• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Ibn Warraq on Imam Rauf

I'm sorry, but killing people and burning down businesses because you think you are being discriminated against is not extreme to you? Or is this a joke? His argument about the concern for people who hurt others and cause damage in the name of Islam are extremists and don't represent mainstream Islam. So using his definition they are indeed extremists.

People who riot over sports are extremists. They take something that should be peaceful and take it to extremes. That's kinda what the word means. Are you suggesting that people who burn buildings and hurt others over the outcome of a sports game are moderate?

It's a rather idiosyncratic definition of "extremist" to say that anyone who commits extreme or violent acts is an extremist. The generally excepted definition of extremist is one who holds to an extreme, i.e. very literal and uncompromising, position as a political or religious ideology. Of course, extremists of any stripe or more likely to resort to violence, but football hooligans are hardly extremists simply because they like to fight and break stuff.
 
You don't pronounce it, you just peruse the web to find things to attack his reputation with.

At least that's what the Leftist crowd has done in this thread.

Oh, the irony of it! Weren't you trying desperately to slander a science journal with baseless allegation rather than admit that there is a problem with birth defects and cancers in Fallujah? The raging hypocrisy of you people never ceases to amuse. :p
 
It's a rather idiosyncratic definition of "extremist" to say that anyone who commits extreme or violent acts is an extremist. The generally excepted definition of extremist is one who holds to an extreme, i.e. very literal and uncompromising, position as a political or religious ideology. Of course, extremists of any stripe or more likely to resort to violence, but football hooligans are hardly extremists simply because they like to fight and break stuff.

Sounds to me like both fit the definition exactly, only it does not have to be political or religious. And yes Football hooligans who take their sports idiology so serious that they feel the need to harm others certainly would be extremists in the context of sports.

People who go killing others because of a burned book are unquestionably using extremist behaviors.

But again, the point being that many of these moderates can easily be turned into extremists from things as petty as burning a book or people finding their religions actions bigoted. I am sure there are people protesting the Mosque who might get violent as well and that is extremist behavior.
 
If it was any other Imam trying to build the same project, it would still be opposed. This talk about Rauf is just a red herring.

Actually in this thread just the opposite. Many have no problem with the Mosque being built, but do have a problem with Rauf. This thread isn't really about the Mosque being built so much as it is Rauf.

But of course I don't think many people will disagree that there would be opposition to the Mosque without Rauf. And I think most everyone would agree that is against the mosque that they were against it before they even knew who was behind it.
 
Sounds to me like both fit the definition exactly, only it does not have to be political or religious. And yes Football hooligans who take their sports idiology so serious that they feel the need to harm others certainly would be extremists in the context of sports.

"Sports idiology"? Really? Look, you can apply any silly definition to a word you like, just don't expect others to follow your lead.

Incidentally, I made no argument about the term applying or not applying to any particular group besides football hooligans. You didn't mention book burning at all in the post I was responding to. Someone who commits violence "in the name of Islam" obviously has an ideology, so assuming the characterization is accurate they would indeed fall under the term "extremist".
 
"Sports idiology"? Really? Look, you can apply any silly definition to a word you like, just don't expect others to follow your lead.

No, trying to use a sports analogy was the silly part.

Websters:
Extremist - advocacy of extreme measures or views

So forgive me for using those silly dictionary definitions and the definitions used by the person we are discussing.

Incidentally, I made no argument about the term applying or not applying to any particular group besides football hooligans. You didn't mention book burning at all in the post I was responding to. Someone who commits violence "in the name of Islam" obviously has an ideology, so assuming the characterization is accurate they would indeed fall under the term "extremist".

Which further demonstrates my original response that it had nothing to do with what I was discussing. And who here said people who commits violence in the name of Islam would not qualify as an extremist? I have been saying that since post 1. You seem to disagree with me until this post. Though one does not require an ideology to be an extremist.
 
I really can´t wait for amb or someone else to post a bunch of inane drivel that completely invalidates your post and proves that all muslims are still vile terrorists.

Attack the argument, not the arguer.
 
The only thing Rauf said he agreed with bin Laden on was that "we ally ourselves with oppressive regimes."

Which is true. Lots of people -- not just lunatics like bin Laden -- complaint that America allies itself with oppressive regimes like Saudi Arabia and Musharraf's Pakistan. Or that we allied with the Shah of Iran. Or with Saddam Hussein.
The also complain when we oppose oppressive regimes. They also complain when we ignore oppressive regimes.

Some days it's just not worth getting out of bed.

Rauf did not say he agrees with bin Laden on all of bin Laden's rantings. I don't even know where you could imagine he said that. He said that America's policies helped make bin Laden as successful as he was. Which is undoubtedly true.
Helped? As in "were a factor of unspecified quantity in the overall process"? Yes, that's probably correct.

All his words mean is that America should be more careful when it allies with oppressive regimes.
Which, in the Middle East, leaves... Israel and the new Iraq. And yet we get in trouble for those as well.
 
The also complain when we oppose oppressive regimes. They also complain when we ignore oppressive regimes.

Some days it's just not worth getting out of bed.
...

Which, in the Middle East, leaves... Israel and the new Iraq. And yet we get in trouble for those as well.

Would you feel better if you were not criticized at all?
 
I know you didn't, but isn't that a consequence of your reading?
No, it isn't. In no way is it a consequence of my reading that Khomeini created the rule of law, a principle first believed to be created by Hamurabi. The only consequence of my reading is that Khomeini's government replaced the cronyism of the Shah with courts that respected the rule of law (even if the laws themselves were draconian and cruel).

I mean, if he really did mean the general principle of the rule of law, he was saying that it was created by Khomeini in the 1970s.
In Iranian courts, in contrast to what came before -- the Shah's courts of monarchical cronyism. There's nothing very remarkable of that statement.

But again, he is not talking about the general principle of the rule of law. He really does speak about Islamic rule of law.
Because that's the flavor of rule of law that Khomeini instituted. but he's not praising the Islamic part of it. He's praising the rule of law part.

I don't see that he wrote it in support of the demonstrators. Rather, he is reassuring the Iranians (especially the youth) that their voices were "heard and respected", because Khamenei - the Supreme Leader - says so.
That is not what you quoted says. He said Khameini's expression that the Iranians were "heard and respected" "set the right tone". He did not say that because Khameini said it, it must be true.

Rauf is talking about a plan for easing tension between Iran and the United States and clearly part of his plan is "government that expresses the will of the people; a just government ... a peaceful and harmonious Iran that has the unquestioned support of a majority of its population."

I don't see how you can read these words and think that Rauf is in anyway expressing support for the current regime in Iran. What he is looking for is a peaceful way that American can encourage Iran to become the above-quoted nation.

Obama should express his administration's respect for the Khomeini-style principle of the rule of law in order to reassure the Iranian public that the election has "confirmed the legitimacy of the ruler". Because the legitimacy is based on said principle.

That's my reading anyway. :)
There is absolutely nothing in Rauf's article that says that Rauf believes the election confirmed the legitimacy of the current ruler of Iran. In fact he asks, rhetorically, "Now, on the streets of Teheran and undoubtedly in high political circles behind the scenes, Iranians are asking themselves, has this election confirmed the legitimacy of the ruler?"

Rauf clearly does not believe that the election confirmed Ahmadinejad's legitimacy or that Iran is a peaceful and harmonious Iran that has the unquestioned support of a majority of its population. Quite the contrary -- Ahmadinejad does not have unquestioned support. Iranian democracy has a long way to go to get to where American democracy is today.

So your reading does not comport with what Rauf wrote, either in tone or in words.
 
The also complain when we oppose oppressive regimes. They also complain when we ignore oppressive regimes.

Some days it's just not worth getting out of bed.
Yes. International diplomacy is hard. You have to choose from a variety of less bad choices, and no clear-cut good choices. Too bad. Boo hoo. The alternative is autarchy, and that's even worse.

Which, in the Middle East, leaves... Israel and the new Iraq. And yet we get in trouble for those as well.
That's true. Sucks to be us. Does that mean we shouldn't listen to people who want us to do better? No, it does not.

I don't necessarily agree with Rauf on all his international politics recommendations. Heck, I don't think Obama was strong enough in condemning the violence that Iran used to crack down on the protesters or the heinous way the government tried to blame the protesters for the militias and guardsmen who instigated the violence. But I can disagree with Rauf without thinking this means he's some sort of Islamic extremist or that his Islamic Community Center is some sort of terror camp or anything other than what he claims he wants it to be: a center of tolerance and understanding.
 
I was hoping you would read Rauf's column in Huffington Post and point out where I have misquoted him or misconstrued his message, because that's certainly possible (although it wouldn't be on purpose), but apparently that was too much to hope for.

No, you quote-mined accurately. You just have a creative interpretation that meets the needs of the preconceived conclusion you wished to draw.
 
No, atheist = no belief in any religions/gods.

You do not have to be against religion, merely because you yourself have no religion.

While you are pedantically correct, I do believe the point Johnny was making is that Atheism was being improperly painted as being merely anti-Christian when in fact Atheism rejects far more religions than Christianity. :D

(this is how I read the "anti" in Johnny's statement. It does not necessarily require an aggressive stance toward religion, merely that one is the opposite of religious - thus anti-religious)
 
You gotta remember
Atheist= antiChristian
Islam is a culture and opposition to it is therefore bigotry, or racism
At least, that is the impression I get from the posts here

oppressed.png
 
No, you quote-mined accurately. You just have a creative interpretation that meets the needs of the preconceived conclusion you wished to draw.

So it was too much to hope for.

I got a good response from marksman, though. Will read it and think carefully about it.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom