Submitted for your disapproval...

[yguy]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

Hussein Ibish on [David] Horowitz's website:

That's ("they were all moderate pious muslims, not extremists or radicals") high praise for Osama Bin Ladin, unless of course you already agree that describing someone as a good muslim or a pious muslim is itself a pejorative.

It may well be, for all I know, depending on how "Muslim" is defined. If belief in the Koran as the Word of God is a necessary qualification for being a Muslim, and if the Koran endorses a "convert them or kill them" attitude towards infidels* (which the Bible does NOT, BTW), then certainly there is nothing admirable about being a Muslim.

*I'm hedging on that because I haven't studied the Koran at all.

Now, however you slice this, this stuff is very bad for our country, it's very bad for our society, it's bad for our culture and discourse. So I think there are a lot of things to be worried about, and one of them is wild rhetoric like this.

I think Horowitz addressed this perfectly well. While he is responsible for the contents of his website, he can no more said to be endorsing the opinions of every contributing writer than AJ can be said to be endorsing the views of Horowitz.

But of course Ibish harped on it throughout the debate because he can't find fault with anything Horowitz himself said.

[Watser?]

Originally Posted by yguy

But of course Ibish harped on it throughout the debate because he can't find fault with anything Horowitz himself said.

Yeah, that must be it

[mickthinks]

[mickthinks]

[Describing someone as a good muslim or a pious muslim] may well be [a pejorative] for all I know

Don't you care enough to find out, yguy? You sound like you haven't made any effort to check whether you might, possibly, be wrong.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

[Describing someone as a good muslim or a pious muslim] may well be [a pejorative] for all I know

Don't you care enough to find out, yguy?

At this point, no.

You sound like you haven't made any effort to check whether you might, possibly, be wrong.

I can't be wrong about "good muslim" being a pejorative, because I've made no assertion to that effect. All I've said is that from my perspective of relative ignorance of Islam, it could be true - and that's a true statement.

In any case, it should be clear that when Horowitz refers to "moderate muslims", he's not talking about terrorists.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by yguy

It may well be, for all I know, depending on how "Muslim" is defined. If belief in the Koran as the Word of God is a necessary qualification for being a Muslim, and if the Koran endorses a "convert them or kill them" attitude towards infidels* (which the Bible does NOT, BTW), then certainly there is nothing admirable about being a Muslim.

*I'm hedging on that because I haven't studied the Koran at all.

Jeez, you sound like Clinton. "Well, that depends on how you define X." Nice dodge. Just FYI, the "convert them or kill them" dogma is, IIRC, due to an interpretation of a single passage in the Koran. See, the Koran is written like poetry, much moreso than the Bible, and in a language that doesn't translate well to other languages, due to nuances of meaning and phrasing that can be interpreted multiple ways. I've often heard it said, if you haven't read the Koran in Arabic, you haven't read it.

(Also, side issue: Are you still claiming not to be some flavor of Christian? With your constant talk of 'devils inside people' and Satan and the Bible, I'm finding it harder and harder to trust you on that. I would certainly welcome a more detailed explanation of why you do not consider yourself a Christian. Jewish, maybe? I don't recall they're beliefs on Satan, but I know the word itself comes from Jewish tradition...)

Moving on to the video...
He does make some good points, the primary one being that painting OBL and other terrorists as merely 'moderate' muslims seems pretty stupid. As soon as you become willing to kill someone over your religion, you're an extremist IMO, regardless of what religion we're talking about.

His 'petition', I remain quite skeptical of. I would need to actually read it to give a further verdict. His insistance that these groups sign it, however, strikes me as pretty asinine, and would most certainly be illegal if such a petition (or the Loyalty Oath you so casually support) carried any penalties for not signing. You can bet your ass that any muslim non-citizens in the country are already under more surveilance than is likely warranted (and probably the muslim citizens as well, we're such a trusting and open country). Forcing an Oath would do nothing more than piss people off and add another lie to the belt of those few who may have bad intent. You think people can't fake an Oath? It's done every day at churches accross the country.

Refusal to sign such a petition is much more likely to be a refusal to validate this particular person, rather than necessarily not agreeing with the points in the petition itself. I wouldn't sign it, regardless of the fact that I mostly agree with him. Does that mean I secretly support the terrorists, too?

[yguy]

Originally Posted by Kael

Jeez, you sound like Clinton. "Well, that depends on how you define X." Nice dodge.

It doesn't depend on how "Muslim" is defined?

Just FYI, the "convert them or kill them" dogma is, IIRC, due to an interpretation of a single passage in the Koran.

That may be, but the fact that the alleged author acted in a manner consistent with that interpretation grants it more than trivial credence, no?

Also, side issue: Are you still claiming not to be some flavor of Christian? With your constant talk of 'devils inside people' and Satan and the Bible, I'm finding it harder and harder to trust you on that.

If you insist on so handicapping yourself intellectually, that's your lookout.

I would certainly welcome a more detailed explanation of why you do not consider yourself a Christian.

A Christian is a follower of Christ. I am not. Case closed.

His 'petition', I remain quite skeptical of. I would need to actually read it to give a further verdict. His insistance that these groups sign it, however, strikes me as pretty asinine,

Because...?

and would most certainly be illegal if such a petition (or the Loyalty Oath you so casually support) carried any penalties for not signing.

There's no constitutional problem with a loyalty oath for non-citizens, so any legal difficulties with it could be addressed at the statutory level.

You can bet your ass that any muslim non-citizens in the country are already under more surveilance than is likely warranted

When one stops to consider the mere fact that our borders are a sieve, such an assurance is revealed as cavalierly wishful thinking.

Forcing an Oath would do nothing more than piss people off

And exactly what sort of Muslim resident would feel imposed upon by a request to swear allegiance to America while living within its borders?

and add another lie to the belt of those few who may have bad intent. You think people can't fake an Oath?

Obviously it's nothing like a comprehensive solution, but it would at least get rid of those who refused.

Refusal to sign such a petition is much more likely to be a refusal to validate this particular person, rather than necessarily not agreeing with the points in the petition itself. I wouldn't sign it, regardless of the fact that I mostly agree with him. Does that mean I secretly support the terrorists, too?

Unbeknownst to yourself? It's possible. Certainly you've provided no logical basis for such a refusal.

[Watser?]

Originally Posted by yguy

That may be, but the fact that the alleged author acted in a manner consistent with that interpretation grants it more than trivial credence, no?

The alleged author of the Koran is Allah, not Mohammed. And where do you get information that Mohammed 'acted in a manner consistent with that interpretation'?

[Kael]

Originally Posted by yguy

It doesn't depend on how "Muslim" is defined?

And exactly what sort of Muslim resident would feel imposed upon by a request to swear allegiance to America while living within its borders?

Have you ever gone back and read your own posts? First off, Muslim is defined in exactly the same manner as Christian. Follower of Christ = Christian. Follower of Muhammed = Muslim. That's it.

Second, think about it for a second. Would you swear an oath of allegiance to France or Germany if you planned on living there for a time? How about if you went to live in Saudi Arabia or Iran? Would you swear such an oath to their governments, when you had no intention of becoming a permanent resident or citizen? Btw, saying "It's never going to happen to me, so I don't have to answer" isn't going to get you out of it. It is a perfectly reasonable hypothetical parallel. You can't demand something of visitors to your country that you're not willing to give if you were ever to visit theres. That's called being hypocritical.

Originally Posted by yguy

Unbeknownst to yourself? It's possible. Certainly you've provided no logical basis for such a refusal.

So, what, I'm some kind of sleeper cell, waiting for subliminal input to trigger hypnotic conditioning? A logical basis for refusal to sign such a petition is not necessary. This is, ostensibly, a free country, and neither I nor anyone else should be held to sign a specific document, or branded a terrorist or traitor for refusing. I'm sure, where I to read his actual petition, I would have logical reasons for refusal, but the bottom line is, I don't need them. He needs a logical reason that I must demonstrate my loyalty, and that signing his petition would do so. The ball's in his court, not mine, if you'll forgive the metaphor.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by Kael

Have you ever gone back and read your own posts? First off, Muslim is defined in exactly the same manner as Christian. Follower of Christ = Christian. Follower of Muhammed = Muslim. That's it.

You'll forgive me if I don't take your pronouncement as authoritative; but using that definition, I'd say that "good Muslim" is indeed a pejorative, considering who they are declaring themselves followers of. Wouldn't you?

Second, think about it for a second. Would you swear an oath of allegiance to France or Germany if you planned on living there for a time?

It doesn't matter, because Germany belongs to the Germans, and France to the French. They get to say what the conditions are for granting residence to foreigners. Just like we do.

You can't demand something of visitors to your country that you're not willing to give if you were ever to visit theres. That's called being hypocritical.

No, that's what you're calling hypocritical, when it's nothing of the kind.

So, what, I'm some kind of sleeper cell, waiting for subliminal input to trigger hypnotic conditioning?

Possibly.

A logical basis for refusal to sign such a petition is not necessary. This is, ostensibly, a free country, and neither I nor anyone else should be held to sign a specific document, or branded a terrorist or traitor for refusing.

In this "free country", if it's OK for them to refuse to sign the document, why isn't it OK for others to call them terrorist sympathizers?

I'm sure, where I to read his actual petition, I would have logical reasons for refusal, but the bottom line is, I don't need them. He needs a logical reason that I must demonstrate my loyalty,

In Horowitz's case, the logical reason is that if you as a Muslim leader in America don't sign it, he'll continue making an issue of it.

and that signing his petition would do so.

His demand isn't so much for a demonstration of loyalty to the US as it is to declare enmity with terrorists. While it would not demonstrate said enmity conclusively, it would produce necessary friction between American Muslims of good intent and terrorist sympathizers.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by yguy

Possibly.

Sorry, I'd further refute your points and continue this dialogue, but I have to go watch CNN and wait for my next instructions.

[Watser?]

Originally Posted by yguy

In Horowitz's case, the logical reason is that if you as a Muslim leader in America don't sign it, he'll continue making an issue of it.

Ok, I'll continue to call him a scumbag then. And I will say again that everyone who calls himself a Zionist should be considered for an oath of loyalty as well. More so than an average Muslim, because a Zionist is by definition loyal to a foreign regime.

[Nullifidian]

Originally Posted by Kael

So, what, I'm some kind of sleeper cell, waiting for subliminal input to trigger hypnotic conditioning?

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

[Describing someone as a good muslim or a pious muslim] may well be [a pejorative] for all I know

Don't you care enough to find out, yguy? You sound like you haven't made any effort to check whether you might, possibly, be wrong.

Much better to just advocate deporting them all. Very high troll factor, very low intellectual effort needed.

[mickthinks]

I can't be wrong about "good muslim" being a pejorative, because I've made no assertion to that effect. All I've said is that from my perspective of relative ignorance of Islam, it could be true - and that's a true statement.
No, you've said a little more than that over the months I've been reading your posts, my friend! For instance, you frequently refer to Obama as a Muslim as if American voters should disapprove. You've also implied that anyone who might wish to have a dispute settled in accordance with Islamic practice is insane.

Sure, you've made no explicit assertion that "pious Muslim" is pejorative; you've just used it that way, over and over again. I reckon you have now implicitly agreed that this was just anti-Muslim prejudice.

Mick

[yguy]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

I can't be wrong about "good muslim" being a pejorative, because I've made no assertion to that effect. All I've said is that from my perspective of relative ignorance of Islam, it could be true - and that's a true statement.
No, you've said a little more than that over the months I've been reading your posts, my friend!

You're no friend of mine.

For instance, you frequently refer to Obama as a Muslim

Actually, I've never done it even once.

You've also implied that anyone who might wish to have a dispute settled in accordance with Islamic practice is insane.

Wrong again. I said that about Sharia law, not "Islamic practice", whatever that is.

[Watser?]

You're a pretty bad liar, yguy.

Try harder, this is

[Kael]

I don't think that last post of his even warrants a
But then, you seem a generous type. Maybe my trolling standards are just too high...

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by yguy

Wrong again. I said that about Sharia law, not "Islamic practice", whatever that is.

What do you think the difference is?

[mickthinks]

You're no friend of mine.

You've done nothing to make me hate you, yguy, so I guess this is a declaration of your intent to try. Is that how you work? It seems an odd way to behave.

Mick