Why not war against Islam?

[Bill Thompson]

And as for your thereligionofpeace.com copypasta (you already posted links, why are you spamming the thread with the text?), you'll note how they heavily quote from Ibn Ishaq's biography of Muhammad, with a sprinkling of brief bits from the Qur'an and the two main hadith of Bukhari and Muslim. Note how they always list it as "Ibn Ishaq/Hisham".

That's because what they're quoting is Alfred Guillaume's 1955 reconstruction of Ishaq's book, formed by translating what Ibn Hisham quoted and said about what Ishaq wrote, with a few other quotations of Ishaq's work made by other medieval Arabic writers. He had to do that because Ishaq's original is long since lost, and only exists as quotations by other Muslim authors. Almost no Muslim authorities treat any part of the works quoted as authoritative in any way (that is, the hadiths that Ishaq wrote), because they're considered almost entirely unreliable. His work is also filled with errors and contradictions to other, more authoritative, sources, further impeaching its credibility as a historically accurate work.

In other words, as a source for what Muslims actually believe Muhammad said and did in his lifetime, it's useless. Even Ishaq's contemporaries like Malik bin Anas Bin Malik bin Abu Amir Al-Asbahi considered him a liar and fraud.

Only Islamophobes like thereligionofpeace.com cite it as any kind of reliable testimony regarding the life and deeds of Muhammad. That's why they cite it over and over, and never any other contemporary Muslim writer, nor any modern historical scholarship.

EDIT:

Why doesn't CAIR respond to their challenge then?
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/CAIR-Questions.htm

I posted the quotes because I thought you did not read the links.

Your comment that so-and-so or such-and-such is not a reliable source because you do not like what they say is the game that Scientologists and Mormons also play. The DNA proof against the Mormon Church was address by, at one time, attacking the faithful Mormons at BYU who discovered it. Scientologists smeer the people who speak out againt them as well. It seems like a similar game here. Is it?

"Islamophobes" reminds me too much of when I was called "anti-Mormon". It is a transparently bad personal attack. It is "Ad Hominim". Shows that you are the one using logical fallicies, not me.

 

[A'isha]

Why doesn't CAIR respond to their challenge then?

Probably for the same reason the National Science Foundation hasn't responded to Kent Hovind's challenge.

And no, you didn't respond to my points. You simply cut and pasted the contents of the pages you'd already cited, then in another post quoted a bit of the wiki entry on the Taliban that simply says that the allies of the Taliban fighting in Afghanistan were mostly foreign. But imported allied fighters are not the Taliban, any more than all the troops from NATO and other countries fighting alongside US forces in Afghanistan are Americans.

 

[Bill Thompson]

ANTPOGO, there once was a time when Muslims denied that Muhammad split the moon in two. They insisted that it was a lie made by anti-muslims to make Islam look silly.

But then came the images from the moon that kind of did look like the moon might have been split in two. Then notable "doctors" of Islam gave speeches proclaiming the miracle and all the talk that it had not happened disappeared.

You pick and choose who is and who is not a "reliable" source based on what they say.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Probably for the same reason the National Science Foundation hasn't responded to Kent Hovind's challenge.

And no, you didn't respond to my points. You simply cut and pasted the contents of the pages you'd already cited, then in another post quoted a bit of the wiki entry on the Taliban that simply says that the allies of the Taliban fighting in Afghanistan were mostly foreign. But imported allied fighters are not the Taliban, any more than all the troops from NATO and other countries fighting alongside US forces in Afghanistan are Americans.

I think that, if not for influences from Pakistan, the Taliban would not be what they are today. Or do you think this is not true?

 

[Cleon]

Why doesn't CAIR respond to their challenge then?

Because CAIR has better things to do with their time than jump through hoops for bigots who won't believe what they say anyway. It seems obvious to any reasonable person that several of CAIR's core principles answer the "challenge" quite nicely.

 

[A'isha]

Your comment that so-and-so or such-and-such is not a reliable source because you do not like what they say is the game that Scientologists and Mormons also play. The DNA proof against the Mormon Church was address by, at one time, attacking the faithful Mormons at BYU who discovered it. Scientologists smeer the people who speak out againt them as well. It seems like a similar game here. Is it?

No. It's a matter of when you're talking about what members of a particular religion believe, you should quote what those particular members you're referring to actually believe.

Discussing tenets of the LDS Church with Elders on their Mission, based on the materials they give me and what they themselves say about those materials (as I've done recently, having struck up a continuing dialogue with several in my area) is the equivalent what I'm trying to do here. What you're trying to do is the equivalent of wondering why America isn't fighting a War on Mormonism after quoting Warren Jeffs.

"Islamophobes" reminds me too much of when I was called "anti-Mormon". It is a transparently bad personal attack. It is "Ad Hominim". Shows that you are the one using logical fallicies, not me.

I'm interested in what Muslims actually say about their own faith, from the moderate like Imam Rauf to the extremist like Maududi. Islamophobes like Robert Spencer and thereligionofpeace.com aren't interested in what Muslims really believe. They're not even all that interested in what the most extremist Muslims actually believe. Instead, they're more interested in whatever can show Islam and Muslims in the worst possible light, even if they have to quote as authoritative sources that not even Muslims think are accurate.

If you get your information about Islam from a source that not even Muslims get their information from about Islam, what does that say about you? Especially when you favor that source over what actual Muslims say? Do you think Alberto Rivera is an accurate guide to Catholicism and what Catholics believe? When wanting to learn about Catholicism, would you read and quote only Jack Chick, and never once bother to read anything written by actual Catholic theologians?

 

[A'isha]

I think that, if not for influences from Pakistan, the Taliban would not be what they are today. Or do you think this is not true?

What does that have to do with your false claim that the Taliban were not Afghani, but foreign invaders from Pakistan?

 

[Bill Thompson]

Because CAIR has better things to do with their time than jump through hoops for bigots who won't believe what they say anyway. It seems obvious to any reasonable person that several of CAIR's core principles answer the "challenge" quite nicely.

Do you know this or are you assuming?
Is this fact or supposition?

Has CAIR ever been suspected of or accused of or caught funding Hesbola?

 

[Bill Thompson]

What does that have to do with your false claim that the Taliban were not Afghani, but foreign invaders from Pakistan?

Why do you answer questions with questions?

 

[A'isha]

ANTPOGO, there once was a time when Muslims denied that Muhammad split the moon in two. They insisted that it was a lie made by anti-muslims to make Islam look silly.

But then came the images from the moon that kind of did look like the moon might have been split in two. Then notable "doctors" of Islam gave speeches proclaiming the miracle and all the talk that it had not happened disappeared.

You pick and choose who is and who is not a "reliable" source based on what they say.

Who, specifically, are you referring to, and what exactly did they say?

 

[Bill Thompson]

No. It's a matter of when you're talking about what members of a particular religion believe, you should quote what those particular members you're referring to actually believe.

Time out. Answer this question. Do you think belief comes before research?

 

[A'isha]

Why do you answer questions with questions?

Why do you?

 

[Bill Thompson]

Why do you?

You first.

I asked you simply if you thought that the Taliban would be what they are without Pakistani influence. You ignored that questioin and asked me a different question. You first. You answer my question first.

I do not think this is a subject to be treated like a game. But you are making it so.

 

[A'isha]

Time out. Answer this question. Do you think belief comes before research?

What are you talking about? What does that have to do with the fact that many religious people, even Muslims, talk about and write about what they actually believe, very often by making reference to the writings and sayings of others in their religion who they think believe or believed the same way they did?

 

[Bill Thompson]

Because CAIR has better things to do with their time than jump through hoops for bigots who won't believe what they say anyway. It seems obvious to any reasonable person that several of CAIR's core principles answer the "challenge" quite nicely.

Cleon, do you think CAIR would do something like instruct its members to not speak to the FBI if questioned?

 

[A'isha]

You first.

I asked you simply if you thought that the Taliban would be what they are without Pakistani influence. You ignored that questioin and asked me a different question. You first. You answer my question first.

I do not think this is a subject to be treated like a game. But you are making it so.

Probably not substantially different, no. It's hard to tell, since the Pakistanis themselves are heavily influenced by Saudi Arabia, when it comes to their religious fundamentalism.

 

[Bill Thompson]

What are you talking about? What does that have to do with the fact that many religious people, even Muslims, talk about and write about what they actually believe, very often by making reference to the writings and sayings of others in their religion who they think believe or believed the same way they did?

Allow me to explain. You said you dismiss people based on what they believe. But if what they believe happens AFTER they have done research, then their belief is valid and unbaised.

Posner, for example, wanted to uncover the truth about the JFK assassination. He did not want to prove anything ahead of time. In fact he kind of thought that there was a conspiracy. But his research proved there was no conspiracy.

If you discount people who write books against Islam because of what they believe, you are not being fair. They might be against Islam AFTER they have done their research. In other words, maybe they did not set out to discredit Islam but it happened after they found some facts that were not reported much before.

 

[A'isha]

Cleon, do you think CAIR would do something like instruct its members to not speak to the FBI if questioned?

This might help you understand what happened.

And this might help you understand why the Muslim community in America is wary of the FBI.

 

[Cleon]

Do you know this or are you assuming?
Is this fact or supposition?

What's confusing you, exactly?

Has CAIR ever been suspected of or accused of or caught funding Hesbola?

Suspected? Sure, by bigots who suspect every Muslims of being somehow in cahoots with terrorists.

But nobody has ever produced any evidence that CAIR is involved in funding Hizballah, Hamas, or any other terrorist organization.

CAIR condemns all acts of violence against civilians by any individual, group or state.

 

[Bill Thompson]

What are you talking about? What does that have to do with the fact that many religious people, even Muslims, talk about and write about what they actually believe, very often by making reference to the writings and sayings of others in their religion who they think believe or believed the same way they did?

Is this why you assumed I was a religious person? Is this why you assumed I was "attacking Islam" because you figured I must have some strong faith in another religion?