As routan has withdrawn from any reasoned discussion of what Islam is, our resident apologist Earl has taken up the Islamist cause!
If the debate must continue, better with a willing apologist, ahem, participant than one like routan who withdraws in petulance when the discussion does not go his way.
Earl, are you into espresso? Best fire one up now! :awe:
BTW, thank you for reading my references. I spend an hour or two in researching what I post on if I am not already familiar with a topic, that is one of the reasons I have so much fun here!
But, offering a small snippet that misleads rather than elucidates is not going to further the argument!
Of course, some here do click through and read the whole reference and thus gain a full understanding, but I would rather a fuller quote be used so that we avoid the deliberate misleading of those who don't.
I got to say, I do learn from checking out PJabbers posts.
We all learn something here if we allow ourselves the time and effort to dig deep enough!
First I checked out his Park51 plans with his image link and found that they go along nicely with the purposed WTC memorial.
The one visualization that is provided of the proposed Cordoba Mosque is not sufficient to say that it does match the architecture of the rising World Trade Center structures. And it is but a proposal, not an actual architectural rendering anyway as best as I can tell. Think of it as a fluff photo meant to impress, highly likely to change if the project goes forward. FWIW, it may superficially resemble the WTC development but it does not in any way match the neighborhood in which it is located, for better or worse!
BTW, the Ground Zero developer was showing just how different the new buildings are going to be than the ones that were destroyed with the attendant loss of so many lives. Truly amazing design work in those new structures and much more likely to withstand an airliner crashing into them! Someone with an architectural background can speak better to this than I, but I was impressed at what they are doing there.
Then I read his link on the Muslim Brotherhood and see this
I am glad you read the linked Wiki article, but, like most Wiki references, it is incomplete. Which is why I almost always will try to provide a more expert reference like the one by Zeyno Baran, in this case one that focuses on the Brotherhood and the U.S. rather than Egypt, where the Brotherhood is a condemned organization for its violence.
In the Wiki article, the importance of the Muslim Brotherhood is almost understated. For all intents and purposes, the Brotherhood has been the main impetus for the violence (jihad) that has been waged against the non-Islamic world in modern times. Almost all the best known terrorist leaders have come from the Brotherhood. Only the Wahhabis can claim to be a greater instigator of violence.
The Brotherhood is a very good example of the dualism in Islam that I have made many references to above. In no other belief system do you have two diametrically opposed positions accepted as equally valid. For example, the Brotherhood proclaims a devotion to peace, but actively supports violence and jihad.
Then I looked up Yusuf al-Qaradawi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yusuf_al-Qaradawi
Apparently he views all Israelis as military because they all serve the military. But has nothing against Jews as a whole, and considers them brothers under Abraham.
The full quote here is,
Qaradawi has condemned attacks on all civilians except within Israel.
[52] He supports suicide attacks on all Israelis, including women and children
[53][54] since he views the Israeli society as a "completely military" society that did not include any civilians.
[55] He also considers pregnant women and their unborn babies to be valid targets on the ground that the babies could grow up to join the Israeli Army.
[56]
But don't give this guy a pass just because he focuses on Israel! Again, a further reading is
always required simply because of the inherent dualism in all Islamic thought. What anyone says about what is right for Muslims is definitely not the case for unbelievers.
Interesting and complex for sure.
Interesting to be sure, especially for anyone wanting to understand the political war that Islam wages.
As for Bill Warner, like Pjabber says, he has succeeded admirably.
Selling books is his game and he knows his market.
Warner is an academic that found most people were confused as to what Islam is all about.
For example, the Koran and related books are hella confusing without first having an understanding of the five principles of Islam, which is why I listed them above. I found the concept of dualism especially confusing, but once I grasped that a lot of the contradictions in Islam became much more understandable.
The Koran, Sira (Muhammed’s biography) and Hadith (his traditions) that Islam is based on are in no way aligned with modern concepts on civil liberties and human rights (unless you are Muslim and even then you must submit to the strictures of being ruled by some very harsh rules.) If you are a kafir, forget it, you are dogmeat and expected to be treated as disposable.
The foundation of Islam is almost entirely political and the foundation texts are but guides on how to wage war and govern, with Allah's blessing, of course. This fully reflects the actual life of Muhammad, who failed to convert anyone until he started doing so through violent imposition of his ideas. Might makes right permeates the Islamic polemic.
In reading a lot of texts over the last couple of days I have found the Warner originated ones really do capture the essence of the Koran, Sira and Hadith best. They always refer to the actual words of Muhammad, which are, after all, the only source for Islam. That he chooses to publish authors that write in a very clear style also makes these texts a wonderful way to get past the inherent confusions and contradictions of Islamic source material.