A Muslim's perspective

[Infohawk]

pjabber, I think he's made it pretty clear in this thread he only wants to discuss the issues with people who agree with him. Not exactly open-minded...

 

[PJABBER]

pjabber, I think he's made it pretty clear in this thread he only wants to discuss the issues with people who agree with him. Not exactly open-minded...

We are mostly anonymous here, I invite him to tell us what he fears from the truth.

That he will be reviled by his peers in NY, that he will be ejected from Islam, that all that Islam represents is diametrically opposed to democracy and individual freedom, that Islam is highly misogynist (hey, this is why liberals LOVE Islam!) that Islam is hateful to those who are not Muslim, that Islam is only in small part religious but a whole lot more political and a whole lot more a conquest and governing system, that even more would be repulsed by the truth of what Islam intends?

The truth will set you free, but the lie enslaves us all, even those who accept the lie as their own.

 

[Orignal Earl]

We are mostly anonymous here, I invite him to tell us what he fears from the truth.

That he will be reviled by his peers in NY, that he will be ejected from Islam, that all that Islam represents is diametrically opposed to democracy and individual freedom, that Islam is highly misogynist (hey, this is why liberals LOVE Islam!) that Islam is hateful to those who are not Muslim, that Islam is only in small part religious but a whole lot more political and a whole lot more a conquest and governing system, that even more would be repulsed by the truth of what Islam intends?

The truth will set you free, but the lie enslaves us all, even those who accept the lie as their own.

It's funny, as I read your previous post and this one, I was constantly thinking of the rest of your posts and threads.
You spew the radical rights talking points and never blink.
It is a religion to you. Blind obedience
You can come and post back at me how its not true, but I know that its ok in your religion to lie to get what you need accomplished.

 

[routan]

pjabber, I think he's made it pretty clear in this thread he only wants to discuss the issues with people who agree with him. Not exactly open-minded...

Infohawk, i think you should perhaps have a read on what a "discussion" entails. It is impossible to reason or have a discussion with some members on AT, such as, yourself, and pursuing a fruitless endeavor is not something I would like to indulge in.

I am glad that dozens of other members have shared their opinions, and discussed issues. I am still a member here, and would be more than happy to provide my perspective on issues and my opinions.

 

[Infohawk]

Infohawk, i think you should perhaps have a read on what a "discussion" entails. It is impossible to reason or have a discussion with some members on AT, such as, yourself, and pursuing a fruitless endeavor is not something I would like to indulge in.

I am glad that dozens of other members have shared their opinions, and discussed issues. I am still a member here, and would be more than happy to provide my perspective on issues and my opinions.

It's only fruitless if you are close-minded, like yourself. When the going gets tough you just act like your above the debate when in fact you don't have any arguments left. For example, you could just answer pjabbers questions...

 

[routan]

It's only fruitless if you are close-minded, like yourself. When the going gets tough you just act like your above the debate when in fact you don't have any arguments left. For example, you could just answer pjabbers questions...

Infohawk, i could, and I have, but they have proven to be an exercise in futility. If I respond, and the person says the same thing again, then it is not a "discussion", and more of a statement.

Some members are not around here for a discussion. They are here to make statements. So the its not that the "going gets tough". Its that there is just no "going" at all 🙂

 

[Infohawk]

Some members are not around here for a discussion. They are here to make statements.

Yeah, that's you. Discussion usually involves a willingness to answer questions, like Pjabber did to you. Or look at evidence and challenge it or agree with it.

 

[routan]

Yeah, that's you. Discussion usually involves a willingness to answer questions, like Pjabber did to you. Or look at evidence and challenge it or agree with it.

Infohawk, you just proved my point. You are here to make a statement. I explicitly stated that I have replied to questions that PJABBER had asked and added more commentary in my previous post.

After having explicity stated that, you still repeat your same charge. Hence there is no purpose to a "discussion" with you.

edit: can you also please clarify which of my questions has PJABBER replied to, and why your definition of a discussion involves myself solely answering questions?

 

[OutHouse]

Hey, hey, hey! Look what crawled up from underneath his barstool! Our favorite fake SAS trooper lager lout!

Whatever you say you retarded piece of shit.

lol thats funny.

 

[woolfe9999]

Yeah, that's you. Discussion usually involves a willingness to answer questions, like Pjabber did to you. Or look at evidence and challenge it or agree with it.

No one is bound to reply to 10,000 words of spam dump. Pjabber is free to choke off the bandwidth of an entire internet backbone if he so chooses, discussing every collateral issue under the sun that is of personal interest to him. That doesn't mean anyone is required to respond to each and every point of minutia raised.

Pjabber often reminds me of:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=Gish_gallop

- wolf

 

[PJABBER]

Infohawk, you just proved my point. You are here to make a statement. I explicitly stated that I have replied to questions that PJABBER had asked and added more commentary in my previous post.

After having explicity stated that, you still repeat your same charge. Hence there is no purpose to a "discussion" with you.

edit: can you also please clarify which of my questions has PJABBER replied to, and why your definition of a discussion involves myself solely answering questions?

Actually, routan, you don't answer questions at all. Even the most interested person here has not learned anything of Islam from your non-responses, nor about the Cordoba Mosque that you and your imam want to build up in lower Manhattan.

On the other hand I have spent a considerable amount of time pointing to a variety of learned sources and multiple references in describing political Islam. None of my statements were factually challenged by you, as you, instead, chose the low road of attacking the messenger rather than the message, which continues to stand.

The latest set of questions that I posed to you are not about the Cordoba mosque, they are not about the history of Islam, they are not about the backgrounds of your associates, they are inquiries into your true beliefs.

I will pose them to you again and challenge you to answer them fully and truthfully, as I did myself when challenged.

Do you believe sharia should be the law of the land in America?

Do you believe that sharia compliance should be a factor in how life is lived in America? For Muslims? For non-Muslims?

Do you believe a parallel system of sharia law should exist in the United States, side by side with American constitutional law?

Do you live a life bound by sharia, above and beyond the laws of the United States?

Do you believe that faithful Muslims have a right, or an obligation, to live lives bound by sharia law above or instead of American constitutional law?

Do you advocate in your community that this "right" to live a sharia compliant life is an actual obligation if you are Muslim?

How do you treat someone who only accepts part of sharia and speaks out that the part that they reject is anti-American?

How do you treat someone who is Muslim but rejects sharia law entirely for other rules and standards for a good life?

Should a faithful Muslim fall in love and marry a polytheist, will you accept the spouse as an equal in your Muslim community?

Will you welcome a homosexual couple, married under the liberalized laws of New York or the US, as Muslims, with all the benefits and privileges of being Muslims, in your mosque?

If America rejects sharia, formally and officially, wherever and whenever it rises, will you be loyal to America or to Islam?

 

[Infohawk]

Infohawk, you just proved my point. You are here to make a statement. I explicitly stated that I have replied to questions that PJABBER had asked and added more commentary in my previous post.

After having explicity stated that, you still repeat your same charge. Hence there is no purpose to a "discussion" with you.

edit: can you also please clarify which of my questions has PJABBER replied to, and why your definition of a discussion involves myself solely answering questions?

You seem to be suggesting because I don't automatically change my mind in response to your "statements." You have to actually make reasonable arguments to change people's minds. You haven't done that.

I apologize for confusing you with loopy, who actually addressed PJABBER's questions (albeit by parroting them back to him and replacing Christianity with Islam).

My definition of discussion doesn't solely involve you answering questions. Not sure why you think that.

I could say there is no point to a discussion with you either, as you are intellectually dishonest. Instead of focusing on the issues you're more concerned with labeling other people as not willing to have a real discussion so that you don't have to respond to them.

 

[Infohawk]

No one is bound to reply to 10,000 words of spam dump. Pjabber is free to choke off the bandwidth of an entire internet backbone if he so chooses, discussing every collateral issue under the sun that is of personal interest to him. That doesn't mean anyone is required to respond to each and every point of minutia raised.

Pjabber often reminds me of:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=Gish_gallop

- wolf

Of course Routan doesn't HAVE to respond to anything. But he started this thread with the idea that he was an actual NYC Muslim willing to discuss the issues as opposed to what is heard on the news. Then when people challenge him he backs down and claims its because OTHERS are not willing to have a real debate. I'm going to call BS on that.

Even from the get go he made it clear how he thinks and argues:

Another criticism has been towards Imam Faisal. One can debate on and off about his past comments. There is no point in speaking to his defense. He is an American who has been soundly recognized and commended by the elected government of my country, this country.

Translation: "I don't care what he said. I'm not even willing to discuss it. He's a good guy. (With no support or evidence or rational arguments to support the statement that he's really a good guy)."

You see pjabber spamming, I see him posting links support for his arguments. I don't see a problem with that and I'm not persuaded by your conclusory allegations that he's spamming. Routan could simply point out how the sources are irrelevant or false. People do that all the time on this forum.

 

[woolfe9999]

Of course Routan doesn't HAVE to respond to anything. But he started this thread with the idea that he was an actual NYC Muslim willing to discuss the issues as opposed to what is heard on the news. Then when people challenge him he backs down and claims its because OTHERS are not willing to have a real debate. I'm going to call BS on that.

Even from the get go he made it clear how he thinks and argues:



Translation: "I don't care what he said. I'm not even willing to discuss it. He's a good guy. (With no support or evidence or rational arguments to support the statement that he's really a good guy)."

You see pjabber spamming, I see him posting links support for his arguments. I don't see a problem with that and I'm not persuaded by your conclusory allegations that he's spamming. Routan could simply point out how the sources are irrelevant or false. People do that all the time on this forum.

Pjabber asked Routon some 15 odd questions about Sharia law and you're now demanding that Routon answer all of them. Yeah, that is the very definition of Gish Galluping.

How about this approach.

Yo, Routon. What do you think about Sharia law? Should it be adopted in the US or what?

- wolf

 

[Infohawk]

Pjabber asked Routon some 15 odd questions about Sharia law and you're now demanding that Routon answer all of them. Yeah, that is the very definition of Gish Galluping.

How about this approach.

Yo, Routon. What do you think about Sharia law? Should it be adopted in the US or what?

- wolf

Routan has already given his "What you think about sharia law" position. If I recall correctly, it was some weaselish comment about how Sharia isn't inconsistent with US principles. I think getting more specific usually helps a debate. Apparently you don't.

I'm less concerned with the specifics of that post and more concerned about the general attitude Routan has towards opposing viewpoints on this forum. So far he's basically thanked all the left-wing posters for their thoughts and made excuses not to continue discussing the issues with conservative posters. Again, that's a close-minded attitude to have and in this case is also intellectually dishonest since his claimed reasons to stop discussion are not his actual reasons.

Nobody's saying he has to agree or even argue with conservative posters, but I'm going to call BS when he says it's because they're not interesting in having an actual debate. In fact, HE's the one who's unwilling.

 

[woolfe9999]

Routan has already given his "What you think about sharia law" position. If I recall correctly, it was some weaselish comment about how Sharia isn't inconsistent with US principles. I think getting more specific usually helps a debate. Apparently you don't.

I think I see what your problem is. It's revealed by the fact that you characterize his statement against Sharia law in the US as "weaselish." You don't believe there is such a thing as a moderate Muslim, and Routon is really bothering you because his very existence on this forum challenges that perception. Instead of taking his condemnation of terrorism at face value, and saying, for example, it's nice to see a Muslim speaking out against it, more should do so, you've been finding ways to attack him since the beginning of the thread.

You're clearly obsessed with Islam, more than anyone else on this board. You even find ways to bring the subject into threads having nothing to do with it. What happened? You have an Islamic neighbor and his dog regularly shits on your lawn? Seriously man. Get over it.

- wolf

 

[bfdd]

sorry woolfe9999, but I have to agree with Infohawk. routan has been "weaselish" when it comes to people with differing viewpoints as his own. He really has not answered any "hard" question posed to him. Sure Infohawk comes down on Islam a lot, but that doesn't mean he isn't right now.

 

[soulcougher73]

It's only fruitless if you are close-minded, like yourself. When the going gets tough you just act like your above the debate when in fact you don't have any arguments left. For example, you could just answer pjabbers questions...

Yeah this is why i gave up on this thread along time ago. He only answers what is convienent and will somehow further his idealolgy. But challenge it with anything of substance and he backs down sayings its below him etc. Yada yada. Bury your head in the sand somemore.

 

[Infohawk]

I think I see what your problem is. It's revealed by the fact that you characterize his statement against Sharia law in the US as "weaselish." You don't believe there is such a thing as a moderate Muslim, and Routon is really bothering you because his very existence on this forum challenges that perception. Instead of taking his condemnation of terrorism at face value, and saying, for example, it's nice to see a Muslim speaking out against it, more should do so, you've been finding ways to attack him since the beginning of the thread.

You're clearly obsessed with Islam, more than anyone else on this board. You even find ways to bring the subject into threads having nothing to do with it. What happened? You have an Islamic neighbor and his dog regularly shits on your lawn? Seriously man. Get over it.

- wolf

You stoop to attacking my motives so I can only assume you have no legitimate arguments.

I often challenge the claims made about moderate Islam made on this board. Frequently what is considered moderate isn't really moderate. I have taken Routan's comments at face value. For example he defended the Taliban's right to destroy bhuddist statues. To me that's not moderate. That's great that he condemns terrorism. I'm not sure how that's relevant to our discussion. I don't advocate killing Muslims. Again, not really relevant. And I like how you say I've been "attacking" routan since this thread started. I've challenged him along with many others. It is some how wrong for me to keep participating in this thread? I'm sorry that makes you feel so uncomfortable. Maybe you and routan would have liked to have had a nice discussion about things you agree on. Guess what? This is P&N. You're going to get challenged.

The opposition to my views on Islam reflect the "obsessions" of others just as much as my alleged obsessions. I post about new media vs. old media and I get 11 responses with no angry rebuttals. That's fine with me. I post about Islam and I get pages of angry rebuttals and attacks. And then when I respond to those rebuttals I'm accused of being obsessed. If you see me posting a lot about Islam it's probably because respond to me about Islam and I tend not to back down like Routan. Hey, if it makes you feel better to think that critics of Islam are unreasonable people who must have some personal issues, then that's good for you. Maybe it just relieves you of having to come up with reasonable arguments.

 

[woolfe9999]

sorry woolfe9999, but I have to agree with Infohawk. routan has been "weaselish" when it comes to people with differing viewpoints as his own. He really has not answered any "hard" question posed to him. Sure Infohawk comes down on Islam a lot, but that doesn't mean he isn't right now.

I respect your opinion, but I've read the thread pretty closely. I don't agree with Routon on every point. In fact, I disagree with him almost half the time, and I think he rationalizes some bad conduct among Muslims. I also think he's answered lots of questions posed to him by people who disagree, but the people who disagree don't like the answers and are trying to paint him as intolerant. No, he hasn't answered every single question. He's been asked a lot of questions, especially by pjabber.

Infohawk has been dogging him since early in the thread, has straw manned him, and has trying to paint him as intolerant since about page 3. Infohawk is on a mission to denigrate Islam for reasons I think only he fully understands.

I personally think its useful to have Muslim's perspective on issues and I don't really expect that I'm going to agree with everything he says.

And bear in mind, I speak as someone who is not terribly pro-Islam. I am half Jewish, pro-Israel, and very critical of Islamic extremists and jihadists, and also an atheist not terribly fond of religion in general. But that is my take on Infohawk.

- wolf

 

[Infohawk]

Infohawk has been dogging him since early in the thread, has straw manned him, and has trying to paint him as intolerant since about page 3. Infohawk is on a mission to denigrate Islam for reasons I think only he fully understands.

- wolf

Maybe you shouldn't be so quick to talk about straw mans when you're attacking someone's motives? I've made it very clear I think Islam is a barbaric superstition. Maybe instead of attacking my motives you could actually address my underlying claims?

 

[werepossum]

I respect your opinion, but I've read the thread pretty closely. I don't agree with Routon on every point. In fact, I disagree with him almost half the time, and I think he rationalizes some bad conduct among Muslims. I also think he's answered lots of questions posed to him by people who disagree, but the people who disagree don't like the answers and are trying to paint him as intolerant. No, he hasn't answered every single question. He's been asked a lot of questions, especially by pjabber.

Infohawk has been dogging him since early in the thread, has straw manned him, and has trying to paint him as intolerant since about page 3. Infohawk is on a mission to denigrate Islam for reasons I think only he fully understands.

I personally think its useful to have Muslim's perspective on issues and I don't really expect that I'm going to agree with everything he says.

And bear in mind, I speak as someone who is not terribly pro-Islam. I am half Jewish, pro-Israel, and very critical of Islamic extremists and jihadists, and also an atheist not terribly fond of religion in general. But that is my take on Infohawk.

- wolf

I also would be interested in seeing Routan's answers to PJabber's questions, although I would take them with the grain of salt demanded of a religion that specifically allows and even encourages its adherents to lie to "infidels". (Sorry, Routan, nothing personal and no intended slight to your honor, but I do not fully trust Muslims I don't know simply because of this. I'd still be interested in your answers.) I'd post my own, but my positions are pretty clear so that would add nothing.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

It is very obvious that most people in this thread don't know any Muslims personally. Most all the Muslims that I know are moderate. They're against terrorism in the name of Islam and don't follow the idea of sharia law.

 

[woolfe9999]

You stoop to attacking my motives so I can only assume you have no legitimate arguments.

I often challenge the claims made about moderate Islam made on this board. Frequently what is considered moderate isn't really moderate. I have taken Routan's comments at face value. For example he defended the Taliban's right to destroy bhuddist statues. To me that's not moderate. That's great that he condemns terrorism. I'm not sure how that's relevant to our discussion. I don't advocate killing Muslims. Again, not really relevant. And I like how you say I've been "attacking" routan since this thread started. I've challenged him along with many others. It is some how wrong for me to keep participating in this thread? I'm sorry that makes you feel so uncomfortable. Maybe you and routan would have liked to have had a nice discussion about things you agree on. Guess what? This is P&N. You're going to get challenged.

The opposition to my views on Islam reflect the "obsessions" of others just as much as my alleged obsessions. I post about new media vs. old media and I get 11 responses with no angry rebuttals. That's fine with me. I post about Islam and I get pages of angry rebuttals and attacks. And then when I respond to those rebuttals I'm accused of being obsessed. If you see me posting a lot about Islam it's probably because respond to me about Islam and I tend not to back down like Routan. Hey, if it makes you feel better to think that critics of Islam are unreasonable people who must have some personal issues, then that's good for you. Maybe it just relieves you of having to come up with reasonable arguments.

I'll let others on this board, who are also familiar with the totality of your postings here, judge your degree of obsession versus that of others. I have given my opinion on that subject.

It's funny that you mention Routon's comments about the Taliban destroying Buddhist statues. Routon first brought up that subject, and condemned the act. He later condemned it again, but this is what he said, in full context:

You can make the same argument for anti-semitic speech. Nonetheless, sensible people do not indulge in anti-semitic speech.

I also mentioned the Taliban destroying the Buddha Statues. They had EVERY right to do so in their country. That does NOT make it right.

His point, quite clearly, was that just because someone has the "right" to do something doesn't make it the right thing to do. And he's quite correct in both aspects of the analogy. The Taliban did technically have the "right" to do what they did. They were the government there. But, Routon points out repeatedly, it was WRONG for them to do it, and thus completes his analogy.

Was your takeaway from what he wrote a fair one?

You're welcome. I hope other posters have noted your defense of destruction of historic Bhuddist monuments and badmouthing of websites that you aren't even willing to look at. Don't worry though, Hayabusa Rider is your fan and he holds the keys.

No, I'm afraid you have not taken his statements "at face value." You are, instead, trying to spin his remarks to paint him in the poorest possible light, hoping that others of similar attitude will accept your characterization of him uncritically.

- wolf

 

[routan]

You stoop to attacking my motives so I can only assume you have no legitimate arguments.

I often challenge the claims made about moderate Islam made on this board. Frequently what is considered moderate isn't really moderate. I have taken Routan's comments at face value. For example he defended the Taliban's right to destroy bhuddist statues. To me that's not moderate. That's great that he condemns terrorism. I'm not sure how that's relevant to our discussion. I don't advocate killing Muslims. Again, not really relevant. And I like how you say I've been "attacking" routan since this thread started. I've challenged him along with many others. It is some how wrong for me to keep participating in this thread? I'm sorry that makes you feel so uncomfortable. Maybe you and routan would have liked to have had a nice discussion about things you agree on. Guess what? This is P&N. You're going to get challenged.

The opposition to my views on Islam reflect the "obsessions" of others just as much as my alleged obsessions. I post about new media vs. old media and I get 11 responses with no angry rebuttals. That's fine with me. I post about Islam and I get pages of angry rebuttals and attacks. And then when I respond to those rebuttals I'm accused of being obsessed. If you see me posting a lot about Islam it's probably because respond to me about Islam and I tend not to back down like Routan. Hey, if it makes you feel better to think that critics of Islam are unreasonable people who must have some personal issues, then that's good for you. Maybe it just relieves you of having to come up with reasonable arguments.

Infohawk, can you point out to where I have suggested that?