RevolutionMuslim.com...and evolution

ps..."ammo acids"...wow...

[25:3] “Yet they have taken besides Him other aleehaah (gods) who created nothing but are themselves created, and possess neither harm nor benefit for themselves; and possess no power (of causing) death, nor (of giving) life, nor of raising the dead.”

Just another terrorist group, I suppose.

Dale Husband said: Just another terrorist group, I suppose.

It's not just evolution - astronomy is also wrong, according to the Koran. The earth is flat (15:19); the sky is a roof(21:32); the sun is in orbit around the earth (21:33 and 36:40).

God created man from clay (6:1, 15:26, 23:12) - or from water (21:30, 25:54) - or from dust (3:59, 30:20, 35:11) - or from the earth (11:61) - or from wet earth from a germ (16:4), from nothing (19:67), from a drop of ejaculated semen (75:37), from gushing fluid (86:5), from a little germ (80:18), from clots of blood (96:1), from dust and germ (18:37), dust, germ, then clot of blood (22:5), (40:67). (per http://home.vicnet.net.au/~atheist/MuslimRejectionOfDarwin.htm) Those conflicting versions cannot all be correct.

It's easy to pick on Muslims, but what we see here is the impact of intolerance and bigoted fundamentalism. It doesn't matter whether the "official" ideology behind it is a twisted version of Islam, Christianity, some other religion, communism, ethnic supremecism, whatever. It always has the same impact. The dogmatic, authoritarian mind has narcissistic characteristics - delusions of grandeur but brittle insecurity at the same time. Criticism - including the implied "criticism" of just living another way - provokes rage and violence.

Paul Burnett -

FYI, I am no theologian of any sort and would not last a day in a seminary. However, my understanding is that Islam has a way of dealing with contradictions in the Koran. Supposedly, if there is a contradiction, whatever was written later is the correct stance. Of course, all reasonable people, whether religious or not, agree that the Bible and Koran cannot be interpreted literally.

One cannot understand the Muslim response to public criticism of Muhammed, nor their support of Creationsim, without undestanding two things about Islam.

1) The Koran is the literal word of god, even the quotes of Muhammed's. Absolutely. There is no questioning of the Koran. Death is the prescribed reaction to such blasphemy, at home and now abraod.

2) There is no freedom of speech in Muslim countries. There is no separation of church and state in Muslim countries. There are virtually no Muslim countries with any separtion, Turkey, Jordan a Egypt come to mind.

It is perfectly consistent with the disregard for free speech and the belief in the absolute truth of the Koran, that questioning, much criticism, much makin gfun of Muhammed would be severely responded to.

It is perfectly consistent with the absolute authority of, and literal interpretation of, the Koran, that the same bad Evolution/Creationist arguements find favor with Muslims. A pew study of this is most unlikely to be tolerated in a Muslim country.

This is not the workings of a fringe group, as would be hoped.

Bernard Kirzner MD -

Your claims about to an accurate description of fundamentalism/dogmatism, coupled with a completely false insinuation that all Muslims are fundamentalist, and also possibly an insinuation that dogmatism/fundamentalism is unique to Islam.

Some bigots are more sophisticated than other bigots.

The repulsive output of "revolutionmuslim" is unsophisticated bigotry.

Intensely obnoxious acts of terrorism by Muslims have been in the news a great deal for the last thirty-five or forty years. All of these acts are repugnant to anyone who values human life. Many of them are completely unrelated to religion and more or less purely "political" in motivation. Yet even if we count them all and add them all up, the toll of suffering pales compared to that inflicted by Nazis, Stalinists, Maoists, the Inquisition, and numerous other incidents of ideology-driven violence in human history.

Authoritarian dogma is authoritarian dogma, hatred is hatred, disrespect for the humanity of others is disrespect for the humanity of others. It is all the same thing.

The actions of Islamic terrorists in no way whatsoever justify any ill-treatment or stereotyping of other people who happen to be of Muslim heritage.

By that way, in my reply to Dr Bernard Kirzner there is a typo; it should read "amount to" rather than "about to".

Sorry harold, but Dr. Bernard Kirzner's analysis is not just succinct, but also a valid description as to what millions of Muslims, especially those "inspired" by Salafi Sunni Muslim extremists, accept. Do not think for an instance that I am a Muslim bigot, because I have Muslim friends and respect their religious views (But they also tend to be more secularized, than for example, a Palestinian cousin-in-law I met once. Her husband, a younger first cousin, is someone I have mentioned here in the past, and all I will say of him is that he has very "moderate" friends who have advocated the extinction of the "Zionist entity" (Israel) and other statements that are closer in substance and tone to Muslim Revolution's than what they might be willing to admit.).

John Kwok said: Sorry harold, but Dr. Bernard Kirzner's analysis is not just succinct, but also a valid description as to what millions of Muslims, especially those "inspired" by Salafi Sunni Muslim extremists, accept. Do not think for an instance that I am a Muslim bigot, because I have Muslim friends and respect their religious views (But they also tend to be more secularized, than for example, a Palestinian cousin-in-law I met once. Her husband, a younger first cousin, is someone I have mentioned here in the past, and all I will say of him is that he has very "moderate" friends who have advocated the extinction of the "Zionist entity" (Israel) and other statements that are closer in substance and tone to Muslim Revolution's than what they might be willing to admit.).

Stanton said:

John Kwok said: Sorry harold, but Dr. Bernard Kirzner's analysis is not just succinct, but also a valid description as to what millions of Muslims, especially those "inspired" by Salafi Sunni Muslim extremists, accept. Do not think for an instance that I am a Muslim bigot, because I have Muslim friends and respect their religious views (But they also tend to be more secularized, than for example, a Palestinian cousin-in-law I met once. Her husband, a younger first cousin, is someone I have mentioned here in the past, and all I will say of him is that he has very "moderate" friends who have advocated the extinction of the "Zionist entity" (Israel) and other statements that are closer in substance and tone to Muslim Revolution's than what they might be willing to admit.).

Well, it would help if moderate Muslims were much more aggressive and more flamboyant in combating the bigots, and the tyrants, and the terrorists and the murderers who have hijacked Islam.

Stanton said: Well, it would help if moderate Muslims were much more aggressive and more flamboyant in combating the bigots, and the tyrants, and the terrorists and the murderers who have hijacked Islam.

RWard said:

Stanton said: Well, it would help if moderate Muslims were much more aggressive and more flamboyant in combating the bigots, and the tyrants, and the terrorists and the murderers who have hijacked Islam.

Just as it would help for moderate and progressive Christians to more aggressively repudiate the silliness of their fundamentalist brethren.

RWard said:

Stanton said: Well, it would help if moderate Muslims were much more aggressive and more flamboyant in combating the bigots, and the tyrants, and the terrorists and the murderers who have hijacked Islam.

Just as it would help for moderate and progressive Christians to more aggressively repudiate the silliness of their fundamentalist brethren.

Sorry harold, but Dr. Bernard Kirzner’s analysis is not just succinct, but also a valid description as to what millions of Muslims, especially those “inspired” by Salafi Sunni Muslim extremists, accept.

Do not think for an instance that I am a Muslim bigot, because I have Muslim friends and respect their religious views (But they also tend to be more secularized, than for example, a Palestinian cousin-in-law I met once. Her husband, a younger first cousin, is someone I have mentioned here in the past, and all I will say of him is that he has very “moderate” friends who have advocated the extinction of the “Zionist entity” (Israel) and other statements that are closer in substance and tone to Muslim Revolution’s than what they might be willing to admit.).

Well, it would help if moderate Muslims were much more aggressive and more flamboyant in combating the bigots, and the tyrants, and the terrorists and the murderers who have hijacked Islam.

At least most fundamentalist Christians aren’t interested in committing acts of terror, ritual killing of wives, and other acts which we, as civilized 21st Century members of Western Civilization would find as quite abhorent.

harold said: John Kwok -

At least most fundamentalist Christians aren’t interested in committing acts of terror, ritual killing of wives, and other acts which we, as civilized 21st Century members of Western Civilization would find as quite abhorent.

You're kidding, right?

John Kwok and others:

I see Middle Eastern Islam as being stuck in the kind of mentality that European Christianity was in 1000 years ago. The actions of the Church back then (Crusades, witch hunts, supporting absolute monarchies, anti-Semitism, oppression of women) seem to be strikingly simular to what Islam is doing today.

Today, we are free to slam the Catholic Church for harboring child molesters among its clergy. I wonder how much child abuse was going on with it in the Middle Ages. One may also wonder how much child abuse occurs in Islam. After all, we do have cases of child MARRIAGE, including girls as young as ten or eleven being forced to marry much older men. And that's what has been reported.

Dale Husband said: John Kwok and others: I see Middle Eastern Islam as being stuck in the kind of mentality that European Christianity was in 1000 years ago. The actions of the Church back then (Crusades, witch hunts, supporting absolute monarchies, anti-Semitism, oppression of women) seem to be strikingly simular to what Islam is doing today. Today, we are free to slam the Catholic Church for harboring child molesters among its clergy. I wonder how much child abuse was going on with it in the Middle Ages. One may also wonder how much child abuse occurs in Islam. After all, we do have cases of child MARRIAGE, including girls as young as ten or eleven being forced to marry much older men. And that's what has been reported.

I see Middle Eastern Islam as being stuck in the kind of mentality that European Christianity was in 1000 years ago.

The actions of the Church back then (Crusades, witch hunts, supporting absolute monarchies, anti-Semitism, oppression of women)

seem to be strikingly simular to what Islam is doing today.

Today, we are free to slam the Catholic Church for harboring child molesters among its clergy.

I wonder how much child abuse was going on with it in the Middle Ages.

One may also wonder how much child abuse occurs in Islam. After all, we do have cases of child MARRIAGE, including girls as young as ten or eleven being forced to marry much older men. And that’s what has been reported.

All of a sudden last week a group called “Revolution Muslim” threatened violence against Comedy Central if they aired an image of Muhammad which forced Comedy Central to censor the show and now you have even liberals talking about those “radical Muslims” and their threats of violence. Karl Rove couldn’t have done it any better. Problem is, Revolution Muslim was started and run by a “converted” Israeli settler who studied at an orthodox rabbinical school in Israel before becoming a settler in the occupied territories. You can count on “Revolution Muslim” to say the wrong thing at the right moment to get Americans to hate all those “radical” Muslims. But the only thing is… “Revolution Muslim” (his creative fake “Scary American Terrorist” website) was started and ran by a man named Yousef al-Khattab. Yousef al-Khattab was born Joseph Cohen, in Brooklyn, New York. He was jewish. But not just jewish, he was a settler who went to Palestine to live on the illegal Israeli settlements. Joseph Cohen isn’t alone though. There is another “radical Muslim” convert from Judaism (the original fake “scary American Terrorist“) who makes sure that “radical” Muslims are hated in America, his name is Adam Pearlman and he went by the “radicalized” Muslim name “Adam Gadahn“. Adam Pearlman is actually the grandson of a member of the board of directors of the Anti-Defamation League (at least he was on the board… Dr. Carl Pearlman died in 1998).

Creationism among muslims has very little to do with fundamentalist vs. moderate, educated vs. illiterate, or any of the other issues that may be involved in the propensity for creationism in other religions. A secular beer-drinking physician in America is only marginally more likely to accept evolution than some functionally illiterate jihadi living in the mountains of Pakistan. It is because muslims are taught from the cradle that the Qur'an is unquestionably true in every regard, and if anyone or anything disagrees it is because they, not the Qur'an, are wrong. This makes it very difficult for otherwise reasonable, intelligent people to even begin to consider that evolution could be factual.

This is not to say that all muslims are creationists, but even among those that accept evolution in principle the belief in the special creation of humans is almost universal.

I, myself, had a neighbor who was working on his Ph.D. in Maths. He was very smart and kind, and we visited often with one another. While talking we occasionally debated about evolution, but no amount of explanation or fact could get him to entertain even the possibility that I was correct because the Qur'an says otherwise.

That, really, is the crux of the problem. Until someone finds a way to re-interpret the Qur'an to agree with evolution, as has been done with other branches of science, it is unlikely there will ever be widespread acceptance of its factuality among muslims of any stripe.

harold said:

The actions of the Church back then (Crusades, witch hunts, supporting absolute monarchies, anti-Semitism, oppression of women)

Witch hunts were exceptionally rare before the fifteenth century, and from a pragmatic point of view, absolute monarchies were not very common between the collapse of the Carolignian empire and the sixteenth century. However, your point is basically correct. You conveniently forgot to mention that Islam was much LESS associated with this type of thing one thousand years ago.

David Fickett-Wilbar said: Moderate Muslims say privately and individually that their religion is being hijacked by the extremists, but aren't doing so as large groups. How are non-Muslims to believe that all Muslims, or even the majority of them, are not extremists unless this is done?

David Fickett-Wilbar said:

harold said:

The actions of the Church back then (Crusades, witch hunts, supporting absolute monarchies, anti-Semitism, oppression of women)

Witch hunts were exceptionally rare before the fifteenth century, and from a pragmatic point of view, absolute monarchies were not very common between the collapse of the Carolignian empire and the sixteenth century. However, your point is basically correct. You conveniently forgot to mention that Islam was much LESS associated with this type of thing one thousand years ago.

Four things that concern me about Islam: 1. Like it or not, the Qur'an does encourage jihad. It might be interpreted in a non-violent way, but it can also be a menu for very violent action. 2. Moderate Muslims say privately and individually that their religion is being hijacked by the extremists, but aren't doing so as large groups. How are non-Muslims to believe that all Muslims, or even the majority of them, are not extremists unless this is done? 3. Islam is theocratic. We see this in most Muslim countries, and in Europe, especially Britain, where Muslims want to be able to have their own law courts. Until Islam undergoes (re-undergoes, actually) its own version of the Englightenment, and realizes that separation of mosque and state is a good thing, it will remain a threat to democratic states. 4. Related to the last one, there are certain things about Islam, as it is practiced in many countries, that I believe violate fundamental human rights. Child marriage is one, and female genital mutilation is another. Yes, I understand that some of these are more cultural than based on Islam, but Islam is used to justify them, just as the bible was used to justify slavery. Again, until groups of Muslims speak out against these practices I will be suspicious of their intentions to live as members of modern society. I am myself a member of a minority religion, and hate the idea of any sort of prejudice against a religion. I have to consider the fact, however, that in most countries in which Muslims are the majority they have little or no respect for minority religions, even imposing the death sentence for converting from Islam to one of them. Islam as it is currently practiced has some serious flaws.

There are no Christian churches in Saudi Arabia - none whatsoever. Until Islam has its Enlightenment, and there are proportionately as many non-Islamic centers of worship in Islamic countries as there are Islamic centers of worship in non-Islamic countries, the United Nations and other organizations should condemn those Islamic countries for religious discrimination. See http://www.pewsitter.com/view_news_id_7306.php

Paul Burnett said: There are no Christian churches in Saudi Arabia - none whatsoever. Until Islam has its Enlightenment, and there are proportionately as many non-Islamic centers of worship in Islamic countries as there are Islamic centers of worship in non-Islamic countries, the United Nations and other organizations should condemn those Islamic countries for religious discrimination. See http://www.pewsitter.com/view_news_id_7306.php

Stanton said:

Paul Burnett said: There are no Christian churches in Saudi Arabia - none whatsoever. Until Islam has its Enlightenment, and there are proportionately as many non-Islamic centers of worship in Islamic countries as there are Islamic centers of worship in non-Islamic countries, the United Nations and other organizations should condemn those Islamic countries for religious discrimination. See http://www.pewsitter.com/view_news_id_7306.php

Actually the Muslim World had at least two Enlightenments, but both were nipped in the bud by infighting, the Mongols under Genghis Khan, and the Spanish.

harold said: "...even if we make the highly suspect claim the Muslims are statistically more likely to commit ideology-driven violence, the vast majority of the world’s over a billion Muslims are in no way involved with this and should not be unfairly judged or mistreated. "

Gingerbaker said:

harold said: "...even if we make the highly suspect claim the Muslims are statistically more likely to commit ideology-driven violence, the vast majority of the world’s over a billion Muslims are in no way involved with this and should not be unfairly judged or mistreated. "

The Pew Group has published, as far as I know, the only data on this subject. Their polling data used at least several hundred one-on-one interviews. The answer to the question (from memory): "Is suicide bombing in defense of Islam justified?" was answered in the affirmative by a shockingly high minority and even occasional majority of all respondents in some countries. 80% of young Muslim men in their twenties in many parts of the world answer that question in the affirmative. One can not, it appears, simply extrapolate one's best guess about Christian radical fundamentalism and apply it Islam. Islam has a *much* larger percentage of radical/fundamentalist/violent elements than does Christianity.

All right, back to the creationism. These guys Revolution Muslim, whether or not they are real Muslims, are using creationist arguments copied from Harun Yahya, aka Adnan Oktar. He is a cult leader in Turkey, and one of the most widely published and translated authors in the Islamic world. I published a long post describing the infinitely weird story of Harun Yahya and American creationists. A few facts about Harun Yahya:

* His cult practices sex slavery of female members, according to the Turkish prosecutor's indictment against him, his female followers are forced to have sex with rich young college students, which is videotaped for blackmail purposes. Also, apparently they do loads of coke.

* Yahya/Oktar copied his creationism from the Institute for Creation Research, yeah Henry Morris' old outfit. The ICR held joint conferences with Yahya/Oktar's "scientific" organization, the BAV, in Turkey in the 1990's.

* Prior to the ICR/BAV joint conferences, Yahya/Oktar's books promoted intense anti-Semitic hatred and conspiracy theories about Jews and Freemasons.

* The ICR now denies having ever worked with Yahya/Oktar, although the latter has published lots of photos of them holding joint conferences in front of huge Turkish audiences.

* As most of you are probably aware already, Yahya/Oktar published and gave away for free the huge, hilariously error-filled creationist book Atlas of Creation, sent to professors around the world, including Dawkins, Ken Miller, etc.

And on and on, lots of weird stuff in that story. Infinite layers of irony and hypocrisy from all sides.

My blog post about all this, with detailed references, is called Creationists Gone Wild! Sex Slavery and Cocaine Cult Leads Fight Against Darwin!

Unlike some posters above, I do think that American creationists like the ICR are partly responsible for creating this monster. At my blog I analyze their interactions with, and influence on, Harun Yahya.

Gingerbaker said: The Pew Group ['s]... polling data used at least several hundred one-on-one interviews. The answer to the question (from memory): "Is suicide bombing in defense of Islam justified?" ... 80% of young Muslim men in their twenties in many parts of the world answer that question in the affirmative.

Pierce R. Butler said:

Gingerbaker said: The Pew Group ['s]... polling data used at least several hundred one-on-one interviews. The answer to the question (from memory): "Is suicide bombing in defense of Islam justified?" ... 80% of young Muslim men in their twenties in many parts of the world answer that question in the affirmative.

Imagine that the United States, Britain, and some other major "1st world" nations were brutally invaded and illegally occupied by a merciless coalition of [fill in the blank] resource thieves who laughed as they tortured and massacred, year after year - and that the only way to fight back was through suicide missions. How many American men in their twenties would approve of such resistance? Or even those in (hypothetically unoccupied) Canada? Anyone who thinks this is strictly a matter of religion has their head up their ass in a Mobius loop.

Diogenes said: [Harun Yahya's]cult practices sex slavery of female members, according to the Turkish prosecutor's indictment against him, his female followers are forced to have sex with rich young college students, which is videotaped for blackmail purposes. Also, apparently they do loads of coke.

Imagine that the United States, Britain, and some other major “1st world” nations were brutally invaded and illegally occupied by a merciless coalition of [fill in the blank] resource thieves who laughed as they tortured and massacred, year after year - and that the only way to fight back was through suicide missions.

Dave Luckett said: Pierce R Butler's

... merciless coalition of ... resource thieves who laughed as they tortured and massacred, ...

is, I think, meant to refer to the current presence of US and other western troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to classic imperialism.

And diplomatic utterance is plainly among your greatest virtues, Mr Butler, going on your discourse so far. It would be a great pity if you had to lower your standards. Please, don't feel constrained to do so.

Pierce R. Butler said:

Dave Luckett said: Pierce R Butler's

... merciless coalition of ... resource thieves who laughed as they tortured and massacred, ...

is, I think, meant to refer to the current presence of US and other western troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to classic imperialism.

Thank you! Without this comment, I'd've had to have said something undiplomatic about the acute clue drought around here.

John Kwok and Gingerbaker -

Backing down from the implied claim that ideological violence and inhumanity are unique to and universal among Muslims, you now take the predictable next step of claiming that Muslims are simply "more likely" to be associated with such things. You also continue to insinuate that I am denying Muslim violence.

That may or may not be true, depending on what and when we measure. However, it is logically irrelevant with respect to the points I made.

My primary point is that individuals who happen to Muslim who do not display these behaviors should not be discriminated against on the basis of the bad deeds of others, any more than the overwhelming majority of Basques should not be discriminated against because some Basques are vicious terrorists.

A secondary point I have tried to make is that vicious, obnoxious, hateful ideology-driven violence is equally bad whether done by Muslims or Christians. When "white Christians" blow up a day care center with a fertilizer bomb, drill a bullet through the skull of a physician, or advocate assassination of the present or violent coup d'etat in the US, they are just as bad as anyone else. A fertilizer bomb does not know whether a Muslim or Christian detonated it, and the parents are unlikely to care.

For full disclosure, it is by no means a tolerance for vicious behavior by Muslims but disgust at this sort of behavior by ANYONE that is causing me to keep making this point. The suggestion that terrorism "counts more" when it is done by a Muslim lets others off the hook.

Thanks to both of you for the kind words, and even more so for grasping my point so comprehensively.

All we have to do now is order Maliki & Karzai to institute mandatory education in evolutionary biology, and the problem addressed here will evaporate, right?

Pierce R. Butler said: All we have to do now is order Maliki & Karzai to institute mandatory education in evolutionary biology, and the problem addressed here will evaporate, right?

harold said: John Kwok and Gingerbaker - Backing down from the implied claim that ideological violence and inhumanity are unique to and universal among Muslims, you now take the predictable next step of claiming that Muslims are simply "more likely" to be associated with such things. You also continue to insinuate that I am denying Muslim violence. That may or may not be true, depending on what and when we measure. However, it is logically irrelevant with respect to the points I made. My primary point is that individuals who happen to Muslim who do not display these behaviors should not be discriminated against on the basis of the bad deeds of others, any more than the overwhelming majority of Basques should not be discriminated against because some Basques are vicious terrorists. A secondary point I have tried to make is that vicious, obnoxious, hateful ideology-driven violence is equally bad whether done by Muslims or Christians. When "white Christians" blow up a day care center with a fertilizer bomb, drill a bullet through the skull of a physician, or advocate assassination of the present or violent coup d'etat in the US, they are just as bad as anyone else. A fertilizer bomb does not know whether a Muslim or Christian detonated it, and the parents are unlikely to care.

harold said: For full disclosure, it is by no means a tolerance for vicious behavior by Muslims but disgust at this sort of behavior by ANYONE that is causing me to keep making this point. The suggestion that terrorism "counts more" when it is done by a Muslim lets others off the hook.

John Kwok said: I wonder how many of us realize that it was the Tamil Tigers waging as an insurrection, a war of terror against the majority Sinhalese in Sri Lanka, who first used suicide bombing as a "tool" of terrorism. Don't have the appropriate references handy, but I have heard or read of this on numerous occasions.

John Kwok and Gingerbaker - Backing down from the implied claim that ideological violence and inhumanity are unique to and universal among Muslims...

...You also continue to insinuate that I am denying Muslim violence...

Gingerbaker said: harold said:

John Kwok and Gingerbaker - Backing down from the implied claim that ideological violence and inhumanity are unique to and universal among Muslims...

I made no such claim, implied or otherwise. You are way off base here.

...You also continue to insinuate that I am denying Muslim violence...

You really have jumped the shark. I said or implied no such thing. My only beef is with folks who extrapolate their sensibilities of the preponderance of Christian radicalism to that of Muslims, when the data available belies such an assumption.

Gingerbaker -

I don't think there is much disagreement on this thread, ultimately, and didn't mean to misrepresent your views.

Dave Luckett said:

Pierce R. Butler said: All we have to do now is order Maliki & Karzai to institute mandatory education in evolutionary biology, and the problem addressed here will evaporate, right?

That rather depends on what "the problem addressed here" is. Perhaps if you were to define it, a solution would suggest itself.

Pierce R. Butler said:

Gingerbaker said: The Pew Group ['s]... polling data used at least several hundred one-on-one interviews. The answer to the question (from memory): "Is suicide bombing in defense of Islam justified?" ... 80% of young Muslim men in their twenties in many parts of the world answer that question in the affirmative.

Imagine that the United States, Britain, and some other major "1st world" nations were brutally invaded and illegally occupied by a merciless coalition of [fill in the blank] resource thieves who laughed as they tortured and massacred, year after year - and that the only way to fight back was through suicide missions. How many American men in their twenties would approve of such resistance? Or even those in (hypothetically unoccupied) Canada? Anyone who thinks this is strictly a matter of religion has their head up their ass in a Mobius loop.

Stuart Weinstein said:

Pierce R. Butler said:

Gingerbaker said: The Pew Group ['s]... polling data used at least several hundred one-on-one interviews. The answer to the question (from memory): "Is suicide bombing in defense of Islam justified?" ... 80% of young Muslim men in their twenties in many parts of the world answer that question in the affirmative.

Imagine that the United States, Britain, and some other major "1st world" nations were brutally invaded and illegally occupied by a merciless coalition of [fill in the blank] resource thieves who laughed as they tortured and massacred, year after year - and that the only way to fight back was through suicide missions. How many American men in their twenties would approve of such resistance? Or even those in (hypothetically unoccupied) Canada? Anyone who thinks this is strictly a matter of religion has their head up their ass in a Mobius loop.

You mean like when Kuwait was liberated, Serbia bombed into submission for the benefit of Muslim Kosovars and arming Afghan rebels against the Soviets? Typical uber-left silliness. And we all know that Muslims haven't invaded anybody. The West is bad, bad, bad. Sorry, it is mostly a matter of religion. But the multi-culturalists can't bare to think that.

John Kwok said: I concluded a long time ago that it is a matter of religion, and there is nothing that I have heard or read from my "notable" Muslim-American relative that would convince me otherwise, especially when, as a West Point alumnus, he seems all to ready to parrot the nonsense emanating from his CAIR friends, instead of supporting his former friends and colleagues fighting Muslim terrorists:

Stuart Weinstein said:

Pierce R. Butler said:

Gingerbaker said: The Pew Group ['s]... polling data used at least several hundred one-on-one interviews. The answer to the question (from memory): "Is suicide bombing in defense of Islam justified?" ... 80% of young Muslim men in their twenties in many parts of the world answer that question in the affirmative.

Imagine that the United States, Britain, and some other major "1st world" nations were brutally invaded and illegally occupied by a merciless coalition of [fill in the blank] resource thieves who laughed as they tortured and massacred, year after year - and that the only way to fight back was through suicide missions. How many American men in their twenties would approve of such resistance? Or even those in (hypothetically unoccupied) Canada? Anyone who thinks this is strictly a matter of religion has their head up their ass in a Mobius loop.

You mean like when Kuwait was liberated, Serbia bombed into submission for the benefit of Muslim Kosovars and arming Afghan rebels against the Soviets? Typical uber-left silliness. And we all know that Muslims haven't invaded anybody. The West is bad, bad, bad. Sorry, it is mostly a matter of religion. But the multi-culturalists can't bare to think that.

Apparently the Taliban would find ample justification for doing just that in the Qur'an, while also trying to pin the blame on the evil Christian Western imperialists too:

"Well you know the Taliban is blowing up schools cuz they don't want women educated. But that you see, has nothing to do with religion. Its because the West is bad, bad, bad."

stuart Weinstein -

I don't want to argue about this anymore, but religion does not appear out of a vacuum. Religious ideas and practices both influence and are influenced by the world around them.

The "fundamentalist Christianity" of the US today is at least partly a political construction. It bears little resemblance to actual traditional Christianity, except maybe late medieval Catholicism in the "indulgence" selling phase. It is a product of the post-civil-rights, post-"sexual revolution" era. With regard to the latter, it condemns superficially but actually functions to accommodate almost any indulgence by dues paying members. Islamic sects and ideas are similarly impacted by the broader social world.

I can't stand any Islamic fundamentalism, or any other kind of fundamentalism. But the idea that it popped into existence magically is incorrect.

harold said: stuart Weinstein - I don't want to argue about this anymore, but religion does not appear out of a vacuum. Religious ideas and practices both influence and are influenced by the world around them. The "fundamentalist Christianity" of the US today is at least partly a political construction. It bears little resemblance to actual traditional Christianity, except maybe late medieval Catholicism in the "indulgence" selling phase. It is a product of the post-civil-rights, post-"sexual revolution" era. With regard to the latter, it condemns superficially but actually functions to accommodate almost any indulgence by dues paying members. Islamic sects and ideas are similarly impacted by the broader social world. I can't stand any Islamic fundamentalism, or any other kind of fundamentalism. But the idea that it popped into existence magically is incorrect.

John Kwok -

Yes, but those earlier fundamentalist movements were also quite different in many ways.

But that's for another day.

My point is that people don't just wake up and decide "I'm going to arbitrarily choose a dysfunctional, violent, intolerant religious or ideological belief today". Individual predisposition interacts with environmental conditions.

Enlightened people are descended from, and not very different genetically from, recent ancestors who held views that seem shocking, inhumane, and irrational today. And unfortunately, sometimes vice versa. Hopefully the former trend will be stronger than the latter trend over time.

harold said: John Kwok - Yes, but those earlier fundamentalist movements were also quite different in many ways. But that's for another day. My point is that people don't just wake up and decide "I'm going to arbitrarily choose a dysfunctional, violent, intolerant religious or ideological belief today". Individual predisposition interacts with environmental conditions. Enlightened people are descended from, and not very different genetically from, recent ancestors who held views that seem shocking, inhumane, and irrational today. And unfortunately, sometimes vice versa. Hopefully the former trend will be stronger than the latter trend over time.

If someone slanders my imaginary friend Philip Worthingtonshire am I allowed to suicide bomb them?

Pierce R. Butler said: Imagine that the United States, Britain, and some other major "1st world" nations were brutally invaded and illegally occupied by a merciless coalition of [fill in the blank] resource thieves who laughed as they tortured and massacred, year after year - and that the only way to fight back was through suicide missions. How many American men in their twenties would approve of such resistance? Or even those in (hypothetically unoccupied) Canada? Anyone who thinks this is strictly a matter of religion has their head up their ass in a Mobius loop.

FWIW, the "five fundamentals" that (theoretically) for the basis for current Christian fundamentalism were originally adopted by the General Assembly of the PCUSA in 1910. The fundamentals are, in brief form: (1) scriptural inerrancy, (2) the virgin birth of Christ, (3) the necessity of atonement through Christ's death, (4) the bodily resurrection of Christ, and (5) the physical reality of the miracles ascribed to Christ. I doubt you'll find, in the present day, a Christian fundamentalist who disagrees with any of these points, regardless of any political superstructure that's been built on this foundation.

All of the polling that I have seen on Muslims shows that the ones who have immigrated to the US are pretty moderate. Probably more moderate than your average fundamentalist Christian. I suspect that there's a reason why they picked the US. The ones who were born here take a more extreme stance. Go figure. I wonder if it is an act of rebellion against their parents?

Muslims in the Middle East are a different story. Regarding the countries for which there is data, that data makes a pretty good argument against letting religion rule government. My personal opinion is that the religious right in this country would morph into something not unlike Muslim extremists were they allowed free reign over the laws of this country. I could see something like Sharia Law - Christian Edition - being implemented.

I wish I could see the views of places like Saudi and Iran broken down by age. I suspect that the younger Iranians would be pretty moderate and that the Saudis would be pretty extreme. Afghanistan would be interesting too.

Jesse said: All of the polling that I have seen on Muslims shows that the ones who have immigrated to the US are pretty moderate. Probably more moderate than your average fundamentalist Christian. I suspect that there's a reason why they picked the US. The ones who were born here take a more extreme stance. Go figure. I wonder if it is an act of rebellion against their parents? Muslims in the Middle East are a different story. Regarding the countries for which there is data, that data makes a pretty good argument against letting religion rule government. My personal opinion is that the religious right in this country would morph into something not unlike Muslim extremists were they allowed free reign over the laws of this country. I could see something like Sharia Law - Christian Edition - being implemented. I wish I could see the views of places like Saudi and Iran broken down by age. I suspect that the younger Iranians would be pretty moderate and that the Saudis would be pretty extreme. Afghanistan would be interesting too.

John Kwok said: Some of them have been radicalized enough to support Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, including some at CAIR, and some who claim to be devoted friends of my cousin, the West Point alumnus who was that US Army Muslim chaplain at Camp Gitmo:

Jesse said: All of the polling that I have seen on Muslims shows that the ones who have immigrated to the US are pretty moderate. Probably more moderate than your average fundamentalist Christian. I suspect that there's a reason why they picked the US. The ones who were born here take a more extreme stance. Go figure. I wonder if it is an act of rebellion against their parents? Muslims in the Middle East are a different story. Regarding the countries for which there is data, that data makes a pretty good argument against letting religion rule government. My personal opinion is that the religious right in this country would morph into something not unlike Muslim extremists were they allowed free reign over the laws of this country. I could see something like Sharia Law - Christian Edition - being implemented. I wish I could see the views of places like Saudi and Iran broken down by age. I suspect that the younger Iranians would be pretty moderate and that the Saudis would be pretty extreme. Afghanistan would be interesting too.

The Pew Report makes for some interesting reading.

Summary: http://muslimmedianetwork.com/mmn/?p=1035
Full report: http://tinyurl.com/23u9ja7

There you will find that: "Very few Muslim Americans – just 1% – say that suicide bombings against civilian targets are often justified to defend Islam; an additional 7% say suicide bombings are sometimes justified in these circumstances." And remember, this finding has no control group. If you were to ask a random sample of Americans if suicide bombing could ever be justified in defence of Christianity, I bet you'd find similar answers.

There has been misreporting that only 40% of American Muslims believe that Arabs were behind 9/11, implying they are in the minority. In fact, the full data shows 40% believe Arabs flew the planes, 28% do not believe Arabs flew the planes, and 32% did not offer an opinion. So, OF THOSE WHO OFFERED AN OPINION, a sizeable majority of 59% believe that Arabs were responsible for 9/11. Meanwhile, a 2006 Scripps survey (http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll) showed 36% of Americans thought it very or somewhat likely that federal officials either took part in or refused to stop 9/11. So 36% of Americans had similar views to 40% of American Muslims.

Also according to the Pew Report, in America, Muslims are MORE politically moderate than Christians. "About half of Muslim Americans (49%) say mosques should keep out of political matters, while 43% believe that mosques should express their views on social and political questions. In a Pew survey in 2006, 54% of Christians said churches and other houses of worship should express their political and social views, while 43% disagreed."

As for domestic terrorists in recent US history, there are some Muslims among them (e.g. the Beltway Sniper), but there's a whole grab bag of other ideologies including Army of God, the Black Liberation Army, the Jewish Defence League, the KKK, the Symbionese Liberation Army, the Earth Liberation Front, and so on.

This is not to deny the serious dangers posed by Islamic terrorism, but really, it's important to confine one's criticisms to actual terrorists and not to misstate the Pew Group's 2-year old phone survey in a way that casts suspicion on Muslims as a whole.

While I don't wish to be dismissive of your comments, Chris, the fact remains that those who have committed - or have tried to commmit - acts of terrorism here in the USA tend to be either Muslim aliens or Muslim - Americans. Regrettably yet another instance of that is in the breaking news category, with the seizure of a Pakistani - American (who finally obtained US citizenship last year) from Bridgeport, CT, aboard an outward bound airliner flight to Dubai from JFK airport. The suspect was apparently the one responsible for the attempted terror bombing in Times Square, here in New York City, this past weekend.

Chris

There are several Pew reports on these issues. Here is another:

http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?PageID=814

John Kwok said: While I don't wish to be dismissive of your comments, Chris, the fact remains that those who have committed - or have tried to commmit - acts of terrorism here in the USA tend to be either Muslim aliens or Muslim - Americans.

stevaroni said:

John Kwok said: While I don't wish to be dismissive of your comments, Chris, the fact remains that those who have committed - or have tried to commmit - acts of terrorism here in the USA tend to be either Muslim aliens or Muslim - Americans.

Yeah. I suppose. Except, of course, for the previous record holder, Timothy McVeigh. Except, of course, for the perpetrators of the two dozen or so murders and bombings tied to abortion clinics over the last decade. And (probably) the guy who sent the anthrax letters in 2002. And Eric Rudolph, who bombed the Atlanta Olympics. Or the tragedy/comedy of the Branch Dividians. The issue probably isn't Islam, per say, it's "crazy religious zealot". Sadly, too many "leaders" in the Muslim world find it convenient to whip up the masses in the name of God. Nothing is quite so useful, it seems, as an angry mob. Especially when it comes to distracting said mob from the fact that you aren't really doing much for them. But it should be noted that, while the politicians/religious leaders/self interested autocrats - and they are often one in the same - in the Middle East are especially adept at the game, they are by no means alone, as witnessed regularly by watching idiots like the "Church of God-Hates-Fags" protest military funerals.