The Wrath

There are virtually no criminal cases that are completely beyond doubt. If all else fails, someone can always claim an elaborate conspiracy by an evil corporation to frame the defendant. If "beyond any possible doubt" is the standard, convictions would be few and far between. The risk of incarcerating the occasional innocent man, due to some freak circumstances that make him look extremely guilty, is the price of living in a society of law.

Sorry it took so long to respond.

Having said that, I don't think what I'm saying is that complicated. You said Islam was a total state ideology. I disputed that by pointing out that not all people who believe in Islam think it needs to rule every facet of civil life.

What are the ideas that unite all Muslims, regardless of differing interpretations? I'm no Islamic scholar, but I would start with the belief that "there is no god but God and Mohammad is his prophet." As with Christianity, if you get much more specific than that, people will start to disagree. Whatever these unifying ideas are, the idea that Islam should control the government and every facet of civil life isn't one of them.

From my reading, the moderates do not ignore such passages at all. Rather, they interpret them in the context in which they were supposed to have been spoken. For instance, before going to war, Mohammed might have told his followers to find the infidels and slay them violently. The moderates would interpret this in the context of a leader going to war. This is actually a more objective way to interpret the text.

This is a very bold claim, and would require quite a bit a large amount of evidence to substantiate. You are correct on that the later verses are more intolerant and violent however.



It has been mentioned before in this thread that this is not a hard and fast rule. Some Islamic groups completely reject this even.



I think you will find that quite a large number of Muslims would be absolutely livid about this statement. There are 2 main sects and like 72 various denominations within the religion, their interpretations on all manner of things vary, just as is the case with Christianity, the difference between Christianity and Islam has already been elaborated on earlier in this thread, so I won't get into that.

Sorry it took so long to respond.

Having said that, I don't think what I'm saying is that complicated. You said Islam was a total state ideology. I disputed that by pointing out that not all people who believe in Islam think it needs to rule every facet of civil life.

What are the ideas that unite all Muslims, regardless of differing interpretations? I'm no Islamic scholar, but I would start with the belief that "there is no god but God and Mohammad is his prophet." As with Christianity, if you get much more specific than that, people will start to disagree. Whatever these unifying ideas are, the idea that Islam should control the government and every facet of civil life isn't one of them.

According to some interpretations, yes. This is ibn Warraq's view. There are many Muslim clerics, however, who would disagree. Neither you nor I are in a position to call them wrong. Once again, we are left with the conclusion that Islam is as Islam does, according to the interpretation of each person practicing it.

I realize I am late to this discussion but, Trebor, the burden of proof is on you in this one. If you want to claim that bin Laden and his ilk were following the "true" version of Islam, it's up to you to use the Quran and various other Islamic sources to show why.

Softwarnerd's point is not one that is easily ignored. It is impossible to be a fully consistent Christian, because faithfully following (or at least believing in) parts of the Christian religion necessarily mean that you ignore or fail to follow others. The same is true of Islam. If you choose to follow the violent parts of the Quran, you are ignoring other parts that preach peace. When bin Laden points to "slay them wherever ye find them," a whirling Dervish in Turkey might point to "there is no compulsion in religion."

There is a theory, advocated by famed anti-Islamic activist ibn Warraq, that the violence of the different parts of the Quran depend on whether Muhammad was in Mecca or Medina when they were "revealed" to him. In Mecca, where he did not have much of a following and was at the mercy of the authorities, the suras are largely peaceful. In Medina, where he developed a following, they are more violent. I admit to not having studied this matter in detail myself, but I suspect you haven't either.

The statement "Islam is a total state religion" is true, only insofar as it has been practiced as such in certain parts of the Islamic world in certain parts of its history. As it is with Christianity. In other times and other places, both religions have coexisted peacefully with other religions in a pluralistic society--as in modern Turkey. Even with the "Islamist" party in power, there are no government-sanctioned massacres or increased taxes against religious minorities. It's also worth noting that even with a large number of Muslims nominally supporting religious government, it is not practiced in most of the Middle East with anything approaching consistency. Islam unambiguously bans the consumption of alcohol and yet, to my knowledge, the only countries that completely ban it are (I think) Saudi Arabia, Iran, Libya (for now), and Sudan.

I'm not going to try reasoning with you anymore The Wrath. I have no more patience for your irrationality.

I don't speak for Mr. Biddle but I happen to share his point of view so I can offer you my reasoning.

There are two aspects here: the philosophical threat and the physical threat.

Philosophical enemies, in this case Islam as an ideology (but applies to any irrational ideology), can only be effectively fought and ought to be fought against on philosophical/ideological grounds. Currently Islam ideologically can't really conquer Americans. The chances of such a thing in America is extremely low. Nonetheless we should speak loudly against the ideas of Islam. The hold that Islam or other religions have is primarily through ideology and only secondarily through force. Attila needs the witch-doctor and they don't need to be two different people.

Then there is the physical threat. I am all for fighting against jihadists with uttermost ruthlessness. Being a Muslim, however, is not an equivalent to being a member of a terrorist group or a mafia. Even mafia members are subject to proper due process. I advocate the same proper due process for any criminal weather he is driven by religion or any other irrational idea. Concrete evidence of funding or aiding terrorists or advocating terrorist attacks against America is necessary to substantiate a claim of conspiracy. Those involved should be arrested and ruthlessly punished but objective process has to be followed.

The most significant threat to freedom in America currently can only come from Americans themselves. Freedoms are most likely lost starting with unpopular or offensive ideas first and always "for a good cause" and when people feel a sense of emergency.

What you do not want your or any government to allow, and which you dangerously advocate, is to violate some people's freedom of speech and assembly because most people/the government do not agree with their ideas. Again, there are already processes available for dealing with criminals.

Objectivist ideas are just as dis-favoured today by most Americans and the current socialistic government. Our conferences could just as easily be banned and websites could just as easily be blocked by order of the government. If proper due process does not need to be followed before such actions are taken, if the ideological disagreement is enough, then there is nothing stopping such a thing from happening to us or anyone with unpopular ideas.

What you and others are proposing is to me like digging a ditch under yourself. The kind of laws which are your only protection against the majority, laws which we all desperately need right now more than ever to fight wrong ideas, to fight our immediate enemies at home, enemies who are trying to grab more power to use against us every day - you want those laws your government to ignore - you advocate for such a thing - and all this while your government does not represent your ideas and was elected by that majority which also does not share our ideas.

The difference of opinion on this issue arise from the fact that some people underestimate the danger of allowing the government to take such actions. It seems unthinkable and unlikely to them that this won't be just a special scenario case - "only against the Muslim because we are at war" (except not officially and without properly identifying the enemy).

I judge today's context, given what has happened in recent years and months, as fragile on the freedom front. This is exactly the kind of opportunities, that little crack for a good cause, allowed by people with good intentions, that the enemies of freedom look for and unfortunately there are plenty of such enemies in America today. It is a process of slowly adjusting what is acceptable - little cracks against freedom make other cracks more likely and some shots have already been taken and accepted in the name of safety and security. Countless small incursions wear away freedom after freedom, and the government has a good excuse each step of the way. Today the excuse is terrorism.

If you wanted to understand better the opposite point of view - here it is.

You cannot be at physical war against an abstract concept like "fundamentalist Islam." We are at physical war with certain people who hold beliefs that are consistent with fundamentalist Islam. And until you can demonstrate that the people building this mosque are acting in league with our enemies, your argument holds no water. The fact that they fall under the same generic heading of "Islam" is not enough. The existence of the mosque does not, in any way, violate your rights. Lose the persecution complex.

You cannot be at physical war against an abstract concept like "fundamentalist Islam." We are at physical war with certain people who hold beliefs that are consistent with fundamentalist Islam. And until you can demonstrate that the people building this mosque are acting in league with our enemies, your argument holds no water. The fact that they fall under the same generic heading of "Islam" is not enough. The existence of the mosque does not, in any way, violate your rights. Lose the persecution complex.

One of the Wikileaks diplomatic cables claimed that Cuba banned Michael Moore's Sicko for portraying a "mythical" healthcare system that was far superior to that available in the US. The specific reason for the ban is because Moore highlighted a state-of-the-art hospital which only people with connections and bribe money have access to, and Cuban officials feared this would cause greater resentment from the public.



Also, Moore released a response on his website, claiming that Cuba did not ban Sicko, and that the memo is all a lie to discredit the film and the Cuban healthcare system.

I would have to agree with Wrath. The suggestion that the United States is vulnerable to a future impending Christian theocracy is absurd to anyone that has lived here for a lengthy period of time and has been engaged within the religious/non-religious community in this country on even a moderate level. By threat of theocracy I of course mean serious subversion of the law or the political power structure to allow such a thing to even be likely. Now, as Wrath suggests once more, that does not however mean that the United States is not susceptible, especially in certain areas, to perversion by Christianity, and I would agree that this is a much more realistic fear in this sense than is Islam. Islam is not likely to gain any solid footing ethically, politically (aside from the status-quo trend towards increased multiculturalism and political correctness, but that has its limits), religiously, or legislatively. Not only would our cultural and historical trends create a very strong opposition to such things, but there just isn't the demographic base necessary for it anyways.



This 100x's over.

Let me clarify...

The argument you're making suffers from the fundamental error that you accuse Biddle (et al) of making: the inability to identify the enemy. The stubborn refusal of some people to recognize that Islam is not a monolithic belief system--with hordes of unthinking drones who all want to destroy Western democracy--indicates either intellectual laziness, thick-headedness, or outright bigotry. Folding your arms and saying "I know everything I need to know about Islam" doesn't mean that you do.

This debate ended 3 months ago. The argument you are making was just as wrong then as it is now.

Let me clarify...

The argument you're making suffers from the fundamental error that you accuse Biddle (et al) of making: the inability to identify the enemy. The stubborn refusal of some people to recognize that Islam is not a monolithic belief system--with hordes of unthinking drones who all want to destroy Western democracy--indicates either intellectual laziness, thick-headedness, or outright bigotry. Folding your arms and saying "I know everything I need to know about Islam" doesn't mean that you do.

I think you are misinterpreting what he was saying with that statement.



It does not embolden the enemy. There are many reasons why this is the case (I do not mean to say it always is the case), especially for this cultural center. It demoralizes us? We are fighting 2 wars in the wrong place with record suicides, an awful economy, nim-wit generals and administration (good luck changes that in the next 20 years even), and people will not accept anything more than these 2 wars right now. It just will not happen, so meanwhile, the only thing we could possibly need to get a "morale boost" is for drone bombing wedding ceremonies and inflating the numbers of Taliban in Afghanistan to record levels during the occupation, and allowing for an Iraq, that will never repair itself now, short of another dictator (not that I suggest such), and allowing for Iran to get a strategic hold in Iraq, which is a cost to us that I don't think we could even ballpark, strategically speaking. Oh and thats assuming that any of the overall American population has even close to a clue about anything regarding the Middle East or the nature of Islam.



Everytime one of you "I am afraid to get nuked in my jammies" people bring this up, I always ask how do you exactly expect Shariah law to gain hold here? I am talking here, in America, no where else. I never get a satisfactory answer. The only thing that can be garnered from your statement here is that it is a worry for you that America will be, with certainty, under "attack" from the inside if we ever happened to get that percentage. I ask you, why do you think just because there are Muslims here, that this would be the case. I would be willing to claim that you have a flawed interpretation of the nature of Islam and particularly its adherents and have a washed-version of history to support it. You are in effect categorizing a group that thus far has, overall, not held the characteristics that you are suggesting they will have (I can back this up with data).



Ok, so we have some bad cultural centers. That doesn't mean all of them are. The fact of the matter is members of what will be this congregation have been praying there for a year now in the basement of the building. No bombings yet. He had a Mosque in Manhattan further away for all of these years, no bombings, unless you are to suggest the terrorists were linked to him or his mosque in some way. There is no evidence of that. I have other questions about this Boston Center that are relevant. Was the Imam Sufi? What kind of background does he have? What kind of cultural center was it? Did it have a mutli-faith directors board, multi-faith programs etc. like this one will? What was the thru traffic like? These are all important questions on determining if a Mosque is or other Islamic center has the likeliness of preaching or supporting radicalism.




Three blocks would be far enough? Why? You think it will be any less radical (its presence or its members) if its 1 block away? Do you think it will be any more of a "desecration" of the site, which is surrounded by gaudy souvenir stands, strip clubs, (apparently a soon to come Muslim gay bar) etc. Hell it might even be a good thing to keep it there, besides the fact it is going to be built to more or less blend in with the surrounding buildings anyways, theres a big ass building right in the viewing path to the memorial site.

I agree with Biddle on one thing: Those four points on how average Americans can combat Islam are very good and well thought out.

However, I must condemn him for his stance on upholding the "rights" of the mosque owners. Normally when someone takes this stance, I give them the benefit of the doubt. I assume they must be ignorant or they don't fully understand one or more of the important concepts or principles involved. I've seen people take his stance because they misunderstand rights, but he seems to understand them. I've seen people take this stance because they aren't thinking in principles, but he seems to think in principles too. (And even has the gall to assume that people who support government force against the mosque aren't thinking in principles.) I've seen people take this stance because they don't think the mosque gives spiritual support to those who are seeking to destroy America. But Craig Biddle acknowledges that the mosque gives spiritual support to them! I've seen people take this stance because they think Islam is a peaceful religion. But he acknowledges that they aren't. I don't think I've seen anyone claim that we are not at war with fundamentalist Islam, but I'll include that too. Craig acknowledges that we are at war with them, even if the enemy is not identified by our leaders yet.

Craig Biddle acknowledges all the facts that should lead him to the same conclusion that I've reached. But he doesn't reach that conclusion! How? While he acknowledges that we are at war, he isn't actually applying that context to this situation I think. If he were, and if he were willing/capable to look at the big picture, he would see how this mosque is a threat to the rights and lives of Americans. He essentially is masquerading as looking at the big picture, but he isn't looking at a big enough picture. He cannot claim ignorance for the stance he has taken.

No one has asserted that they have compromised the United States military, rather they have jeopardized our government's efforts at defending our security. The defense of the country isn't restricted exclusively to the military- diplomatic efforts exist for the sole purpose of keeping us from having to use our military at the cost of American lives. Publishing information that damages these efforts does nothing but take more diplomatic options off the table, eventually leaving military force as the only option.


No one is denying that there are many interesting facts and evidence of corruption brought to light by these documents, and this may raise them a rung in hell. If they had evidence of corruption though then the prudent and moral thing to do would be to release redacted documents relating to that corruption only. However the indiscriminate publishing of these documents and their recent threats of releasing unredacted versions make their intentions quite clear.

Wrath, I very much like your last post.




What is your definition of a Mosque? I simply ask this because I am wondering if there some misinformation here that should be corrected regarding this specific case.



This is mostly nitpicking my part but several other things would need to be proven, that have not been, to make the former claim solid, but like I said it is mostly nitpicking.

Ah, so your strategy is to deny that there even is such a thing as "Islam"? Since Soviet Communism, Chinese Communism and Cuban Communism differ in minute ways, are we to conclude that there is no such thing as Communism? Since Appaloosas, Clydesdales, Arabians, Lipizzan and Mustang are obviously different, do we conclude that there is no such thing as a horse? The fact that you can nit-pick the Islamic cult into innumerable sub-cults does not negate the fact that they have in common the fact of being versions of Islam, just as Catholicism, Orthodoxology and Protestantism are sub-types of Christianity.
Hezbollah, an Islamist terrorist organization, is Shiite, and as you know, Sunnis and Shiites are about as far apart as you can get in the Islamic world. The fact that 9-11 was implemented by one particular version of Islam does not contradict the broader truth that Islam itself teaches and causes a terrorist-friendly ideology, via the concept of jihad.

I grant the possibility that Ahmadiyya is no more Islam that Mormonism is Christian, but that is irrelevant to the valid generalization about what caused 9-11.

I'm aware of most of those imaginary claims you consider "knowledge of the situation". I just happen to know they're not real, so I don't consider them when passing judgement on Iran.

Hitchens is not really a leftist. He used to be, but he has gradually morphed into one of those people who is so intelligent and well-read as to defy the classic categories of political leanings.

When a historian of philosophy discovers a great new insight into his field of study, then yes, he should at a minimum add a large note on his website announcing "The Logical Leap" and Peikoff's course on "Induction in Physics and Philosophy" have solved a very long standing problem in the history of induction. His review on amazon.com gives the book a short shrift as well. So no I won't be supportive of McCaskey until he is more supportive of "The Logical Leap."

Evidently I am being accused of being intellectually dishonest by the moderator board of this forum because I am saying that McCaskey is supporting Whewell over Peikoff and Harriman. But I am merely going by the public record. McCaskey gives very positive reviews of Whewell's work, but doesn't present the same high praise for "The Logical Leap" that was a joint effort by Peikoff and Harriman. As long as that record stands or isn't corrected, then I have no choice except to say that McCaskey is reviewing Whewell at a higher rating than Peikoff / Harriman.