[surveyor]

And now for a brief interlude:

“Pure Islam” and Michael van der Galiën

Michael van der Galiën is a 23-year-old American Studies student at the Rijksuniversiteit Groningen in the Netherlands, and correspondent in the Netherlands for Pajamas Media. In a post entitled “Islamic Law and Violence,” he commented over a week ago on a response written by a student at Brown, Jebediah Koogler, to my Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week talk there. Since van der Galiën articulates so many common responses to and common misunderstandings of the work I am doing, I thought it might be useful to respond.

Jeb Koogler explains the obvious: Islamic law isn’t static. It changes over time. I also get a bit tired of people who say that the Koran preaches much more violence than the Bible and Torah do. I’ve read the Koran and I disagree; it doesn’t teach violence any more than the Bible or Torah.

I discuss this very common argument at length in my book Religion of Peace?; suffice it to say here that van der Galiën’s statement, that the Qur’an doesn’t teach violence any more than the “Bible or Torah” is flatly false. For while the Bible contains descriptions of violent acts committed in the name of God, nowhere does it teach believers to imitate that violence. Where people are commanded to commit acts of violence, these are commands directed to specific individuals or groups in particular situations; they are not universal commands.

The Qur’an, on the other hand, quite clearly does teach believers to commit acts of violence against unbelievers — see 2:190-193, 9:5, 9:29, 47:4, etc. There are no equivalents to such open-ended and universal commands, addressed to all believers to fight unbelievers, in the Bible.

Of course, van der Galiën would respond that such passages have not been understood as such by all Muslims throughout history, and that is no doubt true. We’ll discuss that in more detail in a moment. But it is not the point here, for when he says that the Qur’an “doesn’t teach violence any more than the Bible or Torah,” he is not talking about interpretative traditions, but the content of the text.

In fact, I’d say, the only way for people to defend terrorism or violence by the Koran is by quoting passages in it completely out of context and to ignore the spirit of the Koran, which is peaceful.

Unfortunately for van der Galiën, there is not a single traditional school of Islamic jurisprudence that would agree with his assessment here, for all of the schools that are considered orthodox teach, as part of the obligation of the Muslim community, warfare against and the subjugation of unbelievers.

Shafi’i school: A Shafi’i manual of Islamic law that was certified in 1991 by the clerics at Al-Azhar University, one of the leading authorities in the Islamic world, as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy, stipulates that “the caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians…until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax.” It adds a comment by Sheikh Nuh ‘Ali Salman, a Jordanian expert on Islamic jurisprudence: the caliph wages this war only “provided that he has first invited [Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians] to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya)…while remaining in their ancestral religions.” (‘Umdat al-Salik, o9.8).

Of course, there is no caliph today, and hence the oft-repeated claim that Osama et al are waging jihad illegitimately, as no state authority has authorized their jihad. But they explain their actions in terms of defensive jihad, which needs no state authority to call it, and becomes “obligatory for everyone” (‘Umdat al-Salik, o9.3) if a Muslim land is attacked. The end of the defensive jihad, however, is not peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims as equals: ‘Umdat al-Salik specifies that the warfare against non-Muslims must continue until “the final descent of Jesus.” After that, “nothing but Islam will be accepted from them, for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus’ descent” (o9.8).

Hanafi school: A Hanafi manual of Islamic law repeats the same injunctions. It insists that people must be called to embrace Islam before being fought, “because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith.” It emphasizes that jihad must not be waged for economic gain, but solely for religious reasons: from the call to Islam “the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war.”

However, “if the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax [jizya], it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do.” (Al-Hidayah, II.140)

Maliki school: Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), a pioneering historian and philosopher, was also a Maliki legal theorist. In his renowned Muqaddimah, the first work of historical theory, he notes that “in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.” In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with “power politics,” because Islam is “under obligation to gain power over other nations.”

Hanbali school: The great medieval theorist of what is commonly known today as radical or fundamentalist Islam, Ibn Taymiyya (Taqi al-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyya, 1263-1328), was a Hanbali jurist. He directed that “since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought.”

Of course, these are all extremely old authorities — such that one might reasonably assume that whatever they say couldn’t possibly still be the consensus of the Islamic mainstream. The laws of the United States have evolved considerably since the adoption of the Constitution, which itself has been amended. So why shouldn’t this be true of Islamic law as well? Many observers assume that it must be, and that contemporary jihadists’ departure from mainstream Islam must be located in its preference for the writings of ancient jurists rather than modern ones. But in this, unfortunately, they fail to reckon with the implications of the closing of the gates of ijtihad.

(I won’t bore you guys with the rest)…

[surveyor]

And now for a brief interlude:

“Pure Islam” and Michael van der Galiën

Michael van der Galiën is a 23-year-old American Studies student at the Rijksuniversiteit Groningen in the Netherlands, and correspondent in the Netherlands for Pajamas Media. In a post entitled “Islamic Law and Violence,” he commented over a week ago on a response written by a student at Brown, Jebediah Koogler, to my Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week talk there. Since van der Galiën articulates so many common responses to and common misunderstandings of the work I am doing, I thought it might be useful to respond.

Jeb Koogler explains the obvious: Islamic law isn’t static. It changes over time. I also get a bit tired of people who say that the Koran preaches much more violence than the Bible and Torah do. I’ve read the Koran and I disagree; it doesn’t teach violence any more than the Bible or Torah.

I discuss this very common argument at length in my book Religion of Peace?; suffice it to say here that van der Galiën’s statement, that the Qur’an doesn’t teach violence any more than the “Bible or Torah” is flatly false. For while the Bible contains descriptions of violent acts committed in the name of God, nowhere does it teach believers to imitate that violence. Where people are commanded to commit acts of violence, these are commands directed to specific individuals or groups in particular situations; they are not universal commands.

The Qur’an, on the other hand, quite clearly does teach believers to commit acts of violence against unbelievers — see 2:190-193, 9:5, 9:29, 47:4, etc. There are no equivalents to such open-ended and universal commands, addressed to all believers to fight unbelievers, in the Bible.

Of course, van der Galiën would respond that such passages have not been understood as such by all Muslims throughout history, and that is no doubt true. We’ll discuss that in more detail in a moment. But it is not the point here, for when he says that the Qur’an “doesn’t teach violence any more than the Bible or Torah,” he is not talking about interpretative traditions, but the content of the text.

In fact, I’d say, the only way for people to defend terrorism or violence by the Koran is by quoting passages in it completely out of context and to ignore the spirit of the Koran, which is peaceful.

Unfortunately for van der Galiën, there is not a single traditional school of Islamic jurisprudence that would agree with his assessment here, for all of the schools that are considered orthodox teach, as part of the obligation of the Muslim community, warfare against and the subjugation of unbelievers.

Shafi’i school: A Shafi’i manual of Islamic law that was certified in 1991 by the clerics at Al-Azhar University, one of the leading authorities in the Islamic world, as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy, stipulates that “the caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians…until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax.” It adds a comment by Sheikh Nuh ‘Ali Salman, a Jordanian expert on Islamic jurisprudence: the caliph wages this war only “provided that he has first invited [Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians] to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya)…while remaining in their ancestral religions.” (‘Umdat al-Salik, o9.8).

Of course, there is no caliph today, and hence the oft-repeated claim that Osama et al are waging jihad illegitimately, as no state authority has authorized their jihad. But they explain their actions in terms of defensive jihad, which needs no state authority to call it, and becomes “obligatory for everyone” (‘Umdat al-Salik, o9.3) if a Muslim land is attacked. The end of the defensive jihad, however, is not peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims as equals: ‘Umdat al-Salik specifies that the warfare against non-Muslims must continue until “the final descent of Jesus.” After that, “nothing but Islam will be accepted from them, for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus’ descent” (o9.8).

Hanafi school: A Hanafi manual of Islamic law repeats the same injunctions. It insists that people must be called to embrace Islam before being fought, “because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith.” It emphasizes that jihad must not be waged for economic gain, but solely for religious reasons: from the call to Islam “the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war.”

However, “if the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax [jizya], it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do.” (Al-Hidayah, II.140)

Maliki school: Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), a pioneering historian and philosopher, was also a Maliki legal theorist. In his renowned Muqaddimah, the first work of historical theory, he notes that “in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.” In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with “power politics,” because Islam is “under obligation to gain power over other nations.”

Hanbali school: The great medieval theorist of what is commonly known today as radical or fundamentalist Islam, Ibn Taymiyya (Taqi al-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyya, 1263-1328), was a Hanbali jurist. He directed that “since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought.”

Of course, these are all extremely old authorities — such that one might reasonably assume that whatever they say couldn’t possibly still be the consensus of the Islamic mainstream. The laws of the United States have evolved considerably since the adoption of the Constitution, which itself has been amended. So why shouldn’t this be true of Islamic law as well? Many observers assume that it must be, and that contemporary jihadists’ departure from mainstream Islam must be located in its preference for the writings of ancient jurists rather than modern ones. But in this, unfortunately, they fail to reckon with the implications of the closing of the gates of ijtihad.

(I won’t bore you guys with the rest)…

[surveyor]

And now for a brief interlude:

“Pure Islam” and Michael van der Galiën

Michael van der Galiën is a 23-year-old American Studies student at the Rijksuniversiteit Groningen in the Netherlands, and correspondent in the Netherlands for Pajamas Media. In a post entitled “Islamic Law and Violence,” he commented over a week ago on a response written by a student at Brown, Jebediah Koogler, to my Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week talk there. Since van der Galiën articulates so many common responses to and common misunderstandings of the work I am doing, I thought it might be useful to respond.

Jeb Koogler explains the obvious: Islamic law isn’t static. It changes over time. I also get a bit tired of people who say that the Koran preaches much more violence than the Bible and Torah do. I’ve read the Koran and I disagree; it doesn’t teach violence any more than the Bible or Torah.

I discuss this very common argument at length in my book Religion of Peace?; suffice it to say here that van der Galiën’s statement, that the Qur’an doesn’t teach violence any more than the “Bible or Torah” is flatly false. For while the Bible contains descriptions of violent acts committed in the name of God, nowhere does it teach believers to imitate that violence. Where people are commanded to commit acts of violence, these are commands directed to specific individuals or groups in particular situations; they are not universal commands.

The Qur’an, on the other hand, quite clearly does teach believers to commit acts of violence against unbelievers — see 2:190-193, 9:5, 9:29, 47:4, etc. There are no equivalents to such open-ended and universal commands, addressed to all believers to fight unbelievers, in the Bible.

Of course, van der Galiën would respond that such passages have not been understood as such by all Muslims throughout history, and that is no doubt true. We’ll discuss that in more detail in a moment. But it is not the point here, for when he says that the Qur’an “doesn’t teach violence any more than the Bible or Torah,” he is not talking about interpretative traditions, but the content of the text.

In fact, I’d say, the only way for people to defend terrorism or violence by the Koran is by quoting passages in it completely out of context and to ignore the spirit of the Koran, which is peaceful.

Unfortunately for van der Galiën, there is not a single traditional school of Islamic jurisprudence that would agree with his assessment here, for all of the schools that are considered orthodox teach, as part of the obligation of the Muslim community, warfare against and the subjugation of unbelievers.

Shafi’i school: A Shafi’i manual of Islamic law that was certified in 1991 by the clerics at Al-Azhar University, one of the leading authorities in the Islamic world, as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy, stipulates that “the caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians…until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax.” It adds a comment by Sheikh Nuh ‘Ali Salman, a Jordanian expert on Islamic jurisprudence: the caliph wages this war only “provided that he has first invited [Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians] to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya)…while remaining in their ancestral religions.” (‘Umdat al-Salik, o9.8).

Of course, there is no caliph today, and hence the oft-repeated claim that Osama et al are waging jihad illegitimately, as no state authority has authorized their jihad. But they explain their actions in terms of defensive jihad, which needs no state authority to call it, and becomes “obligatory for everyone” (‘Umdat al-Salik, o9.3) if a Muslim land is attacked. The end of the defensive jihad, however, is not peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims as equals: ‘Umdat al-Salik specifies that the warfare against non-Muslims must continue until “the final descent of Jesus.” After that, “nothing but Islam will be accepted from them, for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus’ descent” (o9.8).

Hanafi school: A Hanafi manual of Islamic law repeats the same injunctions. It insists that people must be called to embrace Islam before being fought, “because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith.” It emphasizes that jihad must not be waged for economic gain, but solely for religious reasons: from the call to Islam “the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war.”

However, “if the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax [jizya], it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do.” (Al-Hidayah, II.140)

Maliki school: Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), a pioneering historian and philosopher, was also a Maliki legal theorist. In his renowned Muqaddimah, the first work of historical theory, he notes that “in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.” In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with “power politics,” because Islam is “under obligation to gain power over other nations.”

Hanbali school: The great medieval theorist of what is commonly known today as radical or fundamentalist Islam, Ibn Taymiyya (Taqi al-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyya, 1263-1328), was a Hanbali jurist. He directed that “since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought.”

Of course, these are all extremely old authorities — such that one might reasonably assume that whatever they say couldn’t possibly still be the consensus of the Islamic mainstream. The laws of the United States have evolved considerably since the adoption of the Constitution, which itself has been amended. So why shouldn’t this be true of Islamic law as well? Many observers assume that it must be, and that contemporary jihadists’ departure from mainstream Islam must be located in its preference for the writings of ancient jurists rather than modern ones. But in this, unfortunately, they fail to reckon with the implications of the closing of the gates of ijtihad.

(I won’t bore you guys with the rest)…

[surveyor]

And now for a brief interlude:

“Pure Islam” and Michael van der Galiën

Michael van der Galiën is a 23-year-old American Studies student at the Rijksuniversiteit Groningen in the Netherlands, and correspondent in the Netherlands for Pajamas Media. In a post entitled “Islamic Law and Violence,” he commented over a week ago on a response written by a student at Brown, Jebediah Koogler, to my Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week talk there. Since van der Galiën articulates so many common responses to and common misunderstandings of the work I am doing, I thought it might be useful to respond.

Jeb Koogler explains the obvious: Islamic law isn’t static. It changes over time. I also get a bit tired of people who say that the Koran preaches much more violence than the Bible and Torah do. I’ve read the Koran and I disagree; it doesn’t teach violence any more than the Bible or Torah.

I discuss this very common argument at length in my book Religion of Peace?; suffice it to say here that van der Galiën’s statement, that the Qur’an doesn’t teach violence any more than the “Bible or Torah” is flatly false. For while the Bible contains descriptions of violent acts committed in the name of God, nowhere does it teach believers to imitate that violence. Where people are commanded to commit acts of violence, these are commands directed to specific individuals or groups in particular situations; they are not universal commands.

The Qur’an, on the other hand, quite clearly does teach believers to commit acts of violence against unbelievers — see 2:190-193, 9:5, 9:29, 47:4, etc. There are no equivalents to such open-ended and universal commands, addressed to all believers to fight unbelievers, in the Bible.

Of course, van der Galiën would respond that such passages have not been understood as such by all Muslims throughout history, and that is no doubt true. We’ll discuss that in more detail in a moment. But it is not the point here, for when he says that the Qur’an “doesn’t teach violence any more than the Bible or Torah,” he is not talking about interpretative traditions, but the content of the text.

In fact, I’d say, the only way for people to defend terrorism or violence by the Koran is by quoting passages in it completely out of context and to ignore the spirit of the Koran, which is peaceful.

Unfortunately for van der Galiën, there is not a single traditional school of Islamic jurisprudence that would agree with his assessment here, for all of the schools that are considered orthodox teach, as part of the obligation of the Muslim community, warfare against and the subjugation of unbelievers.

Shafi’i school: A Shafi’i manual of Islamic law that was certified in 1991 by the clerics at Al-Azhar University, one of the leading authorities in the Islamic world, as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy, stipulates that “the caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians…until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax.” It adds a comment by Sheikh Nuh ‘Ali Salman, a Jordanian expert on Islamic jurisprudence: the caliph wages this war only “provided that he has first invited [Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians] to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya)…while remaining in their ancestral religions.” (‘Umdat al-Salik, o9.8).

Of course, there is no caliph today, and hence the oft-repeated claim that Osama et al are waging jihad illegitimately, as no state authority has authorized their jihad. But they explain their actions in terms of defensive jihad, which needs no state authority to call it, and becomes “obligatory for everyone” (‘Umdat al-Salik, o9.3) if a Muslim land is attacked. The end of the defensive jihad, however, is not peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims as equals: ‘Umdat al-Salik specifies that the warfare against non-Muslims must continue until “the final descent of Jesus.” After that, “nothing but Islam will be accepted from them, for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus’ descent” (o9.8).

Hanafi school: A Hanafi manual of Islamic law repeats the same injunctions. It insists that people must be called to embrace Islam before being fought, “because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith.” It emphasizes that jihad must not be waged for economic gain, but solely for religious reasons: from the call to Islam “the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war.”

However, “if the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax [jizya], it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do.” (Al-Hidayah, II.140)

Maliki school: Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), a pioneering historian and philosopher, was also a Maliki legal theorist. In his renowned Muqaddimah, the first work of historical theory, he notes that “in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.” In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with “power politics,” because Islam is “under obligation to gain power over other nations.”

Hanbali school: The great medieval theorist of what is commonly known today as radical or fundamentalist Islam, Ibn Taymiyya (Taqi al-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyya, 1263-1328), was a Hanbali jurist. He directed that “since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought.”

Of course, these are all extremely old authorities — such that one might reasonably assume that whatever they say couldn’t possibly still be the consensus of the Islamic mainstream. The laws of the United States have evolved considerably since the adoption of the Constitution, which itself has been amended. So why shouldn’t this be true of Islamic law as well? Many observers assume that it must be, and that contemporary jihadists’ departure from mainstream Islam must be located in its preference for the writings of ancient jurists rather than modern ones. But in this, unfortunately, they fail to reckon with the implications of the closing of the gates of ijtihad.

(I won’t bore you guys with the rest)…

[surveyor]

[quote=urbanrealtor]
Your specific comment was that “…not all muslims are interested in waging war, but they are required to do so.”

If my paraphrase was not to your liking then I think your direct quote will suffice in drawing out my point.[/quote]

Ah, but you missed a VERY important part of the quote. Allow me to illustrate:

[quote=surveyor]All muslims are required, per the koran, to wage war against the unbelievers. Luckily, not all muslims are interested in waging war, but they are required to do so per the koran (sic.).[/quote]

The previous statement established that according to the koran, it was required for muslims to wage war against unbelievers. By me stating they are required to do so, it is because it is stated in the koran. Many of the jihadists will tell you that is why they are going to war because they are required to per the koran, as I have “reported.”

[quote=urbanrealtor]This was a statement linking adherence to specific contemporary norms to a world religion in negative way.
Ergo, it constitutes normative prejudice about a group of people based upon religious affiliation.
That is, by definition, a bigoted statement.[/quote]

Oh, so if I talk about a religion in a negative way, I’m supposed to be a bigot? If I report on what jihadists say about their own koran or if I tell you what the koran says, I’m supposed to be a bigot? Nice try dan.

Because I even said not all muslims want to go to war, so there was a distinction between the individuals practicing the religion and the tenets of a religion being practiced by islamofacists.

[quote=urbanrealtor]I don’t think you can call me a name-caller (thus name-calling me) if I am drawing a logical conclusion based upon what you have said and the literal definition of bigotry (honestly you have called you a bigot).[/quote]

By trying to portray me as a bigot, you were attempting to stifle debate. That is why I called you a name-caller. The name-calling argument is generally a weak argument. Instead of debating the facts, you try to label your opponent negatively.

And this is your favorite tactic. Instead of debating the facts you throw out “bigot” or “fringe-author”. Your tendency to demonize any who disagree with you instead of debating the facts, that is what makes you a name-caller. That is not a personal attack, such as your calling me a bigot. That is your debating strategy.

[quote=urbanrealtor]For me it fits neatly and weirdly in with your statements about canonical history being wrong and here-is-a-fringe-author-who-says-so as “evidence”.

Just several centuries of liberal media I guess.[/quote]

See? Right there, you’re using the name-calling argument again. Instead of debating the facts, you’re arguing that because a “fringe-author” submitted evidence, you’re instantly dismissing him instead of debating the evidence itself.

Weak sauce, dan. As always.

Because no matter what you call me, it doesn’t change what the koran says, what the jihadists say, and your inability to debate the facts.

[surveyor]

[quote=urbanrealtor]
Your specific comment was that “…not all muslims are interested in waging war, but they are required to do so.”

If my paraphrase was not to your liking then I think your direct quote will suffice in drawing out my point.[/quote]

Ah, but you missed a VERY important part of the quote. Allow me to illustrate:

[quote=surveyor]All muslims are required, per the koran, to wage war against the unbelievers. Luckily, not all muslims are interested in waging war, but they are required to do so per the koran (sic.).[/quote]

The previous statement established that according to the koran, it was required for muslims to wage war against unbelievers. By me stating they are required to do so, it is because it is stated in the koran. Many of the jihadists will tell you that is why they are going to war because they are required to per the koran, as I have “reported.”

[quote=urbanrealtor]This was a statement linking adherence to specific contemporary norms to a world religion in negative way.
Ergo, it constitutes normative prejudice about a group of people based upon religious affiliation.
That is, by definition, a bigoted statement.[/quote]

Oh, so if I talk about a religion in a negative way, I’m supposed to be a bigot? If I report on what jihadists say about their own koran or if I tell you what the koran says, I’m supposed to be a bigot? Nice try dan.

Because I even said not all muslims want to go to war, so there was a distinction between the individuals practicing the religion and the tenets of a religion being practiced by islamofacists.

[quote=urbanrealtor]I don’t think you can call me a name-caller (thus name-calling me) if I am drawing a logical conclusion based upon what you have said and the literal definition of bigotry (honestly you have called you a bigot).[/quote]

By trying to portray me as a bigot, you were attempting to stifle debate. That is why I called you a name-caller. The name-calling argument is generally a weak argument. Instead of debating the facts, you try to label your opponent negatively.

And this is your favorite tactic. Instead of debating the facts you throw out “bigot” or “fringe-author”. Your tendency to demonize any who disagree with you instead of debating the facts, that is what makes you a name-caller. That is not a personal attack, such as your calling me a bigot. That is your debating strategy.

[quote=urbanrealtor]For me it fits neatly and weirdly in with your statements about canonical history being wrong and here-is-a-fringe-author-who-says-so as “evidence”.

Just several centuries of liberal media I guess.[/quote]

See? Right there, you’re using the name-calling argument again. Instead of debating the facts, you’re arguing that because a “fringe-author” submitted evidence, you’re instantly dismissing him instead of debating the evidence itself.

Weak sauce, dan. As always.

Because no matter what you call me, it doesn’t change what the koran says, what the jihadists say, and your inability to debate the facts.

[surveyor]

[quote=urbanrealtor]
Your specific comment was that “…not all muslims are interested in waging war, but they are required to do so.”

If my paraphrase was not to your liking then I think your direct quote will suffice in drawing out my point.[/quote]

Ah, but you missed a VERY important part of the quote. Allow me to illustrate:

[quote=surveyor]All muslims are required, per the koran, to wage war against the unbelievers. Luckily, not all muslims are interested in waging war, but they are required to do so per the koran (sic.).[/quote]

The previous statement established that according to the koran, it was required for muslims to wage war against unbelievers. By me stating they are required to do so, it is because it is stated in the koran. Many of the jihadists will tell you that is why they are going to war because they are required to per the koran, as I have “reported.”

[quote=urbanrealtor]This was a statement linking adherence to specific contemporary norms to a world religion in negative way.
Ergo, it constitutes normative prejudice about a group of people based upon religious affiliation.
That is, by definition, a bigoted statement.[/quote]

Oh, so if I talk about a religion in a negative way, I’m supposed to be a bigot? If I report on what jihadists say about their own koran or if I tell you what the koran says, I’m supposed to be a bigot? Nice try dan.

Because I even said not all muslims want to go to war, so there was a distinction between the individuals practicing the religion and the tenets of a religion being practiced by islamofacists.

[quote=urbanrealtor]I don’t think you can call me a name-caller (thus name-calling me) if I am drawing a logical conclusion based upon what you have said and the literal definition of bigotry (honestly you have called you a bigot).[/quote]

By trying to portray me as a bigot, you were attempting to stifle debate. That is why I called you a name-caller. The name-calling argument is generally a weak argument. Instead of debating the facts, you try to label your opponent negatively.

And this is your favorite tactic. Instead of debating the facts you throw out “bigot” or “fringe-author”. Your tendency to demonize any who disagree with you instead of debating the facts, that is what makes you a name-caller. That is not a personal attack, such as your calling me a bigot. That is your debating strategy.

[quote=urbanrealtor]For me it fits neatly and weirdly in with your statements about canonical history being wrong and here-is-a-fringe-author-who-says-so as “evidence”.

Just several centuries of liberal media I guess.[/quote]

See? Right there, you’re using the name-calling argument again. Instead of debating the facts, you’re arguing that because a “fringe-author” submitted evidence, you’re instantly dismissing him instead of debating the evidence itself.

Weak sauce, dan. As always.

Because no matter what you call me, it doesn’t change what the koran says, what the jihadists say, and your inability to debate the facts.

[surveyor]

[quote=urbanrealtor]
Your specific comment was that “…not all muslims are interested in waging war, but they are required to do so.”

If my paraphrase was not to your liking then I think your direct quote will suffice in drawing out my point.[/quote]

Ah, but you missed a VERY important part of the quote. Allow me to illustrate:

[quote=surveyor]All muslims are required, per the koran, to wage war against the unbelievers. Luckily, not all muslims are interested in waging war, but they are required to do so per the koran (sic.).[/quote]

The previous statement established that according to the koran, it was required for muslims to wage war against unbelievers. By me stating they are required to do so, it is because it is stated in the koran. Many of the jihadists will tell you that is why they are going to war because they are required to per the koran, as I have “reported.”

[quote=urbanrealtor]This was a statement linking adherence to specific contemporary norms to a world religion in negative way.
Ergo, it constitutes normative prejudice about a group of people based upon religious affiliation.
That is, by definition, a bigoted statement.[/quote]

Oh, so if I talk about a religion in a negative way, I’m supposed to be a bigot? If I report on what jihadists say about their own koran or if I tell you what the koran says, I’m supposed to be a bigot? Nice try dan.

Because I even said not all muslims want to go to war, so there was a distinction between the individuals practicing the religion and the tenets of a religion being practiced by islamofacists.

[quote=urbanrealtor]I don’t think you can call me a name-caller (thus name-calling me) if I am drawing a logical conclusion based upon what you have said and the literal definition of bigotry (honestly you have called you a bigot).[/quote]

By trying to portray me as a bigot, you were attempting to stifle debate. That is why I called you a name-caller. The name-calling argument is generally a weak argument. Instead of debating the facts, you try to label your opponent negatively.

And this is your favorite tactic. Instead of debating the facts you throw out “bigot” or “fringe-author”. Your tendency to demonize any who disagree with you instead of debating the facts, that is what makes you a name-caller. That is not a personal attack, such as your calling me a bigot. That is your debating strategy.

[quote=urbanrealtor]For me it fits neatly and weirdly in with your statements about canonical history being wrong and here-is-a-fringe-author-who-says-so as “evidence”.

Just several centuries of liberal media I guess.[/quote]

See? Right there, you’re using the name-calling argument again. Instead of debating the facts, you’re arguing that because a “fringe-author” submitted evidence, you’re instantly dismissing him instead of debating the evidence itself.

Weak sauce, dan. As always.

Because no matter what you call me, it doesn’t change what the koran says, what the jihadists say, and your inability to debate the facts.

[surveyor]

[quote=urbanrealtor]
Your specific comment was that “…not all muslims are interested in waging war, but they are required to do so.”

If my paraphrase was not to your liking then I think your direct quote will suffice in drawing out my point.[/quote]

Ah, but you missed a VERY important part of the quote. Allow me to illustrate:

[quote=surveyor]All muslims are required, per the koran, to wage war against the unbelievers. Luckily, not all muslims are interested in waging war, but they are required to do so per the koran (sic.).[/quote]

The previous statement established that according to the koran, it was required for muslims to wage war against unbelievers. By me stating they are required to do so, it is because it is stated in the koran. Many of the jihadists will tell you that is why they are going to war because they are required to per the koran, as I have “reported.”

[quote=urbanrealtor]This was a statement linking adherence to specific contemporary norms to a world religion in negative way.
Ergo, it constitutes normative prejudice about a group of people based upon religious affiliation.
That is, by definition, a bigoted statement.[/quote]

Oh, so if I talk about a religion in a negative way, I’m supposed to be a bigot? If I report on what jihadists say about their own koran or if I tell you what the koran says, I’m supposed to be a bigot? Nice try dan.

Because I even said not all muslims want to go to war, so there was a distinction between the individuals practicing the religion and the tenets of a religion being practiced by islamofacists.

[quote=urbanrealtor]I don’t think you can call me a name-caller (thus name-calling me) if I am drawing a logical conclusion based upon what you have said and the literal definition of bigotry (honestly you have called you a bigot).[/quote]

By trying to portray me as a bigot, you were attempting to stifle debate. That is why I called you a name-caller. The name-calling argument is generally a weak argument. Instead of debating the facts, you try to label your opponent negatively.

And this is your favorite tactic. Instead of debating the facts you throw out “bigot” or “fringe-author”. Your tendency to demonize any who disagree with you instead of debating the facts, that is what makes you a name-caller. That is not a personal attack, such as your calling me a bigot. That is your debating strategy.

[quote=urbanrealtor]For me it fits neatly and weirdly in with your statements about canonical history being wrong and here-is-a-fringe-author-who-says-so as “evidence”.

Just several centuries of liberal media I guess.[/quote]

See? Right there, you’re using the name-calling argument again. Instead of debating the facts, you’re arguing that because a “fringe-author” submitted evidence, you’re instantly dismissing him instead of debating the evidence itself.

Weak sauce, dan. As always.

Because no matter what you call me, it doesn’t change what the koran says, what the jihadists say, and your inability to debate the facts.

[surveyor]

/
—
/
—
/
—
/
—
/
—
/
—
/
—

some tin foil hats for you, Arraya.

[surveyor]

/
—
/
—
/
—
/
—
/
—
/
—
/
—

some tin foil hats for you, Arraya.

[surveyor]

/
—
/
—
/
—
/
—
/
—
/
—
/
—

some tin foil hats for you, Arraya.

[surveyor]

/
—
/
—
/
—
/
—
/
—
/
—
/
—

some tin foil hats for you, Arraya.

[surveyor]

/
—
/
—
/
—
/
—
/
—
/
—
/
—

some tin foil hats for you, Arraya.

[surveyor]

Russell:

In your case, yes, it would be correct that it would not be the fault of the bible. However, what if the bible said “you must kill the abortion doctors.” Would it be okay to blame the bible then? Maybe not in a single instance. How about if it was done a 100 times? 1000? How about 2,980? Could we perhaps blame the bible then?

However, we do know that there is no such phrase in the bible.

How about the koran?

Yes it does say kill the unbelievers.

Qur’an (2:191-193) And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]…and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah.

Qur’an (2:216) – “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.”

All major sects of Islam teach and agree with these phrases. And this is what is taught in many mosques.

So is it ok now to say that the core teachings of islamic are “fundamental” to the creation of a jihadist?

If the jihadists say that they are commanded to fight unbelievers because the koran says so, is it ok then to say that they are basing their beliefs on the koran?

I mean, don’t take my word for it. They can tell you.

[quote=Russell]If anything is to blame for the Jihad I don’t think it is a book.

Getting back to the proponents of Jihad, if you think these same people would quit fighting under the current circumstances because of a new and abridged, Surveyor approved Koran, that doesn’t make sense.You act like they have no reason to fight the U.S.[/quote]

No, I don’t think they’d quit fighting altogether, but it would certainly cut off a major portion of their recruiting angle.

Still, don’t you think we should consider the religion being a probable cause of the behavior of the jihadist instead of immediately dismissing it like you just did here? Because remember, that’s what Hasan’s superiors did. And 14 people are dead because of it.

I’m just saying.

[Author]

Posts