[Pants-of-dog]

What are you expecting some holy scripture from 620AD calling for blowing up planes and skyscrapers in Europe and America?

In a nutshell, Islam as a religion was formed as a way of unifying and governing an expansive empire. Mohammed was a political and military leader arguably more than a spiritual leader.

This means Islam is a political doctrine as well as a religious one to a far greater extent than Christianity. And that expansionism, supremacism and violence are an integral part of mainstream Islam.

Is that the nuanced argument that you think is so awesome?

I highly doubt that they are being harassed just for stating this argument.

Anyway, let us look at this argument.

First of all, let us assume that Islam was indeed designed as a religion for creating and maintaining an empire. If it is, then that is some very good social engineering.

But even if Mohammed was a brilliant sociologist and political scientist, as you claim, he could not have possibly predicted all the history between his life and the present moment. A lot has happened since then. So, we have to assume that Islam has changed since then. It may still be inherently imperialistic, but it may not be. Assuming everything stays the same is an example of the "genetic fallacy".

But let us ignore that, as your pundits have, and just assume that Islam is imperialistic, designed that way, and so well designed that it stayed that way despite centuries of change. I had no idea these pundits had a such high estimate of Mohammed's genius.

This still does not mean that there are no other possible causes of terrorism. Terrorism can be caused by more than one thing.

So, it could be that Muslims are all hive mind terrorists because Mohammed programmed them so effectively from centuries ago, and because we keep bombing them.

[AJS]

You leap to a lot of assumptions based on what I have actually said.

A few points:

1) Agree there is no one cause of Islamist terrorism. Western foreign policy is a factor. The history and nature of Islam is a factor.

2) I wouldn't describe creating a doctrine of eternal war as being especially far sighted or ingenius.

3) It has changed and continues to change. It still has a strong legal and political dimension and always has had.

4) I never said that all Muslims are terrorists or that all Muslims are anything. They're people like anyone else.

5) The quran doesn't change over time and place. It is still learned in its original classical Arabic and there is held to be perfect and eternal. And it is nearly uniform across Sunni and Shia Muslims throughout the Islamic world.


What I am saying is that Islam is a political and social doctrine with components that are very easily understood as a justification for violence.

[Pants-of-dog]

You leap to a lot of assumptions based on what I have actually said.

A few points:

1) Agree there is no one cause of Islamist terrorism. Western foreign policy is a factor. The history and nature of Islam is a factor.

Yes and no. Both may be causes, but western foreign policy is something wr can observe and analyse rationally. The "nature of Islam", on the other hand, is a vague and subjective term that is not amenable to analysis.

2) I wouldn't describe creating a doctrine of eternal war as being especially far sighted or ingenious.

Well, you are arguing that it has been successfully inspiring war this whole time. There is a huge difference between continually successful doctrines and those that are not.

3) It has changed and continues to change. It still has a strong legal and political dimension and always has had.

Again, assuming that something has stayed the same without evidence is called the genetic fallacy.

4) I never said that all Muslims are terrorists or that all Muslims are anything. They're people like anyone else.

If not all Muslims are terrorists, then what is preventing Muslims from becoming terorists? If you assume that Islam causes terrorism, and that Muslims follow Islam, then we must logically conclude that Muslims are terrorists. Unless you are saying that Islam does not necessarily cause terrorism. Is that what you are saying?

5) The quran doesn't change over time and place. It is still learned in its original classical Arabic and there is held to be perfect and eternal. And it is nearly uniform across Sunni and Shia Muslims throughout the Islamic world.

This does not contradict anything I have said.

What I am saying is that Islam is a political and social doctrine with components that are very easily understood as a justification for violence.

The same can be said for democracy, capitalism, liberalism (in the classic sense, not the US sense), and almost any religion.

Also, do you know how to use the quote function?

[AJS]

I'm new here and just figuring out quotes.

Yes and no. Both may be causes, but western foreign policy is something wr can observe and analyse rationally. The "nature of Islam", on the other hand, is a vague and subjective term that is not amenable to analysis.

Dealing with vagueness and ambiguity is part and parcel of dealing with complex problems.

Well, you are arguing that it has been successfully inspiring war this whole time. There is a huge difference between continually successful doctrines and those that are not.

Maybe I'm a bit more sparing with my admiration. If you have a doctrine of warfare against non-believers and it continues to be cited as a justification for warfare against non-believers then yes, you have a successful doctrine.

Are you saying the simple fact that Islam exists is somehow proof it is benign?

Again, assuming that something has stayed the same without evidence is called the genetic fallacy.

It really isn't. Firstly the quran itself hasn't changed. Secondly ISIS and various other Islamist groups go to great lengths to quote the quran, haddith and Islamic jurisprudence in support of their actions. It is relevant.

If not all Muslims are terrorists, then what is preventing Muslims from becoming terorists? If you assume that Islam causes terrorism, and that Muslims follow Islam, then we must logically conclude that Muslims are terrorists. Unless you are saying that Islam does not necessarily cause terrorism. Is that what you are saying?

Very binary thinking for someone accusing others of a lack of nuance.

Islam is an ancient and complex doctrine with hundreds of millions of followers. It is possible to interpret it in different ways, to disregard parts of it, to fail or be unable to live up to parts of it or to adopt cultural trappings of it without believing in it at all. I never said they are 1.5 billion preprogrammed killing machines waiting for an excuse to murder people. I said there is a theological aspect to Islamist violence which we should acknowledge and understand.

What I am saying is that Islam is a political and social doctrine with components that are very easily understood as a justification for violence.


The same can be said for democracy, capitalism, liberalism (in the classic sense, not the US sense), and almost any religion.

There's no quran of democracy, liberalism or capitalism though. You can be a liberal and a pacifist. You can be a conservative and not believe in foreign wars. There is no inherent contradiction there. You can be a Muslim and not practice all aspects of Islam and you can be a Muslim and not agree with all the justifications for violence put forward by those who carry it out, but you would be a very strange kind of Muslim if you believed in throwing out parts of the quran and disregarding the example of Mohammed.


Anyway, what are you actually getting at here?

Do you believe Islam contains nothing that could be possibly used to justify violence?

Is it all just some misunderstanding or twisting of a few badly phrased passages of Scripture?

Is it something we shouldn't talk about either way?

[Pants-of-dog]

I'm new here and just figuring out quotes.

Dealing with vagueness and ambiguity is part and parcel of dealing with complex problems.

Sure, but that does not address what I am saying. Making vague and subjective claims about the "nature of Islam" instead of looking at measureable factors does not help us at all.

Maybe I'm a bit more sparing with my admiration. If you have a doctrine of warfare against non-believers and it continues to be cited as a justification for warfare against non-believers then yes, you have a successful doctrine.

We are not discussing justifications of terrorism. We are do suitable its causes. These are two different things.

Are you saying the simple fact that Islam exists is somehow proof it is benign?

No. I am saying that even if we assume that Islam was designed to be some way in the beginning, this does not mean it is still that way.

It really isn't. Firstly the quran itself hasn't changed. Secondly ISIS and various other Islamist groups go to great lengths to quote the quran, haddith and Islamic jurisprudence in support of their actions. It is relevant.

Please note that many Islamic scholars also go to great lengths to quote Quran, Hadith, and Islamic jurisprudence to show how ISIS is wrong. In fact, the only people who think ISIS are the true Muslims are ISIS and Islamophobes.

And this does not contradict the fact that centuries of history have happened since the birth of Islam, and that this history has affected Islam.

Very binary thinking for someone accusing others of a lack of nuance.

Islam is an ancient and complex doctrine with hundreds of millions of followers. It is possible to interpret it in different ways, to disregard parts of it, to fail or be unable to live up to parts of it or to adopt cultural trappings of it without believing in it at all. I never said they are 1.5 billion preprogrammed killing machines waiting for an excuse to murder people. I said there is a theological aspect to Islamist violence which we should acknowledge and understand.

Okay, so Islam does not cause terrorism. Instead, one of the many diverse interpretations if Islam can be used to justify terrorism. As we can see, these two statements are very different.

There's no quran of democracy, liberalism or capitalism though. You can be a liberal and a pacifist. You can be a conservative and not believe in foreign wars. There is no inherent contradiction there. You can be a Muslim and not practice all aspects of Islam and you can be a Muslim and not agree with all the justifications for violence put forward by those who carry it out, but you would be a very strange kind of Muslim if you believed in throwing out parts of the quran and disregarding the example of Mohammed.

Well, strange people exist, and I am sure that many Muslims believe in Islam, and simultaneously believe in peace and equality.

Anyway, what are you actually getting at here?

Do you believe Islam contains nothing that could be possibly used to justify violence?

Is it all just some misunderstanding or twisting of a few badly phrased passages of Scripture?

Is it something we shouldn't talk about either way?

Well, you had argued that these bigots were being harassed by cops because of their nuanced arguments concerning the impact of Islamic theololgy on modern terrorism.

I am showing how the argument that these pundits supposedly made is not nuanced nor does it prove that Islam is a cause of terrorism.

But if you would like to discuss how these pundits or bigots are being harassed because of this argument, that would also be nice.

[AJS]

It's not vague and subjective. The claim that there are factors within Islam itself that contribute to modern terrorism is clear and well supported.

Justifications provide at least clues as to causes which warrant further investigation.

It's how it is inyerprby twrrorists now that contributes. It isn't very surprising that they look to the origins of the religion in their search for its purist form.

Where have Islamic scholars gone to great lengths to show that ISIS is wrong in its understanding of Islam?

There's quite a detailed analysis of one such statement here

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/09/inte ... -caliphate

Again binary thinking.

It's somewhere between "all Muslims at all times" and "one obscure interpretation."

You have to make quite a concerted effort to completely disregard the violent aspects of Islam. Some Muslims, such as Majid Nawaz and Dr Zhudi Jasser have done this but they are apparently more of a minority even than ISIS, at least in terms of open declarations of support.

Why are you sure that many devout Muslims also believe in peace and equality?

The most startling example of the authorities attitudes towards this is the treatment of Robert Spencer who the US government barred from training security services and the British government refused to allow him to enter the country due to his views on Islam.

However the fact that you start by calling them bigots says a lot about how you approach it.

[Pants-of-dog]

It's not vague and subjective. The claim that there are factors within Islam itself that contribute to modern terrorism is clear and well supported.

No, it is not well supported. In fact, due to the subjective nature of the claim, I think it may be inherently difficult to support such a claim.

Justifications provide at least clues as to causes which warrant further investigation.

Or they could be ad hoc justifications that have no connection to the causes of terrorism.

It's how it is inyerprby twrrorists now that contributes. It isn't very surprising that they look to the origins of the religion in their search for its purist form.

There is no reason to believe the Islam practised by ISIS is the purest or original form of Islam. Also, ISIS and terrorists like them are usually religiously ignorant.

Where have Islamic scholars gone to great lengths to show that ISIS is wrong in its understanding of Islam?

This is the most cited example: http://www.lettertobaghdadi.com

There's quite a detailed analysis of one such statement here

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/09/inte ... -caliphate

I do not click on any links to jihadwatch, as they are openly Islamophobic. It would be like using KKK stats to discuss racism in America.

Again binary thinking.

It's somewhere between "all Muslims at all times" and "one obscure interpretation."

This does not contradict my point. According to your own statement, Islam does not cause terrorism, and instead, some interpretations are used to justify it.

You have to make quite a concerted effort to completely disregard the violent aspects of Islam. Some Muslims, such as Majid Nawaz and Dr Zhudi Jasser have done this but they are apparently more of a minority even than ISIS, at least in terms of open declarations of support.

Please note that all the "Islam causes terrorism" people studiously ignore the fact that western governments have killed far more Muslims than Muslims have killed westerners. And they pretend that Muslims should sit around and do nothing while other Muslims are killed by westerners. And they ignore the fact that we drop bombs on them from far away.

Why is it okay to ignore the actual violence of democracy and capitalism, but it is not okay to ignore some cherry picked statemnts from the Quran?

Why are you sure that many devout Muslims also believe in peace and equality?

Surveys, talking to actual Muslims, paying attention to the news, etc.

There is also the very logical assumption that not all Muslims have the same hive mind.

The most startling example of the authorities attitudes towards this is the treatment of Robert Spencer who the US government barred from training security services and the British government refused to allow him to enter the country due to his views on Islam.

Please present a link to evidence showing clearly that he was hassled by authorities for presenting the argument you previously cited.

However the fact that you start by calling them bigots says a lot about how you approach it.

Yes, I approach it honestly. If someone makes a career out of saying bigoted things, and targeting minorities, then they are bigots, and they should be called out on it.

I am not a believer in the "precious conservative snowflake feelings" paradigm where pointing out the bigotry of someone is somehow just as bad as the racism and bigotry these people are spreading.

[Suntzu]

The signs on the Iranian missiles that said "Death to Israel" were probably just a misunderstanding.

[AJS]

Taken out of context

[Godstud]

The signs on the Iranian missiles that said "Death to Israel" were probably just a misunderstanding.

So what? Israel is a detestable state.

It did not say, "Death to Jews."

[Suntzu]

Yeah, destroying Israel won't kill any Jews.

[AJS]

No, it is not well supported. In fact, due to the subjective nature of the claim, I think it may be inherently difficult to support such a claim.

Then why be so ready to accept foreign policy as an explanation?

There is no reason to believe the Islam practised by ISIS is the purest or original form of Islam. Also, ISIS and terrorists like them are usually religiously ignorant.

Their leader has a PhD in Islamic Studies from the University of Baghdad.

This is the most cited example: http://www.lettertobaghdadi.com

And you won't even sully your browsing history by reading a commentary on in on jihadwatch. Sensible discussion ends there really.

It’s like discussing racism in America without ever mentioning the KKK.

Please note that all the "Islam causes terrorism" people studiously ignore the fact that western governments have killed far more Muslims than Muslims have killed westerners. And they pretend that Muslims should sit around and do nothing while other Muslims are killed by westerners. And they ignore the fact that we drop bombs on them from far away.

Why is it okay to ignore the actual violence of democracy and capitalism, but it is not okay to ignore some cherry picked statemnts from the Quran?

So you believe terrorist attacks are justified? In which case why even look for a solution? Presumably we should accept it as richly deserved.

Surveys, talking to actual Muslims, paying attention to the news, etc.

There is also the very logical assumption that not all Muslims have the same hive mind.

Any particular surveys?

Which are anyway a fairly unsatisfactory way to get an understanding of quite why people think the things they do.

Please present a link to evidence showing clearly that he was hassled by authorities for presenting the argument you previously cited.

I'm afraid you would have to go to jihadwatch where Spencer published the letter from the British home office.

I don't know if Beforeitsnew meets the high standards of reinforcing your existing opinions or not but here is the letter

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/20 ... 93720.html

Do you have any evidence of the bigotry in these arguments?

You approach it like a typical liberal who will not even consider the possibility that your view of the world is wrong. You won't look at evidence because you consider the very act of questioning your view of the world to be bigoted in itself. You have swallowed hook line and sinker the narrative that the fight against "Islamophobia" is some sort of continuation of the civil rights movement and the only real reason anyone would possibly criticism Islam is as a thin veil for disliking other cultures or races.


[KS edit: Do not personally attack other users.]

[Pants-of-dog]

Then why be so ready to accept foreign policy as an explanation?

Because it can actually be verified, and has been verified.

http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo7/no4 ... 02-eng.asp

Their leader has a PhD in Islamic Studies from the University of Baghdad.

That does not mean that any of his followers are equally well versed.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 93086.html

And you won't even sully your browsing history by reading a commentary on in on jihadwatch. Sensible discussion ends there really.

It’s like discussing racism in America without ever mentioning the KKK.

I think that when discussing interpretation of Islamic texts and whether someone is doing it correctly, we can trust Islamic scholars far more than we can trust people who openly hate Muslims. Spencer, for example, is a self taught "expert".

So you believe terrorist attacks are justified? In which case why even look for a solution? Presumably we should accept it as richly deserved.

No, I am not discussing whether or not these attacks are justified. I just mentioned how being bombed by us could cause someone to bomb us back. This is true even if we agree that this does not justify terrorism.

Any particular surveys?

This is the first one that came up in the Google search.

http://www.environicsinstitute.org/uplo ... report.pdf

Which are anyway a fairly unsatisfactory way to get an understanding of quite why people think the things they do.

Well, in my entire life, a lot of which is spent close enough to Muslims that I would die if they blew themselves up, I have never been blown up or felt even threatened. This includes the time I used Mohammed's non-dairy creamer for my coffee without asking him. Not the prophet, just a guy I worked with who I assume was Muslim because he was named Mohammed, was a recent Arab immigrant, and seemed to take Fridays off.

I'm afraid you would have to go to jihadwatch where Spencer published the letter from the British home office.

I don't know if Beforeitsnew meets the high standards of reinforcing your existing opinions or not but here is the letter

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/20 ... 93720.html

Do you have any evidence of the bigotry in these arguments?

Perhaps he was banned for inciting violence. He did, after all, inspire Breivik.

Also, it seems the photos are no longer there. It may be my browser, but I got a 404.

You approach it like a typical liberal who will not even consider the possibility that your view of the world is wrong. You won't look at evidence because you consider the very act of questioning your view of the world to be bigoted in itself. You have swallowed hook line and sinker the narrative that the fight against "Islamophobia" is some sort of continuation of the civil rights movement and the only real reason anyone would possibly criticism Islam is as a thin veil for disliking other cultures or races.

Maybe. Let us pretend this is all true.

This does not change the amount of truth in my arguments.

[Hindsite]

Maybe. Let us pretend this is all true.
This does not change the amount of truth in my arguments.

Which was near zero.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

[KS mod note: Don't make it personal, guys. You can attack the argument of other users, but not the person.]

[AJS]

Because it can actually be verified, and has been verified.

http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo7/no4 ... 02-eng.asp

The fact that there are other causes does not disprove a religious element.

That does not mean that any of his followers are equally well versed.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 93086.html

They get to learn.

I think that when discussing interpretation of Islamic texts and whether someone is doing it correctly, we can trust Islamic scholars far more than we can trust people who openly hate Muslims. Spencer, for example, is a self taught "expert".

Why not tackle the arguments rather than the individual?

This is the first one that came up in the Google search.

http://www.environicsinstitute.org/uplo ... report.pdf

I don't really see the relevance. Feeling Canadian doesn't mean they disagree with Sharia law.

Well, in my entire life, a lot of which is spent close enough to Muslims that I would die if they blew themselves up, I have never been blown up or felt even threatened. This includes the time I used Mohammed's non-dairy creamer for my coffee without asking him. Not the prophet, just a guy I worked with who I assume was Muslim because he was named Mohammed, was a recent Arab immigrant, and seemed to take Fridays off.

Which is fine. And probably right, the vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists and are not agitating for Sharia law. I never said they were. However terrorists have also been seemingly normal people at work, neighbours or acquaintances. They don't all run around shouting death to the infidel 24/7.

The point is a religious justification is there in Islam.

It wouldn't change the truth of your arguments, or lack thereof. Your refusal to look at the evidence because you have already decided it's racist says more than your arguments.

[Pants-of-dog]

The fact that there are other causes does not disprove a religious element.

Sure.

They get to learn.

You are saying that they get radicalised and then learn about Islam becuase of that.

That is actually evidence that they do not learn about Islam and then become radicalised by Islam.

Why not tackle the arguments rather than the individual?

Feel free to quote an actual argument by Spencer, then.

I don't really see the relevance. Feeling Canadian doesn't mean they disagree with Sharia law.

We were not discussing Sharia. We were discussing the fact there are a significant number of Muslims who supoort peace and equality.

Which is fine. And probably right, the vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists and are not agitating for Sharia law. I never said they were. However terrorists have also been seemingly normal people at work, neighbours or acquaintances. They don't all run around shouting death to the infidel 24/7.

The point is a religious justification is there in Islam.

Again, I am not discussing justifications.

I am discussing causes.

It wouldn't change the truth of your arguments, or lack thereof. Your refusal to look at the evidence because you have already decided it's racist says more than your arguments.

Again, the photos of the letter from Home Office are no longer on Spencer's Islamophobic website. I Am not refusing to look at them. Spencer took them down for some reason.