The end of moral equivalency

[jefferiah]

Fair enough, which is one of the many reasons religion is the bane of humanity...

I disagree, as you yourself pointed out in defense of Muslims, that being Muslim is not a reason to kill, or that being Muslim does not necessarily mean you have to be a militant. Human nature is the bane of humanity.

Religion means a system of laws, rules, beliefs, adherences.

You don't have to be religious to have these. For instance an atheist can be anti-abortion. People are entitled to have a conscience and to adhere to it and to have opinions on certain issues. And people will always have differences. And sometimes differences come to a head. And when differences come to a head some people deal with them more violently than others. You cannot change the things which create issues (simply because some people can become aggressive), unless you outlaw opinion itself and establish a "RIGHT" opinion for all. And unless you are divine, this would make you a tyrant.

Edited August 9, 2007 by jefferiah

[cybercoma]

I disagree, as you yourself pointed out in defense of Muslims, that being Muslim is not a reason to kill, or that being Muslim does not necessarily mean you have to be a militant. Human nature is the bane of humanity.

Either they're killing for their religion, or they're killing for some other reason... which is it?

[jefferiah]

Either they're killing for their religion, or they're killing for some other reason... which is it?

Oh well in a lot of cases definitely for their religion, but you pointed out that this is not a prerequisite necessarily. Wasn't it you who mentioned you had some very nice friends who are Muslim?

[bush_cheney2004]

So GWB did say God told him to or not, because you said he didnt, and you are wrong. No more no less.

Nonsense...I never said GWB did or didn't...I asserted that the USA has dropped bombs many times, regardless of "God's" opinion on the matter. America makes a very fine assortment of bombs with every intention of using them. Even Canada buys them.

[jefferiah]

"I know several Muslim who've never killed anyone, making your idea completely false. Those people mustn't be killing because they are Muslim, since there are plenty of Muslims who don't kill."

Sorry Cybercoma....here is the exact quote I am referring to.

[Guest American Woman]

Here is the result of a 5 second google search. Perhaps this is relevant:

Nabil Shaath says: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq …" And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it.'"

But really, this doesn't matter (as far as I am concerned). Because the original point still stands. Claims were made that Muslims were killing because they are Muslim. But if this was true then all Muslims would kill. If there are Muslims in the world that do not kill, then the Muslims that do kill must have had other reasons than simply being Muslim. In some cases it is because of a particular interpretation of aspects of Islam. In other cases on the list, the crime really has nothing to do with Islam other than that the perpetrator happened to be Muslim (which is why I have objected to the accuracy of the list and by extension objected to these broad generalizations).

At the end of the day these attempts to demonize an entire religion will never solve any problems.

As jefferiah has already pointed out, that's only Nabil Shaath saying Bush said that. Bush himself denies it, has never made the claim anywhere else, and if he believed God told him to go to war, why would he deny it and never have repeated it again? That "quote" is no quote; to put it in perspective, it's a "translation of a translation of a translation. Mahmoud Abas does not speak English. Bush does not speak Arabic. If Bush said these words, or something like them, Abas heard them from a translator. Then Abas repeated them, as he remembered them a couple of weeks later, in Arabic. Some unknown person wrote down what he thought he heard Abas say. Then Regular, or someone at Ha’aretz, translated them back into English—or perhaps first into Hebrew and then into English."*

I agree that demonizing Islam is wrong, and I believe the people who do are living in fear. I sometimes wonder if they are afraid because they fear someone else, some other nation/group of people, will treat us and do to us what we've done to others.

*Edited to add link

Edited August 9, 2007 by American Woman

[cybercoma]

"I know several Muslim who've never killed anyone, making your idea completely false. Those people mustn't be killing because they are Muslim, since there are plenty of Muslims who don't kill."

Sorry Cybercoma....here is the exact quote I am referring to.

In the same regard people mustn't do good because they're Muslim, since there are plenty of Muslims that do evil for their God. In other words, religion is false and useless.

[jefferiah]

In the same regard people mustn't do good because they're Muslim, since there are plenty of Muslims that do evil for their God. In other words, religion is false and useless.

If you join Weight Watchers and don't follow the procedure you might not lose weight. Therefore Weight Watchers is useless?

In a certain respect though, religion being false and useless could actually be interpreted as a Christian point. As far as morality goes, Christianity says that there is no one who is good. This is why forgiveness is necessary, but there is also a clear warning against those who wish to abuse forgiveness as an excuse to do evil. That is not genuine repentance.

You seem to have this idea that because some people can interpret something in a bad way that the whole thing is bad. People can just as easily misrepresent you Cybercoma, as they can God.

In the New Testament of there is no command to Christians to kill unbelievers or to make war to spread their beliefs. The command is to live in the world peacefully, but not to be of the world. Probably very few Christians live up to that standard. I probably do not. In fact the early Christians spoke their beliefs and were killed for it. When Jesus was arrested his disciples tried to attack the captors but Jesus told them not to. And he later said to Pilate, when asked about his claim of being a King, that he was a King, but that his Kingdom was not like the Kingdoms of this world or else his disciples would have fought. He never forced himself on anyone. He allowed those who would follow to follow and those who would leave to leave. The command is clear Cybercoma. So if someone can misinterpret that as a justification for Inquisitions and the like, Cybercoma, then you might as well ban everything, and say that it is the bane of the world. Because if people can interpret Jesus teachings this way (which are clearly the opposite), then they can also twist anything.

Edited August 10, 2007 by jefferiah

[Black Dog]

SnottSA

I never said anything remorely like that.

Muslims are killing people because they are Muslims.

Are you a liar or just incredibly forgetful?

What I said, repeatedly, is that just because he may be able to pick a few killings out of that very very long and detailed list and can assign slightly different motivation to, it doesn't mean the vast majority are not killing precisely because they are Muslims.

According to the list, all acts of violence carried out by Muslims are religiously motivated. So your source material is the problem. Put another way, it's propaganda that is not even "remorely" based on reality. And you know it. As your claims hinge entirely on the veracity of that list, well, you're up shit creek without a paddle, sunshine.

[jefferiah]

SnottSA

Are you a liar or just incredibly forgetful?

According to the list, all acts of violence carried out by Muslims are religiously motivated. So your source material is the problem. Put another way, it's propaganda that is not even "remorely" based on reality. And you know it. As your claims hinge entirely on the veracity of that list, well, you're up shit creek without a paddle, sunshine.

Ah, now I cannot speak for Scott. But when I read this post, I noticed right away his wording was wrong, even though he is usually eloquent, but I understood the point he is making much differently than you did.

When he says Muslims are killing because they are Muslims it sounds very bad. But in the context of the previous arguments to me it makes much more sense. When he was linking violence to Islam, people were dismissing it saying well these are isolated incidents and have nothing to do with their beliefs. Just Muslims who happened to commit crimes in passing. And he says well look...these are all in the name of Jihad....these Muslims are killing because they are Muslims (not that all Muslims kill) but that "these" particular Muslims have a faith-based reason.

Re-read the prior arguments and I think it becomes quite obvious that this is what he meant.

[Black Dog]

When he says Muslims are killing because they are Muslims it sounds very bad. But in the context of the previous arguments to me it makes much more sense. When he was linking violence to Islam, people were dismissing it saying well these are isolated incidents and have nothing to do with their beliefs. Just Muslims who happened to commit crimes in passing. And he says well look...these are all in the name of Jihad....these Muslims are killing because they are Muslims (not that all Muslims kill) but that "these" particular Muslims have a faith-based reason.

Re-read the prior arguments and I think it becomes quite obvious that this is what he meant.

I'm sure that's what he meant. But the problem is: how do we know the acts of violence on the list were committed for religious reasons? Well, the people who made the list tell us so, but how do they know? Obviously there are ample examples of faith-based violencem but there ar emany others where the motivation is not so cut and dried. It's the broad-bush approach more than anything that I object to. It's just sloppy.

Spaking of sloppy, this article by Ol' Hitch makes the same mistake:

Here is the situation regarding the enterprise known as Your Black Muslim Bakery (YBMB), located on San Pablo Avenue in Oakland, Calif. Its founder, a man named Yusuf Bey, was arrested in 2002 and charged with forcing an underage girl to have sex. Subsequent investigation suggested that he had a long history of rape and abuse of his followers and had by this means fathered numerous children out of wedlock. Bey died in September, 2003, before his case could come to trial. His son Yusuf Bey IV has since been arrested twice, first on suspicion of leading a gang that had trashed two Oakland liquor stores, and second (and perhaps less Islamically) for running over a San Francisco bouncer with his car. Nedir Bey, one of Yusuf Bey's "spiritually adopted" sons, is also alleged to have beaten a possible business rival with a flashlight, while another member of the gang tortured the victim with a heated knife.

Hitch goes on to catalogue a disturbing number of criminal offences before veering sharply into the realm of speculation:

Now, I'm just asking, but: rape, intimidation, torture, murder, all these actions emanating from one address and some of them performed in the name of a fanatical ideology.

Only problem is, he gives no examples of which of the crimes he's discussing were committed in the name of "a fanatical ideology." Not a one. It seems the majority were based on good old fashiond criminality. The only connection with Islam is the name of the bakery and the religion of the criminals. But we have no idea if that fact has any bearing on their activities. We're asked instead to take the noton that the crimes were religiously motivated on faith (pun intended). It's sloppy logic.

[scribblet]

Either they're killing for their religion, or they're killing for some other reason... which is it?

It is fair to say that radical Muslims who are doing the killing, ARE doing it in the name of Islam. Hezbollah is 'The Party of God' - Hamas is a Fundamentalist Islamic terrorist group which wants to establish an Islamic State (including Israel) then there's Islamic Jihad, and so on.

According to Hassan Butts, a former jihadist, blaming Islamic terrorism on the government (the West) for the actions of Islamic terrorists is highly misplaced blame, and only serves to help the terrorists - who laugh in celebration over the free propaganda in their behalf by those that they seek to terrorize. More importantly, he believes that blaming the West and its foreign policy only serves to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of the violence of radical Islam: Islamic theology:

I don't see thereligionofpeace.com website as a hate site, unless they are making it all up.

You want hate, read about it here http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=IA36807 yet the west prints a few far less hateful cartoons and it causes riots.

May Israel should hire a few cartoonists or start rioting themselves.

[Guest American Woman]

Ah, now I cannot speak for Scott. But when I read this post, I noticed right away his wording was wrong, even though he is usually eloquent, but I understood the point he is making much differently than you did.

When he says Muslims are killing because they are Muslims it sounds very bad. But in the context of the previous arguments to me it makes much more sense. When he was linking violence to Islam, people were dismissing it saying well these are isolated incidents and have nothing to do with their beliefs. Just Muslims who happened to commit crimes in passing. And he says well look...these are all in the name of Jihad....these Muslims are killing because they are Muslims (not that all Muslims kill) but that "these" particular Muslims have a faith-based reason.

Re-read the prior arguments and I think it becomes quite obvious that this is what he meant.

Some radical Muslims are killing in the name of Islam, as you said. But they aren't doing it because they are Muslims; they are doing it because they are radical Muslims. I think the distiction is extremely important since they are also killing other Muslims. So they aren't killing because they are Muslims; they are killing because they are radicals. By the same token, Christians who murder abortion doctors aren't murdering because they are Christians, but because they are radicals.

[jefferiah]

Some radical Muslims are killing in the name of Islam, as you said. But they aren't doing it because they are Muslims; they are doing it because they are radical Muslims. I think the distiction is extremely important since they are also killing other Muslims. So they aren't killing because they are Muslims; they are killing because they are radicals. By the same token, Christians who murder abortion doctors aren't murdering because they are Christians, but because they are radicals.

Yes, but I think what you are saying is precisely what he meant. Muslims who kill, kill because they are Muslims....It sounds wrong...but in the context of the previous arguments against him, you can easily see that he was making a point that there is a cultural religious link to it. That they weren't just crimes committed in passing.

[Guest American Woman]

Yes, but I think what you are saying is precisely what he meant. Muslims who kill, kill because they are Muslims....It sounds wrong...but in the context of the previous arguments against him, you can easily see that he was making a point that there is a cultural religious link to it. That they weren't just crimes committed in passing.

They kill because they are radicals. Take, for example, the mother who drowned all her children because she thought it was what God wanted. She didn't kill them because she was a Christian and because there was a religious link; she killed them because she wasn't right in the head.

Radicals usually will find a reason to kill, whatever it may be. They may be making a religious link, but that doesn't mean Islam is to blame; the radicals and their interpretation or desires are to blame.

Here's some food for thouoght: we kill for our culture; we kill for oil.

[scribblet]

They kill because they are 'radical Muslims', not just radicals; they kill because they believe the Koran tells them to, they actually believe if you kill women and children, you will go to heaven. "We are the Muslims," said Omar Brooks, an extremist also known as Abu Izzadeen. "We drink the blood of the enemy, and we can face them anywhere. That is Islam and that is jihad."

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20232

Gabriel: Not all of them are radicals. We estimate that the radicals are between 15 and 25 percent; that translates to between 180 and 300 million people like Mohammad Atta who are willing to strap bombs to their bodies and commit martyrdom operations. Now, that is still a minority, 15 to 25 percent, but 300 million Mohammad Attas ready to unleash their blood upon the West. . . . Now, the rest of them . . . despise the West, they hate our westernization, they think we are morally corrupt, that we are corrupting the world, and they think we are such a bad influence on the world that we need to be stopped at any cost. They may not be willing to commit martyrdom operations themselves, but they will sit there and cheer on and rally those who are willing to kill us.

Elder: Are we winning?

Gabriel: No, we are losing.

[jefferiah]

They kill because they are radicals. Take, for example, the mother who drowned all her children because she thought it was what God wanted. She didn't kill them because she was a Christian and because there was a religious link; she killed them because she wasn't right in the head.

Radicals usually will find a reason to kill, whatever it may be. They may be making a religious link, but that doesn't mean Islam is to blame; the radicals and their interpretation or desires are to blame.

Here's some food for thouoght: we kill for our culture; we kill for oil.

Granted....what we are trying to say is that there is a prevalence of radicalism among Islam. I am assuming that this woman who drowned all her children was a lone nut, and it was not some group activity, nor do I think there is anything out there encouraging her to do so. I am not saying that being Muslim makes you kill, and I don't think that is what Scott was saying either. I am not out to ban the Koran or anything. But Muslims and non-muslims cannot ignore the fact that within Islam there is much radicalism.

Look I am not saying that this is always the case, but with a great deal of Muslims I have talked to online (Pakistanis, Lebanese, etc), whenever you mention the word Jew or Israel then blammo you get a bunch of cuss words and foaming at the mouth combined with the words "swine pig dog". Walid Shoebat (whom I have mentioned before), an ex-PLO terrorist said he was raised in a culture of Jew hating. He compares the ideas they teach kids in Palestine to Nazism. And he should know. He was there. These are not just fringe groups on the radical edge of Muslim society. This is prevalent. In Sudan the Muslims kill people from the Black Christian South. They make it illegal to be of any other faith. Also because they are Muslims and have Shari'a law, they are allowed to take non-believers as slaves. They have raided the South of Sudan and taken whole families and sold them as slaves. This is legal. They torture people for not converting to Islam. They burn churches and villages. They also make slave raids and then attempt to sell their captives back to their families (legalized kidnapping and ransom).

Edited August 11, 2007 by jefferiah

[Guest American Woman]

They kill because they are 'radical Muslims', not just radicals; they kill because they believe the Koran tells them to, they actually believe if you kill women and children, you will go to heaven. "We are the Muslims," said Omar Brooks, an extremist also known as Abu Izzadeen. "We drink the blood of the enemy, and we can face them anywhere. That is Islam and that is jihad."

I'm saying it's not just radical Muslims that kill; it's not Islam that's telling them to kill. So you can't blame Islam, any more than you can blame Christianity for the woman who drowned her children or the nut who blows up the abortion clinic.

The radical Muslims are killing Muslims, too. So you are saying Islam is responsible for their killing Muslims.

As for this comment:

Now, the rest of them . . . despise the West, they hate our westernization, they think we are morally corrupt, that we are corrupting the world, and they think we are such a bad influence on the world that we need to be stopped at any cost. They may not be willing to commit martyrdom operations themselves, but they will sit there and cheer on and rally those who are willing to kill us.

"The rest of them?" Surely you can't be saying that Muslims either are killing us off or sitting by and cheering it on??

I have to wonder, too, if it's our culture that they hate, or our invading their culture with our presence. As I said, we are killing for our culture; we are killing for oil. That's bound to spark some resentment.

Edited August 11, 2007 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

Granted....what we are trying to say is that there is a prevalence of radicalism among Islam. I am assuming that this woman who drowned all her children was a lone nut, and it was not some group activity, nor do I think there is anything out there encouraging her to do so. I am not saying that being Muslim makes you kill, and I don't think that is what Scott was saying either. I am not out to ban the Koran or anything. But Muslims and non-muslims cannot ignore the fact that within Islam there is much radicalism.

"I am not saying that being Muslim makes you kill, and I don't think that is what Scott was saying either."

So what do you think is making them kill?

[jefferiah]

"I am not saying that being Muslim makes you kill, and I don't think that is what Scott was saying either."

So what do you think is making them kill?

How can I explain this?

Well, for one thing I think you have downplayed the violence Islam encourages, the superiority of Muslims over others, the right to take people as slaves, Mohammed's command not to befriend Christians or Jews, the passages which say you should not punish a Muslim brother for murdering a non-believer.

But nonetheless, many Muslims do not adhere to the harsher things. And I concede that people can be Islamic without being violent.

But this does not change the fact that a great deal of them are violent, and they commit violent acts in groups. So it does not mean all Muslims do this, but it means it is quite common. And if people keep dismissing that, it will never get better. The violence that occurs in Sudan is mandated condoned and encouraged by the Khartoum Gov. This is not a lone nut case. This is a nation of torture, censorship, kidnapping, and slavery.

Look when racism was rampant in the South, it would not help to address the problem if everyone just said "well these thousands upon thousands of cases of blatant racism and mistreatment and segregation are all just isolated examples. The south isnt racist, its just some racist people. " Well hell yeah. Clearly there was something going on in the culture of the south. Now that does not mean we think everyone from the South is racist or that there is something genetic in southerners that makes them prone to thoughts of superiority. So being Southern did not make people racist in one sense (being a Muslim does not mean you will kill). But in other sense, there was a good chance they were racist because they were Southern and this was the culture (they kill because they come from a culture where radicalism happens to be common by comparison to others). But if you cannot address that problem, or if you dismiss it, then you will allow it to get worse.

The woman who drowned her children was a lone nut. The rioters who shot nuns and burned things and stampeded after the Pope's comments or the cartoons, were not lone nuts. They did so in a large group.

Edited August 11, 2007 by jefferiah

[scribblet]

I'm saying it's not just radical Muslims that kill; it's not Islam that's telling them to kill. So you can't blame Islam, any more than you can blame Christianity for the woman who drowned her children or the nut who blows up the abortion clinic.

The radical Muslims are killing Muslims, too. So you are saying Islam is responsible for their killing Muslims.

As for this comment:

"The rest of them?" Surely you can't be saying that Muslims either are killing us off or sitting by and cheering it on??

Many of them are cheering it on, and one in four British Muslims although not violent, agreed with the motives of the London terrorists and sympathised with them. The silence of the moderate muslim majority is deafening.

Those who are the radical terrorists do it mainly because they believe the Koran tells them to. There are others, and of course peaceful quotes.

e.g.

Koran: Surah 2: The Cow

12. Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kill them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. 191

13. War is ordained by Allah. 216

http://www.heritage.org/Press/Events/ev071207b.cfm

PBS Affiliates to air ABG Film's- "ISLAM V. ISLAMISTS: VOICES FROM THE MUSLIM CENTER with follow-up Panel Discussion"

August 9, 2007 AIFD Press Release Phoenix, Arizona:

1. AIFD Calls your attention to the official release and national distribution by Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB) of Islam v. Islamists: Voices from the Muslim Center with a follow-up discussion. This documentary was set to be part of the high-profile Corporation of Public Broadcasting (CPB) Crossroads Program released in April 2007 before CPB reviewers refused to allow its release. Now through an agreement reached between CPB and ABG Films, Inc. and OPB, the film is being distributed nationally through OPB and PBS for airing in August 2007.

2. The documentary features moderate Muslims fighting Islamism around the world in Denmark, Toronto, Flint, Chicago, Phoenix and Paris. Dr. Jasser, AIFD Chairman, is among those profiled.

The follow-up panel discussion organized by OPB will debate some of the ideas presented in the documentary concerning Islam and Islamism. It is hosted by John Hockenberry and will include the following Muslim panel:

The Heritage Foundation showed this film (with permission from PBS IIRC) and there’s a video on their website of the Q&A that followed the showing. It's worth watching as it reveals a lot of information. Also you’ll learn that even the Producers of the Film themselves have doubts that “moderate Muslims” have any influence.

This is worth a read about what is happening in Pakistan.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?p...p;notFound=true

"Over the past few years, extremist Islamic groups in Pakistan have mounted a unilateral terror campaign. But Americans and Christians have not been the only victims. Women, secular advocates and even Muslims -- Ahmadis, dissenting Sunni Muslims and Shiite Muslims -- have also come under attack."

[M.Dancer]

The silence of the moderate muslim majority is deafening.

That's a statement I have a hard time with. I have the same problem with labels like "Silent Majority"

The first begs the question, how do you know they are silent? What can the person who makes this claim offer as proof? Non-statements?

In fact many prominent muslim leaders denounce violence. It is also a fqact the numerous extremist leaders cheer it on. Guess which will get coverage?

[Moxie]

The moderate Muslim is afraid to speak because the Radical Element will crush them using violence and threats. We need to let the Moderates know that we will stand beside them on this issue, Radical Islamist are threatening Moderates in the West and our police shug this off. It should be dealth with using a very large hammer. Shut up the radicals using our hate laws, for what they preach is pure violent hatred.

[M.Dancer]

The moderate Muslim is afraid to speak because the Radical Element will crush them using violence and threats. We need to let the Moderates know that we will stand beside them on this issue, Radical Islamist are threatening Moderates in the West and our police shug this off. It should be dealth with using a very large hammer. Shut up the radicals using our hate laws, for what they preach is pure violent hatred.

That is true....but remember only recently in Pakistan and Turkey thousands of muslims took to the streets against extemists......

[cybercoma]

Those who are the radical terrorists do it mainly because they believe the Koran tells them to. There are others, and of course peaceful quotes.

e.g.

Koran: Surah 2: The Cow

12. Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kill them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. 191

13. War is ordained by Allah. 216

1 Samuel 15, since the old testament kills two birds with one stone.

Matthew 5:17-19 is the passage where Jesus says all the old laws will not be destroyed through him:

17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Not the smallest letter...

Better brush up on Deuteronomy.....*begins throwing out shellfish*