Why the Negativity?
 

Why the Negativity?
By Thomas Paine
September 27, 2009

Exposing the negative aspects of islam are a necessary evil. It’ s impossible to have an educated citizenry if they don’t have all the information available. Once our citizens have all the information – the good, the bad, the ugly – they can accept or reject sharia…because that’s what islam wants for America.

For instance, perhaps most Americans don’t care that Muhammed married a 6 year old and had sex with her when she was only 9. [1] But Americans still have the right to know.

Perhaps Americans don’t care that islam endorses men marrying pre-pubescent girls, impregnating them AND divorcing them. [2][See quran 65:4] But Americans still have the right to know.

Otherwise, where do you draw the line? Who gets to decide what we, the People, should know? On this, there is no middle ground. We, the People, have a right to know. Just because islam (sharia) says you can’t speak negatively doesn’t mean we have to follow that rule – even if you can’t discuss islam at the United Nations (Google “united nations free speech” – see what you find out).

John Stuart Mill said that “Truth…has to be made the rough process of a struggle between combatants fighting under hostile banners.” [3] Paraphrasing: this is not a feel-good exercise, this is a pitched battle for control of We - the People, and ultimately the world. The stakes are high and the competition is fierce. The real issue should be whether or not we are presenting the information that is useful to our citizens. The tone of that information should be a secondary issue at best.

Adapting an argument from Professor John G. Geer [4] Why are the islamists so troubled by negativity? “Any deliberative process usually benefits from having criticism and debate…this is why islam prohibits questioning any aspect of it [5] and even makes the study of philosophy illegal. [6] Politics is rough and tumble…and religion is inseparable from state in islam.

Why isn’t it thought of in those terms?

Because islam attempts to hide it's politics behind a veil of religion, some are afraid to discuss the topic.

Why are we worried about “civility” while discussing such barbaric traditions, laws and customs? If some aspect of islam’s record is alarming, is it not important to raise that concern in an attention grabbing fashion?

Shouldn’t the public understand the seriousness of the problem?

Negativity plays an important and under-appreciated role in democracies. In fact, the practice of democracy requires negativity. The give and take of democratic politics demands that we know the good and bad points of issues and challenges. The opposition is well suited to discuss the weaknesses of the other side.

Therefore, in order to learn about the risks and problems associated with challenges, we need the opposition, in effect to “go negative.” When going negative, advocates can actually advance the debate, not undermine it. This simple point seems forgotten in many discussions about the subject.

There is an asymmetry between negative and positive debate appeals. For a negative appeal to be effective, the advocate of that appeal MUST MARSHALL MORE EVIDENCE, on average, than for positive appeals.

The public, like our legal system, operates on the assumption of “innocent until proven guilty.” An advocate of a position cannot simply assert their opposition is evil or wrong. They must provide some evidence for that claim. Which is why I constantly footnote so many of my posts – especially when referencing Islamic law.

Bottomline: NEGATIVITY PROMOTES DEMOCRACY.

Negativity can advance and improve prospects for democracy. Without negativity, no nation can truly think of itself as democratic.

John Stuart Mill said it best:
If the dissenting opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth;
if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of the truth, produced by its collision with error.”

Criticism can increase the quality of information available to [people] as they make decisions. To make good decisions, people need to know the past record of islam to help understand what islam will propose and attempt to do in the future. A central part of that information involves understanding the shortcomings of the “religion.”

The bottom line is that criticism is important because We, the People, must have the right and ability to raise doubts about islam. Otherwise, the public does not have access to full information “about the relevant alternative civilization and their likely consequences.”

If the public wants to have accountability, someone has to do the accounting and that accounting is not done through positive, feel-good appeals, but through harsh political attack where people are made aware of the problems of islam.

ANY effort to curtail the negativity is far worse than enduring harsh rhetoric, since it means that the ability of the opposition to hold the other side accountable for their actions would be weakened.

If negativity ever happened to disappear from our intellectual debates, we can safely assume that so would our freedoms and any chance we have to lay claim to being a democratic nation.
________________________________

Thanks to John Stuart Mill, Professor John G. Geer and Stephen Marks who were the inspiration for this article and are paraphrased heavily throughout.
________________________________
FOOTNOTES:
1. Bukhari, vol. 5, book 63, no. 3896; cf. Bukhari, vol. 7, book 67, no. 5158.

2. “If you are in doubt concerning those of our wives who have ceased menstruating, know that the waiting period shall be three months. The same shall apply to those who have not yet menstruated.” See Quran 65:4.

3. See a summary of “On Liberty” by John Stuart Mill at: http://www.publicbookshelf.com/publi...berty_cbe.html

4. “In Defense of Negativity” by Professor John G. Geer. Geer used political commentators, where I substituted islamists.

5. See “Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law.” Book R, “Holding One’s Tongue,” Paragraph r20.0.

6. See “Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law.” Book A, “Sacred Knowledge,” Paragraph a7.2(2).

7. John Stuart Mill in “On Liberty,” 79.

As a citizen of this Republic, I’m disappointed very few people are having dialogue about Islam except those of us who oppose it. The rest are just giving them whatever they want.
I feel we deserve to know the implications and the seriousness of this “Stealth Jihad” that’s taking place within our borders.

Last year I spent a fair amount of time with my daughter countering the skewed view of America, presented to her by her Muslim SS teacher - his main emphasis being the beauty of Shariah Law. A whitewashed view of Islam has crept into our children’s curriculum..
http://www.historytextbooks.org/islam.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6bARRmEpH8

But whose negativity is whose? And why is offering criticism a necessary evil? As I have neither the time nor desire to engage in what would assuredly become another overly lengthy e-debate on the theses of this editorial and its many leaps in logic - combined with such overtly negative language - which but lend themselves to challenge and criticism, I posit that histroical context is of great relevance when attempting to present any argument such as this one seeks to address, and will - therefore - only offer the following for those who may be interested in perhaps a better understanding of what Professor Telhami warns us of in his remarks to Congress:

It is primarily al-Qaeda and its allies as organizations that must be defeated. It is not terrorism broadly and it is not Islamism broadly.

<snip>

Given the deficient expertise in our bureaucracies in the languages, religions, and cultures of the Muslim world, we risk the chance of mistakes that could backfire, relying on locals who have their own agendas, and wasting precious resources. The strategy in the first place must remain focused on the operational and the logistical, not on what people say.

At the time of Muhammad's birth, women in 7th century Arabia had few if any rights. Even the right of life could be in question, since it was not uncommon for small girls to be buried alive during times of scarcity. In the Qur'an, it is said that on Judgment Day "buried girls" will rise out of their graves and ask for what crime they were killed. Part of Muhammad's legacy was to end infanticide and establish explicit rights for women.

Islam teaches that men and women are equal before God. It grants women divinely sanctioned inheritance, property, social and marriage rights, including the right to reject the terms of a proposal and to initiate divorce. The American middle-class trend to include a prenuptial agreement in the marriage contract is completely acceptable in Islamic law. In Islam's early period, women were professionals and property owners, as many are today. Although in some countries today the right of women to initiate divorce is more difficult than intended, this is a function of patriarchal legislation and not an expression of Islamic values. Muhammad himself frequently counseled Muslim men to treat their wives and daughters well. "You have rights over your women," he is reported to have said, "and your women have rights over you."

Muhammad was orphaned at an early age. He once remarked that, "Heaven lies at the feet of mothers." As the father of four daughters in a society that prized sons, he told other fathers that, if their daughters spoke well of them on the Day of Judgment, they would enter paradise.

Beginning from the time of Muhammad's marriage to his first wife Khadijah, women played an important role in his religious career. According to Muslim sources, Khadijah was the first person Muhammad spoke to about his initial, terrifying experience of revelation. She consoled him and became the first convert to Islam. She remained a confidant and source of support throughout their entire marriage. Though men commonly took more than one wife in 7th Century Arabia, Muhammad remained in a monogamous marriage with Khadijah until her death, when Muhammad was in his fifties.

By then, Muhammad was working to establish a new community. In that context, over the next 10 years, he married several women. In some cases, these marriages occurred in order to cement political ties, according to the custom of the day. In some cases, the marriage provided physical and economic shelter to the widows of Muslims who had died or who had been killed in battle, and to the wife of a fallen foe. Of all his marriages, only one appears to have been controversial, and it was to the divorced wife of his adopted son.

Only one of his wives had not been previously married. Her name was Aisha, the daughter of one of his closest companions. Aisha was betrothed to Muhammad while still a girl, but she remained in her parents' home for several years until she reached puberty. Years later, when absent from Medina, Muhammad often recommended that, if religious questions arose, people should take them to his wife Aisha. After Muhammad's death, Aisha became a main source of information about Muhammad, and on medicine and poetry as well.

Aisha's assertion that Muhammad lived the Qur'an became the basis for Muslims ever since to emulate his example.

Muhammad's daughters also played an important and influential role, both in his life and in the establishment of Islam. Most notable was his daughter Fatima, who is still revered by all Muslims, particularly Shiite Muslims.

Following the Battle of Uhud (625), in which scores of male combatants died leaving unprotected widows and children, Muhammad and the Qur'an decreed that, in order to protect the orphans of such families, men might take up to four wives. The permission itself is surrounded with language that discourages the very thing it permits, saying that unless a man can treat several wives equally, he should never enter into multiple marriages. The usual supposition in the modern monogamous West-that Islam institutionally encourages lustful arrangements-is rejected by Muslims themselves as an ill-informed stereotype. At the same time, Muslim feminists point out that in various cultures at different economic strata the laws of polygamy have frequently operated to the clear detriment of women. Polygamy is an uncommon occurrence in the modern Muslim world.

Today, Islamic legal and social systems around the world approach and fall short of women's rights by varying degrees. Muslims themselves generally view Islam as progressive in these matters. Many Muslim feminists hold the view that the problems presently hindering Muslim women are those that hinder women of all backgrounds worldwide- oppressive cultural practices, poverty, illiteracy, political repression and patriarchy. There is a strong, healthy critique of gender oppression among Muslim feminist authors and activists worldwide.

It would be anachronistic to claim that Muhammad was a feminist in our modern sense. Yet the same present-day barriers to women's equality prevailed in 7th century Arabia, and he opposed them. Because in his own lifetime Muhammad improved women's position in society, many modern Muslims continue to value his example, which they cite when pressing for women's rights.

http://www.pbs.org/muhammad/index.shtml

Richard's $.02
__
BT

Child Marriage. This photo wasn’t taken in the 7th Century.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_lmw6-zrPSi...fghanistan.jpg

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/....5870970c-500wi

According to UNICEF, 57 percent of marriages in Afghanistan involve girls below sixteen years of age. [1][2]

Stop. “The indemnity for the death or injury of a woman is one-half the indemnity paid for a man. The indemnity paid for a Jew or Christian is one-third of the indemnity paid for a Muslim.” [3]

In fact, by Islamic law:
“The husband may forbid his wife to leave the home.” [4]
“Men are already destroyed when they obey women.” [5]
When a wife commits rebelliousness, he (her husband) “may hit her, but not in a way that injures her, meaning he may not break bones, wound her or cause blood to flow.” [6]

And “A husband possesses full right to enjoy his wife’s person (A: from the top of her head to the bottoms of her feet, though anal intercourse is absolutely unlawful) in what does not physically harm her.” [7]

It would be easy to go on, but you can already see that this is simply not the case – women aren’t equal under Islamic law.

Bottom line: Richard’s quote would only be correct if it was listed as “Islam teaches NON-MUSLIMS that men and women are equal before God.”

Let’s look at just one of the rights listed above, marriage “rights.” For women in Islamic law Per Islamic law, the wife’s marital obligations include: “it is obligatory for a woman to let her husband have sex with her immediately when: a. he asks her, b. at home, c. and she can physically endure it. [8] But the wife does have the right to intercourse: “One should make love to one’s wife every four nights, as is fairest, since the number of wives on may have is four…” [9]

A reading of Book N “Divorce” in Reliance of the Traveller will show why this isn’t accurate. Islamic law is strictly derived from the Koran, sira and hadith. To say that Islamic law doesn’t reflect Islamic values simply isn’t correct. In fact, once scholarly consensus exists, the ruling becomes a part of sacred law – obligatory to obey and not lawful to disobey.[10] Further, “to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus belongs to it, or add a verse that does not belong to it…” entails apostacy from islam. [11]

Irrelevant. So what? He was a nice guy by only having one wife until he was 50? What has this got to do with our discussion?

This is the previously footnoted marriage to a 6 year old girl Aisha. But is suppose if you’re married at 9 years old, it’s not statutory rape. I know, I know – statutory rape didn’t exist back then. My point is, we – humanity – has evolved since then. Islam hasn’t. What was once good for islam will always be good for islam – for all time.

Stockholm Syndrome anyone? [13]

“It had been recognized many years before and was found in studies of other hostage, prisoner, or abusive situations such as:
- Abused Children
- Battered/Abused Women
- Prisoners of War
- Cult Members
- Incest Victims
- Criminal Hostage Situations
- Concentration Camp Prisoners
- Controlling/Intimidating Relationships”

Clearly Aisha, a young and impressionable young girl subjected to years of abuse, fits several of these categories.

Now there’s an example to follow:

Pedophile. An adult who is sexually attracted to a child or children. [14] Already discussed with Aisha.

Statutory Rape. Sexual intercourse by an adult with a person below a statutorily designated age. [15]

Psychopath. A person with an antisocial personality disorder, manifested in aggressive, perverted, criminal, or amoral behavior without empathy or remorse. [16] “The Prophet cut off the hands and feet of the men belonging to the tribe of Uraina and did not cauterise (their bleeding limbs) till they died.” [17]

Highway Robber, Thief. “The Apostle had gone out to meet the caravans of Quraish, but Allah caused them (i.e. Muslims) to meet their enemy unexpectedly.” [18]

Polygamist. One who practices having more than one spouse at one time.

Irrelevant fluff. Thanks for wasting our time.

This is part of the inflexibility of islam. You see, it’s in the books. It’s legal and once it is ijthad (a legal ruling), verified by scholarly consensus, it is an absolute legal ruling which cannot be contravened or annulled. [19]

(continued)

Response Continued and Footnotes
 

Really? Richard, you believe this?

FOOTNOTES:
___________________________
1. http://www.stolenchildhood.net/entry...ild-marriages/
2. http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1079316.html
3. Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, Book o “Justice,” see Paragraph o4.9
4. Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, Book m “Marriage,” see Paragraph m10.4
5. Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, Book p “Enormities,” see Paragraph p28.1(1)
6. Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, Book m “Marriage,” see Paragraph m10.12
7. Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, Book m “Marriage,” see Paragraph m5.4
8. Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, Book m “Marriage,” see Paragraph m5.1
9. Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, Book m “Marriage,” see Paragraph m5.2
10. Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, Book b “The Validity of Following Qualified Scholarship,” see Paragraph b7.2
11. Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, Book o “Justice,” see Paragraph o8.7(7)
12. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/polygamy
13. http://counsellingresource.com/quizz...olm/index.html
14. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pedophile
15. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...Statutory+Rape
16. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/psychopath
17. Hadith, Volume 8, Book 82, Number 795; Narrated Anas.
18. Hadith, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 287; Narrated Kab bin Malik.
19. Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, Book b “The Validity of Following Qualified Scholarship,” see Paragraph b7.2

Having read the Koran a couple of times I'm with WM on this one.

Astounding.

Richard
__
BT

Yeah know I have been around a while and have a few miles on my ass.

I can tell you that you can never lump every one in a specific group into one category. The shit heads (10-20%) usually make it bad for the rest.

I have known a few Muslims around the world from the US to AStan to Indonesia and all are not bad. I know that their cultural beliefs and religious beliefs clash immensely with our.

Bottom line we will have to deal with the nuts and extreme religious zealots before the moderates will be willing to step out and make their presence known.

If they wish to live in the dark ages so be it and and lets move them into a nice valley so they can do so. If they come in my back yard and knock on the door they will get a quick response from me. If they knock on the front door I will say hello and then kick them off the stoop. If they try to harm my family and friends and country I will track them down where ever they have run off to and cut their throats. If they leave me in peace and play in their valley I will do the same.

Shariah is not for me or our country so they better keep it in their valley.

We need to keep our perspective and not go psycho like they have or we are no better then they are.

I couldn't agree with you more.

My point isn't that all Muslims are bad. That's not it.
There are good Muslims.
The point is, there's no such thing as good islam.

Some people aren't picking up the distinction between Muslims and islam.

We figured this out in Germany in 1945.
Why is it so hard now?

Go read Mein Kampf. You keep saying, "but wait, I know a nice German..."
I agree! There are nice Germans.
That doesn't change the fact that Mein Kampf is the "bible" for an evil ideology.

A quote that I heard recently was "Love the Muslim, hate islam."

May I ask you a question, and I mean this in all sincerity. What is your plan for combatting Islam? On one hand you say that you believe Islam should be demoted in its religious status, that the Koran preaches nothing but hate for Jews/Christians. Islam allows for pedophila, and crimes against women and children. That Islam will NEVER change, can't be reasoned with, and is the antithesis for everything you hold dear.

Yet you just stated that you believe there are good Muslims. How does your rationale for their being good Muslims coincide with everything else you have ever stated about how evil Islam is.

If you were "king for a day" and could solve our problems with Islam, how would you go about doing it?

The question was not directed to me, but IMO, combating Islam in the war of ideas is a start. One example is Father Zakaria Botros, who is actively engaging Muslims and encouraging an open and honest discussion of Islam. See previous posts about Father Botros here

"As I love Muslims, I hate Islam"
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/...ad.php?t=20823

and here

"Islam is Most Certainly False"
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/...hlight=zakaria

Great question. If it were easy, we would have figured it out by now.

Your own public profile cites one of my favorite quotes from John Stuart Mill:
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

It may one day come to that. I hope not. But hope is not a method.

For now, I continue to study and learn - about ourselves and the enemy.
It's Sun Tsu ...know yourself and know your enemy.
Wish more people would do the same...spend some time studying the challges we face...especially more of our National Security "professionals."

Just this weekend, I finished Norman Podhoersts WW IV (his metaphor for the War on Terror) and re-read parts of Thomas Paine's Rights of Man. I frequently re-read the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.

I'm currently reading "Defeating Political Islam" by Moorthy S. Muthuswamy.
http://www.amazon.com/Defeating-Poli.../dp/1591027047

Dr. Sebastian Gorka pointed out that historically, militant islam has only been beaten back militarily.

Why? It is the aggressive, totalitarian doctrine of islam.

What happens when islamists lose militarily? It causes them to question their faith and their actions.

You see allah doesn't lose battles or wars. So they must be doing something against the will of allah.
Or they have to fall back on the much weaker argument that they were doing the will of allah, just the "timing" was wrong.

This is why handing over Afghanistan would be such a disaster. It reinforces their story that they can defeat super powers.

As a short digression, Dr Gorka had an interesting article in Foreign Policy not long ago worth reading:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...efeat_al_qaeda
Obviously I don't agree with everything in it, but I respect him and his assessment enough to share it with you.
You decide for yourself where you are on the Afghan surge and the war of ideas...

I wish there was an easy solution.

For now I will learn as much as I can to know ourselves and the enemy (which I will define as islamists).
I would encourage as many others as possible to learn about islam as well.

But not just the "Early Revelations" as is frequently used in our classrooms:
http://www.amazon.com/Approaching-Qu...4190727&sr=1-1

Because knowing about Progressive Revelation, Abrogation and Scholarly Consensus, for example, you'll understand that there's more to the story...so many of those "early revelations" (Mecca) have been abrogated by the later, aggressive militant ones...the ones "revealed" in Medina.

America created the internet as a form of communication to survive a nuclear holocaust. I hope that we can use this as a way to spread the full story...and ultimately let people decide for themselves. For now, I remain realistic, but hopeful.

I believe GEN Petraeus said it best "Hard is not hopeless."

Great thread - just fixed the link here:

Thanks for fixing the link.

Re-reading your question, I realized I may not have fully addressed it.

I believe that people are inherently good. And we want to believe others are good as well.

Despite islamist claims of racism when someone exposes islams warts, there's no racism there. What race is a Muslim, anyway?

Just as there are Catholics and Protestants who pick and choose, so too do Muslims. It violates the dogma of their religion, but they do it anyway. Just as Catholics are required to attend mass every Sunday and Holy Day of obligation, yet regularly skip this requirement....so too do some Muslims skip parts of the requirements of their faith. This really isn't that complicated, is it?

Many Muslims don't know their own faith in the level of depth that we have already discussed in the numerous threads here. I never studied Catholic Canon or Jewish Law. Why would an average practicing Muslim study islamic law?

Yet, it is that level of understanding required before the full extent of the problem is exposed. Before studying the black and white of the letter of islamic law, I didn't get it. I never put any credibility in comparing the Bible, the Torah and the Koran. I thought they were endless, unwinnable debates. "My God is better than your God."

It wasn't until it was a case of studying our Constitution and islamic law, that it became apparent that there was an actual way to evaluate this situation. That there is a way to compare them.

David Yerushalmi said it better than I could in his letter to Suhail Khan:
http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=32710

__________________________________________________ ____________
Before I forget, did you know the Koran is not arranged in chronological order?
Have you ever read it in chronological order? There are at least three different versions of the chronological order of the Koran (Jalalud-din, Rev. J.M. Rodwell, and Sir W. Muir). Yet all of them agree that Surah 9 is either 113 or the last surah chronologically. When you put that together with the idea of progressive revelation and abrogation, it means Surah 9 holds more "weight" than almost if not all of the other surahs.

Here's a quick guide that appears to be in accordance with Jalalud-din:
http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Chrono...r_of_the_Quran

Now when you read Surah 9:28, you can see that there's a reason that the "extremists" are cherry picking from the back of the book.

Two cents from a back bencher.
 

"Simple answers are not possible."* Or so concluded Ian Kershaw <<LINK>> when he addressed the place of Hitler, and by extension, Mein Kampf, in the history of Nazism. This is to say that professional historians of all stripes working on both sides of the Atlantic for over sixty years still don't know what it was all about.

Three small points.

• "Stockholm Syndrome" is not recognized in the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR [2000]). It remains to be seen if that syndrome will be recognized when DSM-V is published in a few years.
• Even if Stockholm Syndrome were recognized, the application of a modern psychological diagnostic protocol without an actual examination in a professional clinical environment (an examination that would include, among other things, a living person in the same room with the clinician) would be of questionable intellectual value and reflect, at best, questionable professional conduct. (FWIW, such an exercise would be very bad form among polite company.)
• The introduction of psychological concepts to a discussion centering around religious faith is problematic. Generally, psychologists frown on concepts of divine beings.** Case in point. I once asked a training analyst (a clinical psychoanalyst who trains aspiring psychoanalysts) if he believed in God. He smiled kindly at me, tilted his head back, laughed, and laughed some more. After a while, his face drained of all humor and said he didn't. Outmoded practices from the sixteenth century, he explained. (The laughter was appropriate--he was mentoring me, not analyzing me.)

A (rhetorical) question. Or three.

The first question academic historians--and others in the Ivory Tower--ask when assessing discussions/interpretations of primary source materials is this.

• Are the viewpoints based upon a reading of the documents in their original languages or weretranslated versions used?

This is a vitally important question. Translating a document is a form of editing. Editors make editorial decisions. Editorial decisions change the nature of a work. Hence, the second question is:

• What decisions did the translator make and why?

And from there comes a third question.

• To what extent do those decisions shape a discussant's experience with (and understanding of) a document, text, or tome?

How an individual addresses these questions often plays a vital role in establishing his (or her) credibility on a given topic. For this reason, Americanists often experience the reproachful glares of Europeanists who have more diverse language skills. John Lewis Gaddis abandoned his plans to be a historian of Russia in favor of American foreign relations because he had difficulty mastering Russian.** More recently, a prominent naval historian took a major professional risk by offering a new interpretation of Clausewitz after reading that theorist in English alone.***

This isn't to say that reliance on translated works is automatically frowned upon. The Standard Edition of The Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, ed. James Strachey, remains the foundation of the study of psychoanalysis in America. Most students are going to encounter The Iliad of Homer as translated by Robert Feagles (so far, I'm still not convinced his translation is superior to Richard Lattimore's, but who asked me?) But the viability of these works rests on the fact that the translations have been vetted by professionals who themselves have been vetted.
__________________________________________________ _____
* Ian Kershaw, Hitler, vol. 1, 1889-1936 Hubris (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1999), p. xxi.
** This information comes from an interview I had with R.A. Divine at the University of Texas at Austin on 22 April 1992. Divine was Gaddis's dissertation adviser. Always the paragon of humility, when asked what Divine did to train Gaddis, he would always respond "I got out of his way." (During his time at the Forty Acres, Gaddis was considered hands down the most skilled graduate student in the faculty's collective memory. Lewis L. Gould, introductory remarks, George W. Littlefield Lectures for 1992 given at the University of Texas as Austin, 30 March- 1 April 1992, lecture of 31 March 1992.)
*** John Shy, review of Jon Tetsuro Sumida's Decoding Clausewitz: A New Approach to On War, Journal of Military History, 73:2 (April 2009): 642-644. MOO, Shy's questioning of Sumida's ability to read German makes for a devastating review as devestating as Larry McMurtry's broadsides against Patricia Nelson Limerick (and others) in his, “How the West Was Won or Lost: The Revisionists’ Failure of Imagination,” The New Republic (22 October 1990):32-38. YMMV.

"Are the viewpoints based upon a reading of the documents in their original languages or weretranslated versions used? This is a vitally important question. Translating a document is a form of editing. Editors make editorial decisions. Editorial decisions change the nature of a work."

With respect, this is a cop out to me. It is saying that, you can't comment on Islam because you don't read Arabic. What naturally follow is that you can't understand the Arabic you read unless you understand Arab culture and you can't REALLY understand Arab culture unless you are Arab. Therefor no one but an Arab can comment on Islam. Nice position to be in.

However, regarding translator word choices, I would agree that the original language is important for scholarly understanding, but the English lang version of the Qu'ran that I have was translated with the intention of spreading Islam to the non-Arab, and yet it says the things that WM mentioned. So if it was edited to cast Islam in a favorable light.... it is an epic fail.

With respect, I believe your analysis overlooks a subsequent point in my post. IMO, there is at least one other way to address these questions. To use the parlance of the private sector, this approach is doing one’s intellectual due diligence.

To use an off topic example, I am not going to learn Russian. Nor am I going to invest a significant amount of time or effort doing any additional reading in Russian history. However, I am going to leverage the research that I have done on the translation of Russian literature into English if I decide to read any Tolstoy. Then I’ll being able to explain why I eschewed translations by Constance Garnett in favor of one’s by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky or by Louise Maude and Aymer Maude in the unlikely event I end up at some mixer hosted by a department of Slavic Languages and Literature and I want to make extended small talk with an Ashkenazi graduate student who spent her youth perfecting her take off for the Fosbury Flop. (Hey, I know what you’re thinking. You laugh now, but it could happen.:p)

Ultimately, attempts at intellectual due diligence may yield frustration. Any translation of War and Peace may be a ticket to the Land of Nod. Her sport of choice may be the shot put.:eek: Moreover, no one really understands anyone, especially the self. This uncertainty is magnified when one seeks to comprehend something as amorphous as culture or to bridge the gaps between modernity and that that is not. And then there are the gendered differences.

Sometimes, it one’s willingness to embark on this journey that makes the difference. You pound your head against a wall trying to understand something, you feel inadequate. Then you bounce your thoughts off someone who and they say “Yes,” or “Close enough,” or “Needs more thought” or “too much garlic” or “You were the only one who understood my point” or “I'd never thought of it that way...so, what do you think about....”

That is to say, one does the best one can to learn what one needs to know and then goes from there. (As long as the immediate destination is a locale that has some comfort food.)

• Do we non-QPs not place ourselves in a similar position when we come to this BB?
• Do we stay in our lanes by observing threads related to SF in silence simply because we know what will happen if we don’t?
• Or do we observe those threads in silence because we realize we have a rare opportunity to learn a small portion of a vast body of knowledge, experience, history, and culture?
• Should the fact that we like one domain of knowledge more than another domain shape how we approach either?:confused:

I appreciate the time you put into your post, but you really don't answer the question I posed. Do you believe there are such things as moderate Muslims that the US can deal with to reach our goals? Or are all those whose practice Islam inherently against what the US stands for, and thereby there are no means of dealing with them other than getting rid of them or marginalizing them to such a point that the religion becomes irrelevant?

Everything you have stated to this point leads me to believe that you see there may be moderate Muslims, but they may be worse than the fundamentalists in your eyes because they do not practice their religion to the letter of the Koran, and are thereby heretics. On the other hand, there are the fundamentalists who can never be dealt with other than through military might. That leads me to believe that your views would support the concept of eradicating Islam, or marginalizing it. If I am wrong, please feel free to correct me.

I didn't get that....
 

I didn't get that from his post.

They are the sea of Islam that the Islamist swims in. It is not us but the Islamist who have their eye on them.

Kind of a "We'll deal with you once we take over."

It is the "moderates" that allow the preaching of Islamist Immams and then are amazed that the young run off to train at Jihad.

WM has tried to point out the importance of how the Koran is written and what a believer of Islam must believe.

To a Muslim you can not pick this and that from the Koran. You take it as a whole.

So to remain Islam Islam can not be reformed.

Yes. The problem is, we aren't collectively smart enough to recognize there is a difference and who's actually helping and who's not.

Naziism is dead. But it's still not irrelevant. What you are proposing (making the religion irrelevant) is not realistically possible. And oil wealth prevents marginalizing them right now. Saudi Arabia's main export isn't oil. It's the violent wahhabi ideology.

Yes - there are moderate Muslims. No - they are not worse by any Western moral standard - they still have compassion for their fellow human.

You are right, there are fundamentalists who will never reform and must be dealt with militarily. If there were a magic wand or a time machine and we could prevent islam from being invented by Muhammed...that would be great. Just not going to happen.

Here's the challenge. We went through this in Western governments when we dis-established or separated church and state. Islam cannot be disestablished. The doctrine epitomizes antidisestablishmentarianism.

Sigaba,

Full answer is to get a copy of Ibn Warraq's Leaving Islam:
http://www.amazon.com/Leaving-Islam-.../dp/1591020689

Read the back of the book - the Appendix A if I remeber correctly (I have it a work).

The short answer is "Reliance of the Traveller" was written BY MUSLIMS for MUSLIMS. and it's a certified true translation as verified by the Syrians, Jordanians, Fiqh Academy at Jedda, President of the IIIT (Islamic Institute of Islamic Thought), Al-Azhar Islamic Research Academy.

This wasn't translated by some lone-wolf and it can't be accused of "orientalism."

Moderate Muslims?
I keep hearing the above words in the press and in this thread. Where are they. I keep hearing excuses for what the Koran is really saying. Where is their voice when a Car Bomb kills 36 civilians in Iraq. When I see thousands of them in the streets protesting the killing of innocent civilians and not chanting death to the West. Then ill take the words Moderate Muslims serious. Until then spare me the political correctness. Until they show some real support in fighting the so called Minority of Radicals. Ill still lump them all in the same Pool.

Moderate Muslims
 

We have a LOT of members of the Ismaeli sect in our area. In conversations with some of them they truly do seem to be moderates. As one of them told me, "if you think YOU hate the radicals, I hate them more. They are not true followers of the prophet. Plus, we are at the top of their kill list." When their leader (they do have a central authority figure) visited Houston several years ago I swear 80% of the convenience stores were closed so they could go hear him speak. Reading his comments in the paper he does speak out against the Islamists very forcefully. Seemed like a very good and decent person. They are admittedly a small percent when compared to the Sunnis and Shias.

Also, I have a question. The current regime in Iran excepted, have Shias traditionally been less prone to radical violence than the Sunnis? It seems like all the historical radicals have been Sunni but I don't know if I have a misperception. Thank you

[QUOTE=Dad;286027] They are not true followers of the prophet.
But according to the Qu'ran, they (extremists) ARE true followers. they are doing/living according to the book.

That's the rub, and IMO, the point of this thread. I appreciate that there are Muslims against the mayhem and mindset of terror groups, but there are also Catholics that are pro-abortion, jews that are agnostic, and protestants differ greatly amongst themselves on doctrinal issues. All of this "true follower" stuff can be resolved in one's own mind by picking up a copy of the qu'ran and seeing what "the prophet" said. Its not mysterious, but it is troubling.

[QUOTE=jw74;286031]So what do we do? If so called moderates are in fact not true followers of the prophet how do we deal with them? Ignore their existence? Or use them as a wedge against the fundametalists and hope that with our support they will be the lynchpin in calling for a "Islamic Reformation" against the fundamentalists. As has been stated by others, all the Muslims I know and have worked with believe the fundamentalist have hijacked their religion and turned it into something it was never meant to be. They have a voice, regardless of whether we believe a whisper is not as good as a shout in combatting the fundamentalist.

If the fundamentalists are the true followers of the prophet how do we deal with them? Call for their irradication, and appear in the eyes of the world to be no better than them?

The problem as I see it is the true interpretation of the Koran. I understand WM points in that there is only one true interpretation, but that is only true in academic discussions. There are obviously many interpretations of the Koran, in reality, because if there wasn't EVERY Muslim, EVERYWHERE would be a fundamentalist calling for the annihilation of everything not Muslim. And that is not reality.

Reality is the Muslim family that has children that attend the same high school as my children. They are not calling for death to America. Reality is the exchange officers from Pakistan, Turkey, Indonesia, Jordan, that I spent the last 18 months attending Naval Post Graduate School with, none of which were calling for death to America.

Once we recognize that Muslims practice many different forms of Islam, and not all are fundamentalists (whether that means they are true Muslims or not) we will get a better handle on who we can leverage, and who just needs to be removed from the face of the earth.

Not sure this is a valid comparison.

I worked with a lot of foreign military personnel over the years. The ones sent to the US were the ones who either believed that we were friends, or could pretend that we were. I doubt that too many radicals were selected for our programs.

Many of them said things in their own languages that they would not want translated. I am sure that many of our people do the same thing.

Every country I have been to, one of the most asked questions was always how I liked their country. No matter how big a cesspool it was, I always found something nice to say.

Appearances can be deceiving.

TR

Sir,

I agree with you, and I have to say that many of my dealing with them, while at school, were with this in mind. But I also got to know quite a few of them on a personal basis, out of school. I met their wives and their children. I was invited into their home for meals. I still speak with many via email. Call it naivete on my part, but those folks I call my friends, and they call me the same.

Do I believe that some of the students came to get what they could, and learn as much as they could for us, for nefarious purposes in the future? I would be a fool if I didn't.

Not like that...
 

I don't think it's like that. For the most part the people who you interacted with were exactly like you say. Friends and still are. People just doing what people do.

The rub comes when they have to start making choices. Choices can be big or they can be small. At some point they will be faced with my friends, my country - or Islam.

Good point,Pete....... They'll be choices alright,some good and some bad...... :mad: I'm afraid when it'll come down to that we'll see the real Islamists and we won't like what it will be.........:(

Big Teddy :munchin

My thoughts exactly.

I am concerned that there may be no such thing as a moderate Muslim only a lapsed one...?

Moderate indicates a solid belief system....lapsed indicates the possibility of duplicity for convenience.

Scimitar

If you’re willing, let’s do an informal test with your friends – I’m curious to find out what happens.

Nothing over-the-top. Just greet them with the traditional greeting among Muslims.

“as-Salamu ‘alaykum.”

Then listen closely to their response.

Here’s why, Reliance of the Traveller states:

P75.28 “By him in whose hand is my soul, none of you will enter paradise until you believe, and none of you will believe until you love each other.
Shall I not tell you of something which if you do it will create love among you?
Increase the custom of greeting each other with ‘as-Salmu ‘alaykum.’”

If they give you an “as-Salamu ‘alaykum,” great – you have real friends.

I suspect what you’ll hear is “alaykum as-Salamu.” Or some other variant like “Wa ‘alaykum” or simply “alaykum.”

Why?

Because it’s the law.

O11.5 “Such non-Muslim subjects are obliged to comly with Islamic rules that pertain to the safety and indemnity of life, reputation and property. In addition:

(3) “are not greeted with ‘as-Salamu ‘alaykum.”

R33.2 “…Scholars disagree about greeting non-Muslims with ‘as-Salamu ‘alaykum’ or returning their Salams. We hold that it is unlawful to say it to them first, though it is obligatory to return their greetings by saying ‘Wa ‘alaykum’ (and upon you), or simply, “Alaykum.’ Other scholars hold it is permissible to greet them first with ‘as-Salamu ‘alaykum’ "

R 32.6 A male “…should not …greet her with “as-Salamu ‘alaykum” (A: which is unlawful in the Shafi’I school) nor return her Salams if she says them.”

No offense, but I would never do that do a friend, knowing that in my heart I am testing them. Sorry, no deal.

The problem is...
 

The problem is you read WM's post.

It will now be in the back of your mind every time you get or exchange greetings in Arabic.

Your mind will be saying "Now what was that he posted?"

Or, perhaps, you are afraid of what you may learn about your friends.

My experience is limited to Arab Muslims as I have not been to Afghanistan yet. Many people here, especially the QPs, know that hospitality is a HUGE part of Arab culture. It was my job to meet with many of the locals around our AO in Iraq and almost everyone was friendly. They would often invite us in for tea and/or lunch. One of the local “reconciled” insurgents also was very helpful; too bad he was still running operations in the neighboring province.
My point is that I often saw behavior that we westerners would categorize as friendly, but many of these same people were involved either directly or indirectly with insurgent groups. The local sheiks would try to play us off against each other while their sons were out lobbing mortars at the base. By all appearances, though, they were moderates and very accepting of others. Most of the vets on this site saw the same thing daily and just as I did played the game, but they also grew eyes in the backs of their heads. I learned a lot about duality and appearances.
I have no doubts that some Islamic extremists in this country appear to be some of the most moderate and wonderful people you could ever meet. I also have no doubt that there are many truly moderate Muslims living here. The problem I see is by the time you figure out whether they are actually your friend or pretending to be it is too late. I can be friendly with them, but I just cannot let my guard down no matter what views they express to me.

Fair enough. Appreciate your honesty.

Consider it with a Muslim you just met or do not consider a "friend."

I was thinking about your statement driving in this morning...


The Logic Pattern:

___A___ requires ___B___ to do ___C___.

I know someone who is ___B___ and doesn't do what is required.

Therefore, ___A___ doesn't require it.


Let's fill in the blanks with a couple test runs:


Catholicism requires Catholics to attend church every Sunday.

I know someone who is Catholic and doesn't attend church every Sunday.

Therefore, Catholicism doesn't require it.

Clearly this isn't true.

Let's try another one:

Islam requires Muslims to wage jihad against non-Muslims.

I know someone who is Muslim and doesn't wage jihad against non-Muslims.

Therefore, Islam doesn't require waging jihad against non-Muslims.


Nope. That doesn't work either.

Maybe you and WM feel the need to test your friendships in such a way, I do not. I would never test a Christian friend in this manner, why would I do it to a Muslim friend? In my book, actions speak louder than words.

If you feel it is appropriate in your dealings with your friends, "have a nut" as my husband would say.

Therein lies part of the rub…
If only Islam didn’t contain the Doctrine of Taqiyya & Hudna…
Allah refers to himself as "Khayrul-Makereen", the greatest of all deceivers - Surah 3:54