Historical and theological Islam

[nonsumd]

Again, since you assert that so-called moderates will be driven towards extremism once they are exposed to the true teachings of islam, perhaps the were not so moderate to begin with?

By your rationale, Zarqawi and bin laden could have been everyday “moderate” muslims not long ago, until the day they were exposed to islams true teachings?

birdsong, what do you think radicalized Zarqawi and bin Laden? Simply discovering Islam’s “true teachings” for the first time? That they finally read what the Qur’an was really saying and from that became terrorists?

Don’t you think that other factors were as relevant in turning them into men of violence?

In Zarqawi’s case, living in a society rife with political corruption and socio-economic injustice, a society until recently under semi-colonial domination for several generations and not yet free of the interference of foreign powers… being imprisoned and perhaps tortured by a secular government… etc., etc.

I am not making excuses for Zarqawi, just trying to understand him. In striving to understand why Muslims turn to violence and not contenting myself with an easy “They turn to violence because they follow Islam,” I want to recognize the factors that could push *me *, a Christian, to violence.

Edwin is right that Westerners’ attacks on the Islamic religion only serve to push moderate Muslims towards extremists.

When confronted by Westerners who demonize Islam, non-Muslims who do not take their, the moderates’, word for what the essence of Islam is, moderates see the extremists’ demonizing portrayals of Westerners being confirmed by the venomous discourse of the Westerners themselves.

When you add to that the continuing aggression and oppression by Western actors in the Islamic world, how difficult it would be for a moderate Muslim to resist becoming radicalized!

If all sides would engage in an honest examination of conscience and mature out of the schoolyard “but he started it first” mentality, it is possible that the cycle of killing for killing could be stopped.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Do you think OBL and Zaqarwi are unique with unique experiences? No - their experiences are shared by millions of Muslims around the Islamic world.

But it is only when they turn to Islamic Allah that they become human monsters. QED - Islam is what turns them into psychopaths.

 

[Montalban]

Followed by vol 2, Muslims, the truth is…

World’s shortest book?

 

[Montalban]

what do you think radicalized Zarqawi and bin Laden?

Islam did.

Simply discovering Islam’s “true teachings” for the first time? That they finally read what the Qur’an was really saying and from that became terrorists?

Don’t you think that other factors were as relevant in turning them into men of violence?

This wouldn’t be yet another apology from you attempting to justify their terrorism.

I’m sure the families of the victims of 9/11 will rest easy at night knowing that thier loved-ones were killed for sane and logical reasons.

 

[birdsong]

Nonsumd: something I really detest is when people go off tangent and build red-herrings and straw-man just to continue defending their indefensible and fallacious positions. However, I admit that I may be guilty of giving you, Contarini and others material for you to go off tangent.

When I speak of people like bin laden and zarquawi, of course I am being hypothetical, so let me spell it out to you: I was really talking about people, who, even though they’ve been raised in no less difficult conditions than millions others, decide to take the extremist’s example and blow themselves up and kill countless of others. You know, people like the ones who participated in the London bombings, the Baltimore snipers, the Madrid bombings, the Glasgow incidents, the Bali bombers, the etc, etc, etc.

Now, all the accounts I have read are consistent in that these people were not worse off at all, compared to hindus, Christians, budhitts, etc, etc. in fact, in some instances, they received privileged education and upbringing, like the doctors involved in the Glasgow incident.

So the way you put it, again, in a fallacious argument, is that ONLY and/or MAINLY muslims are the victims of oppression, poverty, disadvantages, etc. and that they use it as a legitimate reason to do the things they do.

I wonder why we don’t see Christians blowing themselves and other muslims up because fellow Christians are being killed and harassed in muslim lands?

I wonder why hindus and budhist are not killing muslims because their fellow religionists are suffering at the hands of muslims in other parts of the world?

In case you have not caught my drift, let me be clearer: what do you think took these so-called moderate muslims, raised in western societies, with advantages and privileges that many don’t have, etc, etc, to become extremists?

What made them turn from everyday moderate muslims to people who were willing to kill innocent others?

moreover, what, in your opinion, should we do to prevent whatever you see as the reason for them to become radicals? since i am sure you’ll say something along the lines of “don’t criticise islam”, I’ll then ask you, why are you supporting the establishment of a fascist state in which freedom of speech and debate, particularly regarding islam, are prohibited?

birdsong, what do you think radicalized Zarqawi and bin Laden? Simply discovering Islam’s “true teachings” for the first time? That they finally read what the Qur’an was really saying and from that became terrorists?

Don’t you think that other factors were as relevant in turning them into men of violence?

In Zarqawi’s case, living in a society rife with political corruption and socio-economic injustice, a society until recently under semi-colonial domination for several generations and not yet free of the interference of foreign powers… being imprisoned and perhaps tortured by a secular government… etc., etc.

I am not making excuses for Zarqawi, just trying to understand him. In striving to understand why Muslims turn to violence and not contenting myself with an easy “They turn to violence because they follow Islam,” I want to recognize the factors that could push *me *, a Christian, to violence.

Edwin is right that Westerners’ attacks on the Islamic religion only serve to push moderate Muslims towards extremists.

When confronted by Westerners who demonize Islam, non-Muslims who do not take their, the moderates’, word for what the essence of Islam is, moderates see the extremists’ demonizing portrayals of Westerners being confirmed by the venomous discourse of the Westerners themselves.

When you add to that the continuing aggression and oppression by Western actors in the Islamic world, how difficult it would be for a moderate Muslim to resist becoming radicalized!

If all sides would engage in an honest examination of conscience and mature out of the schoolyard “but he started it first” mentality, it is possible that the cycle of killing for killing could be stopped.

 

[nonsumd]

In Zarqawi’s case, living in a society rife with political corruption and socio-economic injustice, a society until recently under semi-colonial domination for several generations and not yet free of the interference of foreign powers… being imprisoned and perhaps tortured by a secular government… etc., etc.

Sorry, birdsong. My remarks right here apply to Bin Laden’s Number Two man, al-Zawahiri, not to al-Zarqawi. I am used to hearing the former name coupled with Osama’s, so I didn’t realize that you were referring to the Iraqi instead.

 

[nonsumd]

When I speak of people like bin laden and zarquawi, of course I am being hypothetical, so let me spell it out to you: I was really talking about people, who, even though they’ve been raised in no less difficult conditions than millions others, decide to take the extremist’s example and blow themselves up and kill countless of others. You know, people like the ones who participated in the London bombings, the Baltimore snipers, the Madrid bombings, the Glasgow incidents, the Bali bombers, the etc, etc, etc.

Now, all the accounts I have read are consistent in that these people were not worse off at all, compared to hindus, Christians, budhitts, etc, etc. in fact, in some instances, they received privileged education and upbringing, like the doctors involved in the Glasgow incident.

The founders of Bolshevism were bourgeois and not of the proletarian class to whose liberation they were dedicating their lives… so what’s your point?

Does the fact that many of these particular Muslims who turn to terrorism are not direct victims of Western oppression mean that there are no Muslims out there who actually have been or are victims of Western oppression?

So the way you put it, again, in a fallacious argument, is that ONLY and/or MAINLY muslims are the victims of oppression, poverty, disadvantages, etc. and that they use it as a legitimate reason to do the things they do.

Have I said this? What I have said is that both Muslims vis-a-vis non-Muslims and non-Muslims vis-a-vis Muslims have been both victims and aggressors/oppressors.

If Muslims claim themselves to be victims and only victims, I tell them they are wrong. If Christians/Westerners claim they have never been oppressors/aggressors, I tell them they are wrong.

When I explain how people might be justifying to themselves what they do, that does not mean I condone what they do. What I see people doing is blaming the other side without looking at their own responsibility in making conflct: both Muslims and non-Muslims are doing this.

I wonder why we don’t see Christians blowing themselves and other muslims up because fellow Christians are being killed and harassed in muslim lands?

I wonder why hindus and budhist are not killing muslims because their fellow religionists are suffering at the hands of muslims in other parts of the world?

First of all, I am not sure where currently Buddhists are being oppressed by Muslims. If anything, it’s the other way around: the Buddhist Burmese government is persecuting Muslims in Burma (creating a refugee problem for Bangladesh in fact). When Muslim rebels engage in terrorism in Buddhist Thailand, Buddhist Cambodians would likely not feel any reason to retaliate against Cambodian Muslims (Chams) in response to the affairs of another country (the Khmer are not overly fond of their co-religionist Thai neighbors).

Second, in some parts of India Hindus are oppressing Muslims (elsewhere, of course, the two communities are living peacefully). I am not sure there are cases of Muslims attacking Hindus in, say, Europe.

Third, suicide bombing (like terrorism in general) is a technique of “asymmetrical warfare,” resorted to by groups that cannot match their opponents in conventional weaponry.

I am just trying to imagine a “Christian suicide-bomber” scenario – what would that look like?

Muslims oppress Christians in a Middle Eastern country and this provokes an American Christian to blow himself up inside the lobby of a that Middle Eastern country’s embassy.

One could argue that such a scenario is unlikely given the nature of Christian teachings, but would that be all there was to it? Doesn’t history show that Christians have waged war despite Christian teaching or because of their interpretation of Christian teaching?

If terrorism is indeed the “weapon of the weak,” a tactic of asymmetrical warfare, then, if the US were a weak country in a world dominated by Islamic powers, can we be so sure that no US Christian would ever feel compelled to terrorism, even to suicide bombing?

In case you have not caught my drift, let me be clearer: what do you think took these so-called moderate muslims, raised in western societies, with advantages and privileges that many don’t have, etc, etc, to become extremists?

What made them turn from everyday moderate muslims to people who were willing to kill innocent others?

Individual terrorists are motivated by all sorts of reasons, often highly personal and idiosyncratic ones. Perhaps if these same people had belonged to or come from societies that did not feel themselves to be collectively powerless, their personal issues would have found an outlet in deviant behavior other than terrorism, perhaps, for instance, in serial murder.

I just find it unconvincing that the content of the Qur’an alone could be the sole driving force for terrorism when the vast majority of Muslims do not become terrorists – this cannot be solely attributed to lack of nerve - at least some of it comes from Muslims who consider the killing of innocents to be incompatible with their religion.

moreover, what, in your opinion, should we do to prevent whatever you see as the reason for them to become radicals? since i am sure you’ll say something along the lines of “don’t criticise islam”, I’ll then ask you, why are you supporting the establishment of a fascist state in which freedom of speech and debate, particularly regarding islam, are prohibited?

Have I censored you? All I have done is debate you. If you consider someone merely disagreeing with you to be censorship, then you should look in the mirror for the fascist.

When someone like Edwin says he does not have the right (or you or me, for that matter) to tell Muslims how to define their religion, he is saying that non-Muslims do not have the authority to define Islam for Muslims, not that non-Muslims do not have the right to say what they want about Islam. A Muslim has no right, in the sense of authority, to define what Christianity should mean to a Christian.

Doesn’t anyone who sees being disagreed with as “censorship” or “persecution” just end up appearing *insecure * about his positions, insecure beyond what any blustering self-conviction can conceal?

What should we do to discourage Muslims from becoming radicals?

Deal with them more fairly and justly than we have been doing, but without forgetting also to press for Muslims to deal justly and fairly with the Jews and Christians they are threatening or oppressing.

As the Pope has done, encourage Muslims to engage in introspection and self-criticism, remembering that this cannot be done unless we admit the wrongs we ourselves have done (a hypocrite is powerless to convince anyone to reform). Remind Muslims of the best in their traditions, stress our commonalities, realizing that we cannot move them if we start from the premise that their traditions are completely diabolical.

In short, we must refrain from returning in kind the caricature of us that Islamic extremists are trying to sell to the rest of the Muslims.

 

[Montalban]

Do you think OBL and Zaqarwi are unique with unique experiences? No - their experiences are shared by millions of Muslims around the Islamic world.

But it is only when they turn to Islamic Allah that they become human monsters. QED - Islam is what turns them into psychopaths.

Exactly. Thread might have said hysterical Islam

 

[birdsong]

The founders of Bolshevism were bourgeois and not of the proletarian class to whose liberation they were dedicating their lives… so what’s your point?

Does the fact that many of these particular Muslims who turn to terrorism are not direct victims of Western oppression mean that there are no Muslims out there who actually have been or are victims of Western oppression?

Here’s the situation:

Contarini said: if you expose historical islam and/or criticise it, “moderate” muslims will be pushed towards the extremists side.

One key to this problem is, who are these moderate muslims? What are their characteristics? Contarini never gave a definition, so I assumed he was talking about everyday muslims in western world, and that’s why I brought up the examples of the bombings and incidents in western cities.

Now, let us focus on countries that are mainly “Islamic”. Who are the moderates there? Are there muslims in those societies that could be deemed as “moderates”? what’s a moderate muslim anyway? Unless you are more specific about it, your talk about “moderate muslims” is useless. You claim to be interested in a solution that involves a dialogue with “moderate” muslims, yet you’ve failed to define what a “moderate" muslim, both in islmic societies and in the western world is!

How does your example about bolcheviquesim follow? What are you talking about? My point is very clear: people from across all religions and denominations, races, nationalities have suffered and/or are suffering from oppression in one form or another. In case you’ve not noticed, that’s been the history of the human race for the most part. Yet, you continue to say that the oppression that muslims suffer is and/or should be a reason why they turn into killing machines. By your rationale, there should be suicide bombers from across all religions, denominations, races, etc. As Wafa Sultan said, where are the jewish suicide bombers in german cities?

Have I said this? What I have said is that both Muslims vis-a-vis non-Muslims and non-Muslims vis-a-vis Muslims have been both victims and aggressors/oppressors.

If Muslims claim themselves to be victims and only victims, I tell them they are wrong. If Christians/Westerners claim they have never been oppressors/aggressors, I tell them they are wrong.

When I explain how people might be justifying to themselves what they do, that does not mean I condone what they do. What I see people doing is blaming the other side without looking at their own responsibility in making conflct: both Muslims and non-Muslims are doing this.

See my previous response. Again, by your rationale, there should be suicide bombers from across all religions, races and nationalities, as many people through history have suffered injustices. Yet, we only see muslims in the news for all the wrong reasons! You think the massacre of 6 million jews was oppressive enough? Then, where are the jews suicide bombers in german cities?

First of all, I am not sure where currently Buddhists are being oppressed by Muslims. If anything, it’s the other way around: the Buddhist Burmese government is persecuting Muslims in Burma (creating a refugee problem for Bangladesh in fact). When Muslim rebels engage in terrorism in Buddhist Thailand, Buddhist Cambodians would likely not feel any reason to retaliate against Cambodian Muslims (Chams) in response to the affairs of another country (the Khmer are not overly fond of their co-religionist Thai neighbors).

Let us assume that I gave you an inaccurate example. I am not even going to dispute your information. I am not going to let you go off tangent. Nevertheless, you have tacitly admitted that muslims do oppress Christians, right? So let’s turn to the Christian – muslim side of the discussion.

I am just trying to imagine a “Christian suicide-bomber” scenario – what would that look like?

blah blah blah blah

If terrorism is indeed the “weapon of the weak,” a tactic of asymmetrical warfare, then, if the US were a weak country in a world dominated by Islamic powers, can we be so sure that no US Christian would ever feel compelled to terrorism, even to suicide bombing?

Imagine all you want bud, because that’s exactly all you can do: you can not come up with examples of suicide Christian bombers. Now, let us get practical here: you’ve admitted that Christians suffer oppression at the hands of muslims. If we believe some credible reports, it is safe to say that millions of Christians have suffered at the hands of muslims, up until this very date. Let us also get back to the western muslims that I cited before. Those muslims were a whole lot better off compared to those you allege are oppressed by western powers. Likewise, you and I, Christians, are a whole lot better off than our fellow religionists who are being oppressed by muslims powers. What’s keeping you and I from turning into suicide bombers then? What drove those “moderate” muslims to blow themselves up with dozen of innocents?

Can you rationally explain this?

Individual terrorists are motivated by all sorts of reasons, often highly personal and idiosyncratic ones. Perhaps if these same people had belonged to or come from societies that did not feel themselves to be collectively powerless, their personal issues would have found an outlet in deviant behavior other than terrorism, perhaps, for instance, in serial murder.

I just find it unconvincing that the content of the Qur’an alone could be the sole driving force for terrorism when the vast majority of Muslims do not become terrorists – this cannot be solely attributed to lack of nerve - at least some of it comes from Muslims who consider the killing of innocents to be incompatible with their religion.

So, when are you going to blow yourself up in the middle of a mosque Nonsumd? History is witness of the oppression of millions of Christians at the hands of muslims, to this very day. You and I are very comparable cases to those of the “moderate” muslims who have done such things in many western countries.

And yeah, I am sure that if you look hard and long enough, you will rationalise all sorts of behaviour, including your pathetic attempt to imply that people like the London bombers are being oppressed in societies that have given them opportunities they could only dream of if they were back in their Islamic paradises. Some kind of oppression, eh?

I am in a charitable mood today, so I am giving you a topic for a PhD thesis in history: since you claim that no comparable situation can be found these days in terms of Christians being oppressed (something that could easily be disputed), maybe you can dig deep into the history of early Christians who were being oppressed by the roman empire. Your task would be to find cases where Christians in those days were using comparable tactics to those of muslim’s today. You could also investigate the matter in a more recent case of sustained oppression with the Armenian people.

And, to give more weight to your research, you’d have to also find cases where the teachings of Christ were being used to justify such acts. (one note here: I’d not accept the quotes from nutters or marginal Christian sects, I want mainstream examples).

Have I censored you? All I have done is debate you. If you consider someone merely disagreeing with you to be censorship, then you should look in the mirror for the fascist.

When someone like Edwin says he does not have the right (or you or me, for that matter) to tell Muslims how to define their religion, he is saying that non-Muslims do not have the authority to define Islam for Muslims, not that non-Muslims do not have the right to say what they want about Islam. A Muslim has no right, in the sense of authority, to define what Christianity should mean to a Christian.

Good thing you claim not to be a facist. Yet, you continue to support a very rare and strange form of “freedom of debate”: one in which the not-so-peaceful aspects of islam should not be brought up for debate by non-muslims for fear of driving so-called moderate muslims towards extremism. your form of “freedom of debate” would also support the idea that non-muslims should stay out of the debate regarding who is closer to muhhamad’s teachings and who is not.

Can’t find the logic in your argument.

Deal with them more fairly and justly than we have been doing, but without forgetting also to press for Muslims to deal justly and fairly with the Jews and Christians they are threatening or oppressing.

As the Pope has done, encourage Muslims to engage in introspection and self-criticism, remembering that this cannot be done unless we admit the wrongs we ourselves have done (a hypocrite is powerless to convince anyone to reform). Remind Muslims of the best in their traditions, stress our commonalities, realizing that we cannot move them if we start from the premise that their traditions are completely diabolical.

In short, we must refrain from returning in kind the caricature of us that Islamic extremists are trying to sell to the rest of the Muslims.

So, in your opinion, what does it mean to “deal with them more fairly”? in case you’ve not noticed, in order to establish standards of “fairness”, both parties in a discussion have to establish what is fair and what is not. And here, I am afraid, you will have a difficult time finding similar standards of fairness that both muslims and non-muslims can agree on.

So, in order to not let you go off tangent like you’ve done before (deliberately or not), I need you to clearly define, amongst other things:

What’s a “moderate” muslim in a western society? what’s a moderate muslim in Islamic societies? Are those two version of moderate muslims, or are they different? Etc, etc, etc.

With respect to fairness, what are those standards you are talking about? Secular standards? Christian standards? Muslim standards? Hindues/budhist standards?

Just to give you a hint of what I am talking about: muslims were deeply offended by the Danish cartoons, to the point of, well, you know what they did. Comparable or even worse things have been made public about Christ and the Virgin Mary. Although a lot of us were deeply offended, no single incident was reported. Can’t you see the difference in standards of “fairness” between muslims and Christians, or do you want me to spell it out to you?

 

[Abu_Ismail]

I am just trying to imagine a “Christian suicide-bomber” scenario – what would that look like?

I note that the first Palestinian suicide bomber in Israel was a Christian from Southern Lebanon.

 

[inJESUS]

My question would be : if Islam is really a religion of tolerance, why is it that Islamic countries are not tolerant to other religions? and if the Quran and sunna are the peak example of peace, how come millions reach other conclusions reading the same material? i mean, if a book is clearly pro-peace, can millions reach a different solution?

The Fath Al-Islam Islamic fundies who wanted to make an Islamic imara in Northern Lebanon, what did they start doing? killing “infidels” be it Christians or moderate Muslims whom they consider infidels for not wanting to establish God’s sharia in Lebanon. Where did these people get their teachings from?

If they are wrong, then peace in the islamic literature is not as clear as some want it to be. The news is full of Islamic fundies all over the world killing people. If they are all wrong, then were did they get their teachings from if not Islam? why do fundies, those most attached to their religion, become more violent be it Al Ikhwan al Muslimin or Fath Al Islam or Taliban or Al-Qaida ecc ecc

 

[inJESUS]

I note that the first Palestinian suicide bomber in Israel was a Christian from Southern Lebanon.

are you sure it was a Christian and not a Socialist? there are neither virgins nor boys as pearls awaiting Christian suicide bombers. There are no rewards awaiting those who kill themselves and other innocent people in the name of God in Christianity so i don’t think we can label them as “Christian” in the first place. There are Christian martyrs but no Christian suicide bombers so most probably it was a Socialist.

 

[Montalban]

I note that the first Palestinian suicide bomber in Israel was a Christian from Southern Lebanon.

Did he have red hair too?

You see the fact he was Christian is irrelevant - UNLESS you can find a causal link between his faith and his deeds.

That is, if he did it because he was Christian.

Otherwise, it’s irrelevant, as is the fact he had a certain hair colour, or drove a particular car, or listened to particular music.

 

[inJESUS]

Did he have red hair too?

You see the fact he was Christian is irrelevant - UNLESS you can find a causal link between his faith and his deeds.

That is, if he did it because he was Christian.

Otherwise, it’s irrelevant, as is the fact he had a certain hair colour, or drove a particular car, or listened to particular music.

i think it was a 19 year old socialist “she” so the reason is politics , not religion as far as i can see.

 

[Contarini]

My question would be : if Islam is really a religion of tolerance

Is that position really being defended on this forum? The argument seems to be between those of us warning against generalizations about Islam, and those saying that Islam is fundamentally violent and “moderate” Muslims aren’t really Muslims at all.

Aren’t you attacking a straw man here?

Obviously violent Muslims are real Muslims. If anyone wants to dispute that side of it, I’m happy to argue with them just as I’ve been arguing with those on the other side.

Edwin

 

[inJESUS]

Is that position really being defended on this forum? The argument seems to be between those of us warning against generalizations about Islam, and those saying that Islam is fundamentally violent and “moderate” Muslims aren’t really Muslims at all.

Aren’t you attacking a straw man here?

 

[nonsumd]

Let us assume that I gave you an inaccurate example. I am not even going to dispute your information. I am not going to let you go off tangent. Nevertheless, you have tacitly admitted that muslims do oppress Christians, right? So let’s turn to the Christian – muslim side of the discussion.

I haven’t “tacitly” admitted that there are many cases of Muslims oppressing Christians. I have stated so explicitly many times from the start.

This sort of misrepresenting my opinion shows that you are not genuinely interested in debating me but in debating a strawman so that you can make your own points.

At one point, I pointed out to one of our resident Islamophobes that his arguments indicated to me that he must believe that the only solution to Islamic extremist violence is to exterminate all Muslims who do not convert to Christianity.

I thus gave him a chance to accuse me of making him into a genocidal strawman. Did he do this?

Sadly, no, he answered the question with some sophomoric evasion involving an emoticon, not being able to bring himself to say that he rejected genocide against Muslims.

When debating a fanatically anti-Catholic poster on another board, I reached the point where I asked him simply to state, “Catholics love Jesus just like Protestants do.” We continued to debate for weeks and weeks more, but he never brought himself to say this simple, one would think, uncontroversial, thing, and I had to conclude that this particular Protestant was an anti-Catholic bigot.

 

[Abu_Ismail]

are you sure it was a Christian and not a Socialist?

That depends… did you consider Saddam Hussain a Baathist or a Muslim?

 

[Abu_Ismail]

You see the fact he was Christian is irrelevant - UNLESS you can find a causal link between his faith and his deeds.

You mean sort of like Christians in America opposed to abortion due to their faith blowing up abortion clinics?

 

[birdsong]

Nonsumd: I haven’t “tacitly” admitted that there are many cases of Muslims oppressing Christians. I have stated so explicitly many times from the start.

So what if you have tacitly and/or explicitly stated that Christians are oppressed by muslim powers? I have agreed with you there, and from that premise, I have made valid and rational points and challenged you with different questions. On the other hand, you keep in going off tangent bringing up irrelevancies such as
;

This sort of misrepresenting my opinion shows that you are not genuinely interested in debating me but in debating a strawman so that you can make your own points.

At one point, I pointed out to one of our resident Islamophobes that his arguments indicated to me that he must believe that the only solution to Islamic extremist violence is to exterminate all Muslims who do not convert to Christianity.

I thus gave him a chance to accuse me of making him into a genocidal strawman. Did he do this?

Sadly, no, he answered the question with some sophomoric evasion involving an emoticon, not being able to bring himself to say that he rejected genocide against Muslims.

When debating a fanatically anti-Catholic poster on another board, I reached the point where I asked him simply to state, “Catholics love Jesus just like Protestants do.” We continued to debate for weeks and weeks more, but he never brought himself to say this simple, one would think, uncontroversial, thing, and I had to conclude that this particular Protestant was an anti-Catholic bigot.

Your whining about experiences with others only diverts the attention from the topic at hand. Very convenient tactic when folks jus run out of rational arguments.

Now, let us talk about arguing with straw-man. Are you tired of talking to those mysterious “moderate” muslims? Those same “moderate” that Contarini said are just a Danish cartoon away from becoming extremists or something like that? I have asked you to elaborate on what a “moderate” muslim is, yet your only answer thus far is whining about your past debates.

And let me ask you one more time about the “fairness” standards you bought up before. That’s a tough one, right? Because you never gave it a second thought to the fact that different people might have different standards of “fairness”. As the Danish cartoons incidents and the ridiculing of Christ and the Virgin Mary have shown, it will be difficult to reconcile what muslims and non-muslims considered as fair.

I’ll be anxiously waiting for your next round of whining about other members of the forum and similar “relevant” points.

PS: what about the research proposal I made to you? would you be willing to investigate whether early Christians also commited similar or comparable acts to those of muslims today? if so, did they justify them with Christ’s teachings?

Give it a thought. The potential answers to those questions are important, and its implications possibly far reaching.