General discussion of moderation procedures: The Sequel

Hi Percy:I'm writing in response to this comment of yours:"Second, your thread is coming across to others as a bit over the top. Please tone it down or the thread will get closed."Percy, if those comments are coming across as over the top, then that is not a reflection of the comments, but on the strong anti-American, anyi-iraq war bias of most posters here. As you will have noted I quoted reputable Muslims. If their opinions are not over the top, then, since theirs are largely in agreement with mine, neither are mine. Moreover, the opinions I express also reflect those of many very reputable non Muslim scholars, such as daniel pipes, a harvard historian, and Bernard Lewis, perhaps the most quoted islamic scholar of all. If the views of a harvard historian and bernard Lewis are considered too over the top for this site, surely that reflects more on the site than me. Which, of course, is not to say that people must agree with me, or irshad Manji, or Ijad, or Pipes or Lewis. But it is to say that there is something wrong when their views are not acceptable here.Relatedly, I have stated several times that the islamists consider democracy evil, and I explained why. I have been challenged to prove that. Thus, i quoted from one prime Islamist group's charter. Surely that is not wrong.Finally, the views expressed by the majority here would, probably, be considered over the top on sites with a conservative bias. Typically, though, they do not censor leftist views.Steve----------------------------------------------------Please do not reply to this post. If you have questions/issues about moderation, please take them to General discussion of moderation procedures: The Sequel.-- Percy
EvC Forum Director

I was referring to that action was being taken because others are finding my "opinions over the top."That you would then say: "If you don't like it here, leave," is an excellent example of the intolerance of the left. At conservative sites, leftists are welcome to post whatever they will, no matter how much the site and its majority posters disagree. That is tolerance; that is respect for free speech and the fundamentals of liberal demcoracy. To shut down those with whom you disagree is intolerance; it is disrespect for liberal democracy's fundamentals. It is an effort to control what is said and heard.Of course, one could express truly egregious hate. That I was not doing. In fact, i quoted well-respected, passionately democratic Muslims. That is, actually, quite an irony. The majority of Muslims who desire an isalmic democratic revolution tend to support the views of conservatives. For example, most of them support the war in iraq. One famous Isalmic author, Stephen Schwartz, has written many articles on this. In his book, The Two Faces of Islam, he writes at length about the ideological civil war within Islam, the one between the Islamism (Wahabbism) and tolerant, pluralistic Islam. So has Daniel pipes, whose famous dictum is: "Extremist Islam is the enemy' moderate Islam is the solution." I quoted mansoor Ijad, demanding that moderate Western Muslims confront the Islamists they've allowed to assume power, and that they bear responsibility for that. I quoted from hamas's Charter, backing up a contention i've been challenged to verify, that Isalmism considers democracy evil and that Isalmists intend for the world to be ruled according to koranic Law..as the global constitution. Yet, all these people, and the refrence to hamas's own words, are considered over the top. That doesn not condemn me, but the pervasive leftist slant, and the intolernace of teh left of views which challenge its own.needless to say, if my opinions - and by extension all those well-reputed Muslims and non Muslim islamic scholars - are to be censored, then, of course, i would leave. There'd be no point to staying.

That's a good suggestion.

Please tie any replies into the topic of this thread, moderation procedures. --AdminIt's ironic that you see things this way, given that I, unlike most conservatives, support anti-hate speech laws, such as those we have in canada.My various sources are these, not in any particular order:Pipes, Lewis, Manji, Schwartz, Ijar, Pharaes, Taheri, Spencer, various Islamist intellectuals, and a few others whose names elude me. Needless to say, they are not all in agreement with one another (I've read some brilliant debates between some). While i support all of them, I do not altogether. Aside from the Islamists themselves, what they all share in common is abject denunciation of the islamists, who are the real haters along with their passive supporters. If in revealing who they are, and the source of their hate, that constitutes hate as you see it, then, I would suggest, you are conflating uncomfortable truths with hate. In a nutshell, blaming the messenger.This message has been edited by Admin, 07-21-2005 08:28 AM

Please tie any replies into the topic of this thread, moderation procedures. --AdminI might have added to that last comment:many Muslims are debating the idea of a Reformation. So difficult is this, I've read a few prominent Muslims personally go back and forth on it. Obviously, this is based on whether they see that the Koran really is a call to imperialist war against the non islamic world, or even if a Reformation is necessary simply to prevent that possibility.This message has been edited by Admin, 07-21-2005 08:29 AM

The argument about context is one Islamists themselves refute. They say that Mohammed only dictated Allah's words, which are inerrant and mean exactly what they say. As Allah meant those words to be for all time, context is not a factor. Many scholars indicate that to the Islamists, Islam is as the Koran says, The House of Islam and the House of War. Essentially, as they read it, that means that those who accept Islam are living according to Allah's will and live in peace. Those who do not are challenging his word and have, therefore, declared war on him. They must, therefore, be conquered and subjugated to terminate this aggression. And thus, when one argues that the Sword Verses are about defense only, that is disingenuous.The bottom line is this: Millions of islamists see the faith thusly, and so it has been since the advent of the faith. Indeed, mohammed himself led countless battles and won a great deal of land. When one wins an expensive empire, the argument that it was in self defense is rather self-serving. However, not too long after his time, a great many Muslims have, on and off, taken a truly peaceful interpretation of the faith. And thus the faith has been at civil war with itself through most of its history.What I believe is this: The Sword Verses do, in fact, mean just what they say. However, good people inherently resist that, so emphasize the more peaceful and spiritual side of the faith, and choose to deny the true meaning of the Sword Verses. As a demcoratic revolution sweeps Islam, as it will, almost all the Islamic world will go into collective denial as to the Sword Verses forever. But a small, disaffected and very angry minority will, for some time, do all it can to derail this islamic revolution. Indeed, look at what is happening in Iraq. The vast majority wants democracy. But Islamists, mainly foreigners, are with religious fervor and rectitude, psychopathically mass murdering, citing the Sword Verses. They will eventually be vanquished. But the Islamic world will, nonetheless, have to deal with such people for a while and, perhaps, periodically thereafter.And this is where the argument for a reformation comes into play. If the Sword Verses were edited - not removed, which the faith does not permit - so as to reflect spiritual Jihad only, then, maybe, potential grief can be minimized. I am not a lone voice on this. Indeed, everything I say has both Muslim and non muslim scholars' support. I am merely reflecting their arguments. Of course, there are those scholars and writers who disgaree. I've witnessed at least two who have changed their minds, or, at least, see the need to revisit their original objections to the idea of a reforamtion. Hence, why there is a debate.I didn't see Holmes' argument. But the key is that the islamists follow the versions i cite, and there are a great many more translations that say the same. Even many peaceful Muslims do not dispute those translations. It is the interpretation that is the real issue.

I suppose this is the wrong forum to carry on this debate. So, one last word here, and I'll save any more comments for a suitable place.I have said, repeatedly, that i believe the majority of Muslims are peaceful. I have said, repeatedly, that I believe the islamic world is heading for a democractic revolution - which I say as a compliment. I have commented with great admiration on the incredible will of the iraqi people as they defy the islamists every effort to derail the democracy they're building. I have mentioned my son's best friend being a muslim (til they moved to florida) and my daughter's wonderful muslim day home.If you go back and re-read all i've written, you will see that that is so. It appears that the very thought of something problematic with a side to Islam (Sword Verses and Sharia Law - something many Muslims also believe), which leads to a minority - MINORITY - of followers practising Islamism (can you possibly deny this?), is what exercises all this serious misrepresentation of my words.The Islamists are real. They are a global movement. They number in the millions (although still a minority amongst over 1 billion). They have nation states and are powerful 5th columns in others. They maintain cells in the west. They believe in the Sword Verses and Sharia Law as written. This is all fact. It is also fact the many muslims are conflicted about these people and this movement. And it is fact that only now, after London, are many western muslims saying the time has come to confront and defeat these people and their movement. And there is a great deal of commentary on all this by Muslim and non Muslim scholars that I have been following with interest. I am the messenger of these facts and this debate, and have expressed some opinion. If that offends, so be it. The consequences of the outcome is simply too dramatic for PC to rule. Even one prominent Muslim writer, Mansoor Ijad, made the comment that westerners have been stupidly PC about this matter, and have, unwittingly, thereby allowed Islamist movements to fester. Is he a racist? No, he's a profound democrat, and a peaceful Muslim. He sees his faith under attack from the isalmists, and westerners carrying some being tolerant to the point of being naive, blind, and even suicidal. truth is truth is truth. disagree if you will, but if you see me as ill-intentioned, as racist, as a liar, then it is your sensibilities that is the issue.

I recognized that that was becoming the case, thus I wrote:"I suppose this is the wrong forum to carry on this debate. So, one last word here, and I'll save any more comments for a suitable place." I stuck to that and left unanswered further comments from others.But others have done this as well. In fact, I was responding, not initiating. Why am I the only one getting a warning?

percy, you're right. But the point is that Jihad does not have one definition. It has several, all of which have been acted upon through Islam's history.Here are some explanations:http://www.ict.org.il/articles/jihad.htm
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4303A new, and acclaimed, scholarly book, Understanding Jihad, goes over the history of Jihad and at points relates it to the War Verses. This I referenced in the thread.

I recognize your good will and appreciate it.I did post that i was at a loss for what you wanted.It seems that the issue is that I want to look at this in terms of how the Islamic world has acted upon its understadning of the War Verses. You prefer to see that a debate about the theology is the relevant factor, and want to pin it down to a very specific few passages. We can debate that, but pointlessly, I believe, as it is not our opinions that matter, but those of the islamic world. I have pointed out how it is in conflcit over the passages you present, but, more importantly, over the entire concept of Jihad and the War Verses, as seen in all Islamic texts.I posted a few minutes ago a review of the book, Understanding Jihad. It, I believe reflects my point about the theological civil war within Islam, and that the passages you quote along with all other relevant material, have been interpreted and acted upon variously through the centuries.

I'm leaving for a while, so won't be able to respond to any comments until later.

That also makes sense. Thanks for the feedback.Steve