@Mat:
“Your knee-jerk rejection of ROP.com simply proves that you are unable to distinguish between "bigoted, anti-semitic and Islamophobic sites that do nothing but create fear, division, and try to validate any terrorist act" and those that are "bigoted or mouthpieces of hate".”
Half-quoting what I said does not mean you made any point. My “knee-jerk” reaction to ROP and JW stems from being spit on in the streets after 9/11 to 7 years of debates with anti-Islamists who use these websites over and over, and I refute every single thing over and over.
“In order: ROP and JW are not bigoted. They do not consider Muslims to be inferior, simply intrinsically hostile toward non-Muslims.”
If we follow that logic, then RR are not bigoted, they don’t consider non-Christians to be inferior, simply doomed for hell. Or why stop there? Some religious idiots dont consider atheists to be inferior, just doomed for hell. Oh yes, that makes it all better.
“Anti-semitic? Why? They are not in the least hostile towards Judaism or the Jewish people. And Muslims are not Semites.”
Arabs are Semites. Those websites do not present a fair and balanced (*giggles*) view of Arabs. Furthermore, they feature articles and links from anti-Semitic writers. On the question whether Arabs are semites, as Juan Cole puts it:
Joe Klein's defense of Khalidi (http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2008/10/30/and-lower/) started a controversy over whether the term 'antisemite' also refers to Arabs. The glib answer that the term was invented in the 19th century specifically for Jews ignores the history of writing about 'Aryans' and 'Semites,' in which many European thinkers did in fact group 'Semites' (i.e. speakers of Semitic languages such as Arabic and Hebrew, though the Europeans racialized them) together. French commentators on Algeria in the 1860s spoke of the lethargy and fanaticism of Semites in general versus the dynamic Aryans. They intended both North African Arabs and North African Jews. Ernest Renan was one such thinker, and he certainly saw both Jews and Arabs as inferior Semites (http://books.google.com/books?id=l2c800XOOX4C&pg=PA102&dq=Arab+semites+inferior&ei=vY4MSd6_Ao3kywTqkazBAg) together. Faced with the problem that early Arab-Islamic civilization made great advances in science, Renan castigated Semitic Arabs as unoriginal and argued that early Islamic science (http://books.google.com/books?id=3KVAmUrZ_bcC&pg=PA71&dq=Afgani+Renan+Debats&ei=MIwMSfvyBaPKzASh_4j2AQ) actually was developed by the Aryan Iranians (Iranians speak an Indo-European language for the most part, and so were coded by Renan and his contemporaries as a kind of Aryan). Arthur Comte de Gobineau, a major theorist of Semitic and Aryan race, also saw the Iranians as the good Muslims because they were Aryans (he was French ambassador in Tehran for a while).
It would be nice if these debates on Israel and antisemitism attended to the history of European racial thought toward the Arabs that were colonized, a major arena for the development of the Aryan/Semitic dichotomy that rightwing Zionists want us to ignore.
“Islamophobic? A constant cry from the Muslim apologists out there, such as CAIR (which has been tied to Hamas and Hexbollah by FBI investigators) and such similar organisations bent upon the dhimmitude of non-Muslims.”
I’d be surprised if you knew what being a Dhimmi really is, instead of just parroting what Gisèle Littman has already said. Furthermore, Hamas was elected in free and fair elections by the Palestinians iirc. This incensed Bush and Israel so much that they tried to instigate a civil war between Hamas and Fatah, iirc. So they are just a democratically elected party. If Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorist organizations, so are the political parties of Israel and the US.
I dont care what CAIR says or stands for, just like I dont care what the Muslim Council of Great Britain says or stands for, apart from their denunciations of terrorism. So trying to put me in with those groups isnt going to work.
And last but not least, your argument that Muslims cry Islamophobic at every turn is bull. It’s the same argument put forward by anti-Semites when they are challenged on their anti-Semitic ideas. Or, are they right? Surely you dont think so?
“If you are honestly not an apologist, I submit this list of question that CAIR has never deigned to answer:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/CAIR-Questions.htm
Bear in mind, if CAIR submitted these answers in writing and JW failed to honour its promise to shut down in response, then CAIR could publicise the entire issue and enormously discredit JW, a la Kent Hovind and his phony debates.”
Im not CAIR and therefore Im not going to look at those questions nor answer them.
“Further, I suggest that you read the following (do NOT auto-reject it, read it - IF you're brave enough to challenge your propaganda): http://www.jihadwatch.org/islam101/
It explains many aspects of Islam, including one of the worst: the doctrine of Taqqiya, which means that there is no possibility of trustworthy dialogue between Muslims nad non-Muslims, as they are enjoined to lie about any aspect of their religion if it helps their cause.”
The same lie that was frabicated against the Jews is presented in a modernised version against the Muslims, namely that they cannot be trusted beause their allegiance lies somewhere else and they will lie to get what they want. Just like the Jews were said to only report back and pledge allegiance to the “Wise Men of Zion”, the Muslims are now said to report back and pledge allegiance to only blood thirsty Mullahs bent on world domination. It is quite sad that this kind of thinking is still present. I suggest you watch “The Eternal Jew”, called the worst example of anti-Semitism ever, and then compare that to the arguments presented against Muslims now. Then you will see that the arguments from the way Halal meat is prepared to the allegiance of Muslims and their lust for world domination, have been used before in history.
But, nevertheless, lets take a look at Taqiyya, the favourite love affair of the modern day anti-Islamic keyboard warrior. For anyone who doesn’t know, Taqiyya is used by anti-Islamists to argue that Muslims are allowed to lie. Their proof? Verse 16:107: “Whoso disbelieves in Allah after he has believedsave him who is forced thereto while his heart finds peace in the faithbut such as open their breasts to disbelief, on them is Allah’s wrath; and they shall have a severe punishment”
The anti-Islamists present this verse as their proof of Muslims being allowed to lie, and hence Muslims being untrustworthy. The idea behind this argument is to completely paralyse any Muslim entity, especially if its peaceful, by throwing in this argument much in the same way the Nazis used to accuse the Jews of being untrustworthy. Unfortunately, many uneducated people fall for this trick. I call it that because anyone with some knowledge of the law in most of the world will see that this is nothing else but the doctrine/defense of Duress. The reason being, as anyone who knows anything about the verse in question will tell you, and as noted by AlTafsir.com: “(Whoso disbelieveth in Allah after his belief
) [16:106]. Said Ibn 'Abbas: “This verse was revealed about 'Ammar ibn Yasir. The idolaters had taken him away along with his father Yasir, his mother Sumayyah, Suhayb [al-Rumi], Bilal [ibn Rabah], Khabbab [ibn al-Aratt] and Salim [the client of Hudhayfah] and tortured them. As for Sumayyah, she was tied up between two camels and stabbed with a spear in her female organ. She was told: 'You embraced Islam for the men', and was then killed. Her husband Yasir was also killed. They were the first two persons who were killed in Islam. As for 'Ammar, he was coerced to let them hear what they wanted to hear. The Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace, was told that 'Ammar has renounced faith, but he said: 'Never, 'Ammar is filled with faith from his head to his toes; faith is admixed with his flesh and blood!' 'Ammar then went to see the Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace, crying. The Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace, wiped his tears with his own hand and said: 'if they return to you, let them hear again what you told them'.”
I’ll talk about something which you should know well, or at least you would, if you had any real desire to do anything besides lying about a religion. That is: the Law of Duress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duress). According to Wiki (I’ll use Wiki for now since everyone can access it and not accuse me of making stuff up, otherwise I’d use my law books):
Duress or coercion (as a term of jurisprudence) is a possible legal defense, one of four of the most important justification defenses, by which defendants argue that they should not be held liable because the actions that broke the law were only performed out of an immediate fear of injury. Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed.) defines duress as "any unlawful threat or coercion used... to induce another to act [or not act] in a manner [they] otherwise would not [or would]."
In order for duress to qualify as a defense, four requirements must be met:
1. Threat must be of serious bodily harm or death
2. Harm threatened must be greater than the harm caused by the crime
3. Threat must be immediate and inescapable
4. The defendant must have become involved in the situation through no fault of his or her own
A person may also raise a duress defense when force or violence is used to compel him to enter into a contract, or to discharge one.
The Wiki for Duress in English law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duress_in_English_law ) states:
Duress in English criminal law is a complete common law defence, operating in favour of those who commit crimes because they are forced or compelled to do so by the circumstances, or the threats of another.
...the defendant must have a reasonable and genuinely held fear of death or serious harm, usually in the form of specific threats directed at the defendant, his immediate family or someone for whom he feels responsible. In R v Graham 1982 1 AER 801, the threat was immediately and directly made to the defendant. In the Australian case of R v Hurley & Murray 1967 VR 526 escaped criminals compelled H to dispose of two corpses by holding his wife hostage, such that the threats to her "would have been operative during the entire period of his absence" and "his only concern must have been for the safety of the woman". Following R v Conway 1989 QB 290 and R v Wright 2000 Crim. LR 510, (where the threat related in part to the defendant's boyfriend) the specimen direction of the Judicial Studies Board suggests that the threat must be directed, if not to the defendant or a member of his immediate family, to a person for whose safety the defendant would reasonably regard himself as responsible which, if strictly applied, would be consistent with the rationale of the duress exception.
Sound familiar? Even our current Western, non-Islamic law, evolved through centuries, acknowledges duress as a defence. This is no different from the situation described in the verse you like to copy and paste from anti-Islam websites. The verse states that if a Muslim recants as a result of torture or fear of death that should not be held against him and he should not fear that God will punish him. The law of duress in England, and probably the US, says that a person should not be held liable for any crime committed if he is in fear of his life or in fear of the life of any loved ones or under any threat, coercion or physical intimidation. See the similarities? If you still don’t, tell me, so I can lecture you on duress from my law books.
Secondly, another point the verse raises, is that of torture and any testimony obtained by means of torture. My question to you is: Do believe that torture is right? Do you believe that testimony obtained under torture should be seen as completely valid? Do you believe that a person who testifies under torture should be punished because of his confession? Let me make this a bit more clearer: if someone arrested you, put you in a cell and one night when you were sleeping, men burst into that cell, put a hood over your face, tied you to a board, put towels on your face and poured water on the towels, on your face, to get you to confess, what would you do? Would you tough it out or act like any normal human and give up? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuhJUmR4B6Q). We all know what you would do. Why? It is the natural human reaction. Or you can substitute waterboarding for any other method of torture. How about if we tied car batteries to your genitals and made you fly? Would you confess or tough it out? How about if we forced you to have sex with another man in front of 10 people who are laughing at you and recording it all, would you tough it out? How about being locked up in a soundproof or heat room that is smaller than you for days on end? Would you tough these out or say whatever these people wanted to hear to get this to stop? If you do confess, should your confession be seen as completely valid without any duress or torture and should you be punished with the crime they wanted you to confess about? That is the point this verse raises. A point accepted by every Western interpretation of the law of duress and torture. Once again, we see that something that the Quran mentions has become the accepted law in the vast majority, even non-Muslim, countries. Law relating to verses which were revealed after Muslims were tortured and killed for just claiming to be Muslim. Muslims forced to lie on hot desert sand and then giant rocks put on them so they’d burn in the desert sun. Muslim women flogged, beaten and raped just because they were Muslim. The vast majority of those people did not confess to what the Meccans wanted to hear. Some did and they were told to have no fear of any punishment from God, because what they said did not come from the heart. Because testimony obtained under torture is worth nothing.
Thirdly, why do you want to paint the picture of Islam being the only religion that condones lying (which is false as I have proven above)? Why don’t you mention other religions? Why don’t you mention, for example, the story of Rahab in the Bible, where she lies and is rewarded and blessed by God for her lie? Or the lying spirit by Jehovah in 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles? Why didn’t you mention Shalom bayit where Jewish commentators have the nerve to accuse God of lying and or deceiving Abraham and therefore it’s seen as permissible? Why didn’t you mention the blatant use of casuistry by Moses and the Jesuits among others? Why didn’t you mention pikuach nefesh which, as Jewish Law, requires Jews to violate almost all prohibitions in order to preserve human life? Why didn’t you mention Baba Kamma 113 where Jews can lie to non-Jews? Why didn’t you.... there’s no point is there? We all know why you didn’t mention all these other instances yet you seemingly see in a verse that never even uses the word lie or deceive that it commands people to lie. We all know why you lied.
The fact of the matter is that these verses do not condone nor promote lying. On the contrary, they show the mercy of God to not accept any testimony of anyone under torture. Something which even you should agree with. It’s called Human Rights, it is part of international law and the law of the vast majority of countries.
Now, let’s take a look at another interesting subject: false confessions. According to you, people who are coerced into false confessions should be (1) labelled liars and (2) punished because of their confession. Let’s look at what happens in the real world. I’ll once again turn to Wiki so you can’t accuse me of making this up. The wiki page on False Confession (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_confession) says:
A false confession is an admission of guilt in a crime in which the confessor is not responsible for the crime. False confessions can be induced through coercion or by the mental incompetency of the accused. Even though false confessions might appear to be an exceptional and unlikely event, they occur on a regular basis in case law, which is one of the reasons why jurisprudence has established a series of rules to detect, and subsequently reject, false confessions. These are called the "confession rules".
The first case it mentions is that of Brown v. Mississippi where it was held that:
...confessions extracted through the use of physical brutality violate the Due Process Clause. In the case, three defendants had been sentenced to death for the murder of one Raymond Stewart on March 30, 1934. The convictions had been based solely on confessions obtained through violence:
"... defendants were made to strip and they were laid over chairs and their backs were cut to pieces with a leather strap with buckles on it, and they were likewise made by the said deputy definitely to understand that the whipping would be continued unless and until they confessed, and not only confessed, but confessed in every matter of detail as demanded by those present; and in this manner the defendants confessed the crime, and, as the whippings progressed and were repeated, they changed or adjusted their confession in all particulars of detail so as to conform to the demands of their torturers. When the confessions had been obtained in the exact form and contents as desired by the mob, they left with the parting admonition and warning that, if the defendants changed their story at any time in any respect from that last stated, the perpetrators of the outrage would administer the same or equally effective treatment.
"Further details of the brutal treatment to which these helpless prisoners were subjected need not be pursued. It is sufficient to say that in pertinent respects the transcript reads more like pages torn from some medieval account than a record made within the confines of a modern civilization which aspires to an enlightened constitutional government."
The Supreme Court concluded: "It would be difficult to conceive of methods more revolting to the sense of justice than those taken to procure the confessions of these petitioners, and the use of the confessions thus obtained as the basis for conviction and sentence was a clear denial of due process.... In the instant case, the trial court was fully advised by the undisputed evidence of the way in which the confessions had been procured.... The court thus denied a federal right fully established and specially set up and claimed, and the judgment must be reversed."
Then there is the case of the Central Park Five:
The Central Park Five were Harlem teens Yusef Salaam, Kevin Richardson, Antron McCray, Raymond Santana, and Kharey Wise. Ages 14 to 16, the teens were accused of bludgeoning, raping, and leaving to die a 28-year-old female jogger in New York's Central Park. The jogger was later learned to be Trisha Meili, an investment banker at Salomon Brothers. The media called the attack a brutal "wilding" by out of control youth.
The teens had been picked up in a police sweep of the park and conveniently were already in custody when the victim was found. All the teens except Salaam confessed to the crime on videotape. The prosecution would admit 13 years later that the confessions “differed from one another on the specific details of virtually every major aspect of the crimewho initiated the attack, who knocked the victim down, who undressed her, who struck her, who raped her, what weapons were used in the course of the assault and when the sequence of the events in the attack took place.” The victim was knocked unconscious and was not able to identify any attacker. All five were convicted at trial solely because of the confessions.
No DNA evidence tied the suspects to the crime, so the prosecution's case rested almost entirely on the confessions.[1] In fact, analysis indicated that the DNA collected at the crime scene did not match any of the suspectsand that the crime-scene DNA had all come from a single, as-yet-unknown person.
In 1990, following the convictions, DNA tests on semen found inside and on the victim, showed that it not did match any of the Central Park Five. The test results received little publicity and the recovered semen was attributed to a sixth "mystery" member of the gang. In January 2002, Matias Reyes, 31, a serial rapist, confessed to committing the crime alone. DNA test results matched Reyes and the convictions of the five were vacated. The five had already served their seven to thirteen year juvenile sentences. At least three were denied parole for maintaining their innocence in the crime.
The Pizza Hut Murder:
In 1988 Nancy DePriest was raped and murdered at the Pizza Hut she worked at in Austin, Texas. A coworker, Chris Ochoa, pled guilty to the murder. His friend, Richard Danziger, was convicted of the rape. Ochoa confessed to the murder and implicated his friend, Danziger, in the rape. It was later discovered that the confession was coerced and the guilty party was arrested. The forensic evidence that linked Danziger to the crime scene was a single pubic hair found in the restaurant that was consistent with his type of pubic hair. There was semen evidence collected, but DNA analysis was not performed. Both men received life sentences. Years later Achim Marino wrote letters while in prison claiming he was the murderer. The DNA was finally tested and matched Marino. Chris Ochoa and Richard Danziger were exonerated and released from prison in 2001 after 12 years of incarceration.
Corethian Bell:
Cook County, Illinois prosecutors were required to videotape murder confessions, but not interrogations, starting in August 1999. Corethian Bell, who has a diagnosis of mental retardation, said he confessed to the murder of his mother, Netta Bell, because police hit him so hard he was knocked off his chair and because he grew tired and hopeless after being in police custody for more than 50 hours. He said he thought that if he confessed, the interrogations would stop, then he could explain himself to a judge and be set free. With a confession on tape, he was then prosecuted and sent to jail. When the DNA at the crime scene was tested it matched a serial rapist, who already was in prison for three other violent sexual assaults, all in the same neighborhood as the Netta Bell murder.
Jeffrey Mark Deskovic:
Jeffrey Mark Deskovic, was convicted in 1990 at age 16, of raping, beating and strangling a high school classmate, even though jurors were told the DNA evidence in the case did not point to him. He was incarcerated for 15 years. He confessed to the crime after hours of an interrogation without being given an opportunity to seek legal counsel.
A case from Japan:
13 men and women, ranging in age from their early 50s to mid-70s, were arrested and indicted in Japan for buying votes in an election. Six confessed to buying votes with liquor, cash and catered parties. All were acquitted in 2007 in a local district court, which found that the confessions had been entirely fabricated. The presiding judge said the defendants had "made confessions in despair while going through marathon questioning."
And then there is the sad case of Michael Crowe. I suggest you get your hands on a program called “The Interrogators” that was on National Geographic not so long ago. It was about interrogation techniques but the part you want is about Michael Crowe. In fact, here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkLHXKHb1Vc) is that part of the program containing excerpts from the interrogation and confession.
Watch that.
Watched it? Ok, now for the facts surrounding that:
Michael Crowe confessed to the murder of his younger sister Stephanie Crowe in 1998. Michael, 14 at the time, was targeted by police when he seemed "distant and preoccupied" after Stephanie's body was discovered and the rest of the family grieved. After two days of intense questioning, Michael admitted to killing Stephanie. The confession was videotaped by police, and appeared to be coerced, at times Michael saying things to the effect of, "I'm only saying this because it's what you want to hear." Two of Michael's friends, Josh Treadway and Aaron Hauser, were questioned and confessed after many hours of interrogation. The charges were dropped after DNA testing linked a neighborhood transient to her blood. A TV movie was made out of the story called The Interrogation of Michael Crowe in 2002.
These are just a handful of the cases involving false confessions. So, are these people lying just for fun or the sake of lying, or have they been coerced, in a way under duress and or torture, into giving a false confession? If it was up to you, Michael Crowe would be seen as guilty of killing his sister. But to most people, Michael Crowe is completely innocent. If it was up to you, he would spend his life in prison, but because it’s not up to you, he isn’t. Does the fact that the law exonerated him mean that the law condones and or promotes lying? Was Michael lying or was his confession a result of inhumane behaviour, tantamount to torture? This is the main inherent flaw in the argument you keep copying and pasting.
Since the verse in question mentions giving false confessions under duress/torture etc, but specifies it to ones faith, let’s look at what happened during one of the world darkest hours: Nazi Germany and the oppression and extermination of the Jewish people. In this case, a specific people, Jews, were persecuted, arrested and killed just because of their religion. There are only a couple of real life cases I need to mention here as you can find the rest, the internet is filled with them. First of all, let’s look at Oskar Schindler. He was a member of the Nazi. But, he is credited with saving almost 1200 Jews from certain extermination in camps. How did he do what he did? He was able to do that because he didn’t tell the Nazis what was actually going on in his factories and what he was doing with the Jews in his factory. Yet, because of that, he ended up saving 1200 people’s lives. He has been honoured and serves as an inspiration for many people. Does his being honoured mean that people condone and or promote lying?
Another example would be that of Anne Frank. Victor Kugler, Johannes Kleiman, Miep Gies, Jan Gies, Bep Voskuijl and Hendrik Voskuijl did not tell the Nazi occupiers that there were Jews hiding in that house. They protected them and catered for them during the time they were in the Achterhuis. These people are honoured and serve as inspiration. Does them being honoured mean that people condone and or promote lying?
If we are to believe you, these people are liars and criminals and should be treated as such. Yet, for the vast majority of people, these people are heroes, not liars or criminals. Do the actions of all these people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_assisted_Jews_during_the_Holocaust) condone and or promote lying? No, they don’t. Furthermore, there are various accounts of Jewish people pretending not to be Jews to escape persecution at the hand of the Nazis. Are they all liars and or criminals? According to you: yes. According to the vast majority of the world: no. Do their actions condone and or promote lying? According to you: yes. According to the vast majority of the world: no. This is the main difference. This is what you are failing to grasp and this siw hy sites like ROP and JW are utter bull.
As I said before, getting your information from sites like ROP and JW is like getting your information on the civil rights movements, immigrants and non-whites from the likes of the BNP and the KKK. And, again, that website is inherently flawed in the way it collects those numbers. It states every attack or death in Iraq and Afghanistan, which are 2 war zones, and every gang attack/assault/killing, every domestic dispute and every random assault or murder as an Islamic terrorist attack. If we apply that logic to the US, with all its gang killings, assaults, murders and domestic disputes, we would have a much, much higher number and should we call that then Christian terrorism? But then again I dont expect an answer from someone who says: “By your logic, one would need written/videotaped confessions of every crime that is ever committed before convicting anyone.” Oh heavens forbid we actually have any proof before convicting someone.
“Quite frankly, your defense of the Islamic religion is the product of the propaganda of the various Islamic and pro-Islamic forces. If you believe that Islam isn't so bad, then I have this challenge: go to any majority-Islamic city (bar in Indonesia and Turkey - the two arguably secular Islamic states in the world), and start evangelising for anything other than Islam. It can be Christianity, Atheism, Judaism, etc., etc., etc.”
Before I do that, why don’t you go to Kings College and preach about creationism. Report back on the way you were treated. Or maybe go to a Church in Texas and start preaching Hinduism. Or... you get the idea.
“They simply count and record the Islamic-based terrorist attacks.”
And their only proof being that the attacks happened in a Muslim country. Otherwise, proof please that these attackers did it purely for Islam.
