RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (12) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: GoP defends his claim about muslim intergration, Rebuttal as appropriate< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2006,11:48   

Dear All,

Ghosty made the following claim:

Quote
For example, I claim that Muslims, as a group, do not assimilate as well as other groups, and in fact their culture often damages civil liberties. Is this bigotry or simply stating an unpleasant truth? You obviously think the former, but if you're right you should point to evidence (not isolated examples) that Muslims do in fact assimilate, or that we are more free to speak our minds than previously.


Bold mine.

Since Ghosty is convinced that nobody has refuted any of his political views, and since Ghosty is keen for me deal with his politics as I have stated that they are based on his obvious prejudices, this debate has been arranged as a means to accomplish this.

There are several reasons I have picked this political claim over many others.

1) To be fair to Ghosty,I think there is a chance of him defending this one. Zombie Pinko Hitler is a different beast!

2) It's not something I have any special knowledge of, but I am inclined to grant anyone, including muslims and even Ghosty, the benefit of the doubt until I see evidence to the contrary. I am happy to be persuaded by Ghosty that the positive claim is the case, and I hope he is equally happy to be persuaded by me that it isn't, should that be the position I take. It is possible that Ghosty will present such compelling evidence that I agree with the original claim, and thus with him.

3) This claim at least is relativey specific. Many of the other claims,including the attempt by Ghosty to widen this claim, are more vague. Vague claims make for poor debates.

So the key claim is that muslims do not integrate as well as other groups. I expect Ghosty to present evidence for this claim and to clearly compare and contrast the integration into Western society of several groups. I also expect Ghosty to define what he means by "muslims" and "integrate", just for starters.

Take it away Ghosty.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2006,12:05   

don't take a lack of response in this thread to be a lack of disagreement with gawp.

It's just that the premise of what he stated is so stupid as to be singularly unworthy of response.

to be blunt, it's simply boring in its inanity.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2006,12:39   

As a raging Liberal, my gut reaction is that Paley is wrong.  But certainly in Europe, the massive Muslim immigration since WW II is not going well.  Obviously part of the cause is racism and discrimination by the host country, and lack of economic advancement (compare it to the African American population post Civil War to now – integration comes only when BOTH sides want it).

But there is also the problem of religion.  Muslims are probably much closer to comfortable in an authoritarian theocratic country like the States than they are in very liberal and secular Europe.  That very liberalism can be seen as threatening their core beliefs.  And, again in Europe with its high density Muslim areas, everything has worsened since 9/11.  There have been very significant signs of lack of integration, and WHATEVER THE CAUSE, it is something that needs to be thought about and dealt with.

So while I don’t like the idea, I am willing to consider it.  I am not going to reject it out of hand.  Unlike Bush I don’t believe in truthiness – I need to try and look at this seriously.

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2006,13:08   

Although it is always fun to watch Paley make a blithering idiot of himself (yet again), I do question the need to continually offer our intestines to the tapeworm. . . .

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2006,13:17   

I deleted the other topic, since everyone said they were moving over to this one.

   
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2006,13:41   

Ok, let's get a few ground rules out of the way. Don't sweat, Louis, I think you'll find them rather palatable.

1) I will assume for the purposes of this debate that all mainstream science, including evolution, is true. Why? Because I want to demonstrate that even "rational" sciency types can agree with me on this issue. I don't perceive a problem here, as Evos never tire of telling us that their Theory is the bestest of all time.

2) I will assume for the purposes of the debate that the Bible is not an authoritative source for truth claims. This doesn't mean I'm assuming its falsity; only that the Bible is just a holy book no different from other scriptures -- it may be true but it has to prove its validity to the "objective skeptic". Thus, you don't have to be a "Bible-thumping fundie" to embrace my position.

3) Except on immigration and possible instances of profiling, I will assume that Muslims should get full and equal treatment under the law (whether this actually occurs is another issue, of course, and open to debate). Actually, this one's easy because it represents my personal beliefs, not that anyone's noticed.

4) Louis and I are free to use any source we wish, and it is up to the opposing side to point out its inherent weakness, bias, or irrelevancy. No source may be ruled inadmissable without a rational objection. Relax, Louis, I'm not planning on using bonehead sources; I'm just trying to keep PC out of this as much as possible.

5) I will assume all racial and ethnic groups are precisely equal in mental ability, emotional stability, etc. No biological determinism. Once again, not much of a stretch.

6) Since Steve has deleted the other thread (which confuses me, since I thought Stevestory said he wasn't a moderator. Did he get promoted?), I am going to completely ignore anything that doesn't flow directly from Louis's pen. He is free to cut n' paste other posts to his heart's content, however, and then I will respond. My lack of response to any poster is not to be taken as a lack of ability to respond. Whine to Louie if you want an answer.

7) Last thing. I'm planning on breaking my initial statement into manageable segments. This should cut down on frustration due to software glitches and make the debate easier to follow. Louis can respond to my first post whenever he wishes, of course; I don't expect him to wait around forever.

Louis, if you have any problem with any of this, let me know now. Thanks.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2006,14:09   

I will watch this thread with interest, since my country provides a 'peculiar' example of muslim minorities, old and new, their potential assimilation to western culture, and their possible link to crime and civil disorder.
I would however like to poropose another rule, which will make things simpler, if both wish to follow it.
Supplementing Ghost's "no inadmissable source" rule, I propose, if he and Louis agree, that the context in point for each source provided should be readily admissable and examined- that is, no indirect quotes.
Let's not have a link to a thread that mentions an article about a book that refers to a study that is supposed to mention (A); Let's see a link to the study.
It's not that much to ask, and it would help to settle much possible dispute on the evidence, especially in such a heated issue.
What do you think?

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2006,14:16   

I would also like to say that "poropose" is too a word, and an awesome one at that.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2006,14:27   

Quote
6) Since Steve has deleted the other thread (which confuses me, since I thought Stevestory said he wasn't a moderator. Did he get promoted?), I am going to completely ignore anything that doesn't flow directly from Louis's pen. He is free to cut n' paste other posts to his heart's content, however, and then I will respond. My lack of response to any poster is not to be taken as a lack of ability to respond. Whine to Louie if you want an answer.


If I read everything correctly, Midnight Voice, who started the other and very similar thread, said in the comments that he was ditching it and switching to this one. So I pruned it under the rule against unnecessary multiplication of topics. This thread is about GoP's claim about muslim integration, the other was like an open thread about muslim integration, so I presume all comments relating to both GoP's claim and the more general topic can coexist here.

   
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2006,14:38   

OK. The software has been playing me for a mark lately, but I'll try to get at least one substantial post in tonight. Since the debate hasn't officially started, I'd like to unignore Faid fer a sec.

Faid:

   
Quote
I would however like to poropose another rule, which will make things simpler, if both wish to follow it.
Supplementing Ghost's "no inadmissable source" rule, I propose, if he and Louis agree, that the context in point for each source provided should be readily admissable and examined- that is, no indirect quotes.
Let's not have a link to a thread that mentions an article about a book that refers to a study that is supposed to mention (A); Let's see a link to the study.


Yes, I should have thought about this issue; this came up on Thordaddy's gay marriage thread. Sometimes things do get taken out of context and then the diseased info zooms around the internet like a horny teen. Repeating hard-to-check-factoids can be worse than useless. My tentative proposal is that it's OK, but the debater should mention that he can't locate the original source, and that the reader should exercise due caution. All I demand is that anything that applies to me also applies to Louis.

The reason why the evidentiary standards might have to be loosened is that many European countries have become dodgy about reporting crime statistics at all, especially by ethnic/religious breakdown. Now I have grave suspicions as to the cause of this, but putting that aside the truth is statistics are not easy to come by, so one is forced to rely on what's available. In any case, I will rely on primary documentation as much as possible.

Next post: opener.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2006,15:51   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Aug. 23 2006,19:38)
OK. The software has been playing me for a mark lately, but I'll try to get at least one substantial post in tonight. Since the debate hasn't officially started, I'd like to unignore Faid fer a sec.

Faid:

   
Quote
I would however like to poropose another rule, which will make things simpler, if both wish to follow it.
Supplementing Ghost's "no inadmissable source" rule, I propose, if he and Louis agree, that the context in point for each source provided should be readily admissable and examined- that is, no indirect quotes.
Let's not have a link to a thread that mentions an article about a book that refers to a study that is supposed to mention (A); Let's see a link to the study.


Yes, I should have thought about this issue; this came up on Thordaddy's gay marriage thread. Sometimes things do get taken out of context and then the diseased info zooms around the internet like a horny teen. Repeating hard-to-check-factoids can be worse than useless. My tentative proposal is that it's OK, but the debater should mention that he can't locate the original source, and that the reader should exercise due caution. All I demand is that anything that applies to me also applies to Louis.

The reason why the evidentiary standards might have to be loosened is that many European countries have become dodgy about reporting crime statistics at all, especially by ethnic/religious breakdown. Now I have grave suspicions as to the cause of this, but putting that aside the truth is statistics are not easy to come by, so one is forced to rely on what's available. In any case, I will rely on primary documentation as much as possible.

Next post: opener.

My goodness, Paley, you sure do love center stage . . . .

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2006,16:10   

All right.

The first objection I hear to complaints about lack of Muslim assimilation is that it's an answer in search of a problem....in other words, who cares? The justification is simple: a healthy nation must first have a coherent vision that is accepted by the vast majority of the populace. Without a single identity, it often divides into warring factions, leading to political and military instability. There are several prominent historical examples:

Egypt:

   
Quote
13th Dynasty, 1786-1633 BCE
   With the decline of the 13th Dynasty, Egypt lost much of its power and cohesion. The military leaders and soldiers stationed in Nubia became more and more independent. Some of them may even have permanently settled in Nubia. The fortresses built along the Eastern border were either abandoned, or control over who passed the borders was not as strict as it used to be. Canaanite nomads entered the country freely.
   Most of these Canaanites settled and became traders, farmers or craftsmen, but at least one of them, Khendjer, became a king. By the end of the 13th Dynasty, the Eastern Delta was populated mostly by Asiatics.

15th and 16th Dynasties: the Hyksos, c. 1684-1567 BCE
    Weakened by internal problems, Lower Egypt was taken over seemingly with little fighting by the invading or perhaps just immigrant Hyksos, who set up two contemporaneous dynasties. The 15th dynasty (1674-1567) of the great Hyksos kings dominated the Hyksos vassal chiefs of the 16th dynasty (1684-1567).
   Greek writers, beginning with Manetho, called them "Hyksos," which was mistranslated as "shepherd kings." Egyptians seem to have called these kings heqa-khasut, rulers of foreign lands, but they generally referred to invading foreigners as amu, asiatics or shamu, sand-dwellers.
   The Hyksos were a Semitic (Canaanite or Amorite) people and may have come from southern Canaan or Syria. Evidence seems to point to their having had a nomadic life style.

Some primary documentation from the same site.

Rome:

   
Quote
Roman citizenship carried responsibility, more or less analogous to what is called noblesse oblige today. Many historians agree that a key cause of Rome's decline was the decline in this sense of civic responsibility -- particularly military service. After 212 AD that was farmed out more and more to German tribesmen and other distant peoples -- whose loyalty to Rome was questionable. Defenses weakened accordingly, which makes sense, because how could non-Romans be entrusted with the defense of Rome? This is all the more the case when barbarian soldiers were called upon to defend Rome from other barbarians. True, some were heroes; Stilicho immediately comes to mind. But it just wasn't quite the same thing as the noble days when Romans defended their own country, and the Roman army was headed by Roman officers.

I am not arguing that this phenomenon was the sole cause of something as complex as Rome's decline, but I think it likely that psychologically, it was conducive to the decay (ironically) of classical values among the Romans themselves:

In The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, noted historian Edward Gibbons masterfully describes this decline of virtue:
"That public virtue which among the ancients was denominated patriotism, is derived from a strong sense of our own interest in the preservation and prosperity of the free government of which we are members. Such a sentiment, which had rendered the legions of the republic almost invincible, could make but a very feeble impression on the mercenary servants of a despotic prince" (1: 9).

In fairness, Gibbon doesn’t imply that such changes are irreversible and goes on to describe a time when "For a while the angry and selfish passions of the soldiers had been suspended by the enthusiasm of public virtue" (281). In reality, most of these upturns in Roman virtue were short-lived and the overall trend was away from the classical values so eloquently depicted in Virgil’s Aeneid.


The decline of Rome has been considered to include in its origin Caracalla's Constitutio Antoniniana -- which diluted the once-privileged status of Roman citizenship by conferring it to everyone in the Empire with the exception of slaves.

This source is biased, but the facts aren't. Caracalla's policy didn't solve Rome's decline; in fact, it might have been one of the key factors of its decline.

The Former Yugoslavia:

 
Quote
The history of the Balkans has been fraught with ethnic conflict as well as wars of conquest. Once thought of as an ill-charted zone separating Europe’s civility from the chaotic maelstrom of the Orient, in recent centuries, the area became a theater of intrigue for the great international powers. Indeed, the region of the Balkans was historically contested by the Ottoman and Hapsburg empires, as well as the Third Reich and the Allies, all of whom exploited and exacerbated existing tensions.

Yet some international relations experts have suggested that the collapse of Yugoslavia into nationalist regimes was not solely due to ethnic conflict and religious discord, or even a history of animosity for that matter. Rather, the disintegration of political and civil order, in conjunction with economic problems, together contributed to Yugoslavia’s breakdown. Certainly the perspective seems to bolster the argument that national movements and their ensuing balkanizing influences are not simply identity-based circumstances, born out of clashes between historically-polarized majority and minority groups, but also are exacerbated by economic and political circumstances of the present.

Other analysts suggest that during the rule of Yugoslavia by Tito in the communist years, measures taken to decentralize the country’s decision making processes (rather than democratize the country) ultimately led to the collapse. That is to say, decentralization bred ethnic nationalism and fueled identity politics, while the lack of real democratization efforts accelerated the increasing climate of fragmentation.

Regardless of the actual cause of balkanization in the former Yugoslavia, the regions remains one of the most volatile in the world, and functions as an ongoing exemplar of identity politics, micronationalism and balkanization.


These are not the only incidents I could cite, and I'm certainly not trying to prove that multiculturalism always fails; Louis could cite the Qing dynasty as a counterexample.* I'm just trying to establish that multiculturalism can have grave consequences, especially if it's enacted haphazardly.

*But be careful with those counterexamples, because these nations overcame these difficulties by enacting lefty-unfriendly policies:

 
Quote
Though trade with China grew rapidly, Britain became increasingly unhappy with the terms of business. China’s ruling Qing dynasty viewed foreigners as barbarians and imposed tight restrictions on foreign merchants. Warehouses were allowed only outside city walls; Canton was the sole permitted trading port; and a clutch of Chinese merchants, called the Cohong, kept a stern eye on trading activities. Equally discouraging was the balance of trade: Britain had little to exchange for China’s tea and silk, except silver. This meant a steady drain on the royal treasury.


More.

 
Quote
To establish unquestioned authority in his empire, he wrote an imperial edict called 'Sacred Edict', a set of sixteen ethical guidelines for exemplary behavior to be followed by the population, which had to be studied by everybody after its publication in 1681. Aged 16 at the time when he wrote the 'Sacred Edict', he initiated with this document not only a new educational practice but a wave of conservatism that ended the free-spirited exaltations of the Late Ming.
[...]
Yongzheng also kept strict censorship over the publishing industry which reduced the amount of novels of morally doubtful contents.



Rule of Emperor Qianlong (r. 1736-1796)
Under emperor Qianlong the Sacred Edict was published in a tri-lingual edition (Chinese, Manchu, Mongol).


A supporter of Chinese culture and a patriot engaged for the Manchu cause at the same time, emperor Qianlong commissioned dictionaries of the Manchu language and genealogies of the Manchu aristocracy. In a book inquisition that lasted for fifteen years (1774 -1789) critique of Manchu rule as well as morally disturbing publications were eliminated from the imperial collection of all Chinese books in the four categories  of the Classics, historical works, philosophical works, and belle-lettres.  About 2,000 Chinese works were eliminated through this inquisition beyond recovery.


More later.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2006,21:44   

Ghosty,

I can live with those rules, they seem pretty fair.

Nice first post. And whilst this is by no means a reply to the interesting points you raise about multiculturalism, I have a few initial thoughts before I go away and read up on the topic so I can better discuss it.

What does it have to do with muslims? I thought we were discussing why muslims integrate less well than other groups onto western society. Multiculturalism, whilst a relevant overarching topic isn't dealing with the specifics of your claim. Your claim was black and white: muslims integrate less well than other groups. This isn't a debate about the virtues (or lack of) of multiculturalism.

Shouldn't you compare and contrast the historical integration of muslims with the historical integration of other groups?

Shouldn't you also be defining just what you mean by "muslims" in terms of a group identity. Are there differences between Pakistani muslims and Iraqi muslims in their ability to integrate? What about Bangladeshi?

Precisely what do you mean by "integrate" anyway? For example does a muslim have to renounce his/her faith and adopt the local majority faith in order to "integrate"? Do they have to dress similarly? Do they have to speak the host nation's language? Do they have to forgo halal food etc etc etc?

What I am trying to do is not present you with problems, but to understand precisely what we are discussing. Multiculturalism is a much broader issue than muslim integration for example, there are more groups than muslims and westerners (obviously otherwise you wouldn't be contrasting them! Duh Louis, that's a clever comment! ).

I think before we get into the to and fro we should define clearly what we are discussing.

Cheers

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2006,00:15   

Eek. Tough topic. The diversity of "Muslims" is a real sticking point. It's not like..well, Ruth Benedict did a study on the Japanese around WW2 that was amazingly good for the time (The Chrysanthemum and the Sword..still a #### good read)..but trying to do the same for Muslims as a whole..from Indonesia to Lebanon...do black muslims here in the States count? This should be interesting. The only work that I have on the socio-historical "mindset" of Muslims is Raphael Patai's " The Arab Mind" which got a lot of shit from people like Edward Said.
Offhand, I'd say there is a greater degree of isolationism due to religion, modernism, prejudice, etc. but the Jews had their shtetls and shtots once, too...yet seem to have done pretty well in the long run. Bring on the stats!
Although I'm as socially liberal as anyone I know, I think large-scale (larger than now) conflict between Islam and the largely Xian west is near-inevitable. Cultures resist change and one of the things archaeology tends to point out is that very, very often disaster is required to force changes in perceptions and action/behavior. Even if global warming doesn't force a mass movement from the arid regions of Eurasia..the absolutist mindsets of extremist factions, along with the booming birthrate in Islamic groups...well...it doesn't look good for peace and loving groovy good vibrations to me.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2006,04:20   

By the way, I fixed some of the most embarrassing spelling and grammatical lapses in the first installment. "Halfhazardly"? What the heck is that?

Quote
What does it have to do with muslims? I thought we were discussing why muslims integrate less well than other groups onto western society. Multiculturalism, whilst a relevant overarching topic isn't dealing with the specifics of your claim. Your claim was black and white: muslims integrate less well than other groups. This isn't a debate about the virtues (or lack of) of multiculturalism.


Yes, I realise this first post was very general. It all goes back to the Bugliosi conjecture, which is that unless people recognise that there's a problem worth investigating, they're not going to listen to a solution. Please understand that when I argue this issue with my more liberal friends, it usually comes back to: "Well, even if what you're saying is true, don't we have serious problems to worry about?" I'm trying to anticipate this counter, because even if you don't bring it up, many people will still think it. Also, I'm not denying that people can interpret historical events in different ways. For example, here's a source that discusses the conflicting points of view about what the Hyksos invasion was and what it contributed to later Egyptian growth and military expansion. Certainly, Egypt was a notoriously insular civilisation that probably benefited from Hyksos military technology and culture, so it's improper to portray this event as a long-term disaster. The main is simply that the Egyptians themselves thought that expelling the invaders was necessary to reclaim their society.

More later.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
lawman



Posts: 8
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2006,05:31   

Very interesting topic Paley. I may be able to jump in occasionally with some info as I have lived all my life in a predominantly muslim nation. The racial composition of my country is something like native 60%, ethnic chinese 30%, ethnic indians 9% and 1% europeans, eurasians and others. Also, note there are a lot of ethnic indians and chinese who are also muslims. so i guess you would first define what you mean by a muslim, especially the ones who do not integrate as easily as other religions. anyway, i do think your posts are quite intriguing and i await your next one...over to you paley!

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2006,05:55   

Quote (lawman @ Aug. 24 2006,10:31)
Very interesting topic Paley. I may be able to jump in occasionally with some info as I have lived all my life in a predominantly muslim nation. The racial composition of my country is something like native 60%, ethnic chinese 30%, ethnic indians 9% and 1% europeans, eurasians and others. Also, note there are a lot of ethnic indians and chinese who are also muslims. so i guess you would first define what you mean by a muslim, especially the ones who do not integrate as easily as other religions. anyway, i do think your posts are quite intriguing and i await your next one...over to you paley!

Malaysia?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2006,10:09   

Quote
Shouldn't you compare and contrast the historical integration of muslims with the historical integration of other groups?

Shouldn't you also be defining just what you mean by "muslims" in terms of a group identity. Are there differences between Pakistani muslims and Iraqi muslims in their ability to integrate? What about Bangladeshi?

Precisely what do you mean by "integrate" anyway? For example does a muslim have to renounce his/her faith and adopt the local majority faith in order to "integrate"? Do they have to dress similarly? Do they have to speak the host nation's language? Do they have to forgo halal food etc etc etc?


This will probably be my last post for today, but tomorrow I will have plenty of time to post installments. Here's the outline:

First Installment:

I will explain why a fair and thoughtful consideration of Islamic beliefs and practices reveals that Muslims make poor candidates for assimilation into Judeo-Christian/secular societies. I will focus on the Sunnis and Shi'ites (hereafter Shiites) because these two sects comprise 95 - 96% of the world's Muslim population. I will follow the Hadith collections and Fiqh rulings that these sects consider authoritative, as well as the relevant Qur'an (or Koran) suras (of course, Muslims view all non-Arabic translations as commentary, but I don't see any other way. I'll try to find good translations, which include my copy at home). Of course, I will also contrast the liberal followers within these sects with the more orthodox believers. If you want to discuss minority sects as well, let me know.

Second Installment:

This will examine the empirical evidence of nonassimilation. I'll provide a little historical perspective as well, and even attempt to differentiate between different nationalities. My hypothesis, however, is that all Sunni and Shiite Muslims, as a group, are incompatible with Western societies regardless of nationality. In order to become compatible, they must discard their religion, and nothing less will do. I don't care about fashion and culinary preferences so long as they are not motivated by religious belief.

I hope this helps -- see you tomorrow.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2006,10:25   

Muslims as opposed to who specifically? Also before you start a good definition of 'incompatible' as it applies in this case would be useful.

  
lawman



Posts: 8
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2006,14:38   

Yes arden, malaysia it is. have you been here by any chance? i guess if paley is only going to be talking about integration/ assimilation into western culture i won't have much to add. although defining what exactly is western culture may be of value...as far as i can see integration into another society is not that much of a problem here in asia-pac, barring the odd radical, but who doesn't have them anyway.i've travelled much in asia, muslim integration is not really a problem, but you need to specify what you mean by integration. indonesia is the most populous muslim nation in the world, we get a lot of workers and even domestic help from over there, all the maids in our household have been from indonesia and are muslims, no integration problem whatsoever. so i really don't know what paley is on about. but i speak from experience of a small sample. if integration into "western culture" is a problem then maybe it could be that "western culture" is the problem?
but from the way that paley is going on i am guessing that he will be talking of arabians more than muslims?
sorry i can't reply on time, i'm mostly sleeping or at work when the battles are raging at atbc...

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2006,02:49   

Ghosty,

Great, I'll await your evidence then.

BTW, in the interest of helping you out, you might want to rephrase this:

Quote
My hypothesis, however, is that all Sunni and Shiite Muslims, as a group, are incompatible with Western societies regardless of nationality. In order to become compatible, they must discard their religion, and nothing less will do. I don't care about fashion and culinary preferences so long as they are not motivated by religious belief.


Bolding mine.

Because all I have to do is find one Shi'ite or Sunni muslim who operates well within Western societies and yet still practices his/her faith and co-exists amicably, compatibly and productively. I think I know what you are going to get at here btw, I just think in the interest of nitpickery that rephrasing this will benefit you.

Cheers

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2006,06:43   

Doing a cursory search, "Western" stats on public education, employment and crime incorporating religious affiliation seem pretty #### hard to find. Good luck, GoP

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2006,06:48   

Quote
My hypothesis, however, is that all Sunni and Shiite Muslims, as a group, are incompatible with Western societies regardless of nationality.


Why didn't you include Sufis? You are aware of that branch of islam, aren't you? I mean, it's not like you'd go shooting your mouth off without knowing what you're talking about, is it?

(considers previous geocentric statements)

Uh nevermind.

   
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2006,07:39   

Quote
Bolding mine.

Because all I have to do is find one Shi'ite or Sunni muslim who operates well within Western societies and yet still practices his/her faith and co-exists amicably, compatibly and productively.


Get rid of the "all" then. I'm talking about groups, not individuals. I'm glad that you're not trying to lawyer me to death; I dislike endless semantic battles.

       
Quote
Great, I'll await your evidence then.


OK, two things to reiterate: (1)most Muslims do not consider non-Arabic editions of the Koran authoritative; (2) I am no expert on Islam, and am completely illiterate in Arabic. This forces me to depend on the expertise of others, a fact that the skeptic should always keep in mind when evaluating my case.

Now. In order to get a feel for what Muslims believe, you can't do any better than the Koran itself. In fact, a few Muslims do not consider any other text authoritative, and virtually all consider this book a backbone to their religion. So what does it teach? Many Muslims claim that Islam's peaceful nature is proved by passages within the Koran, and that anyone who paints it as an uncompromisingly militant and intolerant scripture is taking its message out of context. Since the Koran does not preach violence and intolerance against outsiders, Muslims are fundamentally open to core Western values. Let's listen:

     
Quote
Because the Koran was revealed in the context of an all-out war, several passages deal with the conduct of armed struggle. Warfare was a desperate business on the Arabian Peninsula. A chieftain was not expected to spare survivors after a battle, and some of the Koranic injunctions seem to share this spirit. Muslims are ordered by God to "slay [enemies] wherever you find them!" (4: 89). Extremists such as Osama bin Laden like to quote such verses but do so selectively. They do not include the exhortations to peace, which in almost every case follow these more ferocious passages: "Thus, if they let you be, and do not make war on you, and offer you peace, God does not allow you to harm them" (4: 90).

In the Koran, therefore, the only permissible war is one of self-defense. Muslims may not begin hostilities (2: 190). Warfare is always evil, but sometimes you have to fight in order to avoid the kind of persecution that Mecca inflicted on the Muslims (2: 191; 2: 217) or to preserve decent values (4: 75; 22: 40). The Koran quotes the Torah, the Jewish scriptures, which permits people to retaliate eye for eye, tooth for tooth, but like the Gospels, the Koran suggests that it is meritorious to forgo revenge in a spirit of charity (5: 45). Hostilities must be brought to an end as quickly as possible and must cease the minute the enemy sues for peace (2: 192-3).

Islam is not addicted to war, and jihad is not one of its "pillars," or essential practices. The primary meaning of the word jihad is not "holy war" but "struggle." It refers to the difficult effort that is needed to put God's will into practice at every level--personal and social as well as political. A very important and much quoted tradition has Muhammad telling his companions as they go home after a battle, "We are returning from the lesser jihad [the battle] to the greater jihad," the far more urgent and momentous task of extirpating wrongdoing from one's own society and one's own heart.

Islam did not impose itself by the sword. In a statement in which the Arabic is extremely emphatic, the Koran insists, "There must be no coercion in matters of faith!" (2: 256). Constantly Muslims are enjoined to respect Jews and Christians, the "People of the Book," who worship the same God (29: 46). In words quoted by Muhammad in one of his last public sermons, God tells all human beings, "O people! We have formed you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another" (49: 13)--not to conquer, convert, subjugate, revile or slaughter but to reach out toward others with intelligence and understanding.


Mustafa Akyol adds:

   
Quote
Islam presents the principles of just war, and kidnapping noncombatants, killing them, or threatening to do so are overtly against those principles.

In the Koran, there are several verses about prisoners of war. First of all, you can't take noncombatants as captives. On the contrary, another verse makes it clear that non-Muslims, even the least sympathized pagans, are to be protected whenever they ask for asylum:

"If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of God; and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge" (Koran, 9:6).
[...]
Let's assume that they were regarded as combatants. Berg, Johnson, and Sun-il should therefore have been regarded as prisoners of war. The verdict of the Koran is clear about them: They should be taken as captives during the battle, then, after the war, they should be released for free or ransomed (Koran, 47:4).

There is no justification for the killing, or even the ill treatment, of POWs in the Koran. On the contrary, a verse tells that good Muslims are the ones who give the best of their food "to the poor and the orphan and the captive" (Koran, 76:8).

There are also historical accounts reporting Prophet Muhammad ordering his men to treat captives very humanely. According to one account:

"After the Battle of Badr, prisoners of war were brought. Among them was al-Abbâs. He did not have a shirt on, so the Prophet looked for a shirt for him. It turned out that a shirt of Abd Allah bin Ubayy was the right size, so the Prophet gave it to al-Abbâs to wear and compensated Abdullah with his own shirt" [Al-Bukhârî (3008)].


In a separate essay, he writes:

   
Quote
THE KORAN IN CONTEXT
Context is crucial. To understand and interpret the war verses in the Koran, one has to keep in mind that they were revealed in seventh-century Arabia, where battles were fought by swords and spears. Winning a battle meant killing a great number of your enemies. Any reluctance during the battle to attack and kill the enemy could bring defeat, and, in Muslims' case, annihilation of the whole umma, or community of believers.

The first verse that McCarthy quotes should be understood in this context. After a detailed analysis of manpower on the battlefield, the Koran states:

It is not fitting for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he hath thoroughly subdued the land: Ye look for the temporal goods of this world, but Allah looketh to the Hereafter: and Allah is Mighty, Wise. (8:67)
Here we see a military strategy that was necessary in a battle of swords: If Muslims started to take prisoners in the middle of the encounter — which would mean collecting ransoms or "temporal goods," later — it could prove to be a grave error. The enemy would have a chance to retaliate, those captives could rejoin the fight, and the battle itself could be lost. Such an event occurred at the battle of Uhud. The pagan army had a cavalry force that stood aside during the battle, and when the Muslim army seemed victorious and started to collect the spoils, those cavalrymen hit the Muslims from behind and won. Many Muslims were killed, and the Prophet himself was injured.

So, the Koranic principle of not taking prisoners in the middle of a battle is all about assuring victory. Verse 47:4, also quoted by McCarthy, in fact confirms this conclusion:

Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers in fight, smite at their necks; at length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind the captives firmly: therefore is the time for either generosity or ransom until the war lays down its burdens....
The phrase "when ye meet the Unbelievers in fight" clearly shows that the verse speaks about a battlefield. Both this verse and that quoted above order Muslim soldiers to kill enemy combatants in battle until the land or the enemy is "subdued" — or in today's military terms, "secured." Once that military target is achieved, there need be no further killing.
[...]
As I explained in my original article, Muslims were ordered by the Koran to treat POWs well, and historical accounts about the Prophet Muhammad show that this command was honored. The Prophet is even reported to have said, "You must feed them as you feed yourselves, and clothe them as you clothe yourselves, and if you should set them a hard task, you must help them in it yourselves" (Gabrielli, Arab Historians of the Crusades, pp. 138-39).
[...]
I conclude that the Koranic order to not take POWs and instead continue to kill the enemy is limited to unsecured battlefields.

Moreover, that "enemy" refers only to combatants. The Koran is clear on this:

Fight in the Way of God against those who fight you, but do not go beyond the limits. God does not love those who go beyond the limits. (2:190)
Thus, war can only be waged against "those who fight" against Muslims, i.e. combatants. It is also well known that Prophet Muhammad was careful to make this distinction and strictly ordered Muslim soldiers to avoid harming women, children, the elderly, or people at temples and monasteries.
[...]
DISCOVERING THE GOOD "UNBELIEVERS"
[I]n the Koran Jews and Christians are called "The People of the Book," and salvation is promised to them if they worship God sincerely (2:62). And Muslims are ordered to be kind to them, unless they behave unjustly:

Only argue with the People of the Book in the kindest way — except in the case of those of them who do wrong — saying, "We have faith in what has been sent down to us and what was sent down to you. Our God and your God are one and we submit to Him" (29:46).
Even if one is an unbeliever, i.e. an atheist or a pagan, that does not make him an enemy of Islam and Muslims. The Koran, after warning Muslims for being friendly to those who have persecuted the Prophet, makes an important distinction:

God does not forbid you from being good to those who have not fought you in religion or driven you from your homes, or from being just towards them. God loves those who are just. God merely forbids you from taking as friends those who have fought you in religion and driven you from your homes and who supported your expulsion. Any who take them as friends are wrongdoers (60:8-9).
Therefore, besides those who show open hostility to Islam and Muslims, all non-Muslims are to be treated graciously. The Koran hints that even those enemies can be won:

It may well be that God will restore the love between you and those of them who are now your enemies. God is All-Powerful. God is Ever-Forgiving, Most Merciful (60:7).
This is very different from what you can hear from al-Qaeda spokesmen and similar terrorists.


"THIS IS NOT OUR TRADITION"
[...]
Briefly: The Koran was revealed in the seventh century and some verses refer to events that do not or could not take place today. This means there are some parts of the Koran that we can't — and aren't supposed to — implement literally now. Take the verse that orders Muslims to muster "cavalry" to frighten their enemies (8:60). Today, of course, no Muslim state would think of building an army based on cavalry. The verse can't be implemented literally. We can only infer a principle — such as that strong armies are necessary for national defense — and apply that principle in a modern context.

The same line of reasoning can be extended to some other social and political issues in the Koran, especially to the war verses such as the ones quoted by McCarthy (2:191, 5:33, 8:12). Again, it is possible that we no longer need take all of these verses literally.

Besides that, some traditional doctrines can be abandoned completely. Take the much-disputed concepts of "House of War" and "House of Islam," developed by Muslim jurists in the 8th century. Those jurists regarded all foreign lands as enemy territories, because they could not expect tolerance and safety for Islam there. Today we live in much different world, in which religious freedom is widely established, especially in liberal democracies. Thus there is no justification to see those democracies as "House of War." That very definition is simply outdated; along with many other concepts in the Islamic tradition.


Mustafa Akyol also discusses historical evidence of Muslim mercy towards enemy captives and contrasts them with contemporary incidents, but I'm focusing on the Koran for now. As Akyol points out, the Koran is embedded in a history of early conflicts and cannot be understood apart from them. These are not the only passages in the Koran that can be interpreted as peaceful and tolerant. Here are some others [all emphases mine]:

 
Quote
[2.109] Many of the followers of the Book wish that they could turn you back into unbelievers after your faith, out of envy from themselves, (even) after the truth has become manifest to them; but pardon and forgive, so that Allah should bring about His command; surely Allah has power over all things.
[2.110] And keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate and whatever good you send before for yourselves, you shall find it with Allah; surely Allah sees what you do.
[2.111] And they say: None shall enter the garden (or paradise) except he who is a Jew or a Christian. These are their vain desires. Say: Bring your proof if you are truthful.
[2.112] Yes! whoever submits himself entirely to Allah and he is the doer of good (to others) he has his reward from his Lord, and there is no fear for him nor shall he grieve.


 
Quote
[3.19] Surely the (true) religion with Allah is Islam, and those to whom the Book had been given did not show opposition but after knowledge had come to them, out of envy among themselves; and whoever disbelieves in the communications of Allah then surely Allah is quick in reckoning.
[3.20] But if they dispute with you, say: I have submitted myself entirely to Allah and (so) every one who follows me; and say to those who have been given the Book and the unlearned people: Do you submit yourselves? So if they submit then indeed they follow the right way; and if they turn back, then upon you is only the delivery of the message and Allah sees the servants.


To prevent software issues, let me continue in a new post.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2006,09:19   

Quote
[2.256] There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; therefore, whoever disbelieves in the Shaitan and believes in Allah he indeed has laid hold on the firmest handle, which shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing.


     
Quote
[6.66] And your people call it a lie and it is the very truth. Say: I am not placed in charge of you.
[6.67] For every prophecy is a term, and you will come to know (it).
[6.68] And when you see those who enter into false discourses about Our communications, withdraw from them until they enter into some other discourse, and if the Shaitan causes you to forget, then do not sit after recollection with the unjust people.
[6.69] And nought of the reckoning of their (deeds) shall be against those who guard (against evil), but (theirs) is only to remind, haply they may guard.
[6.70] And leave those who have taken their religion for a play and an idle sport, and whom this world's life has deceived, and remind (them) thereby lest a soul should be given up to destruction for what it has earned; it shall not have besides Allah any guardian nor an intercessor, and if it should seek to give every compensation, it shall not be accepted from it; these are they who shall be given up to destruction for what they earned; they shall have a drink of boiling water and a painful chastisement because they disbelieved.


     
Quote
[18.29] And say: The truth is from your Lord, so let him who please believe, and let him who please disbelieve; surely We have prepared for the iniquitous a fire, the curtains of which shall encompass them about; and if they cry for water, they shall be given water like molten brass which will scald their faces; evil the drink and ill the resting-place.


One more source:

     
Quote
"And fight in Allah's cause against those who wage war against you, but do not commit aggression — for verily Allah does not love aggressors" (2:190). "And slay them wherever you may come upon them, and drive them away from wherever they drove you away — for oppression is even worse than killing" (2:191). "Hence, fight against them until there is no more oppression and all worship is devoted to Allah alone" (2:193).


Which reinforces the point that the Koran only preaches violence against oppression.

So it seems that the moderate Muslims have made an airtight case: Islam is opposed to violence unless it is for defensive purposes. It preaches a stern but loving tolerance towards outsiders, especially "peoples of the Book". Muslim immigrants face no particular hurdle on the road to assimilation.

Here is where Robert Spencer arrives. Coming from a Muslim family and a lifetime student of Islam, he brings an interesting perspective on the subject. Let's begin with some of his criticisms of Akyol:

     
Quote
Akyol:

Mr. Bostom also asks what will happen to atheists if they are not convinced. Of course, nothing. Let them deny the obvious. "There is no compulsion in religion" (2:256) and Muslims are ordered to say "The truth is from your Lord, so let him who please believe, and let him who please disbelieve." (18:29)
Interestingly enough, just yesterday someone sent me this from a Muslim Q&A website, quoting Qur'an 8:39 and 9:5 to say that yes, there is compulsion in religion:

“And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism, i.e. worshipping others besides Allaah), and the religion (worship) will all be for Allaah Alone [in the whole of the world]” [al-Anfaal 8:39]
“Then when the Sacred Months (the 1st, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikoon (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush. But if they repent [by rejecting Shirk (polytheism) and accept Islamic Monotheism] and perform As&#8209;Salaah (Iqaamat-as-Salaah), and give Zakaah, then leave their way free. Verily, Allaah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful” [al-Tawbah 9:5]

This verse is known as Ayat al-Sayf (the verse of the sword).

These and similar verses abrogate the verses which say that there is no compulsion to become Muslim.


Let's pause here to describe the concept of Naskh, or "abrogation":

     
Quote
Naskh, an Arabic language word usually translated as "abrogation" and alternately appearing as the phrase al-nâsikh wal-mansûkh ("the abrogating and abrogated [verses]"), is a technical term for a major genre of Islamic legal exegesis directed at the problem of seemingly contradictory material within or between the twin bases of Islamic holy law: the Qur'ân and the Prophetic Sunna. In its application, naskh typically involves the replacement (ibdâl) of an earlier verse/tradition (and thus its embodied ruling) with a chronologically successive one. The complete suppression (ibtâl) of a regulation so that not even its wording remains is recognized as well, though only in the case of the Qur'ân.

The emergence of naskh (initially as practice and then as fully elaborated theory) dates back to the first centuries of Islamic civilization. Almost all classical naskh works, for instance, open by recounting the incident of the Kufan preacher banned from expounding the Qur'ân by an early 'ilmic authority figure (usually 'Alî but sometimes also Ibn 'Abbâs) on account of his ignorance of the principles of naskh (Rippin, BSOAS 47, pp. 26, 38). Whatever the historicity of such traditions (modern scholars generally dismiss them):

...the elaboration of the theories is datable with certainty to at least the latter half of the second century after Muhammad, when Shâfi'î, in his Risâla and in the somewhat later Ikhtilâf al-Hadîth was applying his considerable talents to resolving the serious problem of the apparent discrepancies between certain Qur'ânic verses and others; between certain hadîths and others; and, most serious of all, between certain Qur'ânic verses and certain hadîths.
Burton, JSS 15, p. 250


While many Muslims reject the concept entirely or claim it applies to only a handful of verses, others cite this passage:

   
Quote
[2.106] Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things?



Continuing from Wikipedia:

   
Quote
Naskh employs the logic of chronology and progressive revelation. The different situations encountered over the course of Muhammad's more than two decade career as prophet, it is argued, required new rulings to meet the Muslim community's changing circumstances. Or, from a more theologically-inflected stand-point, the expiration points of those rulings God intended as temporary all along were reached. A classic example of this is the early community's increasingly militant posture towards its pagan and Jewish neighbors:

Many verses counsel patience in the face of the mockery of the unbelievers, while other verses incite to warfare against the unbelievers. The former are linked to the [chronologically anterior] Meccan phase of the mission when the Muslims were too few and weak to do other than endure insult; the latter are linked to Medina where the Prophet had acquired the numbers and the strength to hit back at his enemies. The discrepancy between the two sets of verses indicates that different situations call for different regulations.
Burton, Naskh, Encyclopaedia of Islam (EI)²
Yet despite its dependence on chronology, naskh is in no way a historiographical enterprise:

While it cannot really be doubted that there is an implicit assumption of the chronological-progressive order of the Qur'&#257;n in the naskh texts, it is notable that the discussions themselves do not generally make this point explicit; naskh, be it with regards to wine or direction of prayer, always assumes that the present law is known (that is, no wine and facing Mecca), and the verses which agree with that fact are necessarily the valid ones. Any verses which contradict this are necessarily invalid, and thus can be logically arranged according to a basic notion of 'progressive revelation.' The arguments found in the naskh texts are, in short, based on logic not chronology.
BSOAS 51, p. 18
[...]
Between sources
Abrogation is applicable to both sources of Islamic law: the Qur'&#257;n and the Prophetic Sunna. A Qur'&#257;nic verse may abrogate another Qur'&#257;nic verse, and a Prophetic Sunna may likewise abrogate another Prophetic Sunna. The possibility of abrogation between these two sources, though, was a more contentious issue precipitated by the absence within a source of the appropriate abrogating (n&#257;sikh) or abrogated (mans&#363;kh) material necessary to bring concordance between it and the Fiqh.
[...]
Opinion as to naskh's technical meaning here oscillated between replacement (ibd&#257;l) and nullification (ibt&#257;l). This despite the fact that the former meaning would make the coordinate clause's "We substitute something better or similar" tautological. Alternate interpretations were also suggested for the subordinate clause's "cause to be forgotten" (aw nansah&#257;), such as defer or leave. This was primarily motivated by flight from the theologically-repugnant idea of prophetic forgetting, with Q.15:9 cited as evidence of its impossibility:

15:9 We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it
Yet verses Q.17:86, Q.18:24, and Q.87:6-7 explicitly endorse its feasibility. Thus "Qur'&#257;n-forgetting is clearly adumbrated in the Qur'&#257;n" (BSOAS 48, p. 457). Many ahadith also attest to the phenomenon: entire suras which the Muslims had previously recited, claims one, would one morning be discovered to have been completely erased from memory (cf. Ab&#363; 'Ubaid al-Q&#257;sim b. Sall&#257;m). In the same spirit of "turning lemons into lemonade" which characterizes much else within the theologizing of naskh, divine purpose was attributed to such incidents; R&#257;z&#299;, for example, speculates that they may have figured among the Prophet's miracles.

Finally, there exist two important linguistically-unrelated verses cited in connection with naskh: Q.16:101- "When We substitute [tabd&#299;l] one revelation for another"- and Q.13:39- "Allah doth blot out or confirm what He pleaseth". Besides confirming the two major modes of abrogation (i.e. suppression and supercession), the former verse is employed by Sh&#257;fi'&#299; in his theory of abrogation between sources as proof that a Qur'&#257;n verse can only be abrogated by another Qur'&#257;n verse
[...]
Frequently cited examples of intra-Qur'&#257;nic abrogation are:

Verse: Q.8:65
Abrogator (n&#257;sikh): The immediately succeeding Q.8:66, which lightens the ratio of enemies the Muslims are expected to vanquish from 10:1 to 2:1 .
Verse: Q.2:180
Abrogator: Q.4:10-11, which provides specific allotments for a deceased's relatives. These verses constitute a perfect example of what later exegetes would claim to be takhs&#299;s (specification).
Verse: 2.219
Abrogator: Q.4:43, whose more explicit disapproval of drunkenness is in turn abrogated by Q.5:90, which institutes a complete ban on the consumption of alcohol:
Verse: Q.9:5 (&#257;yat al-sayf, the "sword verse")
Abrogatee (mans&#363;kh): Literally dozens of verses regulating the umma's conduct towards outside groups:
Sura 9:5 is of such importance that it is considered by early exegetes to have abrogated 114 or 124 [cf. Hibat All&#257;h] verses treating war that were revealed before it
- Ibn al Jawz&#299; (d. 1200) Naw&#257;nsikh al-Qur'&#257;n... and one modern scholar counts up to 140 verse (Mustaf&#257; Zayd, Al-Naskh fil-Qur'&#257;n al-Kar&#299;m) .
Firestone, Jih&#257;d (ISBN 0195154940), p. 151 (note 21)
Verse: Q.9:29
Abrogatee: "Nahh&#257;s considers 9:29 to have abrogated virtually all verses calling for patience or forgiveness toward Scriptuaries" (Firestone, Jih&#257;d, p. 151).

Examples of inter-Qur'&#257;nic abrogation, where one of the rulings comes from the Sunna, are:

Verse: Q.2:150
Abrogatee: The Sunna which established Jerusalem as the direction of prayer (qibla).
Verse: Q.24:2
Abrogator: For those unwilling to countenance the existence of a "lost" &#257;yat al-rajm (e.g. Qurtub&#299;, Al-Ghaz&#257;l&#299;), the Prophetic Sunna which establishes stoning to death as the penalty for adultery.


This issue is very complex, of course, yet the concept itself is fairly mainstream in Islam....which suggests that not all passages with the Koran are necessarily of equal relevance to the modern Muslim.

New post.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2006,10:14   

Continuing with Spencer's critique (and now linking to Akyol's third essay):

       
Quote
But Akyol is ready for that. He attacks the Islamic doctrine of abrogation on which this argument is based:

The doctrine of abrogation is actually a late invention, introduced by some classical jurists during the fourth century (late 10th century) of Islam. These scholars came up with hundreds of cases of abrogated verses to the extent that they formulated a whole science of the subject filling lengthy books and references.
Yet they were in error and many Muslim thinkers are pointing this out since the 19th century. Dr. Khaleel Mohammed, a professor of Religion at San Diego State University, has a very good article that summarizes the refutations against the doctrine of abrogation. "The allegation that 120 verses on the invitation to Islam were abrogated by the verse of the sword (9:5)" says Dr. Mohammed, "is in fact one of crassest stupidity."...

Actually the Koran itself declares that it includes no contradictions (4:82), thus its verses should be seen not as conflicting and calling for abrogative passages, but rather as complimentary parts of a single mosaic.

If we try to build that mosaic, we will see that the war verses describe only an abnormal state of affairs — in which the Muslim community faced an enemy that sought its annihilation — and verses that promote peace and tolerance describe the Islamic ideal.


Gee, that's swell, but unfortunately, Dr. Khaleel Muhammad has not yet taken up his throne as the Muslim Pope. And here, as in so many other instances, he resorts to shallow and base name-calling instead of actually addressing the arguments of his opponents. Jihadists, quite obviously, still employ the practice of abrogation. Does he think that pointing out that it is a tenth-century innovation and accusing those who use it of the "crassest stupidity" will really stop them? "Fellow mujahedin! Dr. Khaleel Muhammad has called us stupid! Let us lay down our arms!"

In fact, abrogation (naskh) is not a tenth-century innovation. It is based on the Qur'an itself: "Nothing of our revelation (even a single verse) do we abrogate or cause be forgotten, but we bring (in place) one better or the like thereof. Knowest thou not that Allah is Able to do all things?" (Sura 2:106).

Likewise, Akyol's contention that "the war verses describe only an abnormal state of affairs — in which the Muslim community faced an enemy that sought its annihilation — and verses that promote peace and tolerance describe the Islamic ideal" will do nothing to pacify radical Muslims, since they have argued again and again that today the Muslim community faces an enemy that seeks its annihilation. Thus even by Akyol's own standards, Muslims are justified to invoke the Qur'an's war verses and wage jihad today.
[...]
But since Akyol rejects the authority of passages from Islamic law that Bostom and I cited in our respective replies, he doesn't have to answer or explain them. Instead, he spends the bulk of his article citing Muslim apologists and questionable historical sources to establish that in history, Muslims acted better. Once again, even if this is true, it establishes nothing: the mujahedin believe that they are acting in line with Islamic law, and historical examples don't disprove this.


We'll discuss the historical debate later, but let's focus on the more notorious suras and see why it might inspire terrorists:

     
Quote
[9.1] (This is a declaration of) immunity by Allah and His Apostle towards those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement.
[9.2] So go about in the land for four months and know that you cannot weaken Allah and that Allah will bring disgrace to the unbelievers.
[9.3] And an announcement from Allah and His Apostle to the people on the day of the greater pilgrimage that Allah and His Apostle are free from liability to the idolaters; therefore if you repent, it will be better for you, and if you turn back, then know that you will not weaken Allah; and announce painful punishment to those who disbelieve.
[9.4] Except those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement, then they have not failed you in anything and have not backed up any one against you, so fulfill their agreement to the end of their term; surely Allah loves those who are careful (of their duty).
[9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
[9.6] And if one of the idolaters seek protection from you, grant him protection till he hears the word of Allah, then make him attain his place of safety; this is because they are a people who do not know.
[9.7] How can there be an agreement for the idolaters with Allah and with His Apostle; except those with whom you made an agreement at the Sacred Mosque? So as long as they are true to you, be true to them; surely Allah loves those who are careful (of their duty).

[9.8] How (can it be)! while if they prevail against you, they would not pay regard in your case to ties of relationship, nor those of covenant; they please you with their mouths while their hearts do not consent; and most of them are transgressors.
[9.9] They have taken a small price for the communications of Allah, so they turn away from His way; surely evil is it that they do.
[9.10] They do not pay regard to ties of relationship nor those of covenant in the case of a believer; and these are they who go beyond the limits.
[9.11] But if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, they are your brethren in faith; and We make the communications clear for a people who know.
[9.12] And if they break their oaths after their agreement and (openly) revile your religion, then fight the leaders of unbelief-- surely their oaths are nothing-- so that they may desist.
[9.13] What! will you not fight a people who broke their oaths and aimed at the expulsion of the Apostle, and they attacked you first; do you fear them? But Allah is most deserving that you should fear Him, if you are believers.


     
Quote
[3.156] O you who believe! be not like those who disbelieve and say of their brethren when they travel in the earth or engage in fighting: Had they been with us, they would not have died and they would not have been slain; so Allah makes this to be an intense regret in their hearts; and Allah gives life and causes death and Allah sees what you do.
[3.157] And if you are slain in the way of Allah or you die, certainly forgiveness from Allah and mercy is better than what they amass.
[3.158] And if indeed you die or you are slain, certainly to Allah shall you be gathered together.

[3.159] Thus it is due to mercy from Allah that you deal with them gently, and had you been rough, hard hearted, they would certainly have dispersed from around you; pardon them therefore and ask pardon for them, and take counsel with them in the affair; so when you have decided, then place your trust in Allah; surely Allah loves those who trust.
[3.160] If Allah assists you, then there is none that can overcome you, and if He forsakes you, who is there then that can assist you after Him? And on Allah should the believers rely.


These verses, taken together, provide a tremendous incentive to engage in warfare. This is especially true when the verses add the carrot of perpetual bliss/certain victory, and the stick of being considered a coward, to the equation. And since the ideas of "attack" or "oppression" can encompass a spiritual or cultural dimension, particularly among Muslims living in Infidel lands, these appeals to "self-defense" gain even more urgency.

Spencer finishes:

 
Quote
I myself am not an atheist, and I do not reply to him out of some sinister cypto-Stalinism. I made it abundantly clear why I am doing this in an earlier reply to Akyol:

Why am I doing this? To make life difficult for a moderate? No. I am only trying to point out that Akyol's conclusion (the beheadings "stem from a kind of necrophilic nihilism, not from the essence of Islam") is unwarranted, and his argument will be unconvincing to a radical Muslim, who can invoke the authorities I have cited here and others.
So in sum: Akyol's piece is not the kind of moderate Islamic presentation we need in order to neutralize the radicals. We need one that confronts and refutes their arguments; his simply ignores them. Those who are looking for moderate Muslims to rise up and refute the radicals should keep looking.


I stand by those statements. Akyol more and more seems to me like one who is trying to reassure jittery Westerners about Islam, rather than refute the radicals. But his reassurance is hollow, and is only likely to make people less guarded against future attacks by Muslims who do not accept his arguments. His arguments do nothing to stop jihadists from continuing their murderous work.


Especially if the jihadists believe in abrogation and/or are surrounded by infidels who are aggressively spreading their culture around the globe.

I'll have more to say about the Koran's attitude towards "Infidels", particularly Jews and Christians, at a later time, so here's a little reading assignment for those who are interested.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2006,11:43   

Here are some more "war verses":

 
Quote
[8.11] When He caused calm to fall on you as a security from Him and sent down upon you water from the cloud that He might thereby purify you, and take away from you the uncleanness of the Shaitan, and that He might fortify your hearts and steady (your) footsteps thereby.
[8.12] When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
[8.13] This is because they acted adversely to Allah and His Apostle; and whoever acts adversely to Allah and His Apostle-- then surely Allah is severe in requiting (evil).

[8.14] This-- taste it, and (know) that for the unbelievers is the chastisement of fire.
[8.15] O you who believe! when you meet those who disbelieve marching for war, then turn not your backs to them.
[8.16] And whoever shall turn his back to them on that day-- unless he turn aside for the sake of fighting or withdraws to a company-- then he, indeed, becomes deserving of Allah's wrath, and his abode is ####; and an evil destination shall it be.

[8.17] So you did not slay them, but it was Allah Who slew them, and you did not smite when you smote (the enemy), but it was Allah Who smote, and that He might confer upon the believers a good gift from Himself; surely Allah is Hearing, Knowing.
[8.18] This, and that Allah is the weakener of the struggle of the unbelievers.
[8.19] If you demanded a judgment, the judgment has then indeed come to you; and if you desist, it will be better for you; and if you turn back (to fight), We (too) shall turn back, and your forces shall avail you nothing, though they may be many, and (know) that Allah is with the believers.
[8.20] O you who believe! obey Allah and His Apostle and do not turn back from Him while you hear.
[8.21] And be not like those who said, We hear, and they did not obey.
[8.22] Surely the vilest of animals, in Allah's sight, are the deaf, the dumb, who do not understand.
[8.23] And if Allah had known any good in them He would have made them hear, and if He makes them hear they would turn back while they withdraw.
[8.24] O you who believe! answer (the call of) Allah and His Apostle when he calls you to that which gives you life; and know that Allah intervenes between man and his heart, and that to Him you shall be gathered.
[8.25] And fear an affliction which may not smite those of you in particular who are unjust; and know that Allah is severe in requiting (evil).
[8.26] And remember when you were few, deemed weak in the land, fearing lest people might carry you off by force, but He sheltered you and strengthened you with His aid and gave you of the good things that you may give thanks.


 
Quote
[9.122] And it does not beseem the believers that they should go forth all together; why should not then a company from every party from among them go forth that they may apply themselves to obtain understanding in religion, and that they may warn their people when they come back to them that they may be cautious?
[9.123] O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).


Here's a good reference for other Jihad passages.

This, in combination with the sheer number of passages that gloat over the eternal Flame awaiting infidels (about more later), provides a good insight into the sources of inspiration for those Muslims who commit violent acts in Allah's name.....

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2006,11:47   

Blah blah blah.

Hey Ghosty, does it strike you as significant in any way that your statement "X group of people don't assimilate and are incompatible with American society" is exactly the same thing that (1) the Know-Nothings said about the Irish and Italians, (2) the Klan said about the Chinese, the Africans, and the Latinos, and (3) the Nazis (you know, those flaming liberals) said about Jews and Gypsys?


Coincidence?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2006,10:12   

Akyol makes an interesting admission about the Muslim concept of self-defense when he admits that Muslims may wage a military Jihad to "preserve decent values". This is one of his proof texts:

 
Quote
[22.39] Permission (to fight) is given to those upon whom war is made because they are oppressed, and most surely Allah is well able to assist them;
[22.40] Those who have been expelled from their homes without a just cause except that they say: Our Lord is Allah. And had there not been Allah's repelling some people by others, certainly there would have been pulled down cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques in which Allah's name is much remembered; and surely Allah will help him who helps His cause; most surely Allah is Strong, Mighty.
[22.41] Those who, should We establish them in the land, will keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate and enjoin good and forbid evil; and Allah's is the end of affairs.
[22.42] And if they reject you, then already before you did the people of Nuh and Ad and Samood reject (prophets).
[22.43] And the people of Ibrahim and the people of Lut,
[22.44] As well as those of Madyan and Musa (too) was rejected, but I gave respite to the unbelievers, then did I overtake them, so how (severe) was My disapproval.
[22.45] So how many a town did We destroy while it was unjust, so it was fallen down upon its roofs, and (how many a) deserted well and palace raised high.
[22.46] Have they not travelled in the land so that they should have hearts with which to understand, or ears with which to hear? For surely it is not the eyes that are blind, but blind are the hearts which are in the breasts.


Now look at the rest of the passage (especially [22.44-45]) and notice how the modern idea of self-defense gradually morphs to the idea of attacking morally recalcitrant peoples in Muslim territory (a very elastic concept. Does it apply to high-concentration Muslim areas in Infidel countries?). And remember, the Muslim warrior is one of Allah's agents of destruction, so this whole passage might inspire a different interpretation in non-moderate hands. Also notice that the concept of "oppression" may also imply moral laxity.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2006,10:39   

I almost forgot....anyone who has any anecdotes relevant to the topic on hand may share them freely, although I'd like the posters to identify the country where these events are taking place.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2006,11:00   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 25 2006,16:47)
Blah blah blah.

Hey Ghosty, does it strike you as significant in any way that your statement "X group of people don't assimilate and are incompatible with American society" is exactly the same thing that (1) the Know-Nothings said about the Irish and Italians, (2) the Klan said about the Chinese, the Africans, and the Latinos, and (3) the Nazis (you know, those flaming liberals) said about Jews and Gypsys?


Coincidence?

Lenny, I'm sure GoP's descriptions of Muslims are every bit as accurate and informed by personal experience as his descriptions of liberals.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2006,12:08   

well, that would mean he was a muslim once, right Arden?

It wouldn't actually surprise me to hear him say as much.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
tiredofthesos



Posts: 59
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2006,15:10   

Well, actually, GoP, y'know, he's the kind of cowardly, twisted, vicious shit who would point out that "some of his 'best friends' were muslims.

  
don_quixote



Posts: 110
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2006,15:58   

GoP, I'm looking forward to this debate. Personally, I think you may end up having to conclude that groups of people from any faith don't integrate into societies, if they are fundamentalists.

Integration is about compromise. Moderates of any faith are more likely to integrate into any society (and indeed enhance it). Fundamentalists are more likely to want society to change for them, in a way that reflects their world-view, and thus conflicts arise.

As you have decided to look at 'Western societies' in general, I'm interested to see what role the secularism of a country has to play.

Good luck.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2006,16:24   

"cowardly, twisted, vicious shit" crosses the line. Paley's comments are not very good, but he's not exactly Ted Bundy, so don't treat him as such.

Anyway.

Quote
don_quixote   Posted on Aug. 26 2006,21:58GoP, I'm looking forward to this debate. Personally, I think you may end up having to conclude that groups of people from any faith don't integrate into societies, if they are fundamentalists.

Integration is about compromise. Moderates of any faith are more likely to integrate into any society (and indeed enhance it). Fundamentalists are more likely to want society to change for them, in a way that reflects their world-view, and thus conflicts arise.

As you have decided to look at 'Western societies' in general, I'm interested to see what role the secularism of a country has to play.

Good luck.


Don hits the nail right on the head here. Extremist belief, whether that of muslims like bin Laden, or christians like Eric Rudolph, is what is at odds with modern society. That's not to equate islam with christianity, it's perfectly reasonable to argue that one religion lends itself to dangerous fundamentalism more than the other.

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2006,16:52   

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 26 2006,21:24)
Quote
don_quixote   Posted on Aug. 26 2006,21:58GoP, I'm looking forward to this debate. Personally, I think you may end up having to conclude that groups of people from any faith don't integrate into societies, if they are fundamentalists.

Integration is about compromise. Moderates of any faith are more likely to integrate into any society (and indeed enhance it). Fundamentalists are more likely to want society to change for them, in a way that reflects their world-view, and thus conflicts arise.

As you have decided to look at 'Western societies' in general, I'm interested to see what role the secularism of a country has to play.

Good luck.


Don hits the nail right on the head here. Extremist belief, whether that of muslims like bin Laden, or christians like Eric Rudolph, is what is at odds with modern society. That's not to equate islam with christianity, it's perfectly reasonable to argue that one religion lends itself to dangerous fundamentalism more than the other.

My prediction is that GoP would be much happier with hardcore Christian fundamentalists immigrating to this country than he would be with the most moderate Muslims.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
tiredofthesos



Posts: 59
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2006,17:21   

I stand by my statement, since it is simply my own verdict on GoP's vile and underhanded not-quite-craziness.

 Not Ted Bundy?  Fine.  I still avoid his posts, only chancing upon them at secondhand, and believe he is up there with Dave Scott in the "deformed human" catagory.
 After following his antics for a very long time before arriving at this evaluation, I am certain he deserves nothing but scorn.  Or the most disrespectful type of humor. ???

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,04:30   

Once again,  here's a comprehensive collection of the "war" suras. I plan to investigate the Koranic attitude towards Christians and Jews, but first here's some history behind the modern "fundamentalist" Islamic movement. Despite what some moderates assert, its roots extend to the 14th Century:

   
Quote
Taqi Ad-din Abu Al-'abbas Ahmad Ibn 'abd As-salam Ibn 'abd Allah Ibn Muhammad Ibn Taymiya (Arabic: ÃÈæ ÚÈÇÓ ÊÞí ÇáÏíä ÃÍãÏ Èä ÚÈÏ ÇáÓáÇã Èä ÚÈÏ Çááå ÇÈä ÊíãíÉ ÇáÍÑÇäí) (January 22, 1263 - 1328), was an Islamic scholar born in Harran, located in what is now Turkey, close to the Syrian border. He lived during the troubled times of the Mongol invasions. As a member of the Pietist school founded by Ibn Hanbal, he sought the return of Islam to its sources: the Qur'an and the sunnah (the prophetic tradition of Muhammad). He is also a primary intellectual source of the Wahhabi movement.
[...]
Because of Ibn Taymiya's outspokenness, puritanical views, and literalism, he was imprisoned several times for conflicting with the opinions of prominent jurists and theologians of his day.

As early as 1293 Ibn Taymiya came into conflict with local authorities for protesting a religious ruling against a Christian accused of having insulted the Prophet. In 1298 he was accused of anthropomorphism and for having questioned the legitimacy of dogmatic theology (kalam).
[....]
Ibn Taymiya held that much of the Islamic scholarship of his time had declined into modes that were inherently against the proper understanding of the Qur'an and the Prophetic example (sunna). He strove to: (1) revive the Islamic faith's understanding of "true" adherence to "Tawhid" (oneness of God), (2) eradicate beliefs and customs that he held to be foreign to Islam, and (3) to rejuvenate correct Islamic thought and its related sciences.

Ibn Taymiya believed that the first three generations of Islam -- the prophet Muhammad, his Companions, and the children and grandchildren of the first Muslims -- were the best role models for Islamic life. Their Sunnah, or practice, together with the Qur'an, constituted a seemingly infallible guide to life. Any deviation from their practice was viewed as bidah, or innovation, and to be forbidden.


Ibn Taymiya favored an extremely literal interpretation of the Qur'an. His opponents charged that he taught anthropomorphism -- that is, that he took metaphorical reference's to God's hand, foot, shin, and face as being literally true -- even though he insisted that God's "hand" was nothing comparable to hands found in creation. Some of his Islamic critics contend that this violates the Islamic concept of tawhid, divine unity.
[...]
Controversy over his views on Sufism
Ibn Taymiya was a stern critic of antinomian interpretations of Islamic mysticism (Sufism). He believed that Islamic law (sharia) applied to ordinary Muslim and mystic alike.

Some Wahhabi and Salafi scholars believe that he rejected Sufism entirely. Other scholars, however, have contested this point. In 1973, George Makdisi published an article, “Ibn Taymiya: A Sufi of the Qadiriya Order,” in the American Journal of Arabic Studies, which argued that Ibn Taymiya was a Qadiriyyah Sufi himself, and only opposed antinomian versions of Sufism.

In support of their views, these Ibn Taymiya scholars cite his work Sharh Futuh al-Ghayb, which is a commentary on the famous Sufi Shaykh Abdul Qadir Jilani’s work, Futuh al-Ghayb “Revelations of the Unseen.” Ibn Taymiya is cited in the literature of the Qadiriyyah order as a link in their chain of spiritual transmission. He himself said, in his Al-Mas'ala at-Tabraziyya, "I wore the blessed Sufi cloak of Shaikh Abdul Qadir Jilani, there being between him and me two Sufi shaikhs."


This is the next major link:
   
Quote
Wahhabism (Arabic: ÇáæåÇÈíÉ, Wahabism, Wahabbism) is a Sunni fundamentalist Islamic movement, named after Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab (1703–1792). It is the dominant form of Islam in Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Many members of the movement object to the term "Wahhabism", preferring the term "Salafism".
[....]
Wahhabism accepts the Qur'an and hadith as fundamental texts, interpreted upon the understanding of the first three generations of Islam. It also accepts various commentaries including Ibn Abd al-Wahhab's book called Kitab al-Tawhid ("Book of Monotheism"), and the works of the earlier scholar Ibn Taymiyya (1263–1328).

Wahhabis do not follow any specific madhhab (method or school of jurisprudence), but claim to interpret the words of the prophet Muhammad directly, using the four maddhab for reference. However, they are often associated with the Hanbali maddhab. Wahhabi theology advocates a puritanical and legalistic stance in matters of faith and religious practice.

Wahhabists see their role as a movement to restore Islam from what they perceive to be innovations, superstitions, deviances, heresies and idolatries. There are many practices that they believe are contrary to Islam, such as:

Invoking of any prophet, Sufi saint, or angel in prayer, other than God alone (Wahhabists believe these practices are polytheistic in nature)
Celebrating annual feasts for Sufi saints
Wearing of charms, and believing in their healing power
Practicing magic, or going to sorcerers or witches to seek healing
Innovation in matters of religion (e.g. new methods of worship)
[edit]
Modern spread of Wahhabism
In 1924 the Wahhabi al-Saud dynasty conquered Mecca and Medina, the Muslim holy cities. This gave them control of the Hajj, the annual pilgrimage, and the opportunity to preach their version of Islam to the assembled pilgrims. However, Wahhabism was a minor current within Islam until the discovery of oil in Arabia, in 1938. Vast oil revenues gave an immense impetus to the spread of Wahhabism. Saudi laypeople, government officials and clerics have donated many tens of millions of US dollars to create religious schools, newspapers and outreach organizations.

[edit]
Salafism and Qutbism
Hassan al-Banna, the Egyptian founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, is said to have been influenced by the Wahhabis. The Muslim Brotherhood also claimed to be purifying and restoring original Islam. When the Muslim Brotherhood was banned in various Middle Eastern countries, Saudi Arabia gave refuge to Brotherhood exiles. Some Wahhabis, or Salafis, rejected what they call Qutbism, as a deviation from true Salafism.


And here's Sayyid Qutb:
   
Quote
Sayyid Qutb (Arabic: ÓíÏ ÞØÈý; 9 October 1906 – 29 August 1966) was an Egyptian intellectual author, and Islamist associated with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. He is best known for his theoretical work on redefining the role of Islamic fundamentalism in social and political change, particularly in his book Ma'alim fi-l-Tariq (Milestones). His extensive Quranic commentary Fi zilal al-Qur'an (In the shade of the Qur'an) has contributed significantly to modern perceptions of Islamic concepts such as jihad, jahiliyyah, and ummah.
[...]
Qutb concluded that major aspects of American life were "primitive" and shocking. His experiences in the U.S. partly formed the impetus for his rejection of Western values and his move towards radicalism upon returning to Egypt. Resigning from the civil service, he joined the Brotherhood in the early 1950s[8] and became perhaps their most effective publicist. The school of thought he inspired has become known as Qutbism.


Qutb was imprisoned for ten years, from 1954-1964Both the Muslim Brotherhood and Qutb enjoyed a close relationship with the Free Officers Movement in the time leading up to and following the coup of June 1952. Many members of the Brotherhood expected Nasser to direct the formation of an Islamic government, perhaps even an Islamic democracy. However the cooperation between the Brotherhood and Free Officers which marked the revolution's success soon soured. The Free Officers' refused to hold elections or ban alcohol. It became increasingly clear that the Islamic tenets of the Brotherhood were largely incompatible with the secular ideology of Nasserism.
[...]
Whether he supported dictatorship, or later rule by Sharia law with essentially no government at all, Sayyid Qutb's political views always centered on Islam -- Islam as a complete system of morality, justice and governance, whose Sharia laws and principles should be the sole basis of government. On the issue of Islamic governance, Qutb differed with many modernist and reformist Muslims who claimed democracy was Islamic because the Quranic institution of the Shura supported elections and democracy. Qutb argued instead for a `just dictatorship,` [11] claiming the Shura chapter of the Qur'an calls only for the ruler to consult some of the ruled and makes no reference to elections. [12]
[...]
This idea of the complete freedom of man and the means to bring about this freedom were described in his final work, Ma'alim fi-l-Tariq (Milestones). Qutb envisioned a Muslim vanguard [14] that would fight Jahiliyyah with a two-fold approach: preaching, and abolishing the organizations and authorities of the Jahili system by "physical power and Jihaad." The vanguard movement would grow until it formed a truly Islamic community, then spread throughout the Islamic homeland and finally throughout the entire world.

Qutb emphasized this struggle would be anything but easy. True Islam would transform every aspect of society, eliminating everything non-Muslim. Jahili erzatz-Muslims, Jews and Westerners would all fight and conspire against the elimination of Jahiliyyah. True Muslims could look forward to lives of "poverty, difficulty, frustration, torment and sacrifice."

[edit]
Philosophy
Qutb is often identified as a major intellectual contributor to radical Islamism in the 20th century. This is due in part to his many writings on the subject and also his strong connection between religion and politics that mark his later works. In particular, Qutb established complex, controversial views on several traditional Islamic ideas:

[edit]
Jahiliyya
One of Qutb's innovations was applying the term Jahiliyya, which traditionally refers to humanity's state of ignorance before the revelation of Islam, to modern-day Muslim societies. In Qutb's view, the removal of Islamic law and religious values (particularly after the period of European colonization) had left the Muslim world in a condition of debased ignorance, similar to that of the pre-Islamic era (i.e. Jahiliyya). In defining the Muslim world as in a state of Jahiliyya, Qutb concluded that all non-Islamic states were illegitimate, including that of Egypt.

What was most controversial about Qutb's conception of Jahiliyya was his wide application of it. Qutb believed that all societies ruled by a non-Islamic government were not Islamic. Further, based on a Qur'anic interpretation of Jahiliyya, Qutb concluded that Muslims living in such societies were religiously obligated to oppose the ruling government and to challenge its authority. This theory of legitimacy and the advocacy for no less than revolution set Qutb against the majority of political systems in the world, including that of his home country, Egypt. In effect, Qutb's theories paired a fundamentalist interpretation of the Qur'an with a radical, sociopolitical ideology.[15]

[edit]
Criticisms
Qutb has been interpreted, particularly in some parts of the Western media, as an intellectual precursor to various Islamic fundamentalist movements of the 1980s to the present, including the notorious international organization Al-Qaeda. In this view, Qutb is argued to be a theoretical foundation of Islamic extremism. One can find some ideological connections between Qutb's thought and radical fundamentalist groups. These include Qutb's advocacy of an Islamic theocracy as the only legitimate state, his justification of jihad in the conflict against non-Islamic governments, and his uncompromising opposition to Western culture and values.
[...]
The influence of Qutb and his work extends across the whole spectrum of Islamism. Alongside notable Islamists like Maulana Mawdudi and Hasan al-Banna, Qutb is often considered one of the most influential Islamic activists of the modern era. He is recognized for his application of Islamic ideology to current social and political problems, such as Westernization, modernization, and political reform. Qutb's work also expanded many themes now common in Western discourses on Islamism, including the theory of inevitable ideological conflict between "Islam and the West" (see Clash of civilizations), the notion of a transnational umma, and the comprehensive application of jihad in various spiritual, political, and social contexts.

In terms of politics, Qutb left a significant mark on the Muslim Brotherhood, which today still exists and is actively involved in Egyptian politics. His theoretical work on non-violent Islamic advocacy, including emphasis on social justice and education, has become a cornerstone of the contemporary Brotherhood. His interpretation of jihad and its application for societal change has influenced many later Islamist activists, both violent and non-violent. Finally, Qutb's imprisonment and execution has led some to consider him a martyr. Many consider him the most significant new interpreter of Islam in the twentieth century. Some have promoted him as an antecedent of the more extreme aspects of violent Islamist activity today.

Qutb's written works, including his most controversial, are still widely available and have been translated into many Western languages. Qutb's best known work, Ma'alim fi-l-Tariq (Milestones), is regarded by some as the beginning of modern political Islam. However, the majority of Qutb's theory can be found in his Qur'anic commentary Fi zilal al-Qur'an (In the Shade of the Quran). This 30-volume work is noteworthy for its innovative method of interpretation, borrowing heavily from the literary analysis of Amin al-Khuli, while retaining some structural features of classical commentaries (for example, the practice of progressing from the first sura to the last).


Here are some excerpts from In the Shade of the Quran.

Here's a source that attempts to debunk Qutb:

 
Quote
Qutb's lack of knowledge in Islam coupled by his jailing led him to change his understanding of Islam according to the circumstances he was faced with. Consequently, his writings became more and more radical as time went by. Eventually, his revolutionary ideology of takfir (excommunication) and setting out against the authorities became ingrained in the minds and hearts of a new generation of youth who were looking for something greater than the failed way of al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun. To this day, Qutb is considered to be the head of this ideology for all insurrectionary groups.

His new-fangled way of understanding Islam is evident in his attempt to write a tafsir (explanation) of the Quran called Fi Thilalil-Quran (In the Shade of the Quran). Qutb was not interested in following the traditional approach of explaining the Quran, which is to firstly refer to the Quran itself for other verses which clarify the meaning, then the Haadeeths of the Prophet (may Allah raise his rank and grant him peace) which deal with the meanings of specific verses, or if this does not exist, to refer to the explanations of his companions. Hence, it cannot be referred to as a tafsir in the conventional sense.

Referring to the explanations of the companions is a legislated matter in Islam, because they witnessed the revelation of the Quran and were taught its understanding and application by the one to whom it was revealed. Consequently, they were commissioned to transmit the texts of the Quran and Haadeeths that we read today and were also charged with the responsibility of retaining the explanations of the texts as well as their causes and occasions of revelation. Instead of referring to these important sources, Qutb used his own opinions to explain the Quran - over and above these sources. Consequently, this tafsir contains numerous errors which the Salafi scholars have already clarified for the people.

Because of his ignorance of the orthodox system of Islamic belief, Qutb came up with a hodgepodge of statements collected from all of the various Islamic sects which have sprung up since the earliest years of Islamic civilization. Far from being upon the creed of the "Wahhabis", Qutb was influenced by the Mu'tazili/Sufi philosophical school of thought which prevails in that area of the Middle East. This system of belief runs completely contrary to the so-called "Wahhabi" creed.


And although many Salafis reject violent forms of persuasion, the vast majority adhere to rather antimodern beliefs:

 
Quote
Salafis preach a purified Islamic monotheism, or tawheed that strictly prohibits shirk (a comprehensive term which is commonly translated as polytheism), or bid`a (innovation, i.e. practices not followed by early Muslims). Salafis believe that widespread Muslim practices such as venerating the graves of Islamic prophets and saints are shirk. Photographs of any living being that possesses a soul are forbidden. Celebration of Muhammad's birthday (Mawlid) is bid`a. All these practices are considered shirk or as bidah (innovation). Salafis in general are opposed to both Sufism and Shi'a Islam, which they regard as deviations.

Salafi place great emphasis on ritual not only in prayer but in every activity in life -- three fingers should always be used when eating, water is to be drunk in three pauses with the right hand while sitting [1] -- so as to follow the example of the Prophet (p) and his companions and make religion part of every activity in life. Salafi also discourage many other activities, including music, beard-shaving, that do not follow the example of early Muslims [2] and that distract people's attention from religion. This has been criticized as overly strict or trivial by some. [3]

Salafi differ from the earlier contemporary Islamic revival movement of Islamism of the 1970s and 1980s, in that (at least many) Salafi reject not only Western ideologies such as socialism and capitalism, but also common Western concepts like economics, constitutions, political parties, revolution and social justice. Muslims should not engage in Western activities like politics, "even by giving them an Islamic slant." [4] Instead, Muslims should stick to Islamic activities, particularly dawah. Salafi promote the sharia.

Salafis reject mainstream dogmatic theology (kalam). They consider this to be based on classical Greek philosophy (Plato and Aristotle) and an import foreign to the original practice of Islam.

Salafis are divided on the question of adherence to the four recognized schools of traditional legal interpretation (madhhabs).

Some Salafis wish to base their jurisprudence directly on the Qu'ran and Sunnah. They believe that literal readings of the Qur'an and the hadith (or oral traditions) are sufficient guidance for the believing Muslim. One scholar who supported this position was Albaanee.
Some Salafis follow the teachings of the 14th century Syrian scholar Ibn Taymiya, and his students Ibn al-Qayyim and Ibn Kathir.
Some Salafis rely on the jurisprudence of one of the four famous madhabs. For example, Ibn Taymiya followed the Hanbali madhhab. Some of his students (such as Ibn Kathir and Al-Dhahabi) followed the Shafi madhhab. Other students (such as Ibn Abu al-Iz) follow the Hanafi madhhab.
Because Salafis see themselves as practicing "pure" Islam, Salafi teachers and adherents will not necessarily identify themselves as Salafi. They can be identified as part of a particular current of contemporary Islam by their characteristic beliefs, by their use of terms like "the Salaf" or "Qur'an and sunnah." They also tend to use a more rigorous style of transliteration of Arabic into English: long vowels are indicated by doubling, emphatic consonants are doubled, and words that end with a ta marbuta in Arabic are rendered with a terminal h.

[edit]
History of Salafism
From the perspective of the Salafis themselves, their history starts with the Prophet himself. They consider themselves direct followers of his teachings, and wish to emulate the piety of the earliest followers of Islam (the salaf al-salih). All later scholars are merely revivers (not 'founders';). Modern scholars may only come to teach (or remind) us of the instructions of the original Salaf.

[edit]
Contemporary Salafis
Salafism is a movement within Sunni Islam. It includes many groups and shades of belief. It is strongest in the Middle East, in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Syria, Jordan, etc. It is also found in most other Muslim-majority countries (see Islam by country and Demographics of Islam). It is increasingly important to diasporic Muslims in Europe, Canada, and the United States.

Salafis tend to differentiate themselves not so much by matters of Islamic practice, such as prescriptions for prayer (salat) or Islamic dress (hijab), but by their attitude towards the state.

Some Salafis urge believers to support or endure the state under which they live. Believers are encouraged to spread Salafism non-violently, by missionary activity, social work, and political organization. Above all, they should help each other lead lives of true Islamic piety. (Rabei Al-Madkhaly)
Some Salafis believe that violent jihad is permissible against foreign, non-Muslim, occupation, but not against governments that claim to be Islamic. Those governments are to be reformed, not violently overthrown. Civil war (fitna) is to be avoided. (Salman Al-Auda)


Notice that this movement relies on Islam's traditional scriptures.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,04:38   

Quote
Notice that this movement relies on Islam's traditional "scriptures".


Out of curiosity, why the scare quotes around 'scriptures'?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,06:16   

By the way, I'm done with my presentation of the Koranic interpretation of Jihad, so Louis is free to respond to that part. If my formatting (i.e. scare quotes, etc.) seems eccentric, it's because I'm trying to avoid using Christian terms.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,06:21   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Aug. 28 2006,11:16)
By the way, I'm done with my presentation of the Koranic interpretation of Jihad, so Louis is free to respond to that part. If my formatting (i.e. scare quotes, etc.) seems eccentric, it's because I'm trying to avoid using Christian terms.

'Scriptures' is a Christian term? ?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,06:27   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 28 2006,12:21)
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Aug. 28 2006,11:16)
By the way, I'm done with my presentation of the Koranic interpretation of Jihad, so Louis is free to respond to that part. If my formatting (i.e. scare quotes, etc.) seems eccentric, it's because I'm trying to avoid using Christian terms.

'Scriptures' is a Christian term? ?

'scriptures' is not a christian term, but 'Scriptures' is. Wikipedia:

Quote
The Rigveda of Hinduism was likely composed between roughly 1500–1300 BCE, making it one of the world's oldest religious texts. The oldest portions of the Zoroastrian Avesta are believed to have been transmitted orally for centuries before they found written form, and although widely differing dates for Gathic Avestan (the language of the oldest texts) have been proposed, scholarly consensus floats at around 1000 BCE (roughly contemporary to the Brahmana period of Vedic Sanskrit).

The first printed scripture for wide distribution to the masses was The Diamond Sutra, a Buddhist scripture, printed in the year 868 CE.

In English language, the term scriptures can be used to describe any religion's sacred text as in Hindu scriptures, Jewish scriptures, etc. but when capitalized, in English literature, the word Scriptures generally refers to the sacred texts of the Bible, also referred to as Holy Scripture.

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,06:36   

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 28 2006,11:27)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 28 2006,12:21)
 
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Aug. 28 2006,11:16)
By the way, I'm done with my presentation of the Koranic interpretation of Jihad, so Louis is free to respond to that part. If my formatting (i.e. scare quotes, etc.) seems eccentric, it's because I'm trying to avoid using Christian terms.

'Scriptures' is a Christian term? ?

'scriptures' is not a christian term, but 'Scriptures' is. Wikipedia:

 
Quote
The Rigveda of Hinduism was likely composed between roughly 1500–1300 BCE, making it one of the world's oldest religious texts. The oldest portions of the Zoroastrian Avesta are believed to have been transmitted orally for centuries before they found written form, and although widely differing dates for Gathic Avestan (the language of the oldest texts) have been proposed, scholarly consensus floats at around 1000 BCE (roughly contemporary to the Brahmana period of Vedic Sanskrit).

The first printed scripture for wide distribution to the masses was The Diamond Sutra, a Buddhist scripture, printed in the year 868 CE.

In English language, the term scriptures can be used to describe any religion's sacred text as in Hindu scriptures, Jewish scriptures, etc. but when capitalized, in English literature, the word Scriptures generally refers to the sacred texts of the Bible, also referred to as Holy Scripture.

Understood, but this does not explain GoP's use of scare quotes in the sentence in question:

Quote

Notice that this movement relies on Islam's traditional "scriptures".


I've regularly seen the word 'scriptures' used in reference to the writings of Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sihkism, and Jainism. (Without quotes.) It's the standard word.

So 'scriptures' isn't just a Christian term.

So I still don't understand why GoP used the scare quotes on the word.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,07:21   

Arden: I fixed it.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,11:25   

I found a good -- if heavily biased -- site that compiles several passages from the Koran about Judaism and Christianity.

       
Quote
3.28: Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends rather than believers; and whoever does this, he shall have nothing of (the guardianship of) Allah, but you should guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully; and Allah makes you cautious of (retribution from) Himself; and to Allah is the eventual coming.

4.157: And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the apostle of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.

4.171: O followers of the Book! do not exceed the limits in your religion, and do not speak (lies) against Allah, but (speak) the truth; the Messiah, Isa son of Marium is only an apostle of Allah and His Word which He communicated to Marium and a spirit from Him; believe therefore in Allah and His apostles, and say not, Three. Desist, it is better for you; Allah is only one God; far be It from His glory that He should have a son, whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is His, and Allah is sufficient for a Protector.

5.51: O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

5.64: And the Jews say: The hand of Allah is tied up! Their hands shall be shackled and they shall be cursed for what they say. Nay, both His hands are spread out, He expends as He pleases; and what has been revealed to you from your Lord will certainly make many of them increase in inordinacy and unbelief; and We have put enmity and hatred among them till the day of resurrection; whenever they kindle a fire for war Allah puts it out, and they strive to make mischief in the land; and Allah does not love the mischief-makers.

5.82: Certainly you will find the most violent of people in enmity for those who believe (to be) the Jews and those who are polytheists, and you will certainly find the nearest in friendship to those who believe (to be) those who say: We are Christians; this is because there are priests and monks among them and because they do not behave proudly.


Here are some passages on the Jews. Once again, the source is biased:

     
Quote
The Women
[4.46] Of those who are Jews (there are those who) alter words from their places and say: We have heard and we disobey and: Hear, may you not be made to hear! and: Raina, distorting (the word) with their tongues and taunting about religion; and if they had said (instead): We have heard and we obey, and hearken, and unzurna it would have been better for them and more upright; but Allah has cursed them on account of their unbelief, so they do not believe but a little.

[4.47] O you who have been given the Book! believe that which We have revealed, verifying what you have, before We alter faces then turn them on their backs, or curse them as We cursed the violaters of the Sabbath, and the command of Allah shall be executed.

[4.50] See how they forge the lie against Allah, and this is sufficient as a manifest sin.

[4.160] Wherefore for the iniquity of those who are Jews did We disallow to them the good things which had been made lawful for them and for their hindering many (people) from Allah's way.

[4.161] And their taking usury though indeed they were forbidden it and their devouring the property of people falsely, and We have prepared for the unbelievers from among them a painful chastisement.

[5.32] For this reason did We prescribe to the children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; and certainly Our apostles came to them with clear arguments, but even after that many of them certainly act extravagantly in the land.

[5.33] The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,[ [5.34] Except those who repent before you have them in your power; so know that Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. --this is a bit of a quote-mine -- Paley.]


[5.41] O Apostle! let not those grieve you who strive together in hastening to unbelief from among those who say with their mouths: We believe, and their hearts do not believe, and from among those who are Jews; they are listeners for the sake of a lie, listeners for another people who have not come to you; they alter the words from their places, saying: If you are given this, take it, and if you are not given this, be cautious; and as for him whose temptation Allah desires, you cannot control anything for him with Allah. Those are they for whom Allah does not desire that He should purify their hearts; they shall have disgrace in this world, and they shall have a grievous chastisement in the hereafter.

[5.42] (They are) listeners of a lie, devourers of what is forbidden; therefore if they come to you, judge between them or turn aside from them, and if you turn aside from them, they shall not harm you in any way; and if you judge, judge between them with equity; surely Allah loves those who judge equitably.

[5.63] Why do not the learned men [rabbis] and the doctors of law prohibit them from their speaking of what is sinful and their eating of what is unlawfully acquired? Certainly evil is that which they work.

[5.64] And the Jews say: The hand of Allah is tied up! Their hands shall be shackled and they shall be cursed for what they say. Nay, both His hands are spread out, He expends as He pleases; and what has been revealed to you from your Lord will certainly make many of them increase in inordinacy and unbelief; and We have put enmity and hatred among them till the day of resurrection; whenever they kindle a fire for war Allah puts it out, and they strive to make mischief in the land; and Allah does not love the mischief-makers.

17.4] And We had made known to the children of Israel in the Book: Most certainly you will make mischief in the land twice, and most certainly you will behave insolently with great insolence.

[62.6] Say: O you who are Jews, if you think that you are the favorites of Allah to the exclusion of other people, then invoke death If you are truthful.


Of course, there are positive passages, but the overall message is pretty clear. Here's the online Koran again for cross-checking. 5:51 pretty much says it all, no?

Here are tonight's two reading assignments.

More later.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,11:33   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 28 2006,12:36)
Understood, but this does not explain GoP's use of scare quotes in the sentence in question:

I wasn't putting in there for GoP's edification, but for everyone else. GoP put scare quotes there because he doesn't know any better.

   
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,11:50   

Quote
I wasn't putting in there for GoP's edification, but for everyone else. GoP put scare quotes there because he doesn't know any better.


Thanks, Big Daddy. I look forward to you systematically tearing my little beliefs to shreds in front of the entire board, Sir!

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,12:05   

Give me a geocentric model and I will do exactly that.

   
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,12:16   

since we're talking about GoP, this is appropriate


   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,12:25   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Aug. 28 2006,16:50)
Quote
I wasn't putting in there for GoP's edification, but for everyone else. GoP put scare quotes there because he doesn't know any better.


Thanks, Big Daddy. I look forward to you systematically tearing my little beliefs to shreds in front of the entire board, Sir!

Actually, I don't think the real reason for GoP putting scare quotes around the word 'scripture' ever got mentioned, but never mind.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,13:41   

I'm surprised that the only error that anybody's been able to find is an ill-placed scare quote. Let's hope Louis is more successful.

Those last two links are really good. You'll probably poke fun at Andrew Bostom's specialty (kidney diseases), but the guy has done his homework and he pretty much lays waste to several myths about Islam.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,14:03   

Hey, I just felt a big blast of, um, hot air.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,15:08   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 28 2006,19:03)
Hey, I just felt a big blast of, um, hot air.

You know, I have this distinct memory of a discussion a couple months ago where Paley was making some Biblical claim or other, and some of the people here started arguing against him using Biblical citations. When this happened, I remember that Paley he got extremely pissed off and snide that some atheists should be so presumptious as to argue using citations from a religion they don't even believe in.

I guess that rule only applies to citing the Bible, and no other religious books.

Quote
I'm surprised that the only error that anybody's been able to find is an ill-placed scare quote


That's my point, I doubt the ill-placed scare quotes were an error, as such.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,19:15   

Quote
Koranic interpretation of Jihad,


shall we post the Fred "felcher" Phelps interpretation of the bible for comparison?

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,23:58   

Ghosty,

Sorry, and call me stupid if you like, but I STILL don't see the direct relevence of all this.

So the qu'ran and hadith and some muslim scholars and individuals have interpreatations/literal verses that are hostile to integration. Big whoop. Not every self identifying muslim adheres to every literal verse nor to every interpretation. If your arguing that muslim fundamentalists make bad intergrators then you and I agree. But then so do christian fundamentalists and jewish fundamentalists and sikh fundamentalists etc etc etc. In addition, not all muslims are fundamentalists. Hardly a shock I'm sure!

I'm also sure you realise I can cherry pick the torah or the bible or the guru granth sahib for similar references. I'm especially sure you know this about the bible!  ;)

I can also understand some of the relevance here in terms of "oooh look, if them muslims do all this stuff then they as a group are going to be total pants at integrating into western societies", and on that I would agree, but the direction you're going in does not reflect the plurality of muslim thought or self identifying muslims.

I was hoping for a more fact based statistical type discussion of the actual evidence collected, rather than suppositions based on the horrific sections of millenium old witterings of illiterate sheep herders in the post iron age Middle East.

Cheers

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,04:28   

Louis:

 
Quote
Ghosty,

Sorry, and call me stupid if you like, but I STILL don't see the direct relevence of all this.


Then why didn't you complain about my outline until I presented a lot of evidence for the first part? It's almost like you were hoping I couldn't establish Part 1....and when you saw I could do it at length, then you came out with this "irrelevancy" charge. But let's put that aside.

Is the "irrelevancy" charge itself relevant? No, and here's why: whenever I find myself debating Muslim immigration, the first line of defense is usually, "Oh, Islam isn't about all that stuff. That's just ignorance about the faith." Here's an example:

 
Quote
Man quotes Koran, is accused of making it up
Undercover Black Man, with whom I’ve had a few dialogs at VFR, was posting at a liberal-leaning blog where his opinions about Islam came under attack. He replied:


Dude … what part of “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them” don’t you understand? Is there any holy book among world religions, EXCEPT the Koran, which advocates the spread of its beliefs through force of arms?”

One of his interlocutors replied:

These are obviously the words of a person who doesn’t know what he is talking about. Who told you that the Koran says this? You obviously have never read it.
You are inventing facts and quoting hearsay to promote your mistaken view of reality.



UBM then did some research on the trusty Web and quoted several English translations of the verse in question as well as of another key verse in Sura 9. We may presume that the person who said UBM was making it all up has now realized that the Koran is not the love-and-tolerance manual he thought it was.
UBM comments, “There is rhetorical power in stacking various English translations of certain Koranic verses one atop the other. The true and essential meaning of the verses stands out in sharp relief when you see them phrased a few different ways.”


Ask Karen Armstrong if this issue's irrelevant, or Mustafa Akyol, or the Bush Administration, or just about any open-borders advocate. But I'm happy that you've admitted that Islam, if taken seriously, is completely at odds with Western Society (if you don't concede this, let me know now.)

This is an important first step. If you concede that Islam, if followed literally, is incompatible with the West, I'll immediately move on to the stats.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,04:39   

Paley, can you explain why this thread doesn't violate the board rule

Quote
*Supporting* or *attacking* religious belief is inappropriate on this discussion board. A variety of other fora are more appropriate for such discourse.

   
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,04:50   

Quote
This is an important first step. If you concede that Islam, if followed literally, is incompatible with the West, I'll immediately move on to the stats.
Just in case you missed it Ill post a quote from the post directly above yours:

Quote
If your arguing that muslim fundamentalists make bad intergrators then you and I agree. But then so do christian fundamentalists and jewish fundamentalists and sikh fundamentalists etc etc etc. In addition, not all muslims are fundamentalists. Hardly a shock I'm sure!

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,04:58   

Louis:

 
Quote
So the qu'ran and hadith and some muslim scholars and individuals have interpreatations/literal verses that are hostile to integration. Big whoop. Not every self identifying muslim adheres to every literal verse nor to every interpretation. If your arguing that muslim fundamentalists make bad intergrators then you and I agree. But then so do christian fundamentalists and jewish fundamentalists and sikh fundamentalists etc etc etc. In addition, not all muslims are fundamentalists. Hardly a shock I'm sure!


I never said that all Muslims are hostile to the West, just a distressingly high percentage. And I challenge your claim about fundies from other faiths. Orthodox Jews aren't spurring a crime wave, Christian fundamentalists aren't flying planes into skyscrapers, Sikh fundies aren't intimidiating journalists. So these comparisons undercut your case. Consider this: although every scripture has passages that make it look bad to outsiders, you won't find calls to slay the infidels where you find them, cut their fingertips off, etc. The Torah may catalogue the destruction of the Amelekites and Midianites, but God doesn't call for the Jews to practice this in the present. Jesus, as both Deadman and Eric admit, was a relatively peaceful man who instructed Christians to "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's" and "turn the other cheek". Driving the moneychangers from the temple doesn't begin to compare with robbing caravans and slaughtering Qurayza.

More later.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,05:10   

Ghosty,

1) I did mention the relevance thing early on. Read back. Don't worry about it, it's not a big deal, I'm just trying to focus on the key issues.

2) You're missing my brief point, read the quote that Chris has just made. I'll emphasise the bits you need:

FUNDAMENTALIST.

Nothing to do with orthodoxy, everything to do with fanaticism. Oh and christian fundies are killing abortion doctors and blowing up clinics. It's also fairly trivial to show that literalist adherence to some biblical passages at the expense of others (i.e. just what you are doing with the qu'ran) is directly at odds with modern western society, again as I am sure you are aware. Jewish fundies (or zionists if you like) are bombing merry #### out of Palestinians (rightly or wrongly) and have a foreign policy and a policy on mixed ethnicity that is directly at odds with modern western values.

Oh and look up "Behzti" (sp?) a play that was picketted by Sikhs here in the UK, and the protests turned violent. The intimidation was sufficient to have the play stopped. I believe journos were also targetted, but I might be worng about that. What about "christian voice" an organisation here in the UK dedicated to intimidation camapaigns?

My point is simple, it's the fundamentalism that's the problem. The specific religion is pretty much incidental. In many cases social deprivation or poverty or anger at (foreign) policy is as important in many (if not all) cases of terrorism/rioting etc. The thing you have to do is demonstrate why muslims are special. Since not all muslims adhere to your choice of surahs and interpretations, you have to show why these more "moderate" muslims are worse at integrating than equally moderate sikhs (for example).

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,05:14   

P.S.

Quote
If you concede that Islam, if followed literally, is incompatible with the West, I'll immediately move on to the stats


I explicitly do not concede, nor think, this. If you want to pick on literal islam, sort your own house out first and demonstrate how literal christianity is compatible with the west.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,05:38   

Louis:

 
Quote
Jewish fundies (or zionists if you like) are bombing merry #### out of Palestinians (rightly or wrongly) and have a foreign policy and a policy on mixed ethnicity that is directly at odds with modern western values.


Booooooo! You know this isn't a valid comparison. If Muslims countries would stop attacking Israel and Muslim terrorists would stop commiting atrocities, then Israel would let the Muslims alone.

 
Quote
Nothing to do with orthodoxy, everything to do with fanaticism. Oh and christian fundies are killing abortion doctors and blowing up clinics.


Yep, and this is a problem. But the scale is just a wee bit different, don't you think? Same thing with the Sikhs. I don't see them stabbing filmakers and sabotaging internet websites and causing widespread censorship of cartoons. If they're doing this, let me know.

It all comes back to an issue of scale. Islamic fundies are much more likely to commit terrorist attacks, and their attacks are often directed at the society as a whole, not just an industry they dislike.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,06:17   

Ghosty,

Sorry my bad, I should have made the comparison more clear. What I mean is that if we are cherry picking actions by groups and cherry picking scriptures we had better be on the same page about which bits we are cherry picking. I can find a slew of western values that find Israel's actions to be abhorrent (and a slew more that don't). Oh and by the way that's what (rightly or wrongly) was in there for.

If you're going to cherry pick the worst excesses of current terrorists who happen to be muslims, then why can't I cherry pick the worst excesses of the IRA? Or of ostensibly christian organisations and governments? Or even, dare I say it, of communists (who were ostensibly atheists doncherknow).

The broad point I am making is that this is a very complex topic, and reducing it to "muslim or not muslim" is a very narrow definition. Robert Mugabe: not muslim, nasty fucker, wouldn't want him or his administration trying to muscle their way in over here. Polish/Russian mafia trafficking girls for prostitution and running opium to the UK, less headlines, more damage caused and expense incurred than 10 9/11s or 100 7/7s. etc etc ad nauseum.

Oh and also by the way, the cartoon furore was deliberate. The clerics who toured the middle east did so with a few additional cartoons of their own devising to rouse the lads some more. Heavens! People with an agenda using made up inflammatory propaganda to incite a population to riot? Never been done by a christian! Hmmmmm Wait a minute......

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the evils of islamic terrorists, but the brush you are painting with is far too broad. You're giving it the old "men rape women therfore all man are (potential) rapists" schtick. Muslims do commit acts of terror, true. Muslims therefore are all potential terrorists, not true. You are not admitting to the VAST majority of muslims in the west (and elsewhere) who don't support, condone, or act out these atrocities.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,07:18   

Quote
Ghosty,

Sorry my bad, I should have made the comparison more clear. What I mean is that if we are cherry picking actions by groups and cherry picking scriptures we had better be on the same page about which bits we are cherry picking. I can find a slew of western values that find Israel's actions to be abhorrent (and a slew more that don't). Oh and by the way that's what (rightly or wrongly) was in there for.


Ok, qualification understood. And I would be the first to complain about Jewish immigrants if they took their schtick over to America or Great Britain. But they don't, and that's what I'm getting at. American and European Jews are not whaling on American or European Muslims, so Israel's acts don't apply to them IMHO. On the other hand, many Muslims are importing their $^&* to the West, and that's what bothers me.

 
Quote
If you're going to cherry pick the worst excesses of current terrorists who happen to be muslims, then why can't I cherry pick the worst excesses of the IRA? Or of ostensibly christian organisations and governments? Or even, dare I say it, of communists (who were ostensibly atheists doncherknow).


Ahhh...but you're forgetting the scale once again. And the Irish are not recent immigrants to the UK if I recall.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,07:29   

Quote
Booooooo! You know this isn't a valid comparison.


Translated out of Paleyese = 'I don't agree with this and it screws up my argument'.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,07:38   

Quote
Oh and also by the way, the cartoon furore was deliberate. The clerics who toured the middle east did so with a few additional cartoons of their own devising to rouse the lads some more. Heavens! People with an agenda using made up inflammatory propaganda to incite a population to riot? Never been done by a christian! Hmmmmm Wait a minute......


Yep, but the most fundy-friendly country in the West  (that would be us) also has a free media....one freer than most of Europe's media, at any rate. So what harm has been done by us Christian fundies? But Muslims are already abridging everyone else's liberty. South Park can broadcast blasphemous pictures of Jesus to its heart's content; but when they tried showing a drawing of Mohammed, Comedy Central wouldn't let 'em....and this was in the US. So much for the power of the Amurican Fundy.....

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,07:54   

Louis, I'll try to bring some statistics soon.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,08:13   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Aug. 29 2006,10:38)
Booooooo! You know this isn't a valid comparison. If Muslims countries would stop attacking Israel and Muslim terrorists would stop commiting atrocities, then Israel would let the Muslims alone.

Just thought I'd pop by for a moment.

Yes, this is probably true, Bill. But that's not the problem. The problem is, Israel's antagonists have figured out exactly how to get Israel to act against its own interests, by reacting vastly out of proportion to its attackers' actions. It cannot have escaped your notice that Palestinian casualties are always many times the number of Israeli casualties, and it certainly hasn't escaped the notice of the Palestinians and their supporters.

Regardless of whether you think Israel's actions are justified or not, the more critical question is, are they constructive? I.e., do they further Israel's interests? It's pretty clear that they don't.

I was talking to a friend at a bar here in SF back in 2001, near the height of the last major intifada. We were talking about the whole Israel/Palestinian issue, and I could tell the bartender was sort of evesdropping. When my friend went to the ladies', I asked the bartender, who interestingly was Israeli, to do something: set aside, for the moment, questions of morality, or ethics, of who's at fault, of who did what to whom or why. Answer this question: do you think Israel's actions will ever have the desired effect, i.e., to get the Arabs and Paletinians to stop attacking Israel? Her answer: "Yes."

"How long do you think it will take," I asked. "After all, Israel's been using essentially the same tactics for the past fifty years, with precious little to show for it. Is Israel notably more secure now than it was in, say, 1950? How long will it take?"

Her answer? "Fifty, maybe seventy-five more years."

So. Israel's about halfway there on finally persuading the Arab world that it's not to be trifled with.

Maybe it's time to reconsider its tactics?

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,09:49   

Eric:

     
Quote
Just thought I'd pop by for a moment.

Yes, this is probably true, Bill. But that's not the problem. The problem is, Israel's antagonists have figured out exactly how to get Israel to act against its own interests, by reacting vastly out of proportion to its attackers' actions. [snip]


Ok, before this becomes a thread on Middle-East policy, let's assume, for the purposes of this debate, that Israel is The Most Evil Nation That Ever Existed*. On an Evilosity scale from 1 - 1000, Israel gets a 1307.

So what? Whatever happens in Israel, stays in Israel -- Jewish immigrants don't import their problems to the West. To a much greater extent, Muslim immigrants do. That's what I'm concerned about.

*I know that Louis and Eric don't believe this.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,11:29   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Aug. 29 2006,14:49)
So what? Whatever happens in Israel, stays in Israel -- Jewish immigrants don't import their problems to the West. To a much greater extent, Muslim immigrants do. That's what I'm concerned about.

Actually, no. What happens in Israel ends up halfway around the world, Bill. Whether you agree with Israel's actions or not, the biggest issue the Muslim world has with the West is its support of Israel. And not just support, but uncritical support.

Jewish immigrants may not export problems to the West, but their antagonists certainly do. Let me ask you this, Bill: if Israel did not exist, how big of a problem do you think most Arabs and/or Muslims would have with the U.S.? Sure, you can't practice Christianity in Saudi Arabia, but the Saudis in general don't seem to have a problem with people practicing Christianity here. Which do you think ordinary Saudis have more of a problem with: America's Christian ways, or America's support for Israel?

(and, of course, I'm currently ignoring the Muslim world's biggest beef with America currently: its occupation of Mesopotamia.)

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,12:03   

Eric:

   
Quote
Actually, no. What happens in Israel ends up halfway around the world, Bill. Whether you agree with Israel's actions or not, the biggest issue the Muslim world has with the West is its support of Israel. And not just support, but uncritical support.


I think you misunderstood me. I didn't mean that the Middle East geopolitical situation has no effect outside its borders, I meant that Jewish immigrants don't bring their "baggage" to other countries. In other words, while some Israelis may dislike Muslims, they don't mistreat them or engage in terrorism when they move to other countries. That's what counts with immigration.

   
Quote
Jewish immigrants may not export problems to the West, but their antagonists certainly do. Let me ask you this, Bill: if Israel did not exist, how big of a problem do you think most Arabs and/or Muslims would have with the U.S.? Sure, you can't practice Christianity in Saudi Arabia, but the Saudis in general don't seem to have a problem with people practicing Christianity here. Which do you think ordinary Saudis have more of a problem with: America's Christian ways, or America's support for Israel?


I have never denied that America's foreign policy (aka serial screwups, although our support of Israel is not one of them) contributes to Muslim anger at America. My point is, so what? For whatever reason, they don't fit in, and that's what matters in immigration policy.

America's foreign policy is not ideal, but some parts ain't gonna change, nor should they. We're not going to stop supporting Israel. Sorry. So Muslims will always hate us for this regardless of our other actions. Besides, do you really think appeasing them will ever work? It doesn't work for Israel when they try it; what makes us any different? They'll just look at us as Dhimmis in waiting (which I intend to establish in future installments) and then jack up the terrorism even more. Your plan of, "Give em what they want, then open the borders" is absolutely suicidal.

Thanks for proving my point for me, though!

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
clamboy



Posts: 188
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,12:58   

And I would like to thank you, ghost of paley, for reminding me why I am an atheist and an anarchist.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,13:35   

Quote
And I would like to thank you, ghost of paley, for reminding me why I am an atheist and an anarchist.

Actually, I wouldn't mind waving the black flag as long as I got an anarchist's freedom in the bargain. But that's not on the menu; open borders + grim totalitarian society is the soupe du jour. Eat up.  ;)

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,13:40   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Aug. 29 2006,17:03)
Thanks for proving my point for me, though!

I proved your point that Muslims don't "fit in" with American culture? How did I prove that?

As it happens, Bill, I know several Muslims, I dated one, and living in San Francisco, I know that half the small shopkeepers here are Muslim. And guess what? They all seem to fit in just fine with American culture.

Do Islamic extremists fit in well with American culture? Probably not. But in my opinion, Christian extremists don't fit in any better, and are probably responsible for more social upheaval than Muslim extremists are.

What "extremists" fit in well in any culture, even their own?

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
don_quixote



Posts: 110
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,13:49   

Hmmm... I'm starting to wonder if Christians actually  want Muslims to hate them. There's no better way of increasing a group's identity than by encouraging an opposing group to hate them. (The Oceana versus Eurasia/Eastasia thing. Osama bin Laden is very much the West's Emmanuel Goldstein, IMO.)

If so, it actually makes a lot of sense for Christians to uncritically support Israel, especially if it generates the hatred that results in terrorism. Then they can say "look at what Muslims do. They're EVIL. And as they are attacking us, we must be GOOD. Thus, we must destroy them".

The vilification of ALL things Islam is something I've heard from even the nicest Christians. It's as disturbing as talking to someone who you think is decent, and then they suddenly come out with the most blatant anti-semitism!

Why do theists have so much hatred? Is it something to do with being less rational?

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,13:55   

Whoops, I seem to be violating my policy of ignoring side comments. Let me do it again, because Eric's delusional questions illustrate what's wrong with the West:

 
Quote
Jewish immigrants may not export problems to the West, but their antagonists certainly do. Let me ask you this, Bill: if Israel did not exist, how big of a problem do you think most Arabs and/or Muslims would have with the U.S.? Sure, you can't practice Christianity in Saudi Arabia, but the Saudis in general don't seem to have a problem with people practicing Christianity here. Which do you think ordinary Saudis have more of a problem with: America's Christian ways, or America's support for Israel?


Ha, ha, Eric thinks that tossing Israel to the Muslims will solve all of our problems. He's almost right. Here's what most Muslims countries want:

1) Death to Israel if not Israelis;

2) Dhimmitude for the rest of the Infidels;

3) Whatever else comes to mind, especially when they discover that 1) and 2) don't close the economic gap.

Poor little Eric and Clamboy -- they don't realise that their freedom is predicated on Israel and America's continued existence.

[uh-oh....based on what's just come in, they're not gonna like this post....]

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,14:02   

In 30 years I did not see the word Dhimmitude. About a month ago, I saw it for the first time on some WorldNutDaily type winger blog. Since then I've seen it 20 times, always from some winger. Saying Dhimmitude is the latest right-wing fad. Where'd you get that, Paley? Little Green Footballs? Hugh Hewitt?

   
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,14:08   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Aug. 29 2006,18:55)
Ha, ha, Eric thinks that tossing Israel to the Muslims will solve all of our problems. He's almost right. Here's what most Muslims countries want:

1) Death to Israel if not Israelis;

2) Dhimmitude for the rest of the Infidels;

3) Whatever else comes to mind, especially when they discover that 1) and 2) don't close the economic gap.

Poor little Eric and Clamboy -- they don't realise that their freedom is predicated on Israel and America's continued existence.

Bill, I'm not denying that the Israel-Palestinian issue is a serious one, nor am I denying that a large number (plurality? majority? a lot?) of Muslims wish for Israel to cease to exist. That wasn't my point. My point was, Israel's tactics in dealing with the Arab and Muslim world do not appear to be working very well.

I do not advocate withdrawing America's support for Israel. However, and at risk of plunging into a numbing analysis of Middle-Eastern affairs, I will say that America's failure to act as an "honest broker" in the Arab-Israeli conflict has made matters demonstrably worse.

But, back to the subject at hand: in what way have I "proved" your point that Muslims cannot integrate into American society? I have first-hand experience that many Muslims can and do integrate perfectly well into American society, which would seem to undermine your point, wouldn't it?

And a further correction: Israel's existence (or lack thereof) has little to no effect on freedom in America. Freedom existed in America long before Israel did.

And I'm not sure what you mean when you say my freedom depends on America's continued existence. Are you under the impression that America's continued existence is under threat from foreigners? I think it's under a much bigger threat from internal actors (and I suspect you agree with me there).

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,14:21   

Quote
If so, it actually makes a lot of sense for Christians to uncritically support Israel, especially if it generates the hatred that results in terrorism. Then they can say "look at what Muslims do. They're EVIL. And as they are attacking us, we must be GOOD. Thus, we must destroy them".

The vilification of ALL things Islam is something I've heard from even the nicest Christians. It's as disturbing as talking to someone who you think is decent, and then they suddenly come out with the most blatant anti-semitism!

Why do theists have so much hatred? Is it something to do with being less rational?


Oh my -- do you have an appropriate moniker....tilting at windmills and living the fantasy life. First of all, I don't hate Muslims; if it were up to me I'd leave Muslims alone to practice their religion to their heart's content. Problem is, they won't leave us alone. Do you really think that Muslim countries were a model of peace until THE NATION THAT DARE NOT SPEAK ITS NAME was thrown into their midst? Time to gather 'round, kids, it's time for Uncle Paley to give you the history lesson your teacher couldn't!

 
Quote
Writing over six decades ago, Arthur Jeffery belittled as “the sheerest sophistry” attempts



“..made in some circles in modern days to explain away all the Prophet’s warlike expeditions as defensive wars or to interpret the doctrine of Jihad as merely a bloodless striving in missionary zeal for the spread of Islam…The early Arabic sources quite plainly and frankly describe the expeditions as military expeditions, and it would never have occurred to anyone at that day to interpret them as anything else…To the folk of his day there would thus be nothing strange in Muhammad, as the head of the community of those who served Allah, taking the sword to extend the kingdom of Allah, and taking measures to insure the subjection of all who lived within the borders of what he made the kingdom of Allah...[Muhammad] did at least propose that all Arabia should be the land of Allah and planned vigorous measures to insure that within its borders the religion of Allah should be supreme. Communities of the People of the Book [Book= Bible; thus referring primarily to Jews and Christians] might remain within the land, but they must be in subjection….deriving their rights from the supreme Muslim community, not from any recognized rights of their own. As the Arabs did not accept this without struggle, it had to be forced on them, and that meant war. But war in the cause of Allah is Holy War, and so even in the Prophet’s lifetime we have the question of Jihad…” 3
[...]
However, W.H.T. Gairdner, the renowned early 20th century scholar of Islam, wrote the following discussion of Muhammad’s treatment of POWs, based exclusively on Muslim sources, including the same sura (Q.8:67/68) cited by Akyol:



“After Badr, especially, the greatest vindictiveness and bloodthirstiness were manifested. Many prisoners were slaughtered in cold blood, at least two of them at the personal insistence of Muhammad who had a special grudge against them. The most famous Companions (except Abu Bakr) were then the most truculent. One of them was for burning the prisoners en masse ! [Gairdner’s emphasis] The Prophet checked these excesses. But the very words in which he did so, the very limits set up, show clearly that defenseless prisoners might always be slaughtered in cold blood if they could not get anyone to redeem them. The Sura produced after the event (Q.8:67-68) explicitly commands the slaughter of prisoners on occasions when it is advisable to make an impression by ‘frightfulness’: on such occasions the sin would be to grow rich by accepting ransoms! And there is a whole series of traditions which make out that the ‘leniency’ shown at Badr was a sin, that Mohammed had been against that sin, humane Abu Bakr was the chief offender, and that had that sin been punished, only the whole-hoggers who had urged the slaughter of all the prisoners (‘Umar and Sa’d) would have escaped…the Koran itself recommended the ransoming of war-captives as a form of charity suitable for rich Muslims. But the Badr alternative is always there in the background, and on suitable occasions may always be brought into the foreground. The prisoner of war is mubah damuhu: his life’s essentially forfeit.” 5



And a review of Egyptian high school textbooks in 2002 reveals the classical exegesis on these Qur’anic verses is still being taught to students in non-Azharite (i.e., “non-religious”) as well as Azharite schools.
[...]
But as Robert Spencer notes even W.N. Arafat, himself, believes that Q.33:26 refers to the massacre of the Banu Qurayza prisoners. This modern view is consistent with the opinions of classical Muslim scholars (for eg., all the seminal Muslim Koranic commentators, including Tabari [d. 923], Zamakshary [d.1144 ], Beidawi [d. 1286], Ibn Kathir [d.1373], and Suyuti [d. 1505]). Spencer reminds us that one of the canonical hadith collections (Sahih Bukhari, vol. 5, book 64, no. 4028) also attests to this massacre.
[...]
Al-Mawardi’s writing makes clear that killing of jihad POWs is a primary (i.e., “first”) option based solely upon what is most expedient for the Muslims:
[...]
Aykol also fails to acknowledge that Al-Mawardi was hardly unique, the views of this Shafi’ite jurist being nearly identical to those of  key jurists representing the three other main Sunni schools of Islamic jurisprudence, including the Hanafites, who prevailed in Ottoman Turkey:
[...]
Ibn Abi Zayd Al_Qayrawani (d. 996), head of the North African Maliki school at Qairuan:



“There is no inconvenience to kill white non-Arabs who have been taken prisoner”. 10



The famous Syrian jurist Ibn Taymiyya (d. 1328) of the Hanbali school under the Mamluks:



“…If a male unbeliever is taken captive during warfare or otherwise, eg.,  as a result of a shipwreck, or because he has lost his way, or as a result of a ruse, then the imam may do whatever he deems appropriate: killing him, enslaving him, releasing him or setting him free for a ransom consisting in either property or people. This is the view of most jurists and it is supported by the Koran and the Sunna…” 11
[...]
These rulings had tangible consequences.


Did they? Let's devote a separate post to them.....

[Eric, I'll address your points after the lesson]

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,15:13   

Picking up where we left off:

   
Quote
These rulings had tangible consequences. For centuries, from the Iberian peninsula to the Indian subcontinent, jihad campaigns waged by Muslim armies against infidel Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, Buddhists and Hindus, were punctuated by massacres, including mass throat slittings and beheadings of captives. Here are but a few examples. Non-Muslim (i.e., Christian) prisoners were beheaded, summarily, during a  jihad campaign against Tripoli in the mid-7th century, as chronicled by Ibn Khaldun in his, History of the Berbers and the Moslem Dynasties of Northern Africa:

“Abd-Allah set siege to the city [Tripoli];  but later, unwilling to let himself be diverted from the goal that he had in mind, he gave the order to break camp.  While we were making our preparations, we spied some vessels that had just landed on the shore; immediately we attacked them and threw into the water anyone who was aboard.  They put up some resistance, but then surrendered, and we tied their hands behind their backs.  They were four hundred in number.  Abd-Allah then joined us, and he had their heads cut off.” 12


OK, I'm going to ignore most of the incidents so I can focus on the largest atrocities:

   
Quote
And Amir Timur, during his jihad campaigns through Northern India (1397-99 C.E.) conducted what may have been the greatest mass slaughter of prisoners ever chronicled:

“Next day, Friday the 3rd of the month. I left the fort of Loni and marched to a position opposite to Jahan-numa where I encamped…  I now held a Court…  At this Court Amir Jahan Shah and Amir Sulaiman Shah and other amirs of experience, brought to my notice that, from the time of entering Hindustan up to the present time, we had taken more than 100,000 infidels and Hindus prisoners, and that they were all in my camp…I asked their advice about the prisoners, and they said that on the great day of battle these 100,000 prisoners could not be left

with the baggage, and that it would be entirely opposed to the [Islamic] rules of war to set these idolaters and foes of Islam at liberty.  In fact, no other course remained but that of making them all food for the sword.
When I heard these words I found them in accordance with the rules of war, and I directly gave my command for the tawachis [drumbeaters] to proclaim throughout the camp that every man who had infidel prisoners was to put them to death…When this order became known to the ghazis of Islam, they drew their swords and put their prisoners to death. 100,000 infidels, impious idolaters, were on that day slain. Maulana Nasiru-d-din ‘Umar, a counselor and man of learning, who, in all his life, had never killed a sparrow, now, in execution of my order, slew with his sword fifteen idolatrous Hindus, who were his captives…” 14


   
Quote
The 7th century Chronicler John of Nikiou describes the jihad conquest of Fayyum and Nikiou, including the massacre of non-combatant women and children:


“[In Fayyum] The Ishmaelites attacked, killed the commandant, massacred all his troops and immediately seized the town…Whoever approached them was massacred; they spared neither old men, nor women, nor children…Then the Muslims arrived in Nikiou.  There was not one single soldier to resist them.  They seized the town and slaughtered everyone they met in the street and in the churches – men, women and children, sparing nobody.  Then they went to other places, pillaged and killed all the inhabitants they found…  But let us now say no more, for it is impossible to describe the horrors the Muslims committed when they occupied the island of Nikiou, on Sunday, the eighteenth day of the month of Guenbot, in the fifteenth year of the lunar cycle, as well as the terrible scenes which took place in Cesarea in Palestine.” 19


   
Quote
Professor J.B. Segal reviewed the jihad destruction of the Christian enclave of Edessa in 1144-1146 C.E., during the Crusades, using primary source documentation, including a contemporary account by Michael the Syrian.



“Thirty thousand souls were killed. Women, youths, and children to the number of sixteen thousand were carried into slavery, stripped of their cloths, barefoot, their hands bound, forced to run beside their captors on horses. Those who could not endure were pierced by lances or arrows, or abandoned to wild animals and birds of prey. Priests were killed out of hand or captured; few escaped. The Archbishop of the Armenians was sold at Aleppo…The whole city was given over to looting, ‘..for a whole year..’, resulting in ‘…complete ruin..’. From this disaster the Christian community of Edessa never recovered.” 21


   
Quote
Professor H.Z. Hirschberg includes this summary of a contemporary Judeo-Arabic account by Solomon Cohen (which comports with Arab historian Ibn Baydhaq’s sequence of events), from January 1148 C.E, describing the Muslim Almohad conquests in North Africa, and Spain:



“Abd al-Mumin…the leader of the Almohads after the death of Muhammad Ibn Tumart the Mahdi [note: Ibn Tumart was a cleric whose writings bear a striking resemblance to Khomeini’s rhetoric eight centuries later] …captured Tlemcen [in the Maghreb] and killed all those who were in it, including the Jews, except those who embraced Islam…[In Sijilmasa] One hundred and fifty persons were killed for clinging to their [Jewish] faith…All the cities in the Almoravid [dynastic rulers of North Africa and Spain prior to the Almohads] state were conquered by the Almohads. One hundred thousand persons were killed in Fez on that occasion, and 120,000 in Marrakesh. The Jews in all [Maghreb] localities [conquered]…groaned under the heavy yoke of the Almohads; many had been killed, many others converted; none were able to appear in public as Jews [emphasis added]…Large areas between Seville and Tortosa [in Spain] had likewise [emphasis added] fallen into Almohad hands.” 23


   
Quote
The mid-15th century Hindu chronicle Kanhadade Prabandha included descriptions of a wave of jihad attacks at the end of the 13th century, and first three decades of the 14th century. These campaigns vanquished extensive regions [Malwa, Gujarat, Ranthambhor, Siwana, Jalor, Devagiri, Warangal, Ma’bar, and Ramesvaram], and resulted in the death or enslavement of perhaps millions of Hindus.24 The devastating nature of such attacks, which included deliberate targeting of non-combatants, is captured in this account:



“A farman (firman) was now given to Gori Malik (to sack Bhinmal)…The Turkish [Muslim] invaders entered the town making dreadful din and clamor. Orders were issued clear and terrible: ‘The soldiers shall march into the town spreading terror everywhere! Cut down the Brahmanas [Brahman priests], wherever they may be- performing homa or milking cows! Kill the cows- even those which are pregnant or with newly born calves!’ The Turks ransacked Bhinmal and captured everybody in the sleepy town. Thereafter, Gori Malik gleefully set fire to the town in a wanton display of force and meanness.” 25


   
Quote
Remarkably similar descriptions of jihad massacres of non-combatants in both the pre-modern and modern eras have been recorded from Greece and the Balkans, Asia Minor, Africa, the Indian subcontinent, and the Far East (Malaysia and Indonesia). Indeed the 20th century opened and closed with frank jihad genocides- the Armenian genocide committed by the Ottoman Turks during the initial two decades, and the genocide of southern Sudanese Christians and Animists committed by the Arab Muslim Khartoum government during the final two decades.


Two things: these numbers are probably wildly exaggerated, but they do indicate that Christians don't have a monopoly on atrocity. And yes, many of these incidents are verified by independent sources. Second: I realise that Christians have a dismal humans right record as well -- but isn't this another reason not to mix such potentially volatile cultures? Since everyone likes to bring up the Crusades, let's look into this time period and see what motivated these conflicts:

 
Quote
Misconceptions about the Crusades are all too common. The Crusades are generally portrayed as a series of holy wars against Islam led by power-mad popes and fought by religious fanatics. They are supposed to have been the epitome of self-righteousness and intolerance, a black stain on the history of the Catholic Church in particular and Western civilization in general. A breed of proto-imperialists, the Crusaders introduced Western aggression to the peaceful Middle East and then deformed the enlightened Muslim culture, leaving it in ruins. For variations on this theme, one need not look far. See, for example, Steven Runciman’s famous three-volume epic, History of the Crusades, or the BBC/A&E documentary, The Crusades, hosted by Terry Jones. Both are terrible history yet wonderfully entertaining.

So what is the truth about the Crusades? Scholars are still working some of that out. But much can already be said with certainty. For starters, the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression—an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.
[...]
With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed’s death. They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt—once the most heavily Christian areas in the world—quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.

That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.

Pope Urban II called upon the knights of Christendom to push back the conquests of Islam at the Council of Clermont in 1095. The response was tremendous. Many thousands of warriors took the vow of the cross and prepared for war. Why did they do it? The answer to that question has been badly misunderstood. In the wake of the Enlightenment, it was usually asserted that Crusaders were merely lacklands and ne’er-do-wells who took advantage of an opportunity to rob and pillage in a faraway land. The Crusaders’ expressed sentiments of piety, self-sacrifice, and love for God were obviously not to be taken seriously. They were only a front for darker designs.

During the past two decades, computer-assisted charter studies have demolished that contrivance. Scholars have discovered that crusading knights were generally wealthy men with plenty of their own land in Europe. Nevertheless, they willingly gave up everything to undertake the holy mission. Crusading was not cheap. Even wealthy lords could easily impoverish themselves and their families by joining a Crusade. They did so not because they expected material wealth (which many of them had already) but because they hoped to store up treasure where rust and moth could not corrupt. They were keenly aware of their sinfulness and eager to undertake the hardships of the Crusade as a penitential act of charity and love. Europe is littered with thousands of medieval charters attesting to these sentiments, charters in which these men still speak to us today if we will listen. Of course, they were not opposed to capturing booty if it could be had. But the truth is that the Crusades were notoriously bad for plunder. A few people got rich, but the vast majority returned with nothing.
[...]
It is often assumed that the central goal of the Crusades was forced conversion of the Muslim world. Nothing could be further from the truth. From the perspective of medieval Christians, Muslims were the enemies of Christ and His Church. It was the Crusaders’ task to defeat and defend against them. That was all. Muslims who lived in Crusader-won territories were generally allowed to retain their property and livelihood, and always their religion. Indeed, throughout the history of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, Muslim inhabitants far outnumbered the Catholics. It was not until the 13th century that the Franciscans began conversion efforts among Muslims. But these were mostly unsuccessful and finally abandoned. In any case, such efforts were by peaceful persuasion, not the threat of violence.

The Crusades were wars, so it would be a mistake to characterize them as nothing but piety and good intentions. Like all warfare, the violence was brutal (although not as brutal as modern wars). There were mishaps, blunders, and crimes. These are usually well-remembered today. During the early days of the First Crusade in 1095, a ragtag band of Crusaders led by Count Emicho of Leiningen made its way down the Rhine, robbing and murdering all the Jews they could find. Without success, the local bishops attempted to stop the carnage. In the eyes of these warriors, the Jews, like the Muslims, were the enemies of Christ. Plundering and killing them, then, was no vice. Indeed, they believed it was a righteous deed, since the Jews’ money could be used to fund the Crusade to Jerusalem. But they were wrong, and the Church strongly condemned the anti-Jewish attacks.

Fifty years later, when the Second Crusade was gearing up, St. Bernard frequently preached that the Jews were not to be persecuted:
[...]
Nevertheless, a fellow Cistercian monk named Radulf stirred up people against the Rhineland Jews, despite numerous letters from Bernard demanding that he stop. At last Bernard was forced to travel to Germany himself, where he caught up with Radulf, sent him back to his convent, and ended the massacres.

It is often said that the roots of the Holocaust can be seen in these medieval pogroms. That may be. But if so, those roots are far deeper and more widespread than the Crusades. Jews perished during the Crusades, but the purpose of the Crusades was not to kill Jews. Quite the contrary: Popes, bishops, and preachers made it clear that the Jews of Europe were to be left unmolested. In a modern war, we call tragic deaths like these "collateral damage." Even with smart technologies, the United States has killed far more innocents in our wars than the Crusaders ever could. But no one would seriously argue that the purpose of American wars is to kill women and children.
[...]
When the Crusader County of Edessa fell to the Turks and Kurds in 1144, there was an enormous groundswell of support for a new Crusade in Europe. It was led by two kings, Louis VII of France and Conrad III of Germany, and preached by St. Bernard himself. It failed miserably. Most of the Crusaders were killed along the way. Those who made it to Jerusalem only made things worse by attacking Muslim Damascus, which formerly had been a strong ally of the Christians. In the wake of such a disaster, Christians across Europe were forced to accept not only the continued growth of Muslim power but the certainty that God was punishing the West for its sins. Lay piety movements sprouted up throughout Europe, all rooted in the desire to purify Christian society so that it might be worthy of victory in the East.

Crusading in the late twelfth century, therefore, became a total war effort. Every person, no matter how weak or poor, was called to help. Warriors were asked to sacrifice their wealth and, if need be, their lives for the defense of the Christian East. On the home front, all Christians were called to support the Crusades through prayer, fasting, and alms. Yet still the Muslims grew in strength. Saladin, the great unifier, had forged the Muslim Near East into a single entity, all the while preaching jihad against the Christians. In 1187 at the Battle of Hattin, his forces wiped out the combined armies of the Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem and captured the precious relic of the True Cross. Defenseless, the Christian cities began surrendering one by one, culminating in the surrender of Jerusalem on October 2. Only a tiny handful of ports held out.

The response was the Third Crusade.
[...]
The Crusades of the 13th century were larger, better funded, and better organized. But they too failed. The Fourth Crusade (1201-1204) ran aground when it was seduced into a web of Byzantine politics, which the Westerners never fully understood. They had made a detour to Constantinople to support an imperial claimant who promised great rewards and support for the Holy Land. Yet once he was on the throne of the Caesars, their benefactor found that he could not pay what he had promised. Thus betrayed by their Greek friends, in 1204 the Crusaders attacked, captured, and brutally sacked Constantinople, the greatest Christian city in the world. Pope Innocent III, who had previously excommunicated the entire Crusade, strongly denounced the Crusaders. But there was little else he could do. The tragic events of 1204 closed an iron door between Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox, a door that even today Pope John Paul II has been unable to reopen. It is a terrible irony that the Crusades, which were a direct result of the Catholic desire to rescue the Orthodox people, drove the two further—and perhaps irrevocably—apart.
[...]
One might think that three centuries of Christian defeats would have soured Europeans on the idea of Crusade. Not at all. In one sense, they had little alternative. Muslim kingdoms were becoming more, not less, powerful in the 14th, 15th, and 16th centuries. The Ottoman Turks conquered not only their fellow Muslims, thus further unifying Islam, but also continued to press westward, capturing Constantinople and plunging deep into Europe itself. By the 15th century, the Crusades were no longer errands of mercy for a distant people but desperate attempts of one of the last remnants of Christendom to survive. Europeans began to ponder the real possibility that Islam would finally achieve its aim of conquering the entire Christian world. One of the great best-sellers of the time, Sebastian Brant’s The Ship of Fools, gave voice to this sentiment in a chapter titled "Of the Decline of the Faith":
[...]
Of course, that is not what happened. But it very nearly did. In 1480, Sultan Mehmed II captured Otranto as a beachhead for his invasion of Italy. Rome was evacuated. Yet the sultan died shortly thereafter, and his plan died with him. In 1529, Suleiman the Magnificent laid siege to Vienna. If not for a run of freak rainstorms that delayed his progress and forced him to leave behind much of his artillery, it is virtually certain that the Turks would have taken the city. Germany, then, would have been at their mercy.

Yet, even while these close shaves were taking place, something else was brewing in Europe—something unprecedented in human history. The Renaissance, born from a strange mixture of Roman values, medieval piety, and a unique respect for commerce and entrepreneurialism, had led to other movements like humanism, the Scientific Revolution, and the Age of Exploration. Even while fighting for its life, Europe was preparing to expand on a global scale.
[...]
From the safe distance of many centuries, it is easy enough to scowl in disgust at the Crusades. Religion, after all, is nothing to fight wars over. But we should be mindful that our medieval ancestors would have been equally disgusted by our infinitely more destructive wars fought in the name of political ideologies. And yet, both the medieval and the modern soldier fight ultimately for their own world and all that makes it up. Both are willing to suffer enormous sacrifice, provided that it is in the service of something they hold dear, something greater than themselves. Whether we admire the Crusaders or not, it is a fact that the world we know today would not exist without their efforts. The ancient faith of Christianity, with its respect for women and antipathy toward slavery, not only survived but flourished. Without the Crusades, it might well have followed Zoroastrianism, another of Islam’s rivals, into extinction.


So the Crusades featured plenty of brutality on both sides. We Christians certainly have plenty of blood on our own hands, and our Christian nations have been responsible for their own massacres, genocide, and atrocities. But the remedy is mercy and mutual tolerance, not soft-headedness.

More later.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,15:35   

SteveStory:

   
Quote
In 30 years I did not see the word Dhimmitude.


I'm sure you didn't, buttercup.

 
Quote
About a month ago, I saw it for the first time on some WorldNutDaily type winger blog. Since then I've seen it 20 times, always from some winger. Saying Dhimmitude is the latest right-wing fad.


Yeah, seein' a cuppla towers go down has a way of focusin' the mind, even after a few years.

   
Quote
Where'd you get that, Paley? Little Green Footballs? Hugh Hewitt?


                 ;)

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,16:38   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Aug. 29 2006,09:58)
[
I never said that all Muslims are hostile to the West, just a distressingly high percentage.

More hot air.

And what the flock does "hostile to the West" mean?  Do you mean hostile to the US?  Hostile to capitalism?  Hostile to Christianity?  ####, CUBA is hostile to all those things, too.  Do you think CUBANS are unable to integrate?

You're just blithering again, Paley.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,18:09   

Quote
Poor little Eric and Clamboy -- they don't realise


'Realise'? Are you Canadian, or something?

Quote
that their freedom is predicated on Israel and America's continued existence.


Congratulations, the kind of boneheaded horseshit for which we can always count on Paley.

Paley, from whom did we get our freedom before Israel existed in 1948? Did we not have any?

 
Quote
In 30 years I did not see the word Dhimmitude. About a month ago, I saw it for the first time on some WorldNutDaily type winger blog. Since then I've seen it 20 times, always from some winger. Saying Dhimmitude is the latest right-wing fad. Where'd you get that, Paley? Little Green Footballs? Hugh Hewitt?


It's now a jargon buzzword for wingnuts who want to sound all educated-like when they get into their hate rants. I'm surprised I haven't seen Paley use 'Islamofascist' as a synonym for 'Muslim' yet.

 
Quote

Yeah, seein' a cuppla towers go down has a way of focusin' the mind,


Is that your personal euphemism for being an idiot?

Quote

You're just blithering again, Paley.


This is easily of the same quality as when Paley shares with us his fantasies of what liberals are like.

Paley, if we want this horseshit, we can all visit Little Green Footballs. You're wasting our time.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2006,01:52   

Ghosty (and everyone to an extent),

We are getting WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYY off the topic of this thread.

This thread is set up for GoP to establish his claim that all muslims integrate less well into western society than all other groups.

We are not concerned about who is being mean to who or when they were mean to each other, or even who has been the meanest recently. Nobody should be interested in defending the indefensible (7/7, 9/11, invading Iraq for oil.....oops freedom, yeah freedom) or other such tangents, nor should we (Ghosty, I'm looking at you) be pulling the selective quotation game with respects to holy books of various religious people.

Ghosty, if all you're interested in is "Ooohh look at them foreign darkies with their heathen ways and their funny lingo and their evil heathen religion" then a) you are not going to be able to establish your case, and b) I'm not interested. Nobody is interested in you trying to shore up your prejudices with favourable quote mines. What we ARE interested in is you defending the original claim. Everything we have had so far is at best very slightly relevant to the underlying causes of integration trouble (or lack of). At worst, it's irrelevant to the point of being nothing more than a staging ground for your political screed. Like I said, not interested.

Perhaps you should think about what you mean by "integration" and what groups you are going to select to contrast. Like I said before.

For example, take an hasidic jew and a sunni muslim, the hasidic jew doesn't socialise with the wider community but the sunni muslim does. Which one is integrating better? I pick these examples at randomn and only for illustrative purposes. This is what I mean by defining your criteria for deciding the extent of "integration".

That certain muslims are hostile to the west is undeniable, it doesn't follow therefore that ALL muslims (your claim, see above) are worse at integration than everyone else.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2006,04:02   

Quote
Second: I realise that Christians have a dismal humans right record as well -- but isn't this another reason not to mix such potentially volatile cultures?

Er...

Paley, do you also think that Christians do not assimilate in Muslim countries well, and those countries should kick them out in fear of their safety?

Or are you just playing with words here?

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2006,04:12   

Here's an interesting article from August 25, 2006...five days ago
 
Quote
After the riots in Parisian suburbs and other French cities by mainly Muslim youths late last year, few international and domestic analysts were touting the soundness of the French government's policies toward its Muslim population.
Critics charged French society with discriminating against people of North African descent and Muslims generally. Such discrimination, they claimed, fueled the riots.
Economically Driven Dissatisfaction
However, the Pew Center's survey data paints a different picture of the violence, putting France's treatment of Muslims in a more favorable light.
"When we look at the riots last year in France, they appear to have been heavily economically driven rather than driven by religion -- by the fact that there are very high rates of unemployment among French Muslims rather than by a zealous desire to convert or extinguish those of other faiths," Jodie Allen, a senior editor at Pew, told RFE/RL.
French Muslims, like Muslims in the rest of Europe, are concerned about unemployment. France has an estimated 5 million Muslims, comprising about 8 percent of the population. By contrast, Muslims make up less than 3 percent of the population in the United Kingdom and Denmark.
French Muslims Ready To Assimilate
More than half of French Muslims are concerned about joblessness, according to survey data collected by Pew in April 2006. But unlike their coreligionists elsewhere, a substantial majority embraces the customs of their countrymen.
"Nearly eight in 10 French Muslims generally say they want to adopt French customs," Allen said. "And this high preference for assimilation certainly compares with that in Spain, although Spanish Muslims tend also to come from North Africa. Only 53 percent of Muslims in Spain say they want to adopt Spanish customs. Only 41 percent in Britain say the same about British customs. And nearly 30 percent in Germany say that. So you can see that in some sense the Muslims in France feel more at home in that country."....French Muslims also face unemployment and prejudice. In fact, 37 percent of French Muslims reported a bad experience due to their race, ethnicity, or religion, compared to 28 percent among British Muslims....Few French Muslims perceive a conflict between being a devout Muslim and living in French society. Some 72 percent of those surveyed see no conflict, compared with only 49 percent in Great Britain.
Perhaps it is not coincidental then that the broader French public -- some 74 percent -- also sees no conflict, while only 35 percent of the British public agrees with this sentiment.

http://www.speroforum.com/site....gration
I find myself kind of torn here: I dislike organized religions in general and definitely view the theocratic tendencies of Islam as less preferable than living in a "Christian western" state, but I also disagree with Paley's notions of isolationism and Ann Coulter-like fear-mongering. Certainly the history of Islam is replete with wrongdoing (I've always been amazed at the number of American black muslims I've met that have no clue about "Arab" slave-trading)--but that history is not neccessarily a guidepost to the future. Current stats (like those above?) might be better indicators.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
don_quixote



Posts: 110
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2006,05:17   

Quote (Faid @ Aug. 30 2006,09:02)
 
Quote
Second: I realise that Christians have a dismal humans right record as well -- but isn't this another reason not to mix such potentially volatile cultures?

Er...

Paley, do you also think that Christians do not assimilate in Muslim countries well, and those countries should kick them out in fear of their safety?

Or are you just playing with words here?

Good question Faid. I can't wait for GoP's answer.

Gop, I'm glad to have gotten your attention. Perhaps you would be so kind as to address a point Arden made a few days ago:

"My prediction is that GoP would be much happier with hardcore Christian fundamentalists immigrating to this country than he would be with the most moderate Muslims."

Would that be correct?

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2006,11:11   

OK, let's respond to Louis:

   
Quote
Ghosty (and everyone to an extent),

We are getting WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYY off the topic of this thread.

This thread is set up for GoP to establish his claim that all muslims integrate less well into western society than all other groups.


But how can we measure this without exploring the underlying culture?

Basically, there are three levels of denial operating in these debates:

1) Denial that Islam is an intolerant, militant religion;

2) Denial that Muslims themselves have engaged in many acts of barbarism in order to spread their faith;

3) Denial that Muslims make poor candidates for assimilation into Western society

You want me to focus on number 3) to the exclusion of cultural and historical issues, but I don't think that's possible. Culture and historical baggage (issues 1 and 2) offer excellent clues to whether assimilation (point 3) has any realistic hope of succeeding. Like it or not, people assimilate differently, and culture is a large reason why. Don't worry, though: I plan to support 3 in the future. I'm just trying to eliminate any wiggle room in the meantime.

   
Quote
We are not concerned about who is being mean to who or when they were mean to each other, or even who has been the meanest recently. Nobody should be interested in defending the indefensible (7/7, 9/11, invading Iraq for oil.....oops freedom, yeah freedom) or other such tangents, nor should we (Ghosty, I'm looking at you) be pulling the selective quotation game with respects to holy books of various religious people.


This is the kind of stunt you promised you wouldn't pull. You may not wish to examine Islamic scriptures, but don't accuse me of "quotemining" without backing it up. If you think I'm misrepresenting the Koran, then show me where....otherwise, you're behaving dishonestly.

   
Quote
Ghosty, if all you're interested in is "Ooohh look at them foreign darkies with their heathen ways and their funny lingo and their evil heathen religion" then a) you are not going to be able to establish your case, and b) I'm not interested. Nobody is interested in you trying to shore up your prejudices with favourable quote mines. What we ARE interested in is you defending the original claim. Everything we have had so far is at best very slightly relevant to the underlying causes of integration trouble (or lack of). At worst, it's irrelevant to the point of being nothing more than a staging ground for your political screed. Like I said, not interested.


Once again, it is your responsibility to show me where I misrepresented the evidence. By the way, nice ad hom....you must be pretty frustrated with your inability to counter my evidence....why else play the race card (while dealing it from the bottom of the deck)? By the way, here's some more evidence of the cultural barriers that Muslims immigrants face:

   
Quote
One of the more controversial topics for Muslims in the West is the punishment for apostasy from Islam. Muslims living in the Mideast have no problem with the concept of putting apostates to death. But to Muslims living in the West it is an embarrassing Islamic edict. The West values freedom of thought and freedom of speech are two virtues that have never blossomed under Islam. Consequently when asked about the Islamic law for apostates Muslims in the West hide behind excuses such as "only a true Islamic state can execute apostates", or "punishment was carried out because those apostates were threats to the new Islamic state, and it is not needed anymore".


What exactly was the law during Muhammad's and the Caliph's time? What were the requirements for a death sentence to be carried out? Was the sentence only for a short period of time? Was it only to be administered under a "true Islamic state", or did it apply to anyone who had left Islam? A close examination of the Quran, Hadith, and Sirat will show that indeed, the punishment for leaving Islam, either under an Islamic government, or not, was execution.
[...]
To begin with, the Quran does not come out and explicitly state that apostates should be murdered. However, there are a number of Quranic verses that pertain to apostasy, and they shed some light on the punishment for apostates.
[snip suras]
[...]
It is from the Hadith that we draw our understanding and information on the punishment for the apostate. From the Hadith, we find no ambiguity on the subject. All quotes will be from Bukhari's Hadith, from the 9 volume English set, translated by Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan.


Bukhari, volume 9, #17

"Narrated Abdullah: Allah's Messenger said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Messenger, cannot be shed except in three cases: in Qisas (equality in punishment) for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (Apostate) and leaves the Muslims."


Bukhari, volume 9, #37

"Narrated Abu Qilaba: Once Umar bin Abdul Aziz sat on his throne in the courtyard of his house so that the people might gather before him....He replied "By Allah, Allah's messenger never killed anyone except in one of the following three situations: 1) A person who killed somebody unjustly, was killed (in Qisas,) 2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse and, 3) a man who fought against Allah and His messenger, and deserted Islam and became an apostate....


In Chapter 2, from "The Book of obliging the Reverters from Islam, page 42, (following Hadith #56) it reads:

"The legal regulation concerning the male and the female who reverts from Islam (apostates). Ibn Umar Az-Zuhri and Ibrahim said, "A female apostate (who reverts from Islam), should be killed.And the obliging of the reverts from Islam to repent Allah said - ....

Following this chapter, a number of Quranic verses are given, among them are some already mentioned. They are 3:86-89, 3:100, 4:137, 5:54, 16:106-110, 2:217.


Bukhari, volume 9, #57

Narrated Ikrima, "Some atheists were brought to Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's messenger forbade it, saying, "Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire)." I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Messenger, "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him."


Bukhari, volume 9, #58

Narrated Abu Bruda, "Abu Musa said.....Behold there was a fettered man beside Abu Musa. Muadh asked, "Who is this (man)?" Abu Musa said, "He was a Jew and became a Muslim and hen reverted back to Judaism." Then Abu Musa requested Muadh to sit down but Muadh said, "I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and his messenger," and repeated it thrice. Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed. Abu Musa added, "Then we discussed the night prayers .....


Bukhari, volume 9, #64

Narrated Ali, "Whenever I tell you a narration from Allah's messenger, by Allah, I would rather fall down from the sky, than ascribe a false statement to him, but if I tell you something between me and you, (not a Hadith), then it was indeed a trick (i.e., I may say things just to cheat my enemy). No doubt I heard Allah's messenger saying, ‘During the last days there will appear some young foolish people, who will say the best words, but their faith will not go beyond their throats (i.e. they will have no faith) and will go out from (leave) their religion as an arrow goes out of the game. So, wherever you find them, kill them, for whoever kills them shall have reward on the Day of Resurrection.’"


Bukhari, volume 9, #271 [This one is similar to #58]

Narrated Abu Musa: A man embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism. Muadh Jabal came and saw the man with Abu Musa. Muadh asked, "What is wrong with this (man)?" Abu Musa replied, "He embraced Islam, and then reverted back to Judaism." Muadh said, "I will not sit down unless you kill him (as it is) the verdict of Allah and His messenger."


Bukhari, Chapter 26, from the Book of Mutual Consultation, page 339, following Hadith # 461

"The Statement of Allah... 42:32, 3:159, ...The prophet said, "If someone changes his religion, then kill them....."


********************

OTHER REFERENCES


FROM THE SIRAT RASULALLAH AND THE KITAB AL-TABAQAT AL-KABIR


After Muhammad took Mecca, he ordered a number of people to be killed. Several of them were apostates. Here is the background.


Muhammad ordered the execution of 10 people when he took Mecca. Here is the list of names found in Ibn Sa'd "Tabaqat".

The quote is from the Tabaqat, Vol. 2, page 168.

"The apostle of Allah entered through Adhakhir, [into Mecca], and prohibited fighting. He ordered six men and four women to be killed, they were (1) Ikrimah Ibn Abi Jahl, (2) Habbar Ibn al-Aswad, (3) Abd Allah Ibn Sa'd Ibn Abi Sarh, (4) Miqyas Ibn Sababah al-Laythi, (5) al-Huwayrith Ibn Nuqaydh, (6) Abd Abbah Ibn Hilal Ibn Khatal al-Adrami, (7) Hind Bint Utbah, (8) Sarah, the mawlat (enfranchised girl) of Amr Ibn Hashim, (9) Fartana and (10) Qaribah.


THE SIRAT RASULALLAH GIVES SOME DETAILS BEHIND THE LIST OF NAMES


The information below corresponds to # 3 on the list.

"The apostle had instructed his commanders when they entered Mecca only to fight those who resisted them, except a small number who were to be killed even if they were found beneath the curtains of the Kaba. Among them was Abdullah Sa'd, brother of the B. Amir Luayy. The reason he ordered him to be killed was that he had been a Muslim and used to write down revelation; then he apostatized and returned to Quraysh [Mecca] and fled to Uthman Affan whose foster brother he was. The latter hid him until he brought him to the apostle after the situation in Mecca was tranquil, and asked that he might be granted immunity. They allege that the apostle remained silent for a long time till finally he [Muhammad] said yes [granting Abdullah immunity from the execution order].


Yes this source is Christian, but they quote directly from the Quran and Hadith. So if they're quotemining, you should have no trouble showing me where. But don't forget the testimony of Muslim apostates:

   
Quote
Not until few years ago I used to think that my faith in Islam was not based on blind imitation but rather was the result of years of investigation and research. The fact that I had read a lot of books on Islam, written by people whose thoughts I approved of and delving into philosophies that were within my comfort zone, emphasized my conviction that I had found the truth. All my bias research confirmed my faith. Just like other Muslims I used to believe that to learn about anything one has to go to the source. Of course the source of Islam is Quran and the books written by Muslim scholars. Therefore, I felt no need to look elsewhere in order to find the truth, as I was convinced that I have already found it. As Muslims say “Talabe ilm ba’d az wossule ma’loom mazmoom”. The search of knowledge after gaining it is foolish
[...]
One may think that the dreadful penalty mentioned here pertains to the next word. But Muhammad made sure that these people received their penalty in this world as well. See the following:

Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 61, Number 577:

I heard the Prophet saying, "In the last days (of the world) there will appear young people with foolish thoughts and ideas. They will give good talks, but they will go out of Islam as an arrow goes out of its game, their faith will not exceed their throats. So, wherever you find them, kill them, for there will be a reward for their killers on the Day of Resurrection."

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 63, Number 260:

Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' "

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 63, Number 261:

Eight men of the tribe of 'Ukil came to the Prophet and then they found the climate of Medina unsuitable for them. So, they said, "O Allah's Apostle! Provide us with some milk." Allah's Apostle said, "I recommend that you sh ould join the herd of camels." So they went and drank the urine and the milk of the camels (as a medicine) till they became healthy and fat. Then they killed the shepherd and drove away the camels, and they became unbelievers after they were Muslims. When the Prophet was informed by a shouter for help, he sent some men in their pursuit, and before the sun rose high, they were brought, and he had their hands and feet cut off. Then he ordered for nails, which were heated and passed over their eyes, and they were left in the Harra (i.e. rocky land in Medina). They asked for water, and nobody provided them with water till they died.

And from Partial Translation of Sunan Abu-Dawud Book 38, Number 4339

Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin:
The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) Said: The blood of a Muslim man who testifies that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle should not lawfully be shed except only for one of three reasons: a man who committed fornication after marriage, in which case he should be stoned; one who goes forth to fight with Allah and His Apostle, in which case he should be killed or crucified or exiled from the land; or one who commits murder for which he is killed.

The following is very disturbing. I dare to say any man who read it and is not taken aback with disgust has a long way to go to become a human.

Sunan Abu-Dawud Book 38, Number 4348

”Narrated Abdullah Ibn Abbas:
A blind man had a slave-mother who used to abuse the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and disparage him. He forbade her but she did not stop. He rebuked her but she did not give up her habit. One night she began to slander the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and abuse him. So he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there. When the morning came, the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) was informed about it.
He assembled the people and said: I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right to him that he should stand up. Jumping over the necks of the people and trembling the man stood up.
He sat before the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and said: Apostle of Allah! I am her master; she used to abuse you and disparage you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not abandon her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was my companion. Last night she began to abuse and disparage you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her.
Thereupon the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood".


I felt the above story was a manifest injustice. Muhammad condoned a man killing a pregnant mother and his own unborn child just because he said that she insulted him!?

(Arabs used to sleep with their maid slaves. Quran perpetuates this tradition Q.33: 52 “It is not lawful for thee (to marry more) women after this, nor to change them for (other) wives, even though their beauty attract thee, except any thy right hand should possess (as handmaidens): and Allah doth watch over all things.” Muhammad himself slept with Mariyah the maid slave of Hafsa his wife without marrying her.)

Forgiving someone for killing another human being just because he said she insulted Muhammad is unacceptable. What if that man was lying to escape punishment? What dose this story say about Muhammad’s sense of Justice? Imagine how many innocent women, were killed by their husbands during these 1400 years who escaped punishment accusing their murdered wives of blaspheming the prophet of God and this Hadith has made them get away with it.

Here is another one.

Sunan Abu-Dawud Book 38, Number 4349

Narrated Ali ibn AbuTalib:
A Jewess used to abuse the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and disparage him. A man strangled her till she died. The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) declared that no recompense was payable for her blood.


It was not easy to read these stories and not be moved. There is no reason to believe that all these stories were fabricated. Why should believers, who have tried to depict their prophet as a compassionate man fabricate so many stories that would make him look like ruthless tyrant?

I could no more accept the brutal treatment of those who chose not to accept Islam. Faith is a personal matter. I could no more accept that the punishment of someone who criticizes any religion must be death.

See how Muhammad dealt with the unbelievers.

Sunan Abu-Dawud Book 38, Number 4359

Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas:
The verse "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Apostle, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite side or exile from the land...most merciful" was revealed about polytheists. If any of them repents before they are arrested, it does not prevent from inflicting on him the prescribed punishment, which he deserves.”


How could a messenger of God maim and crucify people on the account that they resist accepting him? Could such person be really a messenger of God? Wasn’t there a better man with more moral an ethical fortitude to bear this mighty responsibility?

I could not accept the fact that Muhammad slaughtered 900 Jews in one day, after he captured them in a raid that he started. I read the following story and I shivered.

Sunan Abu-Dawud Book 38, Number 4390

Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi:
I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair

Also I found following story shocking.

Sunan Abu-Dawud Book 38, Number 4396

Narrated Jabir ibn Abdullah:
A thief was brought to the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him). He said: Kill him. The people said: He has committed theft, Apostle of Allah! Then he said: Cut off his hand. So his (right) hand was cut off. He was brought a second time and he said: Kill him. The people said: He has committed theft, Apostle of Allah! Then he said: Cut off his foot.
So his (left) foot was cut off.
He was brought a third time and he said: Kill him.
The people said: He has committed theft, Apostle of Allah!
So he said: Cut off his hand. (So his (left) hand was cut off.)
He was brought a fourth time and he said: Kill him.
The people said: He has committed theft, Apostle of Allah!
So he said: Cut off his foot. So his (right) foot was cut off.
He was brought a fifth time and he said: Kill him.
So we took him away and killed him. We then dragged him and cast him into a well and threw stones over him.

Seems that Muhammad passed judgment before hearing the case. Also by cutting a thief’s hand he is left with no other means to earn his bread except begging, which would be difficult since he is defamed as a thief and so hated by people. Therefore re-offending becomes his only means of livelihood.


But here are direct links to the texts in question, so the skeptic may check for himself.

 
Quote
That certain muslims are hostile to the west is undeniable, it doesn't follow therefore that ALL muslims (your claim, see above) are worse at integration than everyone else.


No, but relative frequencies play a role in this debate, and culture explains the differential frequencies. By the way, here's a debate on some of these issues.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2006,11:27   

D.Q.

 
Quote
Gop, I'm glad to have gotten your attention. Perhaps you would be so kind as to address a point Arden made a few days ago:

"My prediction is that GoP would be much happier with hardcore Christian fundamentalists immigrating to this country than he would be with the most moderate Muslims."

Would that be correct?


Arfin's just trolling; he'll respond with an irrelevant witticism no matter what I say. But to answer your question: I would prefer the hardcore fundy Christian (after all, I am one myself), but mostly because many moderate Muslims have a dreadful habit of "flipping" into hardcore militancy once they become citizens. This is not a prejudice -- it's a fact. Perhaps they were lying about their beliefs, or perhaps they were horrified by the moral laxity they saw when they settled in. But whatever the reason, it's a very real problem and no one has a clue on how to detect Western-friendly Muslims ahead of time.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
don_quixote



Posts: 110
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2006,11:45   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Aug. 30 2006,16:27)
D.Q.

   
Quote
Gop, I'm glad to have gotten your attention. Perhaps you would be so kind as to address a point Arden made a few days ago:

"My prediction is that GoP would be much happier with hardcore Christian fundamentalists immigrating to this country than he would be with the most moderate Muslims."

Would that be correct?


Arfin's just trolling; he'll respond with an irrelevant witticism no matter what I say. But to answer your question: I would prefer the hardcore fundy Christian (after all, I am one myself), but mostly because many moderate Muslims have a dreadful habit of "flipping" into hardcore militancy once they become citizens. This is not a prejudice -- it's a fact. Perhaps they were lying about their beliefs, or perhaps they were horrified by the moral laxity they saw when they settled in. But whatever the reason, it's a very real problem and no one has a clue on how to detect Western-friendly Muslims ahead of time.

Thank you, GoP, for realising that you are a "fundy Christian" (and I don't mean that sarcastically). Now, would you mind responding to my previous comment:

"I think you may end up having to conclude that groups of people from any faith don't integrate into societies, if they are fundamentalists. Integration is about compromise. Moderates of any faith are more likely to integrate into any society (and indeed enhance it). Fundamentalists are more likely to want society to change for them, in a way that reflects their world-view, and thus conflicts arise."

Do you agree?

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2006,11:56   

Quote
many moderate Muslims have a dreadful habit of "flipping" into hardcore militancy once they become citizens. This is not a prejudice -- it's a fact


Fact? I find extremely hard to establish such a fact, even if it were true. What way is there to know? And even if you can prove a previous moderate behavior, How can you dismiss the possibility of suppressed tendencies, or circumstances and events that ingited hatred, or even actual pretense to avoid detection, and blame the religion itself?

Any examples?

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2006,12:12   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Aug. 30 2006,16:27)
D.Q.

     
Quote
Gop, I'm glad to have gotten your attention. Perhaps you would be so kind as to address a point Arden made a few days ago:

"My prediction is that GoP would be much happier with hardcore Christian fundamentalists immigrating to this country than he would be with the most moderate Muslims."

Would that be correct?


Arfin's just trolling; he'll respond with an irrelevant witticism no matter what I say. But to answer your question: I would prefer the hardcore fundy Christian (after all, I am one myself), but mostly because many moderate Muslims have a dreadful habit of "flipping" into hardcore militancy once they become citizens. This is not a prejudice -- it's a fact. Perhaps they were lying about their beliefs, or perhaps they were horrified by the moral laxity they saw when they settled in. But whatever the reason, it's a very real problem and no one has a clue on how to detect Western-friendly Muslims ahead of time.

So I predicted your reaction correctly: you'd prefer the looniest Christian to any Muslim, because, based on your deep experience, the Muslim will probably become an extremist. You're fine with Christian extremism.

Glad you're as intimately familiar with how Muslims think as you are with liberals.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2006,12:26   

Quote
But whatever the reason, it's a very real problem and no one has a clue on how to detect Western-friendly Muslims ahead of time.

Ghost, I hope you understand this is an extremely xenophobic assertion.
It basically boils down to "You can never trust Muslims, even the most mild-mannered and friendly ones, because you never know when they might flip out and blow themselves and everyone else up. You just don't".

Not one of your best moments here.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2006,14:17   

No comment on the Pew Center polling data I posted?

Here's something else, then, from last April:
Quote
A conference of Muslim prayer leaders, or imams, from all over Europe is due to open in Vienna on April 7. On the agenda at the three-day meeting is how to integrate Muslim communities into the European mainstream while maintaining European Muslims' identity. RFE/RL [Radio Free Europe] interviewed one participant, Dr. Abduljalil Sajid, the chairman of Britain's Muslim Council for Religious and Racial Harmony, on Islam's place in Europe and the identity of European Muslims.
RFE/RL: Do you feel imams and preachers are adequately building bridges between Muslims and Christians? Or is this something that still must be done in places of worship around Europe?

Sajid: Well, I'll give you my own example. I started to work on building bridges between [Muslims and] various faiths, Jews, Christians 40 years ago. We all need to live in peace. Peace and coexistence will not come by talks. It will come by practice; it will come by how we respect each other, how we recognize our differences and accept those differences and value and appreciate our humanity together. When we come to respect our humanity, I think that common sense will prevail, and respect will come. Abiding the law of the land and the rule of law is paramount.

RFE/RL: Do you consider yourself a Muslim in Europe or a European Muslim?

Sajid: I'm both. I consider myself a European Muslim. My identity is in my geography, my area, but I myself also consider that my first and foremost duty is to the identity of my faith, believing in God. So I am a Muslim in Europe as well as a European Muslim. I do not see a contradiction in either of these two terms, and we should not be asked and forced to choose one against another. We can be both.

http://www.rferl.org/feature....dd.html

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2006,14:47   

Faid:
   
Quote
Ghost, I hope you understand this is an extremely xenophobic assertion.
It basically boils down to "You can never trust Muslims, even the most mild-mannered and friendly ones, because you never know when they might flip out and blow themselves and everyone else up. You just don't".

Not one of your best moments here.


Well, the immigration officer can't tell, because how much can one learn about an individual through the naturalisation process? Fill out a form, meet for an interview, get photo'd and printed, then take the oath. Or sneak across the border. Boy, there's a loophole-free system for ya. I'm just being realistic.

Nine:

 
Quote
No comment on the Pew Center polling data I posted?


Since Louis has no answer for my cultural/historical arguments, now's as good a time as any, I guess. This response does not mean that I'm starting my presentation for point # 3, but it will give everyone a sample of what's coming.

Here's the link, so now let the fisking begin:

 
Quote
Study shows France leading in Muslim integration
Thirty-seven percent of French Muslims reported a bad experience due to their race, ethnicity, or religion, compared to 28 percent among British Muslims.


Hmmmm....already I'm astonished. For years and years, Europeans were telling us that their countries were racism-free Utopias that would seamlessly integrate both People of Color and religious minorities, unlike Amerikka. Things haven't turned out as planned, I see. So either Europeans were naive, lying, or both. Maybe this survey will help us choose among these options.

[since this software was designed by the Ancient Mariner, as it stoppeth one of three, I'll continue below]

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2006,16:01   

Continuing from the last post:

         
Quote
A new analysis by the Washington-based Pew Research Center suggests that European countries with significant Muslim populations may be well advised to study the French model of integration. The Pew data shows that French Muslims are embracing assimilation more eagerly than their counterparts in other European countries.


Notice the subtle admission that Muslims, indeed, have trouble assimilating into Western Societies. I mean, I don't see this much fuss over Christian, Jewish, and Hindu immigrants. This says a lot, and probably more than the reporter intended.

And taking lessons from France? France? the largest and most useless collection of windbags ever assembled in one country? But let's carry on.....

         
Quote
After the riots in Parisian suburbs and other French cities by mainly Muslim youths late last year, few international and domestic analysts were touting the soundness of the French government's policies toward its Muslim population.


Which is quite understandable, since the French Muslim population has had problems for some time now. Let's start with this mysterious poll. Notice that roughly half the Muslims surveyed in the four countries worries about unemployment. This suggests that they're not contributing a great deal to the economy (which, of course, may not be their fault). People with marketable skills tend not to fret so much about unemployment, even in Arkansas. This isn't meant to be snide -- I've worked more than my share of low-paying, degrading jobs, but since unemployment rates hover around 10% for the Pew countries, it's depressing that Muslims are scuffling so much. This is not a good sign. This story quantifies the economic discrepancy:
     
Quote
There is growing fear of a new and virulent anti-Semitism taking hold in the dingy subsidized housing tracts where most Arab and West Africans immigrants live in isolation from the French mainstream, suffering from poverty, unemployment, and school dropout rates often more than double the national average.


The Cato Institute agrees:
   
Quote
French unemployment has hovered around 10 percent for years, but the unemployment rate for the rioting young people is well above 20 percent and in some immigrant neighborhoods tops 60 percent. Overall economic growth is less than half that of the United States.


And this has led to an interesting result:

     
Quote
But more recently, analysts say, anti-Semitism in France has taken an uglier turn as young Arabs and West Africans have adopted loud hatred of Jews as a proclamation of cool, an attitude powered more by rap music, ultraviolent jihadist videos, and radical Islamic rhetoric -- although with little or no adherence to Islamic religious practice -- than by any coherent stand on events in the Middle East. Equally alarming, the anti-Semitism appears to be spreading among non-Muslim Africans and Caribbean blacks in France, and even gaining ground among white immigrants from European backwaters who find it difficult gaining a place in French society.

Said Sammy Ghozlan, a retired police chief and activist against anti-Semitism: ''It's all mixed up: gang stuff, violence, and a glaze of ideology -- they hate Jews, they hate the West, they hate France. The Jews are the face they put on their generalized anger at the world."
[...]
France recorded 974 anti-Semitic incidents in 2004, a record high for the post-World War II era. But officials were proud that slurs spray-painted on synagogues, the trashing of Jewish cemeteries, and other incidents fell dramatically last year, to about 500 incidents.

But Jewish leaders say the decline is less a reflection of growing tolerance than of the heavy precautions that synagogues have felt obliged to adopt in recent years, including installation of high, heavy-gauge steel security fences, 24-hour surveillance cameras, and armed patrols.


But here's more from the Pew poll that inspired the article. Apparently, things are going well assimilation-wise:

 
Quote
when asked whether they consider themselves as a national citizen first or as a Muslim first, French Muslims split relatively evenly (42% vs. 46%) on the issue. Not only is this remarkably different from Muslims elsewhere in Europe (fully 81% of British Muslims self-identify with their religion rather than their nationality, for example) but it is remarkably close to the responses given by Americans when asked whether they identify first as national citizens or as Christians (48% vs. 42%). Perhaps in this, as in other things, Muslims living in France are indeed absorbing the secular ways of their countrymen, among whom fully 83% self-identify with their nationality, rather than their religion.
[...]
Nearly eight-in-ten French Muslims (78%) say they want to adopt French customs. Those under age 35 are equally as likely to say this as are their elders. This high preference for assimilation compares with that expressed by 53% of Muslims in Spain, 41% in Britain and 30% in Germany.
[...]
Most striking, however, is the difference between the views that French Muslims hold about people of other faiths and the views held by Muslims elsewhere in Europe and in predominantly Muslim countries. French Muslims even top the general publics in the United States and France in favorable ratings of Christians (91% of French Muslims vs. 88% of Americans and 87% of the French take that view).

But what most distinguishes French Muslims from their co-religionists not only in the Muslim world but in Europe, is their attitude toward Jews. Fully 71% of French Muslims express a positive view of people of the Jewish faith, compared with only 38% of German Muslims, 32% of British Muslims, 28% of Spanish Muslims and still lower numbers in the predominantly Muslim countries surveyed. In this, Muslims reflect the view of the larger French public among whom fully 86% express a favorable opinion of Jews, a higher proportion than even than among the American public.


Since time has run out, I'll finish this tomorrow. But let me just note that in a battle between evidence and cheerful self-reports, the evidence wins every time.

More later.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2006,23:17   

Ghosty,

I'm not accusing anyone of quote mining per se, what's that saying "the devil can quote scripture to suit his needs"?

What I'm saying is that you are tarring "muslims" with the brush of literal adherence to the qu'ran, especially the naughty bits. Quoting the qu'ran (or the bible for that matter "thou shalt not suffer an unbeliever to live" remember that one) isn't sufficient to demonstrate "all muslims integrate worse than anyone else" because not all muslims have the same interpretations of the qu'ran, and I'm also saying that we should all be careful with this sort of thing (not just you).

I'm also saying it's irrelevant for good reasons. It doesn't matter what the qu'ran says, all you have to demonstrate is the original claim you made, i.e. that muslims integrate (that has yet to be defined) into western societies worse than all other groups. Wittering on about how evil the qu'ran is or how nasty and intemperate "muslims" are (when it's starkly clear that ALL "muslims" are not so nasty and intemperate, SOME are) doesn't do it.

Your "denials" 1, 2 and 3 are nonsense. No one is denying 1 and 2, mainly beacsue they're irrelevant to the discussion, and 3 is what you're trying to establish!

I haven't answered your "cultural and historical evidence" because you've yet to really bring any up, all we've had so far is appeals to high profile media cases and the nastier bits of iron age nonsense books.

This thread could be about 4 posts long. My original post, your response, my agreement, and a series of statistics showing that for your given definitions of "muslim" and "integration" that muslims do less well than say sikhs. Ok, there'd be a fifth post, me agreeing that you have proved your case.

The "look how nasty their naughty books are, and aren't some of them radical and terrorist material" is pointless, this applies to SOME of everybody. What you have to demonstrate is not that you THINK the make poor integration subjects, but that they HAVE made poor integration subjects, and demonstrably poorer than all other groups.

Ghosty, I am merely trying to get you to defend the claim you made, nothing more. When you defend that claim, and stop appealling to prejudice based on how mean and nasty some things that some muslims have done and said are, I'll post a proper reply. Until then I'm reduced to pointing out how irrelevant most of this is. Your argument thus far could be applied to pretty much any group at any point in history, it amounts to nothing more than your personal belief that the particular nastiness of some islamic people/works/deeds is compelling evidence that ALL muslims are poor integrators into western society. It's the equivalent of "ooooh isn't he black, wouldn't want him and his heathen ways living next to me.", granted with better references! Shorn of it's pseudoscholastic veneer it's nothing more than a rather wordy appeal to prejudice.

And before you go off on one, that's not necessarily a bad thing, it just doesn't establish the claim you are making. It's irrelevant. Is any of this getting through?

Oh and how can we measure this? Define what you mean by integration for a start. Then we could go anywhere: crime statistics, proportion of income returned to home state, stats about the f1 and f2 generations, stats on up take of host language, stats on
"ghettoisation", stats on mixed marriages etc etc etc.

This is why I am trying to get you to define integration in terms of how you mean it. Give us some hard and fast criteria to clearly demonstrate what you are saying is true. This is childishly simple to do and I wonder why you are avoiding it. Skip all this regurgiposting half the internet because it isn't supporting your claim. Start by defining what you mean by integration, and as you have gone some way to defining what you mean by muslim, we may well have a starting point for actual proof.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2006,23:27   

P.S. Oh yeah, and that interesting "fact" about "many" moderate muslims flipping when they get over here needs a touch of.......evidence, that's the word! Proportionally how many? Where? When?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,04:49   

Louis:

     
Quote
Your "denials" 1, 2 and 3 are nonsense. No one is denying 1 and 2, mainly beacsue they're irrelevant to the discussion, and 3 is what you're trying to establish!

I haven't answered your "cultural and historical evidence" because you've yet to really bring any up, all we've had so far is appeals to high profile media cases and the nastier bits of iron age nonsense books.


But what's funny about this complaint is that Nine, by quoting articles discussing the efforts and surveys going on to measure and improve the extent of Muslim integration, has established that there is a problem with Muslim assimilation! Let's requote his latest link:

     
Quote
A conference of Muslim prayer leaders, or imams, from all over Europe is due to open in Vienna on April 7. On the agenda at the three-day meeting is how to integrate Muslim communities into the European mainstream while maintaining European Muslims' identity. RFE/RL interviewed one participant, Dr. Abduljalil Sajid, the chairman of Britain's Muslim Council for Religious and Racial Harmony, on Islam's place in Europe and the identity of European Muslims.


Now think about this. If Muslims are assimilating as smoothly as other immigrants, then why the need for this conference of Muslim religious leaders? How can this not be a tacit admission of Muslim failure to integrate into Western society? Or do the imams just have nothing better to do with their time? Also notice the exact wording:

     
Quote
On the agenda at the three-day meeting is how to integrate Muslim communities into the European mainstream while maintaining European Muslims' identity.


In other words, Muslims haven't "integrated" yet as a group, and the prayer leaders think that there's a tension between "integrating into the European mainstream" and "maintaining European Muslims' identity". This is not what I say. This is what they say. But let's look at the interview:

   
Quote
RFE/RL: Dr. Sajid, what issues do you intend to bring up at the Vienna conference, and what is the message you are taking there?

Dr. Abduljalil Sajid: We should bring a common European imams' voice, because we are Europeans, so we need to create our [own] European Islamic jurisprudence specific to the areas where Islam is not an authority. How Muslims should behave and live in non-Muslim societies, what our rules and duties are, and what the duties of preachers and teachers are.

The message is very clear: we need to create a common platform on common, shared human values.All these issues will be discussed. I hope we'll create a permanent committee and this permanent committee will guide European Muslims in all daily issues, and also, dealing with authorities like the European Commission, European Council [comprising the heads of EU states], ministers, governments, because we are here to stay. Muslims are not going anywhere, so they need to play a positive role as citizens, and we have to educate our people so that the evil of extremism and racism, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism completely go away. The message is very clear: we need to create a common platform on common, shared human values.
[...]
Muslims will have to understand that in the Western world people are free to say whatever they like; it is in their custom to make jokes and fun about authority, even [about] queens, and kings and others. And they have to realize they [non-Muslims] are free to do so, but with some restraint and responsibility. And the Western world has to understand that, religiously, Muslims cannot tolerate that their deities, their respect for God, Prophet, and the [Holy] Book can be what we call 'insulted.' Freedom to insult and freedom to abuse is not there. Freedom to respect is there, freedom to create harmonization is there. They are free to criticize Islam and Muslims without any problem, but with respect. But what Muslims did [in terms of] overreaction, in terms of burning flags and burning embassies, that has to be condemned, too. That is not the Muslim way, that is not the Islamic way. Violence is not a part of Islam, it is contrary to Islam; I always say it is a betrayal of Islam. So that will be the message coming out from this conference.


Notice the not-so-subtle message....Muslims cannot tolerate religious "insults". And notice that the context of this answer involves the rather mild satirical cartoons, not some hate-filled propaganda. Also note that this imam has just told us that the freedom to "insult" and "abuse" (remember, we're talking about drawing mild satirical cartoons here) is "NOT THERE"!!! How much more obvious can it get? We have a guy coming to our nations, telling us what we may say in our nations! And this guy is the moderate who's supposed to be rebutting my argument!

Sorry for the bolding and all-caps, but do see why Americans and Europeans might consider this a little problematic? He's got his own Muslim countries to live in, but no, he wants to come to traditionally Christian countries and force us to "respect" his religion (on his terms, of course), even if that means a loss of liberty for us. Well, I've got some advice for this imam: if you don't like what you see in the newspapers or on the telly, then don't read or watch the offending material (or organise a boycott, or protest peacefully)! If that's too much, then sorry, but it's time to go back to your homeland, and don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya!

More later.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,05:08   

Quote
Sorry for the bolding and all-caps, but do see why Americans and Europeans might consider this a little problematic? He's got his own Muslim countries to live in, but no, he wants to come to traditionally Christian countries and force us to "respect" his religion (on his terms, of course), even if that means a loss of liberty for us. Well, I've got some advice for this imam: if you don't like what you see in the newspapers or on the telly, then don't read or watch the offending material (or organise a boycott, or protest peacefully)! If that's too much, then sorry, but it's time to go back to your homeland, and don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya!

Ghost, this was the most honest post from you yet.  :D

Now, before you go to "more later": For a change, try to reverse sides... imagine it's Christian leaders arguing for succesful integration in the Muslim world. In what way do you think their arguments would be different? What part of "Religious tolerance" don't you get?

Which brings us to that other point you haven't answered... Do you also think that Christians cannot assimilate well in Muslim countries, and therefore those countries would do well to kick them out for their safety? That pevious post of yours seemed to imply so.

And oh, also, about that "fact, not prejudice"... Whenever you're ready.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,05:26   

"The first Muslim to be crowned Miss England" seems to agree with Paley somewhat.

Quote
"Even moderate Muslims are turning to terrorism to prove themselves. They think they might as well support it because they are stereotyped anyway. It will take a long time for communities to start mixing in more.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages....id=1770

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,05:37   

Ghosty,

This is getting pointless.

Whilst I'm grateful for the efforts you have put in, I REALLY think we need to return to the basics. Define what you mean by integration, or at least your criteria for "being integrated" or not. Draw the line you are trying to claim people are crossing or otherwise.

You're skipping over "conversations with black leaders" and "conversations with sikh leaders" etc, all of which occur with unfailing regularity (at least here), and make little headline news because of the current lack of terrorism on the part of some of the members of those groups.

Get to what you mean by integration first, establish a level playing field unambiguously. Otherwise it's obvious what you're trying to do is NOT provide a rational case for your claim.

Cheers

Louis

P.S. I am not accusing you of anything, or being hostile, it's just that you made a very specific claim which is open to proof/disproof very simply. Which is why I asked you to defend it. This way we can have an unambiguous conclusion that satisfies everyone, rather than the long drawn out pointless wrangle that this is turning out to be. Make with the stats that unambiguously prove your claim or admit that you cannot do so without bloviating on the verbal nastiness of the qu'ran and the ridiculous wankery of deluded imams (both of which were well understood by all concrened before you posted them).

--------------
Bye.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,08:49   

Here's where GoP gets his feverish ideas, evidently.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,09:29   

Louis:

         
Quote
Ghosty,

This is getting pointless.

Whilst I'm grateful for the efforts you have put in, I REALLY think we need to return to the basics. Define what you mean by integration, or at least your criteria for "being integrated" or not. Draw the line you are trying to claim people are crossing or otherwise.


Personally, I don't understand the obsession with definitions -- after all, Nine's article used the term "integration" without assuming that the reader would be left in a semantic fog......but since you're a scientist, I'll humour you and assume this won't lead to a nitpicker's banquet. Don't disappoint me.

By "integration", I mean:

1) No more likely to commit violent crimes as a group than the population as a whole (15 % pts above national violent crime rates at maximum) ;

2) No cries for "affirmative action";

3) Roughly proportionate representation in the intellectual occupations (doctors, lawyers, and/or scientists) without relying on 2). Yes, this implies good scores on standardised scholastic tests;

4) A culture that tolerates Western norms.

Groups that satisfy all the above conditions:

Jews, N.E. Asians, S.E. Asians (I think), Indians.

Notice that it's OK if an immigrant group beats the native population in these areas -- I'm not afraid of hypercompetitive groups. Please notice the word "tolerates" in point 4).

   
Quote
You're skipping over "conversations with black leaders" and "conversations with sikh leaders" etc, all of which occur with unfailing regularity (at least here), and make little headline news because of the current lack of terrorism on the part of some of the members of those groups.

....and? You told me to stick with Muslims, so when I listen you suddenly don't like it. In any case, I never said the black and Sikh populations were model immigrants either, so comparing them to Muslims doesn't prove anything (most Sikhs live in the Punjab region of India anyway -- they're not a big part of the Indian population). And the reason the conversations with black leaders are occuring is because British blacks, as a group, commit disproportionate levels of crime, are mimicking African-American gangsta culture, and are at the bottom in test scores. Yes, I've proved these things before -- check some older threads. The Sikhs I don't know about, but from what you've been saying, they might not be fitting in either. So?

 
Quote
P.S. I am not accusing you of anything, or being hostile, it's just that you made a very specific claim which is open to proof/disproof very simply. Which is why I asked you to defend it. This way we can have an unambiguous conclusion that satisfies everyone, rather than the long drawn out pointless wrangle that this is turning out to be. Make with the stats that unambiguously prove your claim or admit that you cannot do so without bloviating on the verbal nastiness of the qu'ran and the ridiculous wankery of deluded imams (both of which were well understood by all concrened before you posted them).


Really? Nine thought the imam's interview was evidence against my position....but that's not an MP, that's a YP.  :D  :D  :D

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,10:12   

Quote
Nine thought the imam's interview was evidence against my position....but that's not an MP, that's a YP.

Did I? I don't recall addressing you in any way, GoP. I simply posted what I had found in a very cursory search to promote further discussion after not getting any comment from anyone on the Pew Data. As for your view that the Imam's statements are somehow indicative of entrenched resistance to integration, I'd say the mere fact that he addressed it is a positive sign. You viewing the fact that the Imams even held a meeting as "negative" is one side of a double-bind that you wanted to cast.

If there were no meetings of leaders, you'd say they are ignoring it, content in their isolation that foments mutual antagonism. If they have meetings, you say they are tacitly signalling agreement with your view...despite the fact that they appear to be saying they want to find mutual agreement and integration. In short, you want to have it both ways without presenting any actual hard current data of your own as of yet.

By the way, what are "western norms?"

Despite your view that the French are "the largest and most useless collection of windbags ever assembled in one country," I assume that you 'll say democracy is then a "norm" despite its relative youth here -- it wasn't ALL that long ago that this country and theirs underwent revolutions to rid themselves of monarchies, correct? Don't some "western" countries still have hereditary nobles?
You seem to conveniently forget that it was only a short time ago that the United States would tolerate no public insult to Jesus or Christianity. Try finding a cartoon of the '50's depicting Jesus disparagingly and distributed publicly in a newspaper. All of five decades ago. And how tolerant were americans of integration 5 decades ago? Did the national guard have to be called in to protect those fearsome little black girls? I could go on, but you'd just address THIS rather than deal with having to back your claims.

Do yourself a favor and just find the stats that you say support your contention. Don't try and use anecdote or pretending that I was setting out data "against" your view -- back your claims directly, without engaging in the shoddy blatant duplicity of your "geocentric" crap.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,10:56   

According to the Zogby polling organization, Muslims in the U.S. are in general more educated and affluent than the national average, with 59% of them holding at least an undergraduate college degree. Muslims tend to hold professional jobs, and one in three Muslims earn over $75,000 a year. They tend to be employed in professional fields, and most own stock, either personally or through 401(k) or pension plans.
In terms of civic participation, 82% are registered to vote, half of them as Democrats. Interestingly, however, the survey found that 65% of Muslim Americans favor lowering the income tax.
21% of Muslim Americans intermarry, according to the 2001 Religious Identification Survey of the City University of New York--close to the national rate of 22% of Americans who marry outside their religion. And because 64% of Muslim Americans are foreign born, there is reason to expect that figure to grow among second and third generations.
[A]ccording to Ishan Bagby, a professor at the University of Kentucky who recently made a study of mosque attendance in Detroit, the average mosque-goer is 34 years old, married with children, has at least a bachelor's degree, and earns about $74,000 a year.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007151
******************************************************************
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is the United States largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy group, originally established to promote a positive image of Islam and Muslims in America. CAIR portrays itself as the voice of mainstream, moderate Islam on Capitol Hill and in political arenas throughout the United States. It has aggressively condemned all acts of terrorism, and has been working in collaboration with the White House in "issues of safety and foreign policy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_United_States
******************************************************************
http://allied-media.com/AM/default.htm gives some other figures on Muslims in America

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,11:20   

Nine:

       
Quote
Did I? I don't recall addressing you in any way, GoP. I simply posted what I had found in a very cursory search to promote further discussion after not getting any comment from anyone on the Pew Data.


Did you? I assumed that this comment:

       
Quote
No comment on the Pew Center polling data I posted?

Here's something else, then, from last April:


Was directed at me. If it wasn't, then I misread your intentions  -- sorry. In any case, I think I should be addressing points like these, so no harm was done.

     
Quote
As for your view that the Imam's statements are somehow indicative of entrenched resistance to integration, I'd say the mere fact that he addressed it is a positive sign. You viewing the fact that the Imams even held a meeting as "negative" is one side of a double-bind that you wanted to cast.


Not quite. I actually agree that the meeting itself was a positive sign. I was attempting to make two additional points, however:

1) The meeting won't be fruitful until the imams realise that it is their duty to obey the debating norms in their Western host countries. They were the ones who came here, after all; we didn't go to their countries. So they are free to protest political and cultural trends, organise boycotts, publish critiques of Western Civilisation, etc. What they should not do is demand that Westerners change their ways, or else. It just doesn't work like this.

2) The need for the meeting itself was evidence that Muslims, in fact, are having difficulty assimilating to Western societies. Certainly, it's not proof: perhaps the conference is just for combating stereotypes of non-assimilation, or maybe the organisers are just publicity hounds. The interview itself seemed to indicate that real problems need to be addressed. So I wasn't going to let anyone argue two contradictory positions:

1) There's no major problem, dude;

2) The Muslims are trying to fix it anyway.

Uh-uh. You may have one of these positions, but not both. One only seeks treatment when one has a disease.

 
Quote
If there were no meetings of leaders, you'd say they are ignoring it, content in their isolation that foments mutual antagonism. If they have meetings, you say they are tacitly signalling agreement with your view...despite the fact that they appear to be saying they want to find mutual agreement and integration. In short, you want to have it both ways without presenting any actual hard current data of your own as of yet.


<groan...> The meeting itself isn't the problem, it's the terms being dictated. He could have said, "Western newspapers must understand that our religion prohibits images of Mohammed, so if they want Muslim subscribers and journalists, they should rethink their policies. Respect for other people's religion is a hallmark of decent civilisation, and we expect nothing less from our media." But he didn't do that. He started off that way, but then forgot that he has no right to dictate the limits of our freedom. Get the point?

 
Quote
You seem to conveniently forget that it was only a short time ago that the United States would tolerate no public insult to Jesus or Christianity. Try finding a cartoon of the '50's depicting Jesus disparagingly and distributed publicly in a newspaper. All of five decades ago.


I don't know about cartoons, but I'll see your bet and raise you a curmudgeon.

Quote
And how tolerant were americans of integration 5 decades ago? Did the national guard have to be called in to protect those fearsome little black girls? I could go on, but you'd just address THIS rather than deal with having to back your claims.


Irrelevant. Move to strike.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,11:38   

Quote
I don't know about cartoons, but I'll see your bet and raise you a curmudgeon.


Then you can't "see" my bet. Pointing to critics of religion or Christianity through time doesn't match the criteria set down. There are critics of Islam all over the place, too. Big deal. I specified what I meant precisely.

How's about those American muslims that refuse to assimilate, eh?

If you'll look at the crime rates for muslim population centers in the US, do you think they'll be above or below national averages? Yeah, and they intermarry...and have good educations and high incomes according to what little data I found. I don't hear any cries for Muslim "affirmative action," and it would appear that they "tolerate" western norms, unless you want to try to weasel that one. Go for it.

Can you counter that with some stats of your own on Muslims in the (I presume) highly westernized U.S.??

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,13:17   

Ahhhh, the Ninester realises that his earlier sources were undercutting Louis's position, so now he brings in the real guns. This is good, because economic and crime data are what I take seriously anyhoo. So I'll abandon my fisking of his crap evidence and move on to the real stuff.

Nine:

[quote]According to the Zogby polling organization, Muslims in the U.S. are in general more educated and affluent than the national average, with 59% of them holding at least an undergraduate college degree. Muslims tend to hold professional jobs, and one in three Muslims earn over $75,000 a year. They tend to be employed in professional fields, and most own stock, either personally or through 401(k) or pension plans.
[/quote]

He cites this article.

First things first. The very same article says:

[quote]As it happens, Her Majesty's government was well clued on these questions before the bombers struck: A 2004 Home Office study showed, for example, that British Muslims are three times likelier to be unemployed than the wider population, that their rates of civic participation are low, and that as many as 26% do not feel loyal to Britain.[/quote]

So things are apparently not rosy all over. This counts. But let's talk about American Muslims for a second.

             
Quote
Information on American Muslims is sketchier. Thanks to a 2004 Zogby International survey, we know that a plurality of Muslim Americans--about one-third--are of South Asian descent; 26% are Arab and another 20% are American blacks. But until 2001 we had no idea how many Muslims lived in America, and even now the figure remains a matter of intense controversy. All major Muslim advocacy groups put the number at above six million, which, as Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum observes, has the convenience of being higher than the American Jewish population. Yet all independent surveys put the real figure at no more than three million, while the most credible study to date, by Tom Smith of the University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center, estimates total Muslim population at 1,886,000. "[It] is hard to accept that Muslims are greater than one percent of the population," he writes.


A very small minority, in other words. The article continues:

             
Quote
Whatever the real figure, what's reasonably clear is that Muslim Americans, like Arab-Americans, have fared well in the U.S. The Zogby survey found that 59% of American Muslims have at least an undergraduate education, making them the most highly educated group in America. Muslim Americans are also the richest Muslim community in the world, with four in five earning more than $25,000 a year and one in three more than $75,000. They tend to be employed in professional fields, and most own stock, either personally or through 401(k) or pension plans. In terms of civic participation, 82% are registered to vote, half of them as Democrats. Interestingly, however, the survey found that 65% of Muslim Americans favor lowering the income tax.


A fine group of Americans. And a highly selective one:

             
Quote
In these respects, Muslim Americans differ from Muslim communities in Britain and Continental Europe, which tend to be poor and socially marginalized. Four other features set American Muslims apart.
First, unlike in Europe the overwhelming majority of Muslims arrived here legally, and many of those who didn't were deported after Sept. 11, 2001. Currently, according to Ali Al-Ahmed of the Washington-based Saudi Institute, there are probably no more than a few thousand Muslim illegal immigrants in the U.S.


If some of this sounds familiar, it should. It's the very same things that were said about the early African immigrants in the UK: solidly middle class, well-educated, very assimilated. Unfortunately, the cultural center did hold: after a generation or two, the immigrants's children regressed to the cultural mean of their parent's societies and sank to the bottom strata. Prediction: one major difference between America and Europe's Muslims is that Europe's Muslims have had time for cultural regression to occur. Let's see if this hypothesis pans out:

             
Quote
Hanging over all this is the question of the long-term trajectory of the American Muslim population. In Britain, as in Germany and France, a striking feature of the Islamist movement is that it has taken root among second-generation Muslims, whose disenchantment with their Western lives is matched by the romanticist appeals of ethnic authenticity and religious purity. America's mostly foreign-born Muslims are perhaps less susceptible to this. But that's no guarantee their children won't be seduced. Then, too, neither a first-rate Western education nor economic affluence offers any inoculation against extremism: Just look at the careers of 9/11 ringleader Mohamed Atta, educated at the Technical University of Hamburg, or Daniel Pearl killer Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, who did undergraduate work at the London School of Economics.


Prediction met. While we're at it, let's peek at some crime statistics: [quotes are from the linked articles]:

     
Quote
PARIS, June 19, 2005 (IslamOnline.net) – French prisons are teeming with Muslims, a phenomenon chaplains and sociologists blame on marginalization and towering poverty and unemployment rates among the Muslim minority.

“It really harms the image of Islam and Muslims in France that prisons are teeming with Muslims,” Mamdo Sango, a Muslim chaplain, told IslamOnline.net.

Iranian-French researcher Farhad Khosrokhavar said in his recently published book Islam in Prisons that Muslims make up some 70 percent of a total of 60,775 prisoners in France.

As ethnicity-based censuses are banned in France, he said complexion, names and religious traditions like prohibition of pork indicate that Muslims constitute an overwhelming majority in prisons.


     
Quote
According to a new study from the Crime Prevention Council, Brå, it is four times more likely that a known rapist is born abroad, compared to persons born in Sweden. Resident aliens from Algeria, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia dominate the group of rape suspects. According to these statistics, almost half of all perpetrators are immigrants. In Norway and Denmark, we know that non-Western immigrants, which frequently means Muslims, are grossly overrepresented on rape statistics. In Oslo, Norway, immigrants were involved in two out of three rape charges in 2001. The numbers in Denmark were the same, and even higher in the city of Copenhagen with three out of four rape charges. Sweden has a larger immigrant, including Muslim, population than any other country in northern Europe. The numbers there are likely to be at least as bad as with its Scandinavian neighbors. The actual number is thus probably even higher than what the authorities are reporting now, as it doesn't include second generation immigrants. Lawyer Ann Christine Hjelm, who has investigated violent crimes in Svea high court, found that 85 per cent of the convicted rapists were born on foreign soil or by foreign parents.


And dare we forget the Dutch:

   
Quote
But by 2002, Kok's Labor government, hard hit by rising crime rates associated with unintegrated Islamic immigrants and a weakening economy, was handed a stunning defeat. That election marked the dramatic rise of the gay activist and former Marxist Pim Fortuyn. It was the beginning of what promises to be an unsettling period in Holland's usually placid politics.

In the first political killing in the Netherlands since the 17th century, Fortuyn was assassinated by an animal rights activist. Then came the murder of anti-Muslim iconoclast Theo van Gogh by an Islamist who was offended by one of van Gogh's movies. These events clearly shook the normally calm and consensus-driven Dutch. Fortuyn's political heir, Geert Wilders, who rose to political prominence in the wake of the Van Gogh killing, was depicted by the American and British press as a one-issue politician. His sole aim, it seemed, was to expel radical Islamists from Holland. That was a misunderstanding of both Wilders and the Dutch situation.

Wilders, who lives under 24-hour guard and sleeps in a prison cell for his own protection, is indeed a strong critic of Islam, which he argues is "incompatible with democracy." But it quickly became clear that he was far more than a one-issue candidate. Moreover, his arguments about Islamic extremism and immigrant crime had already been laid out a decade earlier by the prominent Dutch politician Frits Bolkstein, who is now giving the French fits as a member of the European parliament by pushing for increased E.U. competition in business services.


Some stats:

   
Quote
What increasingly bothers the Dutch are freeloaders. Though the unemployment rate is just over 2 percent, 18 percent of the Dutch labor force is on the dole to some degree, with 11 percent receiving occupational-disability benefits under the widely abused system. Immigrants, who have a high unemployment rate, are another irritant. Eight percent of Holland's 16 million people are of foreign descent, with more than half of them Muslims, mostly from Turkey and Morocco. Holland's four largest cities — Amsterdam, The Hague, Rotterdam, and Utrecht — are home to the majority of immigrants. Almost half the population of Rotterdam, where Fortuyn launched his political career, is of foreign descent.

This has had unfortunate consequences. Earlier this month, the trade association representing Holland's supermarkets announced that it would be shutting down stores in the immigrant-heavy inner cities unless the government got serious about policing the areas. That's because young immigrant men from these neighborhoods are disproportionately represented in Dutch crime statistics. According to criminologist Chris Rutenfrans, a study in 2000 found that 33 percent of all criminal suspects are foreign-born, as are 55 percent of prison inmates. An astonishing 63 percent of those convicted of homicide are immigrants — Moroccans, Antilleans, and sub-Saharan Africans are the chief culprits. "The reason always given to explain these statistics is that they live in deprived circumstances," says Rutenfrans. "But other minorities are similarly deprived, and they aren't criminals."

Some Muslims bring with them a culture of religious extremism, encouraged in part by religious schools — at least one-third of which are funded by the Saudis, according to a government report. The report also revealed that 20 percent of Holland's Islamic schools receive funding from the radical Islamic organization Al-Waqf al-Islami, or have radical Muslims on their boards. The government warned that the country's Islamic schools showed very little commitment to preparing their students for integration into Dutch society.

More troubling, the government intelligence service warned as long as a decade ago that the Netherlands was becoming a center of Islamic terrorist recruitment and operations. Since September 11, terrorism experts have warned that violent Islamic extremists are conducting operations in Holland, in part because the country's deeply ingrained taboo against intolerance gives them relative freedom from scrutiny.


Worries about terrorism and crime manifest themselves as anxiety over immigration, yet Dutch voters also see the rising crime rate as part of a broader decline of civil society. It's common these days to hear the Dutch complaining that beneath the egalitarian surface, theirs has become an individualist culture, in which everyone thinks only of his rights, but not his obligations to the larger community. "People are fed up with the abuse of the welfare state, but they have yet to realize the problem is the welfare state itself," says Bart Jan Spruyt, political editor for Reformatorisch Dagblad, a Protestant-affiliated daily.

"The Dutch worry about what's happening to civil society, but they don't understand that the state cannot make you moral," says Livestro. "They fail to see that civil society starts with personal morality, and with the family." The social problems are connected to the decline of religion and the consequent loss of faith in traditional Judeo- Christian morality. Some 30 years ago, 60 percent of the population were at church on Sunday morning; today, it's between 8 and 13 percent. The media have relentlessly mocked religion.

To be a believing Christian in today's Holland, therefore, requires a countercultural courage that's hard for most Americans to imagine. But these people exist. I stumbled across a small congregation of Iranian Pentecostals, all converts from Islam, in a distant suburb of Amsterdam. The pastor, who asked not to be identified because of past violent threats from area Muslims, told me that he was shocked by the naivete the Dutch have about radical Islam. He thought Fortuyn was "a bit extremist," and didn't count himself a supporter — but he agreed with much of what Fortuyn said, and was glad somebody finally said it.

In this, the Iranian pastor was like most Dutch voters with whom I spoke, telling me that Fortuyn wasn't their cup of tea, politically, but he was invaluable as a catalyst for a long-overdue discussion of Islam and the limits of multiculturalism. Kinneging says Fortuyn struck a chord with voters sick of being taken for granted: "In the wake of the transformation of our big cities [by immigration] has come a lot of guns, violence, drugs, trading in women, and dirty streets. The political, intellectual, and journalistic elite who are in favor of this immigration do not live in these urban neighborhoods."


This one's for Cogzie.

Nine:

 
Quote
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is the United States largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy group, originally established to promote a positive image of Islam and Muslims in America. CAIR portrays itself as the voice of mainstream, moderate Islam on Capitol Hill and in political arenas throughout the United States. It has aggressively condemned all acts of terrorism, and has been working in collaboration with the White House in "issues of safety and foreign policy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_United_States


Don't be so sure:

 
Quote
As Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes points out, the Washington-based CAIR, founded in 1994, "presents itself as just another civil-rights group" - cultivating an image of moderation that enables it to garner "sizable donations, invitations to the White House, respectful media citations, and a serious hearing by corporations." The organization's goal, CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper says benignly, is to promote "interest and understanding among the general public with regards to Islam and Muslims in North America."

But the reality is something not nearly so benevolent, and Americans ought to become aware of it. CAIR is a direct outgrowth of the Islamic Association of Palestine (IAP). According to Oliver Revell, the FBI's former associate director of Counter-Intelligence Operations, the IAP "is an organization that has directly supported [the Palestinian terror group] Hamas' military goals. It is a front organization for Hamas that engages in propaganda for Islamic militants. It has produced videotapes that are very hate-filled, full of vehement propaganda." Such roots can hardly be considered "moderate," and as we examine CAIR more closely, what we see only gets uglier.

CAIR's founder and executive director, Nihad Awad, was the IAP's public relations director with a long history of extremism. Awad openly praised Iran's notorious Ayatollah Khomeini. He blasted the trial and conviction of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers - against whom the evidence of guilt was overwhelming - as "a travesty of justice." At a 1994 Barry University forum, he candidly stated, "I am in support of the Hamas movement."

The IAP's current president, Rafeeq Jaber, was a founding director of CAIR. Mohammed Nimer, who directs CAIR's Research Center, was on the board of the United Association for Studies and Research, which is the strategic arm of Hamas in the US and was founded by Hamas operative Mousa Abu Marzook. The aforementioned Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR's Director of Communications, lso worked for the IAP. To this day, he refuses to publicly denounce Osama bin Laden. He euphemistically ascribed the 1998 bombings of two American embassies in Africa to a "misunderstanding of both sides." He dismisses the Sudanese Islamic government's enslavement and torture of millions of black Christians and animists during the past two decades - to say nothing of its slaughter of some two million more - as mere "inter-tribal hostage-taking." He makes no secret of his desire to see America one day become a Muslim country. "I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future," he told the Minneapolis Star Tribune. "But I'm not going to do anything violent to promote that. I'm going to do it through education."

Such sentiments echo those of CAIR chairman Omar M. Ahmad, who in July 1998 told a crowd of California Muslims, "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran . . . should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth." In a similar vein, CAIR board member Imam Siraj Wahaj calls for replacing the American government with a caliphate, and warns that America will crumble unless it "accepts the Islamic agenda." Wahaj, it should be noted, served as a character witness for Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, the Muslim cleric convicted for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing; the same cleric who was busy devising plans to blow up American landmarks, buildings, and bridges; the same cleric whose conviction CAIR called a "hate crime" against Muslims. And even though Wahaj was listed as an un-indicted co-conspirator in Rahman's case, CAIR now permits him to sit on its advisory board, deeming him "one of the most respected Muslim leaders in America."

With regard to the war on terror, CAIR's anti-American loyalties are all too clear. In October 1998, for instance, the group demanded the removal of a Los Angeles billboard that dubbed Osama bin Laden "the sworn enemy," complaining that such a caption was "offensive to Muslims."
In the wake of 9/11, CAIR actually denied bin Laden's culpability, a position from which it would not budge until three months after the attacks, by which time the evidence against al-Qaeda's linchpin was irrefutable. The Website for CAIR's New York chapter - with which Mayor Bloomberg's appointee Omar Mohammedi has been affiliated - openly doubted that Islamic hijackers were responsible for the attacks, speculating that either the Bush administration or Israel orchestrated the nightmare.

CAIR has been the mouthpiece of some of the vilest anti-Semitism imaginable. For example, the organization co-sponsored a 1998 Brooklyn College rally at which a militant Egyptian Islamist led the attendees in chanting, "No to the Jews, descendents of the apes." Hussam Ayloush, who heads CAIR's Los Angeles office, contemptuously refers to Israelis as "Zionazis."

Over the years, a good portion of CAIR's funding came from a group called the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF). Yet when President Bush closed the HLF in December 2001 upon learning that it was raising money to support Hamas terror attacks, CAIR reacted with its characteristic petulance and indifference to American interests. Calling Bush's move "unjust" and "disturbing," the group circulated a petition exhorting the government to unfreeze HLF assets - charging that "there has been a shift from a war on terrorism to an attack on Islam."


Nine:

           
Quote
Then you can't "see" my bet. Pointing to critics of religion or Christianity through time doesn't match the criteria set down.


Even very public critics, who published books and articles attacking all shades of Christianity, starting from the 1920's? Here's his Scopes coverage, which savages religious fundamentalists at every turn. Then read Treatise of the Gods. Here's a sample:
         
Quote
The truth is that Christian theology, like every other theology, is not only opposed to the scientific spirit; it is also opposed to all other attempts at rational thinking. Not by accident does Genesis 3 make the father of knowledge a serpent -- slimy, sneaking and abominable. Since the earliest days the church, as an organization, has thrown itself violently against every effort to liberate the body and mind of man. It has been, at all times and everywhere, the habitual and incorrigible defender of bad governments, bad laws, bad social theories, bad institutions. It was, for centuries, an apologist for slavery, as it was the apologist for the divine right of kings.


Oooh, I mispoke. Here's an article from 1917:

       
Quote
Starting from this double basis, Mark [Twain]undertakes an elaborate and extraordinarily penetrating examination of all the fine ideals and virtues that man boasts of, and reduces them, one after the other, to untenability and absurdity. There is no mere smartness in the thing. It is done, to be sure, with a sly and disarming humor, but at bottom it is done quite seriously and with the highest sort of argumentative skill. The parlor entertainer of Dr. Taft's eulogy completely disappears; in his place there arises a satirist with something of Rabelais's vast resourcefulness and dexterity in him, and all of Dean Swift's devastating ferocity. It is not only the most honest book that Mark ever did; it is, in some respects, the most artful and persuasive as a work of art. No wonder the pious critic of The New York Times, horrified by its doctrine, was forced to take refuge behind the theory that Mark intended it as a joke.

In The Mysterious Stranger there is a step further. What Is Man? analyzes the concept of man; The Mysterious Stranger boldly analyzes the concept of God. What, after all, is the actual character of this Being we are asked to reverence and obey? How is His mind revealed by His admitted acts? How does His observed conduct toward man square with those ideals of human conduct that He is said to prescribe, and whose violation He is said to punish with such appalling penalties?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


These are the questions that Mark sets for himself. His answers are, in brief, a complete rejection of the whole Christian theory -- a rejection based upon a wholesale reductio ad absurdum. The thing is not mere mocking; it is not even irreverent; but the force of it is stupendous. I know of no agnostic document that shows a keener sense of essentials or a more deft hand for making use of the indubitable. A gigantic irony is in it. It glows with a profound conviction, almost a kind of passion. And the grotesque form of it -- a child's story -- only adds to the sardonic implacability of it.

As I say, there are more to come. Mark in his idle moments was forever at work upon some such riddling of the conventional philosophy, as he was forever railing at the conventional ethic in his private conversation. One of these pieces, highly characteristic, is described in Albert Bigelow Paine's biography. It is an elaborate history of the microbes inhabiting a man's veins. They divine a religion with the man as God; they perfect a dogma setting forth his desires as to their conduct; they engaged in a worship based upon the notion that he is immediately aware of their every act and jealous of their regard and enormously concerned about their welfare. In brief, a staggering satire upon the anthropocentric religion of man -- a typical return to the favorite theme of man's egoism and imbecility.

All this sort of thing, to be sure, has its dangers for Mark's fame.[snip]


Here's another guy:

       
Quote
Religions are conclusions for which the facts of nature supply no major premises.
-- Ambrose Bierce, Collected Works (1912)


       
Quote
Altar, n. The place whereon the priest formerly raveled out the small intestine of the sacrificial victim for purposes of divination and cooked its flesh for the gods. The word is now seldom used, except with reference to the sacrifice of their liberty and peace by a male and a female fool.
-- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary (1911)


       
Quote
Christian, n. One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor. One who follows the teachings of Christ in so far as they are not inconsistent with a life of sin.
-- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary (1911)


       
Quote
Decalogue, n. A series of commandments, ten in number -- just enough to permit an intelligent selection for observance, but not enough to embarrass the choice. Following is the revised edition of the Decalogue, calculated for this meridian.
    Thou shalt no God but me adore:
         'Twere too expensive to have more.
    No images nor idols make
         For *Robert Ingersoll to break.
    Take not God's name in vain; select
         A time when it will have effect.
    Work not on Sabbath days at all,
         But go to see the teams play ball.
    Honor thy parents. That creates
         For life insurance lower rates.
    Kill not, abet not those who kill;
         Thou shalt not pay thy butcher's bill.
    Kiss not thy neighbor's wife, unless
         Thine own thy neighbor doth caress.
    Don't steal; thou'lt never thus compete
         Successfully in business. Cheat.
    Bear not false witness -- that is low --
         But "'hear 'tis rumored so and so."
    Covet thou naught that thou hast not
         By hook or crook, or somehow, got.
                                                           G.J.
-- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary (1911), some versions have "Roger Ingersoll" for our "Robert Ingersoll"; see also our "Which Ten Commandments?" handbill ††


       
Quote
Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.
-- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary (1911)

Heathen, n. A benighted creature who has the folly to worship something he can see and feel.
-- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary (1911)


       
Quote
Irreligion, n. The principal one of the great faiths of the world.
-- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary (1911)


       
Quote
Reverence, n. The spiritual attitude of a man to a god and a dog to a man.
-- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary (1911)

Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited.
-- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary (1911)

Scriptures, n. The sacred books of our holy religion, as distinguished from the false and profane writings on which all other faiths are based.
-- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary (1911)
[...]
Trinity, n. In the multiplex theism of certain Christian churches, three entirely distinct deities consistent with only one. Subordinate deities of the polytheistic faith, such as devils and angels, are not dowered with the power of combination, and must urge individually their clames to adoration and propitiation. The Trinity is one of the most sublime mysteries of our holy religion. In rejecting it because it is incomprehensible, Unitarians betray their inadequate sense of theological fundamentals. In religion we believe only what we do not understand, except in the instance of an intelligible doctrine that contradicts an incomprehensible one. In that case we believe the former as a part of the latter.
-- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary (1911)


More later.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,13:24   

Oh, and guys....



--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,14:19   

In your own mind, I'm sure you're a legend. As far as refuting the Zogby data, the best you could do was say " yeah, but you just wait." which simply doesn't address the facts TODAY, nor does it guarantee your conclusions of "cultural regression"  for tomorrow or the next century.

In simple terms, so you can understand it, GoP, you're  blowing hot air. Vapid unsubstantiated hot air that doesn't support your claim in the least for Muslims  in the U.S.

Invoking cultural determinism based on religion is simply unfounded as the current data in the U.S. shows. You lose.

By the way, Chinese immigrants working on the railways, mines, etc. in early California were also subjected to the notion of religiously-based cultural determinism. It didn't pan out there, either.

So...in lieu of actual data on American muslim assimilation, you turn to pasting reams of Ambrose Bierce as if that matches my stated criteria of :

"show me a denigrating cartoon of Jesus published in major newspapers in the 50's."

Just deal with the facts as they stand -- Muslims in america intermarry, hold good jobs, are well-educated and assimilate just fine, contrary to your claim. If the best you can do is say " yeah, but just you wait!," you have no case.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,15:09   

Let's "FISK" GoP's "stats" that he claimed:

To "support" his claims that the US is due for a tidal wave of crime from the children of immigrant muslims, GoP cites "data" from *three* countries:

From France
A claim by a sociologist and a muslim chaplain actually from this site: http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2005-06/19/article04.shtml. The sociologist, Iranian-French researcher Farhad Khosrokhavar said in his recently published book Islam in Prisons that Muslims make up some 70 percent of a total of 60,775 prisoners in France. but ethnicity-based censuses are banned in France, so the "researcher" went by complexion, names and religious traditions like dietary habits... yet the same article says other non-muslim prisoners seem to prefer "halal" meals and are apparently claiming to be muslim to get them:  
Quote
Khosrokhavar also noted that Islam has become a sought-after religion in prisons with a Christian prisoner asking prison authorities to provide him with halal meat almost on a weekly basis.

Guesswork  =/= evidence
************************************************

Then some "stats" from Norway, allegedly: On the Oslo rape "stats" the link is http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article190268.ece
Here's the article referred to:  
Quote
Two out of three charged with rape in Norway's capital are immigrants with a non-western background according to a police study. The number of rape cases is also rising steadily.The study is the first where the crime statistics have been analyzed according to ethnic origin. Of the 111 charged with rape in Oslo last year, 72 were of non-western ethnic origin, 25 are classified as Norwegian or western and 14 are listed as unknown.
Rape charges in the capital are spiraling upwards, 40 percent higher from 1999 to 2000 and up 13 percent so far this year.
Nine out of ten cases do not make it to prosecution, most of them because police do not believe the evidence is sufficient to reach a conviction.
Police Inspector Gunnar Larsen of Oslo's Vice, Robbery and Violent crime division says the statistics are surprising - the rising number of rape cases and the link to ethnic background are both clear trends. But Larsen does not want to speculate on the reasons behind the worrying developments.
While 65 percent of those charged with rape are classed as coming from a non-western background, this segment makes up only 14.3 percent of Oslo's population. Norwegian women were the victims in 80 percent of the cases, with 20 percent being women of foreign background.

No mention of the religion of the perpetrators. Or anything identifying them as "muslim" at all. These are not "stats," supporting his claim, either
************************************************

GoP moves on to the Dutch. He cites an article http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.....=253257 mentioning the assassination of gay activist and former Marxist Pim Fortuyn by an animal rights activist. Then  the murder of anti-Muslim iconoclast Theo van Gogh by an Islamist who was offended by one of van Gogh's movies. The article ties these events to the rise of  one Geert Wilders, who rose to political prominence in the wake of the Van Gogh killing. It then turns out that Wilders is "Far from a one-issue politician, it was clear that Wilders' attacks on Islamic extremism were tied into a larger critique of economic statism as practiced by the European Union and the elite-driven Dutch political system. The Dutch, he insisted, face "interconnected crises" in which the growing number of civil servants in both Brussels and the Hague extract unsustainable sums of money even as Europe is unprepared for the coming onslaught of Chinese competition and as rising crime rates send skilled Dutch professionals fleeing for New Zealand and Canada"
No mention of actual figures there. Nothing to support GoP's claims about "kids of immigrants reverting to 'cultural regression'"
Another Dutch article has Criminologist Chris Rutenfrans, saying " a study in 2000 found that 33 percent of all criminal suspects are foreign-born, as are 55 percent of prison inmates. An astonishing 63 percent of those convicted of homicide are immigrants — Moroccans, Antilleans, and sub-Saharan Africans are the chief culprits."
Well, this "study" alleges "Moroccans" ...but at what proportion? Antilleans are not muslim, nor are most sub-saharan africans. How many muslims perpetrated actual crimes there? No data.

************************************************
This means, for all the "cha-ching" whistles and bells, GoP had exactly WHAT to back his claim? Virtually NOTHING and certainly no *clear* valid statistical studies clearly identifying "children of muslim immigrants" as he claimed. As I said...all hot air and vacuous claims.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,15:15   

I'm sure that what you'll do is avoid any U.S. data on muslim immigration and assimilation, GoP.

Instead, you'll pull more "stats" from European countries like the above and claim "victory" again, despite the evident shoddiness of the data you've tried to forward so far.

You lost on the U.S. data alone, GoP. Deal with it.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,16:04   

Sorry Ghost. In your delusional world, posting long boring posts with irrelevant quotes may equal victory, but reality is much different.
Just a few things from the top of the heap:

The 'muslim leaders' do NOT say what you claim they say, and in fact argue in the very way you say they should- change "muslim" for " christian" in the quotes, and see if you disagree with their assertions then

Overall unemployment rates were not part of your integration criteria, and cannot be used

The size of the minority is also irrelevant, again according to your criteria

Comparisons between one minority in one country and a different minority in another country cannot be valid, unless you establish a connection- a connection other than the obvious (their marginalization in the community), which does not help your point

"Predictions" are not "met" with "you just wait" assertions

The fact that a second generation on muslim immigrants finds appeal in fundamentalism is actually an argument against your position, even if it is true, since it shows it is not inherrent in the culture, but a result, as your own quotes say, of social marginalization of the community (unless you think that for Muslims, terrorism is "in their blood" -hee hee)

Mark Twain and Ambrose Bierce have little, if anything, to do with your case, since atheism is not debated here, religious intolerance is- and, in their atheistic beliefs, both remained spiritual outcasts until recently

And finally, you are repeatedly violating the rules you set by citing biased sites without mentioning it, but that was expected anyway.

In the meantime, Deadman has provided stats that apply directly to the criteria you set, and you failed to address them.
So, if "chaching" is the sound of you paying up, I gladly agree.




Oh and Ghost: We have all figured out you have a small AFDave inside, trying to get out- you don't have to be so obvious. It don't do no good for your image, believe it or not.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,23:55   

Ghosty,

You've drifted into that wonderful world of hostility and bullshit you like so much. I'm not taking a contrary position to you, as I stated right at the start. It's a topic I know too little about to do that. What I DID say was that until I see good evidence to the contrary I am willing to grant everybody, muslims and you included, the benfit of the doubt. Regardless of what others are saying, I'm not hostile to your claim, it could very well be the case, this whole thread started because you said that no one had ever refuted one of your political claims, after a certain amount of to and fro we settled on the idea that you would defend one of your claims, and for the reasons stated previously, I offered this claim of yours for defense, and you took up it's defense freely. Thus far we have four pages of only tangential relevance. Like I said before, this thread could be 5 or 6 messages long, with me completely agreeing with you at the end. Or it could be 7 or 8 messages long with you saying "oh wait my stats we're wrong" or something similar. Get it yet?

BTW, I'm not asking you to provide data for sikhs, blacks etc being poor integrators, calm down son! You're seeing arguments where there are none! My point was very simple, many cultures/races have had these "conversations" because of their taking "offense" to something or other, thus the fact that "conversations" have happened and some twat on a radio has said that we must censor free speech is vastly less significant that is being made out. This is the tangential stuff, thankfully you get to the actual claim later on. Congratulations.

I'm glad that you have defined what you mean by integration, that way we can  deal with what is actually going on rather than the endless series of pointless quotations and bigotry from all quarters.

The reason I want you to define what you mean by integration clearly is so that we have something concrete to deal with as opposed to quoting nasty people/books and saying "see how unWestern they are???!!!111one11111!!!".

Quote
By "integration", I mean:

1) No more likely to commit violent crimes as a group than the population as a whole (15 % pts above national violent crime rates at maximum) ;

2) No cries for "affirmative action";

3) Roughly proportionate representation in the intellectual occupations (doctors, lawyers, and/or scientists) without relying on 2). Yes, this implies good scores on standardised scholastic tests;

4) A culture that tolerates Western norms.


The claim you are proving is this:

Quote
I claim that Muslims, as a group, do not assimilate as well as other groups, and in fact their culture often damages civil liberties.


And you have defined what you consider to be "muslims". I've included some broader descriptive quotes from which I'll attempt to make a summary description of your idea of what or who a muslim is.

Quote
I will focus on the Sunnis and Shi'ites (hereafter Shiites) because these two sects comprise 95 - 96% of the world's Muslim population. I


Quote
My hypothesis, however, is that all Sunni and Shiite Muslims, as a group, are incompatible with Western societies regardless of nationality. In order to become compatible, they must discard their religion, and nothing less will do.


Quote
For whatever reason, they don't fit in, and that's what matters in immigration policy


Quote
Here's what most Muslims countries want:

1) Death to Israel if not Israelis;

2) Dhimmitude for the rest of the Infidels;

3) Whatever else comes to mind, especially when they discover that 1) and 2) don't close the economic gap.


Quote
First of all, I don't hate Muslims; if it were up to me I'd leave Muslims alone to practice their religion to their heart's content. Problem is, they won't leave us alone. Do you really think that Muslim countries were a model of peace until THE NATION THAT DARE NOT SPEAK ITS NAME was thrown into their midst?


So here is my precis of the "GoP majority muslim" (GMM hereafter), please feel free to correct any errors I make:

1) GMMs are of the sunni or shi'ite sects.
2) GMMs regardless of nationality are incompatible with western society (another phrase that needs definition) unless they abandon islam as described at length in many previous posts (GoPislam or GI hereafter).
3) GMMs desire Israel to be removed utterly, and possibly for Israelis themselves to be killed.
4) GMMs will "relegate" all other faiths they approve to some extent of to second class, i.e making the adherents of these faiths subject to dhimma.
5) GMMs are envious of the material success of the west and will alter their demands in order to garner the material items they desire.
6) GMMs will not leave the west alone, they will keep bombing, attacking etc until such time as they dominate.

Is that fair representation of the GMM?

So the claim has been defined by you Ghosty as the following:

GMMs do not integrate into western societies in such a way that they are no more likely to commit violent crimes as a group than the population as a whole, do not call for affirmative action, have a roughly proportionate representation in the intellectual occupations without relying on affirmative action, score well on standardised scholastic tests, and have a culture that tolerates Western norms. In fact GMMs are worse on all these integration criteria than any other group that has emigrated into western society.

Do you consider this to be accurate regarding your claim?

Well I can certainly agree that a GMM might not fit that last criterion well (i.e. tolerate western norms), but we've yet to see the evidence for the crime, affirmative action, professional and scholastic criteria.

Cheers

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2006,06:24   

Ok guys, I only have a few minutes so I'll be brief:

1) I've found some more stats on schooling, crime, etc. I'll try to post them tomorrow.

2) I forgot to add that I don't want my personal liberties diminished as a result of immigration. So if a minority group assimilates at the cost of my free speech/expression rights then I'm not as impressed as with one who assimilates without Big Brother carefully monitoring my luggage, internet searches, and library usage. This has always been a big theme with me; I can't believe I forgot to include it.

3) Your summary of my position is OK, Louis. However, I'm still irritated that you call me names without backing it up.

4) Deadman: I plan on rebutting your "evidence" but before I do, think of this: Is it really fair that pro-immigrationist governments deprive their citizens of the relevant data, and even fine/imprison them for criticising the open borders philosophy, and then turn around and say, "Where's your data and why don't you speak up if you don't like it?" Your side censors the evidence, and then taunts us for not producing it. Case in point: you can be arrested in France for compiling crime data by religion, so researchers have to use proxies. But when they do, they're accused of being unprofessional and the scare quotes come out: "researcher", etc. Notice that liberals rarely demand that govs produce the data so that stereotypes can be erased; that's strange behavior if they really believe that Muslims don't commit a disproportionate amount of crime. I'm just sayin'.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2006,07:32   

Quote
I've found some more stats on schooling, crime, etc. I'll try to post them tomorrow.

As I noted above...you didn't POST any "stats" to begin with, just some guesswork in one case and and citations regarding "non-western" groups that contain no actual percentages/rates/etc. specifically referencing Muslims.
(1) I don't HAVE a "side" in this, GoP. I was merely interested in the topic and posted stuff that I found to advance the discussion. You then decided to talk shit, so that irritated me and I looked a little more...BUT, on a personal level, I mentioned on the first page of this thread that I thought that there  
Quote
is a greater degree of isolationism due to religion, modernism, prejudice, etc... Although I'm as socially liberal as anyone I know, I think large-scale (larger than now) conflict between Islam and the largely Xian west is near-inevitable.
I'll go even further to say that at this stage of history, I dislike/fear Islam more than I do Christianity. If I lived in the 12th Century, I would think the exact opposite. You'll also note that on the first page of the thread, I mentioned the LACK OF DATA on the subject, and told you "good luck."  
***********************************************
 
Quote
Your side censors the evidence, and then taunts us for not producing it. Case in point: you can be arrested in France for compiling crime data by religion, so researchers have to use proxies. But when they do, they're accused of being unprofessional

(2) Okay...let me get this straight.

You posted several claims about muslims not assimilating, causing increased crime, performing more "poorly" in multiple areas than "western" groups, etc. ... and NOW you realize there's little hard data on the subject?

This *seems* to indicate that your assertions hinged on either anecdotal or selective media references that have no substantive basis. In a word, you were simply talking out of your ass.
You seem to enjoy inflammatory statements that get you attention -- which I don't understand at all -- since you seem bright enough at times to actually hold an intelligent discussion -- without all this weird posturing and game-playing that makes you sound like a  dolt.

I view the problem between the west and Islam as enormously important--as important as ANY potential disaster we have facing the human species. IF global warming holds true, and populations are pushed further towards the poles, Islam has a huge birthrate, a potentially deadly ideology that could create an equally fanatical religious response, it sits on oil that the west wants desperately -- it has all the fixin's for one he11 of a brawl with a group that has about 2 billion adherents.

So, when you reduce this threat to some kind of stupid game that you want to play to massage your ego, I view THAT as annoying as well. Why not just try to discuss the actual issues without the inflammatory nonsense?

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2006,12:50   

Ghosty,

Erm, sorry where did I call you names in this thread? I checked and I'm not sure I did. In fact I've bent over backwards to be conciliatory. Ah well.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2006,16:40   

Is anyone here actually reading all of Ghosty's big long intolerant rants?

Or have we all concluded long ago that he's just a nutter and nothing he says is worth paying any serious attention to?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2006,11:16   

Fifth Amendment

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2006,12:03   

Some statistics and studies of Muslims or immigrants from overwhelmingly Muslim nations:

France:

Unemployment:

           
Quote
On the Outside



In France, foreign youths from predominantly Muslim countries have a particularly high rate of unemployment. Rates for ages 15-29:

Foreigners from North Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa and Turkey 40 percent Foreigners (all nationalities) 26 percent French by birth 16 percent French by naturalization 15 percent

Note: Data are from 2002
Source: Advance excerpts from "Integrating Islam: Political and Religious Challenges in Contemporary France


Other Economic Measures:

           
Quote
FRANCE has failed miserably to integrate the millions of Arab and African immigrants who have settled in the country since the 1960s, according to two reports this week.

The findings, by the state court of auditors and senior business leaders, confirm a reality that is familiar to everyone in France and highlight the bankruptcy of a state policy that denies the existence of ethnic communities.
[...]
The business leaders’ report, drafted for Jean-Pierre Raffarin, the Prime Minister, said that France was not only inflicting injustice on generations of ethnic minorities but also depriving itself of a vital economic resource.

According to the report, young people of Arab and African origin are five times more likely to be unemployed than the rest of the French population. In education the number of Arabs and Africans gaining access to top university courses and the elite “grandes écoles” is decreasing, while problems at primary and secondary level mean that schools are “incapable of ensuring basic literacy among non-French-speaking immigrants ”.


The two reports called for far more active measures to help minorities, but stopped short of supporting the idea of race quotas.

Such “positive discrimination” is enthusiastically backed by M Sarkozy but opposed by President Chirac and most of the political world as contradictory to France’s doctrine of the homogenous, egalitarian republic.

Where are these Africans from?
           
Quote
The composition of this population group has changed more than its numerical size. The immigrants who arrived in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s were mainly Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and North African. In 1999, three national groups accounted for some 500,000 immigrants: the Portuguese, Algerians and Moroccans. Next came the Turks, Italians, Spaniards and Tunisians and nationals of sub-Saharan Africa. The proportion of Italian and Spanish immigrants in the total was higher, but many of them have acquired French nationality.


More recent numbers:

         
Quote
Immigrants from sub-Saharan African countries appeared to lead the charge, with their numbers jumping 45 percent between 1999 and 2004 to 570,000.

The number of immigrants from North African countries rose to 1.5 million, up 220,000 from 1999.


And there are plenty of Muslims even in the sub-Saharan region.

The "speculation" of large Muslim imprisonment rates is widespread:

         
Quote
Prison populations have been expanding across Europe in recent years, partly because of stricteranticrime regimens influenced by the sort of zero tolerance on quality-of-life crimes that was epitomized by the former New York City mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani.

France's prison population has risen by 20 percent in the past three years, largely because of aggressive pursuit of lower-level crimes.
[...]
Missoum Abdelmadjid Chaoui, the imam responsible for the Nanterre institution here west of Paris, says there are only eight Muslim chaplains for the nearly 20,000 Muslim inmates in the Paris region. He handles 9 of the 25 prisons himself.
[...]
The prisons' shifting demographics are engraved in the small brick- walled exercise yard in Fresnes, a hub in transferring inmates around the national system. Names carved into the bricks a century ago are all French. ''Maurice Barbes, 1909,'' reads one. But those carved by the young men filling the yard these days are predominantly North African names like Oulmana, Chebbabi and Karim.


Although this study says the immigrants do well compared to their economic cohorts, the North Africa academic success rates are pretty grim:

         
Quote
Contrary to recent French research which has studied the success of immigrants’ children in the
baccalauréat examination using either a retrospective design (Tribalat, 1996) or a cross-sectional design
(Laacher and Lenfant, 1997), we study it in a longitudinal or prospective perspective. As Table 3 indicates,
31.8% of French secondary school entrants obtain the baccalauréat diploma after seven years, i.e. without
repeating a year, but the corresponding rate is 24.7% for South-East Asians, 20.2% for Portuguese, 19.1%
for Moroccans, 18.2% for Tunisians, 16.9% for Algerians and only 12.9% for Turks. Compared to their
French schoolmates, foreign children therefore are at a disadvantage in the French secondary school and the
number of foreign attributes as well as the duration of stay of parents in France highlight similar, albeit slightly
smaller, differences.


Some more insight:

     
Quote
In 2005, the unemployment in the cités reached 20%, whereas the national average is 10% [1]; in some quarters, it can reach 40%. Part of the problem is that the general level of education in these areas is well below the national average, which, in a context where it is difficult to find jobs requiring little or no qualifications, is bound to generate high unemployment. According to the BBC, the unemployment rate for university graduates of French origin is 5%; this can be compared to the unemployment rate of 26.5% for university graduates of North African origin. However, the BBC study does not specify whether the people of North African statistically attend the same university curricula as the average French population; it is well-known that some French higher education curricula do not offer good job prospects afterwards, and a "graduate" can be someone with a DEUG (a diploma issued after just two years of University education). Employment prospects in France for someone with only a DEUG are slim. According to the BBC, the inability of educated people who happen to be nonwhite to obtain employment and the connection to documented racism have left many feeling that they face dim prospects regardless of their actions. [2]


The U.K.:

Here are some stats that Nine didn't "throw out for discussion":

     
Quote
Industry and labour
· Bangladeshis and Pakistanis are two and a half times more likely to be unemployed than the white population and three times more likely to be on low pay
· Average earnings among Muslim men are 68% that of non-Muslim men
· Three-quarters of Bangladeshi and Pakistani children live in households earning less than half the average income
· 25% of Pakistani men are self-employed compared with 11% of white men
· 65% of Bangladeshis are semi-skilled manual workers compared with 23% among other ethnic minorities and 15% among white Britons
· 54% of Pakistani and Bangladeshi homes receive income support, three times other households
Welfare
· 28% of older Pakistani and Bangladeshi people live in homes without central heating
· 38% live in overcrowded homes. They are three times as likely not to have a phone at home than non-Muslims
· Number of Muslims in prison: 4,298, 7% of the male population and 3% of female

Health
· Perinatal mortality rate among Pakistani mothers is 16%, twice the UK average
· 18% of Pakistanis are diagnosed with chest pains or heart disease, compared with 14% of Sikhs, and 8% of Hindus
· 20% of Muslims report a long-standing illness, compared with 16% for Hindus and Sikhs


Education
· There are four Muslim schools in the state sector, though many more private schools
· The percentage of Pakistani and Bangladeshi girls taking A levels in 1998 was more than double that of white boys
· Bangladeshi and Pakistani children with unemployed parents are more likely to enter higher education than their white counterparts
· In 2000, 30% of Pakistani students gained five or more good GCSEs, compared with 50% in the population as a whole
[...]
Economics
· There are 5,400 Muslim millionaires (measured by cash and stocks but not property)
· 77% of Pakistani and 45% of Bangladeshi households are owner-occupiers
· 43% of Bangladeshis live in council or housing association properties - 50% higher than the national average


Prison stats:

     
Quote
The need to counter Muslim radicalization in prisons is underscored by recent population statistics and incarceration rates.7 There are around 13 million Muslims living in Europe (about 2.5 percent of the total population); of this number, over 7 million live in Western Europe (about 2 percent of the total population). Initially, Western Europe’s Muslim communities were made up of workers drawn largely from former European colonies. These mostly male laborers were later joined by family members arriving from abroad. West Germany was also home to a significant number of Turkish guest workers, whose status was more formally defined. More recently, these established Muslim communities have swelled with the arrival of economic and political refugees from the Balkans, Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, and North Africa. The number of Muslims living in the United Kingdom grew from about 23,000 in 1951 to 2 million in 2000. In 1961, there were about 6,700 Turkish Muslims living in West Germany; the Muslim population of Germany now also stands at about 2 million. Other West European countries, particularly France and the Netherlands, have seen similar increases in their Muslim populations. If current legal and illegal immigration patterns hold, this trend will likely continue.8

Foreigners in general and Muslims in particular are overrepresented in Europe’s prison populations. In Switzerland, for example, the foreign inmates generally fall into one of three categories: asylum seekers, tourists who have committed crimes, and long-term residents who have not been granted Swiss citizenship. Such foreigners account for nearly 63 percent of the Swiss prison population—about 3,500 of the 5,000 inmates—although they constitute only 20 percent of the general population. Given Switzerland’s geographical proximity to the Balkans, it is not surprising that many of these foreign prisoners are Muslims from Albania, Macedonia, and the former Yugoslav Republic.9

This pattern is replicated in other European states. Official statistics show that foreigners account for 28.5 percent, 34 percent, and 28.5 percent of the French, German, and Italian prison populations, respectively, proportions far in excess of the foreign component of the general population. Although precise figures are hard to come by, anecdotal evidence strongly suggests that a large percentage of these foreign prisoners are Muslims. In Britain, one of the few countries that makes a breakdown available, 8 percent of the prison population is Muslim, compared to only 2.5 percent of the general population. In 2002, the last year for which statistics are available, this translated into 5,495 Muslim inmates out of a total prison population of 71,218.10 The British government has also disclosed that since 9/11 only 97 out of the 562 people arrested for involvement in terrorist activities—a group made up almost entirely of Muslim men—have been charged with offenses under the Terrorism Act passed in 2000, and of these only 14 have been con-victed.11 It is Muslims such as these, men imprisoned then released for lack of evidence or detained on lesser charges, who are ripe for radicalization.


More recent data:

     
Quote
In light of the above, this paper presents the results of a study exploring the process of conversion to Islam amongst young male prisoners. Since 1993, the number of Muslims in British prisons has risen threefold, from 2,106 in March 1993 to 6,136 in June 2003 (National Offender Management Service, 2004). In 2003, Muslims accounted for eight per cent of the prison population (National Offender Management Service, 2004), and this is a significant over-representation since Muslims make up approximately only 2.7 per cent of the UK population. Whilst the reasons for this over-representation are numerous, conversion to Islam (or a re-affirmation of Muslim identities) in prison may also account for the rising numbers of Muslim prisoners.


More Prison data:

     
Quote
Young Black men in particular are converting to Islam during their imprisonment, and some prisons have reported around five conversions a week. The number of Muslim inmates within British prisons is up from 700, 15 years ago, to around 5,000 currently. Muslims are 7 percent of the total British prison population, but in prisons in larger cities, such as London, Manchester or Birmingham, they account for 20 percent of all inmates. As a whole, Muslims, at around 1.9 million, make up about 3 percent of the 60 million British population.

The figures for prisons do not include those who have converted whilst serving their sentence and a spokesman for the British Prison Service admitted that the actual number of Muslim prisoners could, in fact, be far higher.

The Prison Service employs 23 full-time and 12 part-time imams plus another 120 on a sessional basis. All are closely vetted and monitored before being allowed to work in prisons. Anwar Chaudhry, an official at a west London mosque who works part-time at a number of prisons, says: “We do not seek to radicalise inmates or even convert them. We are just teaching them positive things about Islam and how it can help their lives. Obviously, many of the prisoners come from troubled backgrounds and Islam gives them discipline and order; it helps them to run their lives better.”


More stats:

     
Quote
In 2001, there were 371,000 school-aged (5 to 16 year old) Muslim children in England (Source: National Statistics)
In 2004, 67 % of Indian, 48% of Bangladeshi and 45% of Pakistani pupils gained five or more grades A* to C at GCSE (or equivalent), compared with 52% of White British pupils. (Source: Social Trends No. 36, 2006)
31% of young British Muslims leave school with no qualifications compared to 15% of the total population.  (Source: National Statistics)
Poverty
35 % of Muslim households have no adults in employment, (more than double the national average). (Source: 'Muslim Housing Experience', Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies)
Just under three-quarters of Bangladeshi and Pakistani children (73%) are living in households below the poverty line (60% of median income). This compares with under a third (31%) for children in all households.  (Source: Department for Work and Pensions. Households Below Average Income 1994/5 - 2000/01)
In 2001, 13% of Muslim men and 16% of Muslim women reported 'not good' health.  These rates, which take account of the difference in age structures between the religious groups, were higher than those of Jewish and Christian people, who were the least likely to rate their health as 'not good'.
[...]
Employment
In 2004, 28% of 16-24-year-old Muslims were unemployed.  This compares with only 11% of Christians of the same age. (Source: National Statistics 2001 Census report on faith)
In 2004, a fifth of Muslims were self-employed. (Source: National Statistics)
In 2004 almost seven in ten (69%) Muslim women of working age were economically inactive.  (Source: Social Trends No. 36, 2006)
Crime
47% of Muslim students have experienced Islamophobia.  (Source: FOSIS (Federation of Student Islamic Societies) survey, 2005)
Almost 10% of the prison population are Muslim, two-thirds of whom are young men aged 18-30. (Source: Prison Service statistics, 2004)
Between 2001 and 2003 there was a 302% increase in 'stop and search' incidents among Asian people, compared with 118% among white people.  (Source: Home Office, Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System, 2004).


But!


Positive news for Muslims (look under Education).

Denmark:

Nine's whine gets rebutted:

   
Quote
* Living on the dole: Third-world immigrants - most of them Muslims from countries such as Turkey, Somalia, Pakistan, Lebanon and Iraq - constitute 5 percent of the population but consume upwards of 40 percent of the welfare spending.

* Engaging in crime: Muslims are only 4 percent of Denmark's 5.4 million people but make up a majority of the country's convicted rapists, an especially combustible issue given that practically all the female victims are non-Muslim. Similar, if lesser, disproportions are found in other crimes.

* Self-imposed isolation: Over time, as Muslim immigrants increase in numbers, they wish less to mix with the indigenous population. A recent survey finds that only 5 percent of young Muslim immigrants would readily marry a Dane.

* Importing unacceptable customs: Forced marriages - promising a newborn daughter in Denmark to a male cousin in the home country, then compelling her to marry him, sometimes on pain of death - are one problem.

Another is threats to kill Muslims who convert out of Islam. One Kurdish convert to Christianity, who went public to explain why she had changed religion, felt the need to hide her face and conceal her identity, fearing for her life.

* Fomenting anti-Semitism: Muslim violence threatens Denmark's approximately 6,000 Jews, who increasingly depend on police protection. Jewish parents were told by one school principal that she could not guarantee their children's safety and were advised to attend another institution. Anti-Israel marches have turned into anti-Jewish riots. One organization, Hizb-ut-Tahrir, openly calls on Muslims to "kill all Jews . . . wherever you find them."

* Seeking Islamic law: Muslim leaders openly declare their goal of introducing Islamic law once Denmark's Muslim population grows large enough - a not-that-remote prospect. If present trends persist, one sociologist estimates, every third inhabitant of Denmark in 40 years will be Muslim.


The response:
   
Quote
As Danish politicians, we are offended by the way integration problems in Denmark were portrayed by Daniel Pipes and Lars Hedegaard and we wish to set the record straight (Muslim Extremism: Denmark's had Enough, Daniel Pipes and Lars Hedegaard, Aug. 27).

The authors claim that 40% of Danish welfare expenses are consumed by Muslim immigrants. Denmark has a much broader spectrum of welfare costs than countries in North America. We include not only unemployment benefits and social security but also substantial allocations to housing, transport, homecare, early retirement, protected workplaces, daycare and other smaller schemes. Muslim immigrants do not receive 40% of those allocations even though they represent a substantial part of the clients. The main reason being: It is hard to compete on a job market not interested in employing immigrants.

The further assumption that more than half of all rapists in Denmark are Muslims is without any basis in fact, as criminal registers do not record religion.

Mr. Pipes and Mr. Hedegaard mention that only 5% of young Muslims in Denmark wish to marry a Dane. A sign of self-inflicted isolation, indeed. We welcome the brave 5% who accept intermarriage—they are true pioneers for peaceful co-existence and human contact across cultures. However, the new Danish government has made it extremely difficult for Danish citizens to bring a foreign spouse to Denmark. The ruling opinion obviously is that intermarriage should be avoided.


The counter:

   
Quote
Both protest our conclusion that Muslims "make up a majority of the country's convicted rapists," saying that because Danish statistics do not correlate religion with crime, this assertion "is without any basis in fact." Statistics Denmark does, however, produce numbers on immigrants from Third World countries and their descendants, which it reports makes up 5% of the population; and it is known that Muslims make up four-fifths of this element. The latest police figures show that 76.5% of convicted rapists in Copenhagen belong to that 5% of the population, and from that we drew our understated conclusion.

Our critics then sow confusion about the word "welfare." We wrote in English for an English-speaking readership, and used "welfare" in the conventional English sense of meaning public assistance in the form of cash or food stamps—not in the Danish sense of including "housing, transport, homecare, early retirement, protected workplaces, daycare and other smaller schemes" as mentioned by the two politicians.

As for the numbers involved, former Socialist spokeswoman for immigration and integration Ritt Bjerregaard has leaked figures from an unpublished study showing that in 1999, the 5% of the Danish population made up of Third World immigrants received 35% of all welfare payments (Danish: kontanthjaelp). This percentage is higher today and therefore we wrote that that 5% consumes "upwards of 40% of the welfare spending."

Both MPs may not believe Danish Jews are threatened but the Jewish population itself believes it is under siege. This obliviousness of Ms. Arnold and Ms. Nielsen is part of a larger problem, whereby they have long been among the most vocal cheerleaders of massive immigration and completely blind to the problems this creates. Unfortunately for them, Danish voters do see the problems and threw their coalition out of office last November.


I don't know about this "unpublished study", but the crime figures are reasonable.

Now what about Sweden? Let's look at Malmo, with one of the (if not the) highest concentrations of Muslims in Europe:

 
Quote
Ali Dashti has been kindly supplying us with information about the situation in Sweden for some time. Now the larger -- if not mainstream -- media is catching on. From a FoxNews commentary:

Now in Malmo, Sweden, a city where a quarter of the population is Muslim, there are some parts of the city where buses refuse to go for fear of safety. Fireman, policemen, and ambulance drivers have been attacked in certain sections when trying to do their job. Swedes, though, are not an easy soundbite, perhaps because they are so thoughtful. They try to see things from every side. We went out with a policeman on patrol and spoke to him while he was walking around in the dangerous part of town. At one point I stopped him and said, "How does it feel to you, personally, when you come here trying to do your job, trying to help someone, and people throw rocks at you?" His response was that it was "a little annoying." Annoying. I imagined what kind of a colorful response I could have gotten from a New York policeman.


Here's some anecdotal evidence.

More stats:

 
Quote
Numbers released in January 2005 indicate a sharp rise in the number of rape charges in Malmö, Sweden’s third largest city:

Thomas Anderberg, responsible for statistics at the Malmö Police, says there was a doubling of the number of reported rapes by ambush in 2004, following what was already a decade of steadily increasing numbers of sexual crimes. - I think that’s great news, says Anna Gustafsson, head of the Domestic Violence Unit at the Malmö Police. She suggests that the increase is due to the fact that women who otherwise wouldn’t press charges for rape now choose to contact the police.

In other words, Gustafsson claims that we are dealing with a “technical” increase, not a real one. However, national statistics reveal that reported rapes against children have almost doubled in Sweden during the past ten years:

According to Swedish Radio on Tuesday, statistics from Sweden’s National Council for Crime Prevention show that the number of reported rapes against children is on the rise. The figures have nearly doubled in the last ten years: 467 rapes against children under the age of 15 were reported in 2004 compared with 258 in 1995. Legal proceedings continue this week in a case involving a 13 year old girl from Motala who was said to have been subjected to a group rape by four men. (Note: These four men were Kurdish Muslims, who raped the girl for hours and even took photos of doing so)

The number of rape charges per capita in Malmö is 5 – 6 times that of Copenhagen, Denmark. Copenhagen is a larger city, but the percentage of immigrants is much lower. And it’s not just the rape statistics that reveal a scary increase in Malmö or Sweden. Virtually every kind of violent crime is on the rise. Robberies have increased with 50 % in Malmö only during the fall of 2004. Threats against witnesses in Swedish court cases have quadrupled between 2000 and 2003. During the past few decades, massive immigration has changed the face of Sweden’s major cities, as well as challenged the viability of the welfare state. In 1970 Sweden had the fourth highest GDP per capita among developed countries with income about 6% above the OECD average. By 1997 it was at fifteenth place with an average GDP per capita 14% below average. Malmö has a heavy concentration of Muslim immigrants in particular. According to some estimates, it will be a Muslim majority city in no more then 10 years. Crime is rampant in the growing ghettos:

Becirov runs the Islamic Center of Malmö, on the outskirts of Sweden's third-largest city. Some immigrant neighborhoods in the city have (official) unemployment rates exceeding 50 percent. Swedish authorities have failed to lift up the area, and seem to be giving the Islamic Center of Malmö a great deal of leeway in attempting to do so. An article that appeared in 2003 noted that "a few" of the 6-to 10-year-old girls were wearing headscarves. On a visit in January 2005, fully 80 percent were covered in class--only a handful were not. In a fit of absent-mindedness, Sweden has suddenly become as heavily populated by minorities as any country in Europe. The percentage of foreign-born is roughly equivalent to the highest percentage of immigrants the United States ever had in its history (on the eve of World War I). Rosengård appears to be all-immigrant. The public schools have virtually no ethnically Swedish children. There are stories--familiar in other parts of Europe where immigrants from the Muslim world have recently settled--of students harassing Jewish teachers and defacing textbooks that treat Jewish themes. Crime is high.

Is it unfair and “racist” to suggest a link between the influx of Muslim immigrants and the growing number of rapes? Not if we compare with the situation in neighboring Denmark, where this trend has been evident for years:

Criminologist: immigrants are rape champions

If one leading expert is to be believed, the sharp rise in the number of rapes in this over the last 5 years is largely attributable to a group of unemployed and alienated immigrants. 'Over the last 5-10 years there has an increasing tendency to marginalise and alienate immigrants,' says Professor Flemming Balvig, a criminologist at Copenhagen University. 'As a result, many second generation immigrants have reacted against this through various types of criminal activity, including rape.'

Muslim rape concern

Alarmed at last week's police statistics, which revealed that in 68% of all rapes committed this year the perpetrator was from an ethnic minority, leading Muslim organisations have now formed an alliance to fight the ever-growing problem of young second and third-generation immigrants involved in rape cases against young Danish girls.

As Robert Spencer has demonstrated, rape can indeed be linked to Islamic teachings of Jihad, and even to the example of Muhammad himself, his Sunna. Above all, it is connected to Islamic notions of the role of women in society, and their behaviour in the public sphere. An Islamic Mufti in Copenhagen sparked a political outcry after publicly declaring that women who refuse to wear headscarves are "asking for rape." Apparently, he isn’t the only Muslim in Europe to think this way:

The German journalist Udo Ulfkotte told in a recent interview that in Holland, you can now see examples of young, unveiled Moroccan women with a so-called "smiley". It means that the girl gets one side of her face cut up from mouth to ear, serving as a warning to other Muslim girls who should refuse to wear the veil. In the Muslim suburb of Courneuve, France, 77 per cent of the veiled women carry veils reportedly because of fear of being harassed or molested by Islamic moral patrols.

Hijab, the Islamic veil, is thus not ”just a piece of cloth”. It serves as a demarcation line between proper, submissive Muslim women and whores, un-Islamic women who deserve no respect and are asking for rape. The veil should more properly be viewed as the uniform of a Totalitarian movement, and a signal to attack those outside the movement. Judged in the light of the Mufti who said that women who don’t wear it are asking for rape, how on earth can the veil be said to be about ”choice”? The freedom to choose not to be raped if you dress in a normal fashion in your own country? Is that what freedom is about in Europe in 2005?

Even though Sweden, unlike Denmark, has almost no public debate about immigration, frustration is very much present underneath the surface. 75 % of Swedes think that many people in their country “dislike” Muslims, more than in any other European nation surveyed. Even in Holland, which recently witnessed violent clashes with Muslims after the murder of Islam-critic Theo van Gogh, the rate is lower than in Sweden. But you’re not supposed to talk about such issues in Sweden. That would be “racist”:

Swedish laws prohibiting "hate speech" against racial minorities have been vigorously enforced. There have, for example, been a number of gang-rapes of Swedish women by Muslim immigrants. But Swedes must be careful what they say about them. On May 25, neo-Nazi Bjorn Bjorkqvist was convicted and sentenced to two months in prison for writing, "I don’t think I am alone in feeling sick when reading about how Swedish girls are raped by immigrant hordes." ["Jag tror inte jag är ensam om att må dåligt när jag läser om hur svenska tjejer har våldtagits av invandrarhorder"]

All in all, we must say that there is strong circumstantial evidence indicating that the rise in rape charges in the city of Malmö could very well be real, which puts the Malmö Police assertion that this is “great news” in a rather curious light. And the problem is not just limited to Sweden. It exists in Norway, too:

Rape charges in the capital are spiraling upwards, 40 percent higher from 1999 to 2000 and up 13 percent so far this year. Police Inspector Gunnar Larsen of Oslo's Vice, Robbery and Violent crime division says the statistics are surprising - the rising number of rape cases and the link to ethnic background are both clear trends. But Larsen does not want to speculate on the reasons behind the worrying developments. While 65 percent of those charged with rape are classed as coming from a non-western background, this segment makes up only 14.3 percent of Oslo's population. Norwegian women were the victims in 80 percent of the cases, with 20 percent being women of foreign background.


Here's more:

 
Quote
The population of Malmo as a whole is about 25% immigrant or the children of immigrants, primarily from Bosnia, Iraq (especially Kurdish areas), North Africa and Turkey. These immigrants are concentrated in old housing in the suburban ring around the city center. There are few jobs there. The student body in some of the schools is nearly 100% immigrant, drawing very heavily from countries that are predominantly Muslim. Last September, Swedish newspapers reported that bus service in a Stockholm suburb similar to Malmo's was suspended in response to violent attacks.

This was reported in a dramatic way by Fox. But you can read a similar account of the school situation in this dry report of a visit by Spanish educators to the Malmo suburban schools in 2003.

The WaPo notes:

But the biggest problem in Malmo, and in other parts of Sweden, is what people here call "ghettoization": White Swedes typically live in certain areas, in this case the city center, while immigrants are increasingly clustered on the outskirts in their own communities. As Hosseinkhah put it: "People physically live in this area, but they mentally live in their former countries." "They don't feel they are a part of this community," he said. "They don't know this society. They don't know the codes. . . . There's that feeling of 'we' and 'them.' "
This ghettoization is only growing worse as the demographic makeup of Sweden changes. Ove Sernhede, a Swedish scholar, wrote back in 1990

Marginalised groups have during the last two decades been forming ghettos all over Europe. In Sweden this development is related to the rapid changes in economy and society during the last 5 to 10 years. The Swedish ghettoisation is most visible in the modern multi-ethnic suburbs outside the highly segregated big cities. Along with Moss Side (Manchester), Bobigny (Paris), Gutleutviertel (Hamburg) we can today also list Angered (Gothenburg), Rinkeby (Stockholm) and Rosengard (Malmo). In Gothenburg, to give one example, there are many areas where 75-95 of the population (neighbourhoods with of 5-10 000 people) are immigrants, the city is one of the most segregated in Europe.... The parliamentary committee on 'big city conditions' recently presented statistics about the 'exposed urban districts' - more than 50 of the children between 0-6 years of age have unemployed parents, in Gothenburg social entitlements increased by 100 between 1990 and 1993, the unemployment for certain 'exposed' ethnic minorities are more that 90 . - etc., etc. These circumstances have put Sweden more or less into a state of shock.
The problem of unassimilated immigrants in Sweden, mostly from Muslim countries, is especially acute because of differences in birth / arrival rates. As an official brochure notes:

There are 0.9 million young Swedes [out of a total population of 8.9 million - rkb] aged between 16 and 24 today, and by about 2010 the figure is expected to exceed a million. The majority of these young people were born in Sweden and have Swedish nationality. 10 per cent of them have one Swedish and one foreign parent. A further 10 per cent were born abroad, and of these 5 per cent still retain their foreign nationality. After Swedish the most common nationalities are Finnish, Bosnian, Iraqui, Turkish, Yugoslavian and Somalian. This means that slightly more than one young person in five living in Sweden was born abroad his/herself or has at least one parent who was.
At this point 2 out of every 3 new Swedes is from a non-ethnically-Swedish ancestry.


But what about Oslo, Norway?

This study indicates that the largest non-Western immigrant groups in Oslo are from mostly Muslim countries (see figure 2, and note the exception!;)). So I stand behind my original stats -- unless it is those small Vietnamese men that are targeting those large Nordic women and calling them "whore"! And why are so many Swedish girls dying their blonde hair so they won't be targeted for rape? Doesn't sound like Asian rapists to me.....

More later.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2006,16:41   

ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz.............................

Wake me when the nutter is finished.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2006,16:42   

OK, Ghost:

Do you intend to change your criteria, and claim that overall rates of unemployment are indictive of Muslim integration?

If you do, it's fine by me- I'd just like to see some reasoning behind it.

You remember "reasoning", right? It's that thing you're supposed to have in between quotes.

IF your purpose is to actually have a normal debate that is, and not just "win at teh Intarnets".

But I doubt it.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2006,21:44   

Ghosty,

Thanks for the wealth of stats and information.

I'm off to Cyprus for a cousin's wedding on Wendesday. I'll be away until at least the 16th, and I am excruciatingly busy until the 30th. So forgive me if I don't respond as fully as I might like. Dare I say "more later"?

Louis

P.S. I'm sure in my absence the gentlemen and ladies of ATBC can keep you amused.

--------------
Bye.

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2006,07:39   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Sep. 03 2006,17:03)
FRANCE has failed miserably to integrate the millions of Arab and African immigrants who have settled in the country since the 1960s, according to two reports this week.

Hmm very first quote he uses blames the country not the immingrants   :D

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2006,07:08   

Been away for some time.

Anyway...

I think that there is some truth in stating that muslims are less well integrated than other faiths (at least in the UK).

It apears to me that Asians of hindi and sikh religious persuasion are doing far better economically than Asian muslims.

I do not believe that the majority of muslims are maladjusted extremists but some actions by muslims do concern me. While only a small minority of muslims may be extremist just about every recent terrorist to operate in the UK is a muslim. Something is going wrong, I am not sure what it is let alone have a solution.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2006,10:39   

Here's a report on Muslims in Italy. If you look through the report, the best statistical estimates paint a pretty bleak portrait in areas of education, employment, housing, etc. I know that Muslims are about 10 times more likely to be in prison than their overall presence would predict (see here, although they claim the 2000 OECD data shows roughly proportional educational achievement for Muslims as a whole). I know the more recent data shows a grim situation for Turkish students worldwide, and the overall situation for German Turks is depressing.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2006,11:04   

Here's where the grim conclusion on Turkish students comes from:

 
Quote
Language and the geographical origin of immigrant children may be additional factors, the report notes. But this is not sufficient to explain variations in performance between countries. Immigrant students whose families have come from Turkey tend to perform poorly in many countries. But they do significantly worse in Germany than they do in Switzerland.


More later.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2006,11:38   

I found a nice article from Russell and Faid's favorite e-zine. Enjoy.

Next: Muslims in the Land Down Under.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2006,08:18   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Sep. 05 2006,16:04)
Here's where the grim conclusion on Turkish students comes from:

 
Quote
Language and the geographical origin of immigrant children may be additional factors, the report notes. But this is not sufficient to explain variations in performance between countries. Immigrant students whose families have come from Turkey tend to perform poorly in many countries. But they do significantly worse in Germany than they do in Switzerland.


More later.

And that supports your position how exactly, Ghost?

Both Germany and Switzerland were part of Western Civilization, last time I checked.

Also: Before you go to "more later", got any stats from Greece?  :)

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2006,11:22   

Faid:

         
Quote
       
Quote
Here's where the grim conclusion on Turkish students comes from:

           
Quote
Language and the geographical origin of immigrant children may be additional factors, the report notes. But this is not sufficient to explain variations in performance between countries. Immigrant students whose families have come from Turkey tend to perform poorly in many countries. But they do significantly worse in Germany than they do in Switzerland.


More later.


And that supports your position how exactly, Ghost?

Both Germany and Switzerland were part of Western Civilization, last time I checked.

Also: Before you go to "more later", got any stats from Greece?  :)


????? How does the underperformance of Turkish students in Germany and Switzerland not support my case? Turkey is a Muslim country, no?

I'll look up some stats for Greece.

By the way, you definitely creamed me on our satirical debate on the "whiteness" of Greeks -- the recent FIBA results prove that, indeed, the Greeks are white:

   
Quote
Don't ask me how they ever won the European championships; that's what I was saying. The Greeks are always slow and they can never shoot. No one is tougher, or plays harder, but the traditional Greek team of the '90s was always a classic wannabe.

But this Greek team has nothing in common with those other squads. This Greek team has the game of basketball figured out.

Its calling card en route to a 7-0 record entering the game against the USA was defense.

"Defense is the coach's heart," is the way Mike Krzyzewski had put it, the coach being Panagiotis "Pano" Yannakis, a cagey fellow who has both played on (1987) and coached (2005) a European champion.

Defense, defense, defense. ... that's what Pano has been preaching to his team. Offense was a matter of sharing and caring. The Greeks entered this game with eight men averaging between seven and 11 points per game. There was no "go-to" guy.

So what were the Greeks doing running up 101 points on the Americans? In his wildest and craziest fantasies, Pano Yannakis never dreamed he'd ever beat the Americans by scoring 101.

And maybe it all was a fluke, but if it was, it was the most artistic fluke in the history of the world championships. For after struggling to create offense during the first quarter in the face of some stern American defense, and after falling behind 33-21, 14 1/2 minutes into the game, the Greeks turned into an offensive monster, outscoring the stunned NBA guys 44-18 over the next 9:46 to go up by 14 and, frankly, never do much in the way of looking back.

How did they do this? Better yet, how didn't they? They must have run the same pick-and-roll play successfully at least 84 times. They nailed threes. They posted up. The fairly amazin' final stat sheet revealed that Greece had shot 63 percent overall and 71 percent (27-for-38) on twos.

The Americans? Well, they shot a very respectable 50 percent overall and 63 percent on twos (24-for-38). They were good, but the Greeks were better.


Yep, they're definitely white: who else can dominate athletically and receive nothing but backhanded compliments... :D  :D  :D  :D

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2006,12:33   

Two sources on Greek Muslims. Basically:

Foreigners (half of which are Albanians) are 2.5 to 3 times as likely to commit thefts and robberies than their population figures would predict (I converted the theft ratios into percentages, and divided those numbers by the percent of foreigners in the population). Foreigners make up 45% of the prison population, although much of this discrepancy might be due to extra scrutiny by the police, tough enforcement of immigration law, and legal inequities. But even if it's true that half of the foreign crime is due to infractions of immigration law, that would put the foreign prison population at 22.5%, which is more than twice as high as the population numbers would predict. The proportion of migrant crime is apparently half of what would be expected (I think the author confused 1988 with either 2003 or 2004), but migrant crime has grown faster than the migrant population (once again, I'm confused by the author's presentation of the data). Given the imprisonment rates, the overall picture seems bleaker than the author's letting on. The other article shows that Greek Muslims are slightly underrepresented in the higher academic echelons, but there's a lot of uncertainty in the classification.

According to surveys, Greeks are very unhappy with the Muslim immigrants.

So no, I don't see much room for optimism. It sounds like more of, "The minorities aren't competing, so it must be society's fault!" Unfortunately, Americans know the punchline to this joke: lots and lots of suppression combined with lots and lots of affirmative action.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2006,12:49   

it does not help your case in the way that, if analogous groups from the same ethnic minority have considerably different performances in different Western countries, then the reasons are not inherrent in the minority, but should be sought in the circumstances and conditions in those countries. I'm sure you can understand that.
I'm asking about greece because, well, the situation is interesting here, and seems to strike to the heart of your arguments (especially since there does not seem to be a correlation between failure in cultural assimilation and crime rates, which makes your initial assertions disputable). But the net is not that rich in info on our local muslim minority, at least not of the relevant kind, and I thought a Google scolar might do a better job :)
Anyway, since I'm once again visible to you, can you answer my questions? Here they are again:
Do you plan on changing the criteria you proposed and claim that rates of overall unemployment show failure of integration? If so, can you explain it?
Can you provide some evidence and examples about that "fact" you threw out and forgot about it, namely that even "moderate", benign Muslims turn to fanatics, some time after they come to the West?
Thanks.

Oh and thanks for the thumbsup Ghost! However, I've already read the article and you seem to miss the point: What the article goes on to say is that, although USA had the best players, Greece had the best team. And they played better basketball. So, it basically says that it was not a "disaster" or "tough luck" for the US, that Greece deserved to win and that not admitting it only makes them bad losers. Something you should think about too (especially now that your Geocentric thread is back up :) ).

But hey, we sure are white: Like the final demonstrated, we suck at rebounds- We just can't jump.
Hmm.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2006,13:08   

Crap, I didn't see your next post, and I don't have time now. A few things:
First of all, let's clear something out: Albanians are NOT Muslims- not culturally or religiously. They were Muslim in their majority once (around 70%), but half a century of living under (forced) secularism has changed their culture, and now only about 25-30% identify themselves as Muslims. They certainly are not following the Muslim cultural identity now, and their accent is the only thing that separates a Greek from an Albanian immigrant (and not even that for young people anymore). Like you said, the overblown statistics of Albanians in prison comes from counting all the illegal immigrants arrested and held for deportation; and that is a large number. Still, Albanians seem to be disproportionally represented in crime busts (mostly theft and robbery, but not murders)- However, at the same time, they seem to display an unusual rate of integration in all other aspects, from rise of income to sucess in education (where some estimates show they'll soon surpass Greek natives -it's as if they were Asian! :) ) In the meantime, many other minorities that show an increased crime rate are not Muslim at all, while Pakis (and we have a lot of those too) As just as quiet and law-abiding as Indians. In fact, they're mostly victims of crimes (for quite some time, Rumanian gangs used to beat Pakis to take their wages the day they got paid).
And then there's our native Muslim minority -but I'll talk about that next time (m-more later? :p ).

Oh and, Greeks are unhappy with Albanians because we're a bunch of closet nationalists that hang from the lips of our sleazy reporters. Just FYI.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2006,14:14   

Faid:

 
Quote
Crap, I didn't see your next post, and I don't have time now. A few things:
First of all, let's clear something out: Albanians are NOT Muslims- not culturally or religiously. They were Muslim in their majority once (around 70%), but half a century of living under (forced) secularism has changed their culture, and now only about 25-30% identify themselves as Muslims.


Which is one of the reasons I was ignoring Greece initially. Still, the Muslim presence in Thrace is pretty large (120,000 I think), and the Muslims are agitating for a mosque in Athens.

 
Quote
Still, Albanians seem to be disproportionally represented in crime busts (mostly theft and robbery, but not murders)- However, at the same time, they seem to display an unusual rate of integration in all other aspects, from rise of income to sucess in education (where some estimates show they'll soon surpass Greek natives -it's as if they were Asian!  ) In the meantime, many other minorities that show an increased crime rate are not Muslim at all, while Pakis (and we have a lot of those too) As just as quiet and law-abiding as Indians. In fact, they're mostly victims of crimes (for quite some time, Rumanian gangs used to beat Pakis to take their wages the day they got paid).


But if Albanians aren't really Muslim, then much of this argument is pointless. As far as the Pakis go, I was under the impression that the Greek Muslims were primarily Turks (even after the population exchange!;)) or Albanians. Take those groups out, and how many Muslims are left?

 
Quote
Oh and, Greeks are unhappy with Albanians because we're a bunch of closet nationalists that hang from the lips of our sleazy reporters. Just FYI.


Yeah, but shouldn't the Greek people be allowed to determine their own immigration policies? They're the ones who will pay if the immigrant situation turns nasty, not the coke-sniffing multiculturalist elite in their gated Myconian communities.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2006,15:08   

Faid:

     
Quote
Anyway, since I'm once again visible to you, can you answer my questions? Here they are again:
Do you plan on changing the criteria you proposed and claim that rates of overall unemployment show failure of integration? If so, can you explain it?
Can you provide some evidence and examples about that "fact" you threw out and forgot about it, namely that even "moderate", benign Muslims turn to fanatics, some time after they come to the West?
Thanks.


I don't see how unemployment is "changing the criteria". Here is my definition:

     
Quote
By "integration", I mean:

1) No more likely to commit violent crimes as a group than the population as a whole (15 % pts above national violent crime rates at maximum) ;

2) No cries for "affirmative action";

3) Roughly proportionate representation in the intellectual occupations (doctors, lawyers, and/or scientists) without relying on 2). Yes, this implies good scores on standardised scholastic tests;

4) A culture that tolerates Western norms.


If a huge chunk of the immigrant population is unemployed, this makes 3) unlikely and 2) almost mandatory. Certainly, chronic unemployment breeds resentment towards the native population and soaks up social services. I don't understand your objection.

As for your second question: c'mon, even Stevestory linked to a quote from Miss England that backed up my opinion. For more insight, read this article. Here's another source. Here's the Pew Global Attitudes poll. A substantial minority of Muslims associate one negative trait after another with Westerners, although European Muslims are milder than their counterparts in Islamic countries.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
tsig



Posts: 339
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2006,15:39   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Sep. 03 2006,21:41)
ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz.............................

Wake me when the nutter is finished.

Can't be bothered by facts.  

You asked for 'em and you got 'em, then ignore them.

Typical fundie behavior

I see where you got you title "Rev"

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2006,18:39   

Friend of yours, Paley?

Didn't think you had any.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,00:12   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Sep. 08 2006,23:39)
Friend of yours, Paley?

Didn't think you had any.

I think I am one of a very small minority here that actually likes GoP's posting (at least I normally find them amusing).

  
tsig



Posts: 339
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,15:57   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Sep. 08 2006,23:39)
Friend of yours, Paley?

Didn't think you had any.

Is that all you got.

Try reading.


Why should I accept your word any more than the guy who delivers my pizza.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,18:04   

Quote (tsig @ Sep. 09 2006,20:57)
Is that all you got.

Yep.  (shrug)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,18:14   

I was going to delete this "You suck" "No you suck" crap of the last few comments, but then I thought, this is a GoP thread. Deleting a few intemperate comments would be like waxing the floors at Three Mile Island. So I'll leave them unless anybody thinks they're really disruptive.

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,19:46   

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 09 2006,23:14)
I was going to delete this "You suck" "No you suck" crap of the last few comments, but then I thought, this is a GoP thread. Deleting a few intemperate comments would be like waxing the floors at Three Mile Island. So I'll leave them unless anybody thinks they're really disruptive.

Wax on....Wax off?

Do you have another name MR. Myagi?

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,02:52   

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 09 2006,23:14)
So I'll leave them unless anybody thinks they're really disruptive.

Disruptive of what?  Nobody is reading Paley's big long hate speeches anyway.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,05:16   

[quote=The Ghost of Paley,Sep. 06 2006,19:14][/quote]
 
Quote
Which is one of the reasons I was ignoring Greece initially. Still, the Muslim presence in Thrace is pretty large (120,000 I think), and the Muslims are agitating for a mosque in Athens.

That is true, and this is our native Muslim minority. They have been with us for centuries, living in the same region more or less. They are, I think, an interesting issue in this discussion: They are quite fundamental in their religious beliefs and culture- much more than your average Turk, in fact, not to mention Albanian Muslims. They live in rural areas, are mostly farmers and small traders, and their income is significally lower (or that is what their taxes show). So, no, after all these years, they have not integrated -but you could say that for the Amish in the US too (in fact, they're much more integrated in comparison to them). Still, their participation in the crime rates is non-existant, even proportionally: no theft, rape, robbery or murder. All the fuss with them is that they are often the pawn in political games between Turkey and Greece (like the mosque issue). But crime? nope. And they have been the target of racism for many a year.

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Sep. 06 2006,19:14)
Quote
Still, Albanians seem to be disproportionally represented in crime busts (mostly theft and robbery, but not murders)- However, at the same time, they seem to display an unusual rate of integration in all other aspects, from rise of income to sucess in education (where some estimates show they'll soon surpass Greek natives -it's as if they were Asian!  ) In the meantime, many other minorities that show an increased crime rate are not Muslim at all, while Pakis (and we have a lot of those too) As just as quiet and law-abiding as Indians. In fact, they're mostly victims of crimes (for quite some time, Rumanian gangs used to beat Pakis to take their wages the day they got paid).


But if Albanians aren't really Muslim, then much of this argument is pointless.

The point, Ghost, is that, although there seems to be a correlation of crime rates and immigrants in urban areas, there is no valid connection with the Muslim faith. Not in my country, at least. And I think my country is a good example on what really happens with immigration, because we have immigrants that are not predominantly Muslim, and we can get a clearer distinction.
Quote
As far as the Pakis go, I was under the impression that the Greek Muslims were primarily Turks (even after the population exchange!;)) or Albanians. Take those groups out, and how many Muslims are left?

Not many: Pakistanis mostly, and a fair number from the Middle East; but absolute numbers here are not the issue, the relevance between religion and crime rates is, and at least in Greece that is clearly not the case.
Quote
Yeah, but shouldn't the Greek people be allowed to determine their own immigration policies?
They're the ones who will pay if the immigrant situation turns nasty, not the coke-sniffing multiculturalist elite in their gated Myconian communities.

Well, we did, Ghost, and we pay the price. When Albanians first appeared as financial immigrants in the early 90s, both businessmen and politicians saw the benefit of a large, semi-legal workforce in our developing country. So, we let them all in ("Let our brothers come" said a paper), and we welcomed them in our country... By denying them visas and social or health care, having them remain in a semi- legal condition, always afraid of deportation, unable to claim a decent job or an honest salary, working as hired slaves for peanuts, often getting deported instead of paid.
And when our resentment and exploitation paid off, and crime rates among immigrants began to climb, the SAME paper that I quoted before said "Send the monsters away", and people started arguing in much the same way you do now, putting all eggs in one basket.
And guess what: It is the Myconian elite that was the most vocal. Sorry Ghost, you won't find multiculturalists in Myconos: Just rich and famous Neocons. Neocons that profited from illegal workforce back in the day, and now want all foreigners to "go home" and even resent the fact that Albanian children do better in highscools than many Greeks (we actually had protests a couple of times, to stop Albanians, who were top students in their schools, from holding the flag during parades. And yes, we still have parades).

If you ever come to Greece, and you want to meet Greek multiculturalists, stay away from the coke-sniffers at Myconos: go to a camping site in Ios or Scopelos or Thrace even. Why meet them, I hear you ask? Well, because multiculturalists have more fun.  :D

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,06:00   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Sep. 06 2006,20:08)
I don't see how unemployment is "changing the criteria". Here is my definition:

           
Quote
By "integration", I mean:

1) No more likely to commit violent crimes as a group than the population as a whole (15 % pts above national violent crime rates at maximum) ;

2) No cries for "affirmative action";

3) Roughly proportionate representation in the intellectual occupations (doctors, lawyers, and/or scientists) without relying on 2). Yes, this implies good scores on standardised scholastic tests;

4) A culture that tolerates Western norms.


If a huge chunk of the immigrant population is unemployed, this makes 3) unlikely and 2) almost mandatory.

Ghost, please don't play with terms and words, and remember what you are trying to prove.
Your #3 point is valid as a criteria, if you can show that it is the Muslim culture that prohibits participation in intelectual occupations. But overall unemployment? Now wait a minute: We're talking about economic immigrants here.
They're unemployed by default, Ghost. ALL such immigrants are when they get to a country. Greeks were during the 20s in the US, during the 50s in Germany... And when they get there, immigrants quickly get absorbed into the workforce "black market": Doing part-time, one-service jobs, almost exclusively involving manual labor, without a contract or a minimum wage or a hope for insurance and health care. Many remain unemployed, and many more appear to be, as far as the state is concerned.
Saying "Muslims can't get jobs at all, so they can't get 'intelectual' jobs either, so their culture forbids them to" is not just a non-sequitur; it's a joke.
 
Quote
Certainly, chronic unemployment breeds resentment towards the native population and soaks up social services. I don't understand your objection.

No objection there, Ghost. In fact, this is my argument. Tell me, where does religion or culture enter in what you just said?
And that is why I think that, like I said in my previous post, it's the wave of immigration that creates the social conditions for marginalization and increase in crime, not religion.

"And how would I prove that my criteria are met then?" I can hear you say... Well, Ghost, since it's your criteria, it's also your job to do it. But I suppose you could evaluate a sample of Muslims that have a steady job and income, and check whether the proportion of 'intelectual' works in them is simillar to Westerners. That would work better in a country where they had a Muslim minority for quite some time, to make the financial differences due to recent immigration less significant...
...And this is where Deadman's links might come handy, perhaps?  ;)

 
Quote
As for your second question: c'mon, even Stevestory linked to a quote from Miss England that backed up my opinion. For more insight, read this article. Here's another source. Here's the Pew Global Attitudes poll. A substantial minority of Muslims associate one negative trait after another with Westerners, although European Muslims are milder than their counterparts in Islamic countries.


Ghost, can you please tell me how any of your links substanciates this "fact" you offered?
 
Quote
many moderate Muslims have a dreadful habit of "flipping" into hardcore militancy once they become citizens. This is not a prejudice -- it's a fact.


Because frankly, I cannot see any relevance. How does claiming that moderate Muslims come to the West and immediately turn into hardcore potential terrorists when they get a visa, become a "fact" because a "substantial minority" (5%) of second-generation Muslims "associates one negative trait after another" with the West? (And of course, how is that not explained itself by them being raised and treated as an outcast in the land they were born?)

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,11:04   

Faid:
Quote
Ghost, please don't play with terms and words, and remember what you are trying to prove.
Your #3 point is valid as a criteria, if you can show that it is the Muslim culture that prohibits participation in intelectual occupations. But overall unemployment? Now wait a minute: We're talking about economic immigrants here.

I only have about 10 minutes, so let me just make a couple of observations for now:

1) Many of the unemployed Muslims have had plenty of time to find a job; they just haven't succeeded. Remember, some of my stats show that even well-educated Muslims have sky-high jobless rates in some countries. And what about the second generation immigrants? Many of the unemployed (especially in France and England) were born in Europe, so once again, their unemployment is a puzzle. Besides, the US Muslims found jobs immediately, didn't they? You don't have much of a point here.

2) Recall my education statistics. Aside from Italy, the US, and maybe Greece, Muslim students tend to drop out more and underachieve academically. Furthermore, the Muslims who perform well are not very Muslim (Albania) are mostly Foreign Nationals (Italy) or are first generation cherry-picked professionals (America). This doesn't say anything about the typical Muslim immigrant and his children.

3) If you read the early part of the thread, you'll see many cultural arguments. In any case, my main job involves proving they don't assimilate, not why they don't. By the way, you never answered my question: "Do Greek people have a right to determine who immigrates into their own country?"

More later.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2006,08:26   

Faid:

Let me quote my conditions again:

   
Quote
By "integration", I mean:

1) No more likely to commit violent crimes as a group than the population as a whole (15 % pts above national violent crime rates at maximum) ;

2) No cries for "affirmative action";

3) Roughly proportionate representation in the intellectual occupations (doctors, lawyers, and/or scientists) without relying on 2). Yes, this implies good scores on standardised scholastic tests;

4) A culture that tolerates Western norms.


Now let's look at this link:

   
Quote
As teaching takes place mainly in the minority language, a large number of minority students end up acquiring an imperfect knowledge of Greek. For many, this situation constitutes a very serious obstacle to their social and professional integration into the larger Greek society, and restricts their economic, social or geographical mobility.
[....]
The Greek government, in its effort to follow and even exceed contemporary standards, put into force in October 1995 a new law regulating matters pertaining to the education of the minority in Thrace. The law aims at upgrading the quality of the education afforded Muslim Greek citizens and at facilitating their educational advancement.

In order to increase the quality and continuity of teaching in minority schools, the law requires that high teacher qualifications -- including teacher training, graduate studies, foreign language skills, and familiarity with other cultures, civilizations, and religious practices -- be taken into account during the appointment of teachers to minority schools.

The law also introduces English language courses at the primary school level.
Furthermore, the law establishes special financial and retirement incentives for teachers who choose to teach at minority schools.

Finally, the law establishes an affirmative action ("positive discrimination") program for the admission of Muslim minority students to Greek higher education institutions (universities and technical institutes). The law provides for a minimum quota for minority students, as had been up to now the case for certain other classes of Greek citizens (e.g., children of emigrants and repatriates). The provision aims at offsetting the disadvantages faced by many Muslim students during the national university entrance examinations, due mostly to Greek language difficulties, and at facilitating their integration into the social fabric of the country. It goes without saying that the above provisions do not prevent Muslim students from participating in the nation-wide University admission examinations.

In a different vain, it must also be noted that the Greek State provides substantial financial support for the covering of the operational expenses of minority schools. In 1994-95 approximately one-half billion drachmas (approx. 1.7 million ECU) were provided for maintenance of existing minority school infrastructure. New primary and secondary schools are presently being constructed at a total cost of 2 billion drachmas (approx. 6.7 million ECU).


It seems we have a.....



L-L-H-H-H-HOOO......SAH!!!!!!!


But you know what they say, Faid. The next best thing to playing and winning.....is playing and losing.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2006,09:25   

I do not see why this thread is getting so "technical". By which I am reffering to all the links.

As far as I can see, muslims are not integrating to British society in any way at all.

By which I mean muslims as reported by the BBC etc.

I work in a group of about 8 people. 3 of which are muslim. They seem fine. Well all but 1 anyway.

However in a recent survey of muslims in Britian 40% wanted sharia law here. That stinks. Sod that, does anyone really believe we should stone to death adultering women?

Before anyone calls the racist card. These muslims are mainly asian. Why is it Indian asians are performing far beter economicaly that muslims of the same race?

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2006,10:03   

S. Elliot:
 
Quote
I do not see why this thread is getting so "technical". By which I am reffering to all the links.

I can only speak for myself, but everyone kept naggin' fer the stats, so I gave 'em stats. Plus, a lot of this stuff was hard to find, and I don't want to waste any of it.

   
Quote
However in a recent survey of muslims in Britian 40% wanted sharia law here. That stinks. Sod that, does anyone really believe we should stone to death adultering women?

Arrrrgh! I was saving that survey for emergencies. ;) Oh well, the truth must out and so on.

So Louis & the rest are in a bind: either admit that the UK knowingly let in immigrants who wanted to replace English common law with Sharia, or concede that there's a whole lot o' flippin' going on.

   
Quote
Before anyone calls the racist card. These muslims are mainly asian. Why is it Indian asians are performing far beter economicaly that muslims of the same race?

That is the question.  ;)

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2006,10:39   

Well Mr. Paley. I am a tad worried about apearing on your side.

However I do think that the muslim agenda is pretty much anti-western values.

Oh well. Lets see where this leads.

I find it strange that people who are anti-fundamentalist make exceptions for muslim fundies.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2006,11:03   

At the risk of irritating Stephen, I'm going to post a few more links.

Please note (first link):

1) The separation between Indians and the Bangladeshis/Pakistanis in all categories;

2) The inverse relationship between GCSE scores and the concentration of Muslim followers within the host nations;

3) The fact that the lower achieving groups are "more educated" despite relatively poor test performance;

4) The evidence for regression to the cultural mean in Africans, Caribbeans, and Pakistanis.

The more recent data (second link) supports the above observations, although the Pakistanis nip the Bangladeshis at the GCE A levels.

The authors argue for biological differences between honkies and African/Caribbeans, but pay that no mind. The gold is in the comparison of the test differences within ethnic groups, which they can't explain at all. But I can, and have.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2006,11:30   

Just one more link for now.

I can't wait for Faid to answer this question:

 
Quote
"Do Greek people have a right to determine who immigrates into their own country?"


--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
tsig



Posts: 339
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2006,15:40   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 11 2006,15:39)
Well Mr. Paley. I am a tad worried about apearing on your side.

However I do think that the muslim agenda is pretty much anti-western values.

Oh well. Lets see where this leads.

I find it strange that people who are anti-fundamentalist make exceptions for muslim fundies.


Yes. The muslim agena is to rule the world, it is plain in the Qu'ran. This is not just fundie belief, is the living doctine of every muslim.

We in America have CAIR. Just think of the name, the implication is that they are entitled to deal with the rest of us as a soverign power

Yes. The muslim agena is to rule the world, it is plain in the Qu'ran. This is not just fundie belief, is the living doctine of every muslim.

We in America have CAIR. Just think of the name, the implication is that they are entitled to deal with the rest of us as a soverign power

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2006,16:02   

Quote (tsig @ Sep. 11 2006,20:40)
Yes. The muslim agena is to rule the world,

As opposed to the Christian fundamentalists, who want to bring the whole world "under Christ's feet".

Right?

Fundies is fundies.  They're all nutters, and they all need to be kept as far away as possible from real political power.  Anywhere.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2006,16:02   

I think my question to Faid is the central one. It may well be true that Greek Muslims are relatively harmless, that Albanians are kicking academic a$$, and that most Greeks are not particularly rational on Islam. American Muslims may also be well assimilated, at least at the moment. Nevertheless, it all boils down to, "Does the Greek/Swede/American have the right to his own culture? And if not, why not? Why can't the Christian or non-communist atheist enjoy what the Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist takes for granted?"

[edit: have you ever noticed the love affair that open-borders apologists have with the tu quoque argument? Get a hotel already......]

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2006,16:06   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 11 2006,15:39)
However I do think that the muslim agenda is pretty much anti-western values.

You mean Western values like, say, oh, free elections, free press, freedom of assembly, free speech . .. ?

Ya know, the things that their unelected governments won't give them?

The, uh, unelected governments that the US helps keep in power against their own people's wishes?

You mean THOSE kind of Western values . . . ?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2006,18:28   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Sep. 11 2006,21:06)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 11 2006,15:39)
However I do think that the muslim agenda is pretty much anti-western values.

You mean Western values like, say, oh, free elections, free press, freedom of assembly, free speech . .. ?

Ya know, the things that their unelected governments won't give them?

The, uh, unelected governments that the US helps keep in power against their own people's wishes?

You mean THOSE kind of Western values . . . ?

Good point. But I was reffering to an element of muslim culture in Britain.

The idea that 40% of British muslims want sharia law in Britain is troubling.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2006,22:06   

Ghost:
 
Quote
See see affirmative action for Muslims in Greece I WIN NEENER NEENER


Boy, You sure are on a roll, Ghost...



:)

I don't have time to reply to your previous post now, since work's being a bitch again, but I will this afternoon.
In the meantime: As amusing as it is to watch the excitement with which you beat your strawmen, I'll have to disappoint you:
That article talks about our native Muslim minority, Ghost. The one I already talked about, remember? The one I already said is more fundamental in their beliefs and way of life than most other Muslims, and it has (and always had) problems integrating? So you got nothing on me here.
But since you brought it up again, remember: I also told you that, however distinct and marginalized, this community is not only without substantial crime rates, but surprisingly quiet. All the fuss involving it is political; complex games between Greece and Turkey involving their definition. But responsible for social disorder and crime? Hardly. Crumbling the foundations of Greek society? Nnnnnope. Not now, not for the last century.
Unless you can address how this fits with your assertions, you got nothing on them either.

More later.  ;)

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2006,06:53   

Faid:

 
Quote
That article talks about our native Muslim minority, Ghost. The one I already talked about, remember? The one I already said is more fundamental in their beliefs and way of life than most other Muslims, and it has (and always had) problems integrating? So you got nothing on me here.


Yeah, but you were using them as an example as a long-term Muslim population that didn't cause any trouble. Well to me, affirmative action is trouble. I will concede for now that they don't commit much crime, so you've got me there; I sure wish there were stats though.

 
Quote
Crumbling the foundations of Greek society? Nnnnnope. Not now, not for the last century.
Unless you can address how this fits with your assertions, you got nothing on them either.


You don't ask much from your immigrant population, do ya? I agree that a low crime rate is a fantastic start, but I'd like to see them pull themselves up without relying on affirmative action. Plus, you can't remove the politicking from the ledger....the strained relations with Turkey also count IMHO.

I'll wait for your reply.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2006,08:21