Where Are Your Balls?
Dean
Some men I admire recently took exception to some things I said about Islam. Some even said I was foolish. They included IB Bill, Kevin Dombrowski, Rusty Shackleford, and even the scholarly James Joyner.
I have only one question:
Dr. Hessabalah is laying it all out there, a member of the blogosphere and inviting all comers. Yet most of you are trying to take on me instead?
Are you guys total pussies or what? He's right here, boys and girls. Why don't you go get him instead of pestering me?
Related Posts (on one page):
- Apologies
- Where Are Your Balls?
- Does Islam Call For Murder of Infidels?
Why ruin your health taking argument so seriously? Just tell folks what you think, then boogy along to the next thread.
Believe it or not, you will probably live a lot longer if you stop internalizing feeling hurt by what other people say or think about you.
Besides, do you really want the whole world to say "Yes, Dean" every time you come up with some bright new idea?
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Dean's right. Lord knows I don't agree with Dean on everything, but he's right on this one.
What he's really pointing out is that by clinging to a tired, cliched view of Islam, you (not you, Arnold, but you, the person who does so) are using exactly the same logic that those who twist Islam are. You are making a part of the religion stand for the whole.
That particular logical fallacy has a name, but I can't remember it.
Dean E: I'm on your side. I want to support and encourage the voices of moderation and modernity in the Muslim community.
But as you know, I'm also a devil's advocate sort, trying to see the other guy's side when I can. So if a generic Commenter X were of a mind to see all of Islam as inherently evil and intentionally deceitful, I can see a number of reasons for Commenter X to take the fight to you, not to Dr. Hessabalah. One or many of the following could be true:
1. Commenter X assumes that there's no reasoning with Dr. Hessabalah, since even if they seem to persuade him to their point of view, he will really only be pretending to agree as a way of deceiving people to prepare them for the Caliphate.
2. Commenter X isn't interested in Dr. Hessebalah; but Commenter X is concerned that you have the wool pulled over your eyes, and is trying to save you from your own trusting nature.
3. Commenter X doesn't care if you're persuaded or not, but assumes that you're a tool (unwitting or witting) of an insidious Muslim propaganda campaign; and therefore Commenter X must counter your propaganda, so that your readers aren't fooled like you have been.
4. Commenter X just wants to spread "the real truth about Islam", and you have a large audience they want to reach.
5. Commenter X is just an argumentative cuss.
6. Commenter X is too lazy or otherwise uninterested in visiting other sites and learning the lay of the land there.
7. As you suggest: Commenter X is afraid of Dr. Hessabalah.
To me, there's no charitable option there. But in at least some of them, Commenter X may see his (or her) work as a noble endeavor.
I had a couple of go-rounds with the doc last time he was linked here and I got the impression of talking past each other. He mentioned something about Christian missionarying in a context that it was really bad, or kind of justified resentment. I pointed out that in the West we don't consider that a capital crime and he hastened to agree, but there was that moment when I think he was not quite clear on the concept that this sort of thing goes both ways. If I really understand Islam--which I don't--would I get the feeling that there is a kind of exceptionalism in which sauce for goose and gander are entirely separate issues?
Are there any Muslims upset that Christianity is under threat in Islamic countries?
I would suggest dialogue with the doc at length, to get past the usual subject-verb-object sentence and try to get a feel across the language and cultural divide.
Has anybody ever considered that understanding one's enemy might lead one to the entirely valid conclusion that he's a treacherous, murderous son of a bitch? I don't say that's the case here, but the planted axiom that we will always find ourselves hugging and smooching if we understand the other guy is not necessarily valid.
BTW. Where are the Muslims trying to understand us?
Does Islam Call For Murder of Infidels ?
The answer is YES.
Practicing muslims accept the thesis of the question.
There is no need for debate parts I, II, III etc.
Just read your daily news or MSM.
How does that attack you? I thought I made it painfully clear that I haven't solidified my position yet and wouldn't do so until I could verify the information for myself. I want to see what the Koran says, not what you or some doctor says it says, for me. How could someone be anymore fair than that?
I think you really need to go back and re-read my post. Because I've just done so myself three times and I simply cannot find where you think I took exception with what you said. And I sure as hell know I didn't call you foolish.
I surrender. Go argue back and forth between Dr Hassalah, Commenter X, Commenter Y, etc, etc. Whoever the hell they all are.
As for Islam. I judge ideas, including religious theories, notions, and good old blind faith, by what they produce in human societies. When the devotees of a particular religion fall in the habit of organzing a small crew of fanatics to simultaneously hijack four jet airliners and fly them into the two most important buildings in New York City and the two most important building in Washington DC, and when others among their co-religionists strap belts of Semtex high explosives around the waists of their children and send them off to commit suicide combined with mass murder, then I judge the lot of them the same way I would judge a dangerous pack of wild animals.
Can religious and social philosophies change? Sure. And I'm waiting for the evidence.
Simple as that.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Or are you advocating kill them all, and let God sort them out? I thought that was how the Islamic terrorists worked.
I'm reading a book called Crucial Conversations: Tools for talking when stakes are high. It's really good. Such conversations are those where, in their words, "opinions vary", "stakes are high" and "emotions run strong". I'd say this is a crucial conversation.
It does not recommend arguing through intermediaries. On the other hand, it does not recommend mocking those you disagree with either.
Yours,
Wince, aka Tom Hawkson
The man convicted of blowing up the Federal building in Oklahoma City was given a sodium pentathol cocktail, or whatever, as his going away present. And that was appropriate, considering the death toll of innocent Americans.
I am suggesting not that we kill everyone of any particular background and "let God sort them out". To begin with, as everyone who comments here will tell you, I have no particular gods. I only want to exercize the normal kind of caution that societies reserve the right to exercize when massive numbers of an alien culture, led by certain well-connected and well-armed elites, organize plans to kill large number of Americans. As part of the caution, and especially in a time of emergency as is strongly implied by the fact that al-Qaida and other anti-American terrorist organization are still armed and at large, our government is expected to exclude from our borders anyone whose nationality, culture or other attachments could possibly indicate they may be active enemies.
In short, we don't want them here at all, and we especially don't want them here in any situation where they could cause us any damage, unless and until the authorities have thoroughly checked them out.
Nor do I think that is a violation of anybody's civil liberties that our government is required to respect. Because unless and until we know exactly who and what they are, we have to consider them as potentially dangerous enemy aliens, and treat them accordingly, albeit as politely as possible under any given circumstances.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
One side of Islam wants to be friends, the other doesn't. It's that simple. Which one of them is the "True" Islam is irrelevent.
If it's the "heretics" that want to be friends, I'm all for being friends with the heretics.
If it's the "faithful" that want to be friends, I'm all for being friends with the faithful.
BK
I'm fine with that. But what I hear all too often is: "The side that wants to be friends is just lying, so they can lull your suspicions and make it easier to enslave or kill us all." In other words, there aren't two sides, just two faces of one side.
I have no mercy for those who want to kill us. None. And I'm not feeling all that merciful even towards those who break the rules, regardless of how they feel, just to be on the safe side. Overstayed your visa? Outa here! Came here on a student visa, and then dropped out? Outa here! Lied on your application form? Locked up, investigated, and then outa here if you seem clean.
And I also think it's important for the moderate Muslims to understand and accept a higher level of scrutiny than other people face. Through no fault of their own, people who look a lot like them, come from the same countries as them, and putatively share the same religion as them have demonstrated a willingness to live and hide among them while plotting us harm. It would be irresponsible for our government not to take a closer look at them -- not detain them, just investigate them to ferret out any terrorists hiding among them.
But I still feel it's important to trust and work with the moderates. Otherwise, there's no reward for being moderate; and some moderates will be driven to the radical side as a result. I can't go along with Arnold in his zeal to deport every Muslim. Yes, I know very well that this carries a risk. Trust always does. But I'll always take trust but verify over the alternative.