could prove to be a grave error. The enemy would have a chance to retaliate, those captives could rejoin the fight, and the battle itself could be lost. Such an event occurred at the battle of Uhud. The pagan army had a cavalry force that stood aside during the battle, and when the Muslim army seemed victorious and started to collect the spoils, those cavalrymen hit the Muslims from behind and won. Many Muslims were killed, and the Prophet himself was injured. So, the Koranic principle of not taking prisoners in the middle of a battle is all about assuring victory. Verse 47:4, also quoted by McCarthy, in fact confirms this conclusion: Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers in fight, smite at their necks; at length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind the captives firmly: therefore is the time for either generosity or ransom until the war lays down its burdens.... The phrase "when ye meet the Unbelievers in fight" clearly shows that the verse speaks about a battlefield. Both this verse and that quoted above order Muslim soldiers to kill enemy combatants in battle until the land or the enemy is "subdued" — or in today's military terms, "secured." Once that military target is achieved, there need be no further killing. [...] As I explained in my original article, Muslims were ordered by the Koran to treat POWs well, and historical accounts about the Prophet Muhammad show that this command was honored. The Prophet is even reported to have said, "You must feed them as you feed yourselves, and clothe them as you clothe yourselves, and if you should set them a hard task, you must help them in it yourselves" (Gabrielli, Arab Historians of the Crusades, pp. 138-39). [...] I conclude that the Koranic order to not take POWs and instead continue to kill the enemy is limited to unsecured battlefields. Moreover, that "enemy" refers only to combatants. The Koran is clear on this: Fight in the Way of God against those who fight you, but do not go beyond the limits. God does not love those who go beyond the limits. (2:190) Thus, war can only be waged against "those who fight" against Muslims, i.e. combatants. It is also well known that Prophet Muhammad was careful to make this distinction and strictly ordered Muslim soldiers to avoid harming women, children, the elderly, or people at temples and monasteries. [...] DISCOVERING THE GOOD "UNBELIEVERS" [I]n the Koran Jews and Christians are called "The People of the Book," and salvation is promised to them if they worship God sincerely (2:62). And Muslims are ordered to be kind to them, unless they behave unjustly: Only argue with the People of the Book in the kindest way — except in the case of those of them who do wrong — saying, "We have faith in what has been sent down to us and what was sent down to you. Our God and your God are one and we submit to Him" (29:46). Even if one is an unbeliever, i.e. an atheist or a pagan, that does not make him an enemy of Islam and Muslims. The Koran, after warning Muslims for being friendly to those who have persecuted the Prophet, makes an important distinction: God does not forbid you from being good to those who have not fought you in religion or driven you from your homes, or from being just towards them. God loves those who are just. God merely forbids you from taking as friends those who have fought you in religion and driven you from your homes and who supported your expulsion. Any who take them as friends are wrongdoers (60:8-9). Therefore, besides those who show open hostility to Islam and Muslims, all non-Muslims are to be treated graciously. The Koran hints that even those enemies can be won: It may well be that God will restore the love between you and those of them who are now your enemies. God is All-Powerful. God is Ever-Forgiving, Most Merciful (60:7). This is very different from what you can hear from al-Qaeda spokesmen and similar terrorists. "THIS IS NOT OUR TRADITION" [...] Briefly: The Koran was revealed in the seventh century and some verses refer to events that do not or could not take place today. This means there are some parts of the Koran that we can't — and aren't supposed to — implement literally now. Take the verse that orders Muslims to muster "cavalry" to frighten their enemies (8:60). Today, of course, no Muslim state would think of building an army based on cavalry. The verse can't be implemented literally. We can only infer a principle — such as that strong armies are necessary for national defense — and apply that principle in a modern context. The same line of reasoning can be extended to some other social and political issues in the Koran, especially to the war verses such as the ones quoted by McCarthy (2:191, 5:33, 8:12). Again, it is possible that we no longer need take all of these verses literally. Besides that, some traditional doctrines can be abandoned completely. Take the much-disputed concepts of "House of War" and "House of Islam," developed by Muslim jurists in the 8th century. Those jurists regarded all foreign lands as enemy territories, because they could not expect tolerance and safety for Islam there. Today we live in much different world, in which religious freedom is widely established, especially in liberal democracies. Thus there is no justification to see those democracies as "House of War." That very definition is simply outdated; along with many other concepts in the Islamic tradition. Mustafa Akyol also discusses historical evidence of Muslim mercy towards enemy captives and contrasts them with contemporary incidents, but I'm focusing on the Koran for now. As Akyol points out, the Koran is embedded in a history of early conflicts and cannot be understood apart from them. These are not the only passages in the Koran that can be interpreted as peaceful and tolerant. Here are some others [all emphases mine]:   Quote [2.109] Many of the followers of the Book wish that they could turn you back into unbelievers after your faith, out of envy from themselves, (even) after the truth has become manifest to them; but pardon and forgive, so that Allah should bring about His command; surely Allah has power over all things. [2.110] And keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate and whatever good you send before for yourselves, you shall find it with Allah; surely Allah sees what you do. [2.111] And they say: None shall enter the garden (or paradise) except he who is a Jew or a Christian. These are their vain desires. Say: Bring your proof if you are truthful. [2.112] Yes! whoever submits himself entirely to Allah and he is the doer of good (to others) he has his reward from his Lord, and there is no fear for him nor shall he grieve.   Quote [3.19] Surely the (true) religion with Allah is Islam, and those to whom the Book had been given did not show opposition but after knowledge had come to them, out of envy among themselves; and whoever disbelieves in the communications of Allah then surely Allah is quick in reckoning. [3.20] But if they dispute with you, say: I have submitted myself entirely to Allah and (so) every one who follows me; and say to those who have been given the Book and the unlearned people: Do you submit yourselves? So if they submit then indeed they follow the right way; and if they turn back, then upon you is only the delivery of the message and Allah sees the servants. To prevent software issues, let me continue in a new post. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2006,09:19    Quote [2.256] There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; therefore, whoever disbelieves in the Shaitan and believes in Allah he indeed has laid hold on the firmest handle, which shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing.       Quote [6.66] And your people call it a lie and it is the very truth. Say: I am not placed in charge of you. [6.67] For every prophecy is a term, and you will come to know (it). [6.68] And when you see those who enter into false discourses about Our communications, withdraw from them until they enter into some other discourse, and if the Shaitan causes you to forget, then do not sit after recollection with the unjust people. [6.69] And nought of the reckoning of their (deeds) shall be against those who guard (against evil), but (theirs) is only to remind, haply they may guard. [6.70] And leave those who have taken their religion for a play and an idle sport, and whom this world's life has deceived, and remind (them) thereby lest a soul should be given up to destruction for what it has earned; it shall not have besides Allah any guardian nor an intercessor, and if it should seek to give every compensation, it shall not be accepted from it; these are they who shall be given up to destruction for what they earned; they shall have a drink of boiling water and a painful chastisement because they disbelieved.       Quote [18.29] And say: The truth is from your Lord, so let him who please believe, and let him who please disbelieve; surely We have prepared for the iniquitous a fire, the curtains of which shall encompass them about; and if they cry for water, they shall be given water like molten brass which will scald their faces; evil the drink and ill the resting-place. One more source:       Quote "And fight in Allah's cause against those who wage war against you, but do not commit aggression — for verily Allah does not love aggressors" (2:190). "And slay them wherever you may come upon them, and drive them away from wherever they drove you away — for oppression is even worse than killing" (2:191). "Hence, fight against them until there is no more oppression and all worship is devoted to Allah alone" (2:193). Which reinforces the point that the Koran only preaches violence against oppression. So it seems that the moderate Muslims have made an airtight case: Islam is opposed to violence unless it is for defensive purposes. It preaches a stern but loving tolerance towards outsiders, especially "peoples of the Book". Muslim immigrants face no particular hurdle on the road to assimilation. Here is where Robert Spencer arrives. Coming from a Muslim family and a lifetime student of Islam, he brings an interesting perspective on the subject. Let's begin with some of his criticisms of Akyol:       Quote Akyol: Mr. Bostom also asks what will happen to atheists if they are not convinced. Of course, nothing. Let them deny the obvious. "There is no compulsion in religion" (2:256) and Muslims are ordered to say "The truth is from your Lord, so let him who please believe, and let him who please disbelieve." (18:29) Interestingly enough, just yesterday someone sent me this from a Muslim Q&A website, quoting Qur'an 8:39 and 9:5 to say that yes, there is compulsion in religion: “And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism, i.e. worshipping others besides Allaah), and the religion (worship) will all be for Allaah Alone [in the whole of the world]” [al-Anfaal 8:39] “Then when the Sacred Months (the 1st, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikoon (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush. But if they repent [by rejecting Shirk (polytheism) and accept Islamic Monotheism] and perform As‑Salaah (Iqaamat-as-Salaah), and give Zakaah, then leave their way free. Verily, Allaah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful” [al-Tawbah 9:5] This verse is known as Ayat al-Sayf (the verse of the sword). These and similar verses abrogate the verses which say that there is no compulsion to become Muslim. Let's pause here to describe the concept of Naskh, or "abrogation":       Quote Naskh, an Arabic language word usually translated as "abrogation" and alternately appearing as the phrase al-nâsikh wal-mansűkh ("the abrogating and abrogated [verses]"), is a technical term for a major genre of Islamic legal exegesis directed at the problem of seemingly contradictory material within or between the twin bases of Islamic holy law: the Qur'ân and the Prophetic Sunna. In its application, naskh typically involves the replacement (ibdâl) of an earlier verse/tradition (and thus its embodied ruling) with a chronologically successive one. The complete suppression (ibtâl) of a regulation so that not even its wording remains is recognized as well, though only in the case of the Qur'ân. The emergence of naskh (initially as practice and then as fully elaborated theory) dates back to the first centuries of Islamic civilization. Almost all classical naskh works, for instance, open by recounting the incident of the Kufan preacher banned from expounding the Qur'ân by an early 'ilmic authority figure (usually 'Alî but sometimes also Ibn 'Abbâs) on account of his ignorance of the principles of naskh (Rippin, BSOAS 47, pp. 26, 38). Whatever the historicity of such traditions (modern scholars generally dismiss them): ...the elaboration of the theories is datable with certainty to at least the latter half of the second century after Muhammad, when Shâfi'î, in his Risâla and in the somewhat later Ikhtilâf al-Hadîth was applying his considerable talents to resolving the serious problem of the apparent discrepancies between certain Qur'ânic verses and others; between certain hadîths and others; and, most serious of all, between certain Qur'ânic verses and certain hadîths. Burton, JSS 15, p. 250 While many Muslims reject the concept entirely or claim it applies to only a handful of verses, others cite this passage:     Quote [2.106] Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things? Continuing from Wikipedia:     Quote Naskh employs the logic of chronology and progressive revelation. The different situations encountered over the course of Muhammad's more than two decade career as prophet, it is argued, required new rulings to meet the Muslim community's changing circumstances. Or, from a more theologically-inflected stand-point, the expiration points of those rulings God intended as temporary all along were reached. A classic example of this is the early community's increasingly militant posture towards its pagan and Jewish neighbors: Many verses counsel patience in the face of the mockery of the unbelievers, while other verses incite to warfare against the unbelievers. The former are linked to the [chronologically anterior] Meccan phase of the mission when the Muslims were too few and weak to do other than endure insult; the latter are linked to Medina where the Prophet had acquired the numbers and the strength to hit back at his enemies. The discrepancy between the two sets of verses indicates that different situations call for different regulations. Burton, Naskh, Encyclopaedia of Islam (EI)˛ Yet despite its dependence on chronology, naskh is in no way a historiographical enterprise: While it cannot really be doubted that there is an implicit assumption of the chronological-progressive order of the Qur'ān in the naskh texts, it is notable that the discussions themselves do not generally make this point explicit; naskh, be it with regards to wine or direction of prayer, always assumes that the present law is known (that is, no wine and facing Mecca), and the verses which agree with that fact are necessarily the valid ones. Any verses which contradict this are necessarily invalid, and thus can be logically arranged according to a basic notion of 'progressive revelation.' The arguments found in the naskh texts are, in short, based on logic not chronology. BSOAS 51, p. 18 [...] Between sources Abrogation is applicable to both sources of Islamic law: the Qur'ān and the Prophetic Sunna. A Qur'ānic verse may abrogate another Qur'ānic verse, and a Prophetic Sunna may likewise abrogate another Prophetic Sunna. The possibility of abrogation between these two sources, though, was a more contentious issue precipitated by the absence within a source of the appropriate abrogating (nāsikh) or abrogated (mansūkh) material necessary to bring concordance between it and the Fiqh. [...] Opinion as to naskh's technical meaning here oscillated between replacement (ibdāl) and nullification (ibtāl). This despite the fact that the former meaning would make the coordinate clause's "We substitute something better or similar" tautological. Alternate interpretations were also suggested for the subordinate clause's "cause to be forgotten" (aw nansah&#257, such as defer or leave. This was primarily motivated by flight from the theologically-repugnant idea of prophetic forgetting, with Q.15:9 cited as evidence of its impossibility: 15:9 We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it Yet verses Q.17:86, Q.18:24, and Q.87:6-7 explicitly endorse its feasibility. Thus "Qur'ān-forgetting is clearly adumbrated in the Qur'ān" (BSOAS 48, p. 457). Many ahadith also attest to the phenomenon: entire suras which the Muslims had previously recited, claims one, would one morning be discovered to have been completely erased from memory (cf. Abū 'Ubaid al-Qāsim b. Sallām). In the same spirit of "turning lemons into lemonade" which characterizes much else within the theologizing of naskh, divine purpose was attributed to such incidents; Rāzī, for example, speculates that they may have figured among the Prophet's miracles. Finally, there exist two important linguistically-unrelated verses cited in connection with naskh: Q.16:101- "When We substitute [tabdīl] one revelation for another"- and Q.13:39- "Allah doth blot out or confirm what He pleaseth". Besides confirming the two major modes of abrogation (i.e. suppression and supercession), the former verse is employed by Shāfi'ī in his theory of abrogation between sources as proof that a Qur'ān verse can only be abrogated by another Qur'ān verse [...] Frequently cited examples of intra-Qur'ānic abrogation are: Verse: Q.8:65 Abrogator (nāsikh): The immediately succeeding Q.8:66, which lightens the ratio of enemies the Muslims are expected to vanquish from 10:1 to 2:1 . Verse: Q.2:180 Abrogator: Q.4:10-11, which provides specific allotments for a deceased's relatives. These verses constitute a perfect example of what later exegetes would claim to be takhsīs (specification). Verse: 2.219 Abrogator: Q.4:43, whose more explicit disapproval of drunkenness is in turn abrogated by Q.5:90, which institutes a complete ban on the consumption of alcohol: Verse: Q.9:5 (āyat al-sayf, the "sword verse") Abrogatee (mansūkh): Literally dozens of verses regulating the umma's conduct towards outside groups: Sura 9:5 is of such importance that it is considered by early exegetes to have abrogated 114 or 124 [cf. Hibat Allāh] verses treating war that were revealed before it- Ibn al Jawzī (d. 1200) Nawānsikh al-Qur'ān... and one modern scholar counts up to 140 verse (Mustafā Zayd, Al-Naskh fil-Qur'ān al-Karīm) . Firestone, Jihād (ISBN 0195154940), p. 151 (note 21) Verse: Q.9:29 Abrogatee: "Nahhās considers 9:29 to have abrogated virtually all verses calling for patience or forgiveness toward Scriptuaries" (Firestone, Jihād, p. 151). Examples of inter-Qur'ānic abrogation, where one of the rulings comes from the Sunna, are: Verse: Q.2:150 Abrogatee: The Sunna which established Jerusalem as the direction of prayer (qibla). Verse: Q.24:2 Abrogator: For those unwilling to countenance the existence of a "lost" āyat al-rajm (e.g. Qurtubī, Al-Ghazāl&#299, the Prophetic Sunna which establishes stoning to death as the penalty for adultery. This issue is very complex, of course, yet the concept itself is fairly mainstream in Islam....which suggests that not all passages with the Koran are necessarily of equal relevance to the modern Muslim. New post. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2006,10:14    Continuing with Spencer's critique (and now linking to Akyol's third essay):         Quote But Akyol is ready for that. He attacks the Islamic doctrine of abrogation on which this argument is based: The doctrine of abrogation is actually a late invention, introduced by some classical jurists during the fourth century (late 10th century) of Islam. These scholars came up with hundreds of cases of abrogated verses to the extent that they formulated a whole science of the subject filling lengthy books and references. Yet they were in error and many Muslim thinkers are pointing this out since the 19th century. Dr. Khaleel Mohammed, a professor of Religion at San Diego State University, has a very good article that summarizes the refutations against the doctrine of abrogation. "The allegation that 120 verses on the invitation to Islam were abrogated by the verse of the sword (9:5)" says Dr. Mohammed, "is in fact one of crassest stupidity."... Actually the Koran itself declares that it includes no contradictions (4:82), thus its verses should be seen not as conflicting and calling for abrogative passages, but rather as complimentary parts of a single mosaic. If we try to build that mosaic, we will see that the war verses describe only an abnormal state of affairs — in which the Muslim community faced an enemy that sought its annihilation — and verses that promote peace and tolerance describe the Islamic ideal. Gee, that's swell, but unfortunately, Dr. Khaleel Muhammad has not yet taken up his throne as the Muslim Pope. And here, as in so many other instances, he resorts to shallow and base name-calling instead of actually addressing the arguments of his opponents. Jihadists, quite obviously, still employ the practice of abrogation. Does he think that pointing out that it is a tenth-century innovation and accusing those who use it of the "crassest stupidity" will really stop them? "Fellow mujahedin! Dr. Khaleel Muhammad has called us stupid! Let us lay down our arms!" In fact, abrogation (naskh) is not a tenth-century innovation. It is based on the Qur'an itself: "Nothing of our revelation (even a single verse) do we abrogate or cause be forgotten, but we bring (in place) one better or the like thereof. Knowest thou not that Allah is Able to do all things?" (Sura 2:106). Likewise, Akyol's contention that "the war verses describe only an abnormal state of affairs — in which the Muslim community faced an enemy that sought its annihilation — and verses that promote peace and tolerance describe the Islamic ideal" will do nothing to pacify radical Muslims, since they have argued again and again that today the Muslim community faces an enemy that seeks its annihilation. Thus even by Akyol's own standards, Muslims are justified to invoke the Qur'an's war verses and wage jihad today. [...] But since Akyol rejects the authority of passages from Islamic law that Bostom and I cited in our respective replies, he doesn't have to answer or explain them. Instead, he spends the bulk of his article citing Muslim apologists and questionable historical sources to establish that in history, Muslims acted better. Once again, even if this is true, it establishes nothing: the mujahedin believe that they are acting in line with Islamic law, and historical examples don't disprove this. We'll discuss the historical debate later, but let's focus on the more notorious suras and see why it might inspire terrorists:       Quote [9.1] (This is a declaration of) immunity by Allah and His Apostle towards those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement. [9.2] So go about in the land for four months and know that you cannot weaken Allah and that Allah will bring disgrace to the unbelievers. [9.3] And an announcement from Allah and His Apostle to the people on the day of the greater pilgrimage that Allah and His Apostle are free from liability to the idolaters; therefore if you repent, it will be better for you, and if you turn back, then know that you will not weaken Allah; and announce painful punishment to those who disbelieve. [9.4] Except those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement, then they have not failed you in anything and have not backed up any one against you, so fulfill their agreement to the end of their term; surely Allah loves those who are careful (of their duty). [9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. [9.6] And if one of the idolaters seek protection from you, grant him protection till he hears the word of Allah, then make him attain his place of safety; this is because they are a people who do not know. [9.7] How can there be an agreement for the idolaters with Allah and with His Apostle; except those with whom you made an agreement at the Sacred Mosque? So as long as they are true to you, be true to them; surely Allah loves those who are careful (of their duty). [9.8] How (can it be)! while if they prevail against you, they would not pay regard in your case to ties of relationship, nor those of covenant; they please you with their mouths while their hearts do not consent; and most of them are transgressors. [9.9] They have taken a small price for the communications of Allah, so they turn away from His way; surely evil is it that they do. [9.10] They do not pay regard to ties of relationship nor those of covenant in the case of a believer; and these are they who go beyond the limits. [9.11] But if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, they are your brethren in faith; and We make the communications clear for a people who know. [9.12] And if they break their oaths after their agreement and (openly) revile your religion, then fight the leaders of unbelief-- surely their oaths are nothing-- so that they may desist. [9.13] What! will you not fight a people who broke their oaths and aimed at the expulsion of the Apostle, and they attacked you first; do you fear them? But Allah is most deserving that you should fear Him, if you are believers.       Quote [3.156] O you who believe! be not like those who disbelieve and say of their brethren when they travel in the earth or engage in fighting: Had they been with us, they would not have died and they would not have been slain; so Allah makes this to be an intense regret in their hearts; and Allah gives life and causes death and Allah sees what you do. [3.157] And if you are slain in the way of Allah or you die, certainly forgiveness from Allah and mercy is better than what they amass. [3.158] And if indeed you die or you are slain, certainly to Allah shall you be gathered together. [3.159] Thus it is due to mercy from Allah that you deal with them gently, and had you been rough, hard hearted, they would certainly have dispersed from around you; pardon them therefore and ask pardon for them, and take counsel with them in the affair; so when you have decided, then place your trust in Allah; surely Allah loves those who trust. [3.160] If Allah assists you, then there is none that can overcome you, and if He forsakes you, who is there then that can assist you after Him? And on Allah should the believers rely. These verses, taken together, provide a tremendous incentive to engage in warfare. This is especially true when the verses add the carrot of perpetual bliss/certain victory, and the stick of being considered a coward, to the equation. And since the ideas of "attack" or "oppression" can encompass a spiritual or cultural dimension, particularly among Muslims living in Infidel lands, these appeals to "self-defense" gain even more urgency. Spencer finishes:   Quote I myself am not an atheist, and I do not reply to him out of some sinister cypto-Stalinism. I made it abundantly clear why I am doing this in an earlier reply to Akyol: Why am I doing this? To make life difficult for a moderate? No. I am only trying to point out that Akyol's conclusion (the beheadings "stem from a kind of necrophilic nihilism, not from the essence of Islam") is unwarranted, and his argument will be unconvincing to a radical Muslim, who can invoke the authorities I have cited here and others. So in sum: Akyol's piece is not the kind of moderate Islamic presentation we need in order to neutralize the radicals. We need one that confronts and refutes their arguments; his simply ignores them. Those who are looking for moderate Muslims to rise up and refute the radicals should keep looking. I stand by those statements. Akyol more and more seems to me like one who is trying to reassure jittery Westerners about Islam, rather than refute the radicals. But his reassurance is hollow, and is only likely to make people less guarded against future attacks by Muslims who do not accept his arguments. His arguments do nothing to stop jihadists from continuing their murderous work. Especially if the jihadists believe in abrogation and/or are surrounded by infidels who are aggressively spreading their culture around the globe. I'll have more to say about the Koran's attitude towards "Infidels", particularly Jews and Christians, at a later time, so here's a little reading assignment for those who are interested. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2006,11:43    Here are some more "war verses":   Quote [8.11] When He caused calm to fall on you as a security from Him and sent down upon you water from the cloud that He might thereby purify you, and take away from you the uncleanness of the Shaitan, and that He might fortify your hearts and steady (your) footsteps thereby. [8.12] When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them. [8.13] This is because they acted adversely to Allah and His Apostle; and whoever acts adversely to Allah and His Apostle-- then surely Allah is severe in requiting (evil). [8.14] This-- taste it, and (know) that for the unbelievers is the chastisement of fire. [8.15] O you who believe! when you meet those who disbelieve marching for war, then turn not your backs to them. [8.16] And whoever shall turn his back to them on that day-- unless he turn aside for the sake of fighting or withdraws to a company-- then he, indeed, becomes deserving of Allah's wrath, and his abode is ####; and an evil destination shall it be. [8.17] So you did not slay them, but it was Allah Who slew them, and you did not smite when you smote (the enemy), but it was Allah Who smote, and that He might confer upon the believers a good gift from Himself; surely Allah is Hearing, Knowing. [8.18] This, and that Allah is the weakener of the struggle of the unbelievers. [8.19] If you demanded a judgment, the judgment has then indeed come to you; and if you desist, it will be better for you; and if you turn back (to fight), We (too) shall turn back, and your forces shall avail you nothing, though they may be many, and (know) that Allah is with the believers. [8.20] O you who believe! obey Allah and His Apostle and do not turn back from Him while you hear. [8.21] And be not like those who said, We hear, and they did not obey. [8.22] Surely the vilest of animals, in Allah's sight, are the deaf, the dumb, who do not understand. [8.23] And if Allah had known any good in them He would have made them hear, and if He makes them hear they would turn back while they withdraw. [8.24] O you who believe! answer (the call of) Allah and His Apostle when he calls you to that which gives you life; and know that Allah intervenes between man and his heart, and that to Him you shall be gathered. [8.25] And fear an affliction which may not smite those of you in particular who are unjust; and know that Allah is severe in requiting (evil). [8.26] And remember when you were few, deemed weak in the land, fearing lest people might carry you off by force, but He sheltered you and strengthened you with His aid and gave you of the good things that you may give thanks.   Quote [9.122] And it does not beseem the believers that they should go forth all together; why should not then a company from every party from among them go forth that they may apply themselves to obtain understanding in religion, and that they may warn their people when they come back to them that they may be cautious? [9.123] O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil). Here's a good reference for other Jihad passages. This, in combination with the sheer number of passages that gloat over the eternal Flame awaiting infidels (about more later), provides a good insight into the sources of inspiration for those Muslims who commit violent acts in Allah's name..... -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2006,11:47    Blah blah blah. Hey Ghosty, does it strike you as significant in any way that your statement "X group of people don't assimilate and are incompatible with American society" is exactly the same thing that (1) the Know-Nothings said about the Irish and Italians, (2) the Klan said about the Chinese, the Africans, and the Latinos, and (3) the Nazis (you know, those flaming liberals) said about Jews and Gypsys? Coincidence? -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2006,10:12    Akyol makes an interesting admission about the Muslim concept of self-defense when he admits that Muslims may wage a military Jihad to "preserve decent values". This is one of his proof texts:   Quote [22.39] Permission (to fight) is given to those upon whom war is made because they are oppressed, and most surely Allah is well able to assist them; [22.40] Those who have been expelled from their homes without a just cause except that they say: Our Lord is Allah. And had there not been Allah's repelling some people by others, certainly there would have been pulled down cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques in which Allah's name is much remembered; and surely Allah will help him who helps His cause; most surely Allah is Strong, Mighty. [22.41] Those who, should We establish them in the land, will keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate and enjoin good and forbid evil; and Allah's is the end of affairs. [22.42] And if they reject you, then already before you did the people of Nuh and Ad and Samood reject (prophets). [22.43] And the people of Ibrahim and the people of Lut, [22.44] As well as those of Madyan and Musa (too) was rejected, but I gave respite to the unbelievers, then did I overtake them, so how (severe) was My disapproval. [22.45] So how many a town did We destroy while it was unjust, so it was fallen down upon its roofs, and (how many a) deserted well and palace raised high. [22.46] Have they not travelled in the land so that they should have hearts with which to understand, or ears with which to hear? For surely it is not the eyes that are blind, but blind are the hearts which are in the breasts. Now look at the rest of the passage (especially [22.44-45]) and notice how the modern idea of self-defense gradually morphs to the idea of attacking morally recalcitrant peoples in Muslim territory (a very elastic concept. Does it apply to high-concentration Muslim areas in Infidel countries?). And remember, the Muslim warrior is one of Allah's agents of destruction, so this whole passage might inspire a different interpretation in non-moderate hands. Also notice that the concept of "oppression" may also imply moral laxity. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2006,10:39    I almost forgot....anyone who has any anecdotes relevant to the topic on hand may share them freely, although I'd like the posters to identify the country where these events are taking place. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

Pages: (12) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard