Darwin's Crime Scene Investigators

This is in response to @JaTapps, who dances around Darwin's difficulties like Fred Astaire on Red Bull:

I overestimated you. Considering the limitations of Twitter, I thought that you would be able to address the salient points of your creation myth directly, not run like a coward:

a) You absurdly try to dismiss a perfectly useful English word ("kind") while dancing around your misuse and abuse of "species." (If you must have it translated into your own dialect, then genus or species seem the best fit. Family may or may not be too broad, depending on the family.)

b) When you define all fossils as transitions (including the latest, since everything is always "evolving," right?), then you're not only reading your faith into the facts, but you're sidestepping the issue. Why did Darwin need them? Because you can't get from A to Z without all the letters in-between. He needed proof of Evolution's "failures."

c) The only aspect of macroevolution that really matters in the controversy is simpler forms' "evolving" into newer, more complex forms. All you've got are bacteria to bacteria, mollusks to mollusks, fish to fish, and finches to finches. No one's seen otherwise, ever.

There. That's a tidy summary of your prevarications. Now, back to the original question and its follow-up:

1) Who has seen Life arise apart from the same kind of Life (or its programs)?

2) We've seen Life arise from only the same kind of Life (or its programs). Whom does that support, Moses or Darwin?

And this to a serious offering from @4_site_paradigm, who asks, "can you not investigate a crime scene despite no witnesses? Should we discard the plethora of evidence[?]":

That's a perfectly good question. The problem is not the evidence, but the interpretation. If you approach the scene having determined a priori that it was an accident, then that's what you'll see.

That's fine if it was an accident, but if it was a crime, then you're dead wrong.

You're saying that Life arises apart from the same kind of Life (or its programs). Who's seen that? Ever?

I'm saying that we've only ever seen Life arise from the same kind of Life, etc., which is absolutely true. Dogs from dogs, cats from cats, bacteria from bacteria, coelacanth from coelacanth, finches from finches. Man from Man.

Besides that, the basic unit of Life, the cell, is an incredibly complex Von Neumann-type metabolic machine. Who's ever heard of a machine arising from the muck by accident? And Life's programs, genetic code. In your experience, from where do machines and programs come?

You're discarding the evidence that doesn't suit your creation story.

And this in reply to methos1975, from here:

Comments were closed, so I'll just point out (for now) that you offered nothing that supports your claim that Life arises apart from the same kind of Life (or its programs).

Minor variations within species/genus -- as the organism's pre-existing genetic code allows -- examples of human manipulation of that code and its elements, and assumed descent when all you have are similarities are not evidence of your fundamental truth claim.

In other words, you still haven't answered the questions.

As for the second part of your reply, utter Biblical and historical illiteracy doesn't offer much to work with.

It is telling that you advocate for what no one has ever seen, but reject utterly the eyewitness testimonies of generations.

So much for reason and empiricism.

The Darwinist's blind faith

The foundation of Science is observable fact. That Darwinists must fabricate causal links is an admission that they've got no actual empirical evidence on which to base their religion.

Darwinists condemn what they insinuate is a religious zealot's making things up to fit his worldview, but when they themselves do it, it's called "Science." For anyone else, it's to the Inquisitor!

From here:

Interestingly, some defenders of dinosaur-to-bird evolution discount this evidence against their theory by saying, ‘The proponents of this argument offer no animal whose lungs could have given rise to those in birds, which are extremely complex and are unlike the lungs of any living animal." Of course, only evolutionary faith requires that bird lungs arose from lungs of another animal.

A fictional president introducing a fictional explanation of origins

From here:

A fictional president introducing a fictional explanation of origins?

Brilliant.

The foundation of Science is observation and experimentation. No one has ever observed Life arise apart from Life and Life's programs. No one has ever witnessed program arise by accident from nothing. No one has ever shown that cells form magically from the muck by only random, natural processes. And no one can answer the question: When the first human being arose, with whom did he or she reproduce?

Darwinists take one fact -- that random, minor genetic mutations occur -- and from it leap nonsensically to the conclusion that from a first accidental cell all Life -- including us -- arose.

Besides the fact that genetic mutations are typically either neutral, harmful, or deadly to an organism, no one's ever seen a mutation result in newer, more complex program, structure, or function.

Neither do living things evolve into significantly-different forms; Life is stable, even over the Darwinists' "millions" of years. After almost 400 million years, the coelacanth is a coelacanth. After several million years, the ancient camel's DNA matches the modern camel's. Geckos and frogs on a hidden plateau in Australia undisturbed for millions of years are still only geckos and frogs. Darwin's finches were still ... finches. And after tens of thousands of generations, Lenski's E. coli evolved into ... E. coli with an eating disorder. (They're still bacteria.)

To believe Darwin's creation myth, not only must you believe that for which no evidence exists, but you have to deny what you know is empirically-true. You have to violate Science's fundamental tenets.

Darwin's creation myth is atheistic naturalism conducting its own Inquisition. It's Gaia in a lab coat.

It isn't Science; it's science fiction.

The National Park System doing Darwin's dirty work

If you haven't been to Zion National Park in Utah, you're missing out. It's a cathedral.

Which is ironic, since your tax dollars go to forcing Darwin's creation myth on visitors through the park's tram narration (the only way to ride through Zion's scenic route) and educational displays and programs.

Disturbingly, I observed a park ranger repeatedly telling kids that even though the local Indians drew dinosaurs centuries ago, they didn't actually see any, since the "terrible lizards" lived millions of years before we did.

For a group of people who boast so loudly of their reason and intellect, Darwinists are remarkably superstitious (and ill-informed, intellectually-dishonest, and hypocritical). The only reason that evolutionists claim that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago -- and long before humans -- is because God can't be true. They have to believe -- and force everyone else to believe -- that Life arose by accident from preexisting muck. Millions of years give a tinge of possibility to their fable.

The only problem is, no one has observed the truth of any its core elements. (For example, we do know that random genetic mutations occur in the cells of living things, but these end usually in sickness or death.)

That's why that ranger proselytizes for her irrational religion. That's why she has to convince others -- and herself -- that even though Indians depicted their experience of dinosaurs so many years ago, their art can not mean what it obviously means. She has to have others reject obvious fact in service to her anti-intellectual and anti-empirical religious philosophy, evidence of which no one has observed, ever.

Our public employees should refrain from forcing their religious beliefs on others (especially children) and instead to just stick to the facts as we find them.

Forget titanoceratops. What about Darwin's titanic fraud?

Linked tangentially to this:

Darwinists are some of the most illogical -- and unintentionally ironic -- of all people, committing the very same thought-"crime" of which they accuse others: Making up stories not only devoid of empirical fact, but opposed by it. (Not to mention, their fairy tales are impossible to verify.)

Who has observed Life arise apart from Life or Life's programs? Who has observed a fish evolve into a reptile, or an ape-like creature into a man?

And when the first modern human arose, with what (not "whom") did he/she/it reproduce? Of course, there was no one else, but Darwinists don't want you to notice that little detail. They make the first man a zoophile who can somehow reproduce with non-humans.

But it must be true! And if you disagree, you're an idiot. 

Science vs. Darwin's creation myth in the Left's propaganda war against America

God vs. evolution. Science vs. Darwin. Faith founded on fact vs. neopaganism disguised as "science." Liberalism vs. the Republic.

America's God-hating Left is attacking another Conservative-politician-with-a-clue, hoping to make implications of ignorance and superstition stick.

We have the facts on our side. Just articulate them. Not only that, but it's the accidentalists making the truth claim: Make them prove it. What can they point to that actually demonstrates the truth of their fairy tale?

A brief comment on Darwin's pseudoscientific, anti-intellectual, and irrational creation myth:

The foundation of Science is observable fact.

Who's ever observed abiogenesis? Who's ever witnessed random genetic mutations result in newer and more complex program, structure, and function?

We've only ever seen Life arise from Life and Life's programs. We've only ever seen organisms reproduce the same kinds of organisms.

Darwin's creation myth is absurd on its face, even to an atheist.

The meaning of "day" in Genesis

There is no room for compromise between the Word of Christ and falsehood, regardless of whatever form the devil's lie happens to be taking at the moment.

A nice summary of why we should just take God at His word. "The Meaning of 'Day' in Genesis":

What can we conclude concerning the length of the 'days' of creation? The usage of the word 'day,' with a number, means a 24-hour period. The absence of the article does not alter that meaning. Further, the use of 'evening' and 'morning' indicates that normal time is meant in Genesis 1. God, Himself, said that the creation took only six days. We also must ask ourselves, did Moses and God deceive us by using the word 'day,' when it really was a long period of time? If our answer is yes, then we should not use the Bible for any of our beliefs. For, if God can deceive us concerning the events of creation, He might have done that in regards to the life, death, and resurrection of our Lord. The bottom line is that we then can have no confidence in God's Word, if the long-day view is held. It is far better to believe God at His Word, and take the creation days as 24-hour days.

If someone won't believe Moses -- or their lyin' eyes -- then they won't believe even if Someone rises from the dead

Offered in response at a friend's excellent site:

one of the key claims of evolution -- namely, that the changes in life forms are the product of chance alone -- is not properly a scientific claim as it is not open to testing or verification.

The problem for Darwinian evolution is that all observation shows that it never occurs. Random genetic mutations happen, but they're normally harmful or fatal to the organism. They never add newer, more complex program/structure/function.

If Life is constantly evolving into newer, more complex forms, then how can anyone catch a coelacanth, a fish contemporaneous with the tyrant lizards?

If in five hundred million years, coelacanth evolved into . . . coelacanth, then how did some ape-like organism(s) evolve in only a few million years into Man?

The best Darwinists can do in defense of their creation myth is Lenski's E. Coli, and what do they show? After tens of thousands of generations, the bacteria evolved into . . . bacteria!

The Darwinists demonstrate their inability (or unwillingness) to deal honestly with facts also in how they address the T. Rex red blood cells discovered in Montana. At first, they did everything they could to avoid admitting that red blood cells were discovered in a fossil at least (according to them) 65 million years old. Then, rather than revise their assumptions with regard to dating, they instead suggested that protein has a longer shelf life than they realized!

(And really, moving the goalposts is all that's left to those who believe that Man arose accidentally from microbes by way of maggots, mice, and monkeys. That and name-calling.)

At what point of certainty do you accept a scientific finding?

Observable fact. Whether it's Science or Religion, without observable fact, all you've got is fiction.

No scientist observed the Big Bang (anyway, who's ever heard of explosions building things?). No Darwinist has ever observed abiogenesis (so much so, that they run from the topic). And no one's ever observed a bird hatch from a reptile egg.

Darwinism isn't Science, it's science fiction.

Yet we've got sixteen hundred years of eyewitness accounts of YHWH's intervening in human affairs -- culminating with the Crucifixion and Resurrection -- preserved by the societies in which they occurred.

Histories written, words recorded, monuments made, and worshiped as a god. Yet no one denies the historicity of Julius Caesar. Even allegedly-hostile, non-Christian history calling Christ a "sorcerer" acknowledges (unwillingly, no doubt) His miracles, and still the evolutionists mock.

Two thousand years ago, Paul observed that God's eternal power and divine nature are obvious in the Creation. If someone won't believe Moses -- or their lyin' eyes -- then they won't believe even if Someone rises from the dead.

Christians have no reason to be ashamed.  All have reasons to believe.

Darwin's creation myth must be true, since scientists have observed bacteria involve into . . . bacteria!

An article on the significance of Lenski's E. Coli (subheadings and footnotes in the original).  After two decades and tens of thousands of generations, Darwinists still cannot show what they claim has been occurring for billions of years.  And that proves they're right!:

A New Scientist article proclaims:

'Lenski’s experiment is also yet another poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists, notes Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago. "The thing I like most is it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events," he says. "That’s just what creationists say can’t happen."'

[. . .]

In 1988, Richard Lenski, Michigan State University, East Lansing, founded 12 cultures of E. coli and grew them in a laboratory, generation after generation, for twenty years (he deserves some marks for persistence!). The culture medium had a little glucose but lots more citrate, so once the microbes consumed the glucose, they would continue to grow only if they could evolve some way of using citrate. Lenski expected to see evolution in action. This was an appropriate expectation for one who believes in evolution, because bacteria reproduce quickly and can have huge populations, as in this case. They can also sustain higher mutation rates than organisms with much larger genomes, like vertebrates such as us. All of this adds up, according to neo-Darwinism, to the almost certainty of seeing lots of evolution happen in real time (instead of imagining it all happening in the unobservable past). With the short generation times, in 20 years this has amounted to some 44,000 generations, equivalent to some million years of generations of a human population (but the evolutionary opportunities for humans would be far, far less, due to the small population numbers limiting the number of mutational possibilities; and the much larger genome, which cannot sustain a similar mutation rate without error catastrophe; i.e. extinction; and sexual reproduction means that there is 50% chance of failing to pass on a beneficial mutation ).

As noted elsewhere (see ‘Giving up on reality’), Lenski seemed to have given up on ‘evolution in the lab’ and resorted to computer modelling of ‘evolution’ with a program called Avida (see evaluation by Dr Royal Truman, Part 1 and Part 2, which are technical papers). Indeed, Lenski had good reason to abandon hope. He had calculated that all possible simple mutations must have occurred several times over but without any addition of even a simple adaptive trait.


In a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, Lenski and co-workers describe how one of 12 culture lines of their bacteria has developed the capacity for metabolizing citrate as an energy source under aerobic conditions.

This happened by the 31,500th generation. Using frozen samples of bacteria from previous generations they showed that something happened at about the 20,000th generation that paved the way for only this culture line to be able to change to citrate metabolism. They surmised, quite reasonably, that this could have been a mutation that paved the way for a further mutation that enabled citrate utilization.

This is close to what Michael Behe calls ‘The Edge of Evolution’—the limit of what ‘evolution’ (non-intelligent natural processes) can do. For example, an adaptive change needing one mutation might occur every so often just by chance. This is why the malaria parasite can adapt to most antimalarial drugs; but chloroquine resistance took much longer to develop because two specific mutations needed to occur together in the one gene. Even this tiny change is beyond the reach of organisms like humans with much longer generation times. With bacteria, there might be a chance for even three coordinated mutations, but it’s doubtful that Lenski’s E. coli have achieved any more than two mutations, so have not even reached Behe’s edge, let alone progressed on the path to elephants or crocodiles.

Now the popularist treatments of this research (e.g. in New Scientist) give the impression that the E. coli developed the ability to metabolize citrate, whereas it supposedly could not do so before. However, this is clearly not the case, because the citric acid, tricarboxcylic acid (TCA), or Krebs, cycle (all names for the same thing) generates and utilizes citrate in its normal oxidative metabolism of glucose and other carbohydrates.

Furthermore, E. coli is normally capable of utilizing citrate as an energy source under anaerobic conditions, with a whole suite of genes involved in its fermentation. This includes a citrate transporter gene that codes for a transporter protein embedded in the cell wall that takes citrate into the cell. This suite of genes (operon) is normally only activated under anaerobic conditions.

So what happened? It is not yet clear from the published information, but a likely scenario is that mutations jammed the regulation of this operon so that the bacteria produce citrate transporter regardless of the oxidative state of the bacterium’s environment (that is, it is permanently switched on). This can be likened to having a light that switches on when the sun goes down—a sensor detects the lack of light and turns the light on. A fault in the sensor could result in the light being on all the time. That is the sort of change we are talking about.

Another possibility is that an existing transporter gene, such as the one that normally takes up tartrate, which does not normally transport citrate, mutated such that it lost specificity and could then transport citrate into the cell. Such a loss of specificity is also an expected outcome of random mutations. A loss of specificity equals a loss of information, but evolution is supposed to account for the creation of new information; information that specifies the enzymes and cofactors in new biochemical pathways, how to make feathers and bone, nerves, or the components and assembly of complex motors such as ATP synthase, for example.

However, mutations are good at destroying things, not creating them. Sometimes destroying things can be helpful (adaptive), but that does not account for the creation of the staggering amount of information in the DNA of all living things. Behe (in The Edge of Evolution) likened the role of mutations in antibiotic resistance and pathogen resistance, for example, to trench warfare, whereby mutations destroy some of the functionality of the target or host to overcome susceptibility. It’s like putting chewing gum in a mechanical watch; it’s not the way the watch could have been created.

John and Ken's contempt for Christianity aids Muslim obfuscation for jihad

A (now open) letter:

John and Ken,

I have been a listener for several years. I admire your vigor in exposing and condemning corruption in government.

Thank you.

On the matter of Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory and Islamic jihad, you hold yourselves to a lower burden-of-proof and demonstrate a profound lack of intellectual integrity, however.

During one show this week, you claimed that when a species needs to evolve, it does. Darwinism's mechanism of change is only random, minor genetic mutations. What do such copying errors produce?

Usually, death or severe illness.

Random, minor genetic mutations are not only unable to modify existing genetic program into newer, more complex code, it can do nothing to produce it from scratch in the first place.

When the first miraculous "evolved" bird hatched from a reptile's egg (how did that happen, again?) and soared up into the sky, what do you think went through its head when it realized it had no one with which to mate?

As for Islam, you asserted with regard to Muslim murder, "It doesn't matter which book you read!" Such a claim reveals an embarrassing lack of either education or moral clarity.

"Which book you read" matters absolutely.

Christ committed no sin, spoke only the truth, healed the sick, raised the dead, died for the sins of the whole world, and Himself resurrected. He taught, "Love your neighbors as yourself," and, "Love your enemies."

Muhammad and his allah commanded, practiced, and endorsed genocide, child-rape, rape, mutilation, torture, slavery, extortion, blasphemy, religious and gender discrimination, and anti-Semitism. They demand, "kill the pagans wherever you find them . . . Fight against . . . the People of the Book [Jews and Christians] until they feel themselves subdued and pay the jizya [oppressive poll-tax, part of the dhimma system] . . . Paradise [belongs] to those who slay and are slain fighting in Allah's cause" (Qur'an 9).

Such nescient, false moral equivalences condemn souls to hell and perpetuate hell-on-earth for non-Muslims, apostates, women, and little girls.

You owe your listeners the facts . . . .

Darwinism's utter lack of intellectual integrity

Of course, it is unfair to generalize about all members of a group based on one person, but the lack of intellectual integrity demonstrated by this Darwinist is representative of the logical gymnastics one must go through in order to believe the Darwinian creation myth.

The comments below are offered in response to Salamantis at Little Green Footballs. The thread was closed before I could reply.

Responding to my comments with the intellectual equivalent of, “I know you are, but what am I?” indicates an inability or unwillingness to reason.

After what I thought was your honest attempt to present empirical evidence of vertical speciation, you've continued with red herrings, false tu quoques, straw man arguments, and repetitions of the same non-evidence.

I don't mind repeating important facts, but at this point, you've demonstrated a resistance to facts:

I. MISREPRESENTING MY WORDS

You state falsely that I claim Darwin advocated abiogenesis. What I have stated is that Darwinism – the atheistic naturalism underlying Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory -- needs abiogenesis for its creation myth to be complete.

Rather than be honest and admit you have no evidence for vertical speciation, you accuse me of misrepresenting Evolution.

II. PERSONFICATION

You claim also that I misrepresent your words regarding personification. How is it "misrepresenting" your statements if you're using personification and I say, "You're using personification"?

Here are some examples of your (apparently) subconscious admission on the nature of Life:

"Nonrandom," means, "having a definite plan, order, or purpose.” Blame Dawkins.

"End," means, "goal."

"Exigency," means, "need."

"Impose," means, "to force on another."

"Allow," means, "to permit."

"Build," means, "to construct," or, "to develop according to a plan."

You use words implying Will and Intellect for blind, impersonal, ignorant, random, natural forces.

I didn't invent the language. Don't blame me.

III. STRAW MAN ARGUMENTS AGAINST "CREATIONISM" DON'T DEMONSTRATE VERTICAL SPECIATION

You continue to bring up the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and a 6000 year-old Earth. I've mentioned neither, which reinforces the impression you haven't really read what I've written.

(By the way, 6000 years is not "the Genesis date." I've read Genesis. So should you. It's a good book.)

IV. DEFINING MACROEVOLUTION, AND THE USE OF "RANDOM"

In referring to speciation, an essential distinction must be made between the two parts of Macroevolution: Organisms which can no longer reproduce but are the same kind of animal on the one hand and new species possessing newer, more complex genetic program, structure, and function on the other.

The former I call, "lateral speciation;" the latter, "vertical speciation."

Lateral speciation is observable. Vertical speciation no one has observed occur.

In fact, you admit we cannot observe it.

To claim as unassailable scientific truth something impossible to observe is convenient for the person making the claim.

Unfortunately, it isn't Science.

With regard to the use of the word, "random," I understand what your buddy Dawkins wants. Since the nature of Life points unavoidably to Intention, he tries to attribute that intent to ignorant, natural processes.

The only problem is, "nonrandom" means "having a plan, goal, or objective." You cannot attribute intent to Nature.

Unless you're an animist, that is.

V. DARWINISM'S BAD LOGIC

You wrote of Man showing that arose without a Designer by creating experiments “specifically DESIGNED” to do so.

You infer from the fact of lateral speciation that vertical speciation occurs, though no one has ever observed it. No one has demonstrated that it can occur.

In other words, assuming that all Life arose from your Magic Mud Monsters by only random, natural processes without any empirical (observed) evidence is science fiction, not Science.

Additionally, how is it a "lame, stuffed straw man" to demand empirical evidence of vertical speciation from someone claiming scientific truth? Especially when you admit no one can observe it?

Changing the subject, attacking others' creationist arguments (not mine), and mis-stating what I've written do not constitute empirical evidence of vertical speciation!

Similar genetic code is evidence of . . . similar genetic code. No one's observed vertical speciation occur by only evolutionary processes.

All Darwinists can do is point to random mutations that never result in more than the same kind of animal as proof that random mutations have resulted in more than the same kind of animal.

As I've noted before, similar genetic code is most logically evidence of the same programmer. No one would say that DOS evolved into Mojave by only random, natural processes, right?

VI. GOOD CHRISTIANS VS. GOOD EVOLUTIONISTS, AND WHY THE TWAIN SHALL NEVER MEET

A "good" Christian would say what Moses said, that in the beginning (before sin entered the world), God made all Life by His word, and it was "very good."

No sickness, no death, no suffering.

Christ affirmed Moses' work as true.

On the other hand, a good evolutionist says that all Life came about through an accumulation of random, minor genetic mutations in organisms that appeared magically out of the ground.

Since such mutations often kill an organism (or make it really, really sick), Darwinism teaches that Life arose through sickness, death, and suffering.

The two explanations are mutually-exclusive. There is no middle ground.

And I thought you might appreciate this from your buddy Frank:

"recognize that there are things outside of nature, namely God, for which the tools of science are not well designed to derive truth. The middle-ground position is that there is more than one way to find truth, and a fully formed effort to try to answer the most important questions would not limit you to the kinds of questions that science can answer . . . ."

Where have I heard that before? :)

VII. THE LACK OF EMPIRICAL SUPPORT FOR VERTICAL SPECIATION BY ONLY RANDOM, NATURAL PROCESSES

Admitting that the only way we can observe vertical speciation is by human intellect manipulating the raw materials of Life is not proof that vertical speciation occurs apart from Intellect.

If I'm asking you for empirical evidence of vertical speciation, but you don't have any, who's got, "metaphysical predispositions" and "sectarian predilections”?

"Empirical" means "observable." If you can't observe and test, and replicate the observations and testing, it isn't Science, it's Creative Writing.

Have you found any empirical evidence of vertical speciation yet? Posters and E. coli remaining E. coli -- even after tens of thousands of generations -- do not qualify.

VIII. CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION

Again, similarity of genetic code demonstrates . . . similarity of genetic code. Assuming that chimpanzees and humans shared a common ancestor leads to the belief that their shared program indicates they shared a common ancestor. That is a tautology.

I've never said that "being unable to observe something means it never happened." Those are your words.

IX. FALSE ATTACKS AGAINST SCRIPTURE DO NOT CONSTITUTE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF VERTICAL SPECIATION BY ONLY UNGUIDED, NATURAL PROCESSES

Your reference to 1 Kings is spurious. First, it doesn't provide you empirical evidence of vertical speciation.

Second, how do you think they came up with those numbers? The author thought,
"I don't remember what Pi is, so I'll just use 3"? They were measuring in cubits, and it's the difference between 30 cubits and 31.416.

Is it possible someone rounded? It also seems reasonable that perhaps the measurement was taken on the inside circumference (the text states it was a "handbreadth" thick) of the vessel?

X. STRAW MEN EVOLVED FROM STRAW MONKEYS

It is an observable fact that human beings are born to their parents.

You admit it is impossible to observe human beings arise from the first, magical single cells.

I provided Darwin's quote on the eye in a previous post along with a reference to his flawed solar analogy. It is intellectually dishonest of you to imply that I was trying to misrepresent what he wrote.

Arguing that no competing scientific theory of origins exists does not make one claiming Life arose by random, natural processes true.

Human beings creating Life from raw materials is not evidence of Life arising from non-life by only random, natural processes.

XI. CONCLUSION

We know empirically that Life only arises from Life and Life's programs.

We know empirically that no program arises apart from a programmer.

We know empirically that no machine arises apart from a designer.

I've asked you for empirical (observable) evidence of random, minor genetic mutations resulting in organisms possessing newer, more complex program, structure, and function.

You've admitted that you have none. All you've offered is proof of microevolution and lateral speciation. You and your experts use words like, “probably,” “might have,” and “circumstantial,” all of which admit you don't really know.

With 20 years, tens of trillions of cells, and tens of thousands of generations of mutating E. coli and with what do you end up?

E. coli!

When you find some empirical evidence for vertical speciation by random, natural processes, let me know.

If you can't, then to persist in a belief not only without support but contrary to all experience would be unscientific, at best.

Assuming that similarity in code, structure, or function indicates common descent is bad logic, not good science.

When "proof" for macroevolution isn't, it's probably time to rethink one's position

It's interesting. I've been having a little discussion with one person in particular at another site over Darwinism. I've pointed out that no empirical (observable) evidence exists demonstrating either abiogenesis (Life arising from non-life by only random, natural processes) or one aspect of macroevolution (random, minor genetic mutations resulting in newer, more complex program, structure, and function; for this I use the term "vertical speciation") to be true.

He admitted that no one can observe macroevolution occur (in this case, a light-sensitive spot evolving eventually into a human eye). He also offered numerous links to evidence of microevolution (minor changes within species) and lateral speciation (changes in an organism that result in it being unable to reproduce with its cousins, but still being the same kind of animal).

Following is some of that proof showing "exactly . . . how" macroevolution (vertical speciation) has no empirical support.

Admissions of no evidence for macroevolution occurring, ridiculous leaps in logic, and mistaking correlation for causation, from here:

In summary, there is no barrier to species forming. This may not be enough to show that large-scale macroevolution occurs . . . For if there is enough change to form new species, and each species is slightly different from its ancestor, then simple addition shows that many speciation events can cause large-scale evolution over enough time . . . .

We can test a particular claim of macroevolution. We can test, for example, if weasels are more closely related to red pandas than bears are (Flynn and Nedbal 1998, Flynn et al. 2000). This is a test of a particular evolutionary tree or scenario. It tests a historical reconstruction. If shown, on the basis of the evidence and the best data, to be wrong, then that history has indeed been falsified. But can we test the idea of common descent? It is not possible to show that something never occurred, but it is very easy to show that where it ought to occur, it either has or it hasn't. Science will not retain a bad idea when it is shown repeatedly not to explain what we have a right to expect it to explain (this is one reason why creationism was dropped from science back in the 1850s). If macroevolution persistently were shown to run counter to the data, then science would drop it and look for another solution.

Moreover, science has to an extent falsified the initial conception of macroevolution. The original idea was that evolution formed only tree-like patterns – species split like branches. A growing consensus has argued that both hybridisation (species recombining) and lateral genetic transfer (genes crossing the taxonomic boundaries individually or as part of symbiotic organisms that are taken into the "host" taxon's cellular machinery) are more common than we had previously thought. Macroevolution of species is still regarded as the most common way that the diversity of life has developed, but the "tree" now has "vines" that hang across the branches of single celled organisms (Fig. 4).

From here:

The researchers conclude that the presence of the full three-component signaling system may have played a role in the development of metazoan organisms whose cells could communicate with each other in complex ways.

"It shows how evolution might work," says Wendell Lim, a researcher at the University of California, San Francisco, who was one of the authors of the paper. "Probably there was an ancestor to these organisms that first developed these chemicals."

From here:

Nothing—not even the Plague—has posed a more persistent threat to humanity than viral diseases: yellow fever, measles, and smallpox have been causing epidemics for thousands of years. At the end of the First World War, fifty million people died of the Spanish flu; smallpox may have killed half a billion during the twentieth century alone. Those viruses were highly infectious, yet their impact was limited by their ferocity: a virus may destroy an entire culture, but if we die it dies, too. As a result, not even smallpox possessed the evolutionary power to influence humans as a species—to alter our genetic structure. That would require an organism to insinuate itself into the critical cells we need in order to reproduce: our germ cells. Only retroviruses, which reverse the usual flow of genetic code from DNA to RNA, are capable of that. A retrovirus stores its genetic information in a single-stranded molecule of RNA, instead of the more common double-stranded DNA. When it infects a cell, the virus deploys a special enzyme, called reverse transcriptase, that enables it to copy itself and then paste its own genes into the new cell’s DNA. It then becomes part of that cell forever; when the cell divides, the virus goes with it. Scientists have long suspected that if a retrovirus happens to infect a human sperm cell or egg, which is rare, and if that embryo survives—which is rarer still—the retrovirus could take its place in the blueprint of our species, passed from mother to child, and from one generation to the next, much like a gene for eye color or asthma.

When the sequence of the human genome was fully mapped, in 2003, researchers also discovered something they had not anticipated: our bodies are littered with the shards of such retroviruses, fragments of the chemical code from which all genetic material is made. It takes less than two per cent of our genome to create all the proteins necessary for us to live. Eight per cent, however, is composed of broken and disabled retroviruses, which, millions of years ago, managed to embed themselves in the DNA of our ancestors. They are called endogenous retroviruses, because once they infect the DNA of a species they become part of that species. One by one, though, after molecular battles that raged for thousands of generations, they have been defeated by evolution. Like dinosaur bones, these viral fragments are fossils. Instead of having been buried in sand, they reside within each of us, carrying a record that goes back millions of years. Because they no longer seem to serve a purpose or cause harm, these remnants have often been referred to as “junk DNA.” Many still manage to generate proteins, but scientists have never found one that functions properly in humans or that could make us sick.

Then, last year, Thierry Heidmann brought one back to life. Combining the tools of genomics, virology, and evolutionary biology, he and his colleagues took a virus that had been extinct for hundreds of thousands of years, figured out how the broken parts were originally aligned, and then pieced them together. After resurrecting the virus, the team placed it in human cells and found that their creation did indeed insert itself into the DNA of those cells. They also mixed the virus with cells taken from hamsters and cats. It quickly infected them all, offering the first evidence that the broken parts could once again be made infectious. The experiment could provide vital clues about how viruses like H.I.V. work. Inevitably, though, it also conjures images of Frankenstein’s monster and Jurassic Park.

From here, a short video purported to show "exactly . . . how" the eye evolved from a light-sensitive spot into a human eye, but in actuality offering only a chart showing a progression in the complexity of various organism's eyes and a bit of "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny," a discredited evolutionary propaganda piece.

Also offered was Lenski's experiments with E. coli. Though noteworthy for showing over twenty years that the bacteria developed the ability to consume citrate without the help of plasmids, it was still just E. coli, not a newer, more complex eukaryote.

More on Darwin's creation myth

In response to this comment from Slumbering Behemoth:

All very interesting conjecture, but it does nothing to disprove scientific theory that has been worked at and proven for over a century.

Well said, and that is exactly why creation myths, any creation myths, will forever remain unprovable mythology.

Ironically, I'm not the one offering guesswork. I'm offering fact -- what we can observe and therefore know is true. It is Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary theorists who just makes things up.

Darwin's explanations have not been "proven for over a century."

Some of his earliest and staunchest opponents were paleontologists. They knew the fossil record didn't support his theory. Darwin admitted he needed such evidence to materialize.

Instead of Darwin's slow, gradual, random mutations, the fossil record shows a sudden explosion in the diversity of life, a fact for which Darwinists couldn't account, so they came up with Punctuated Equilibrium.

Darwin himself acknowledged that his explanation for something as complex as an eye was preposterous:

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree possible."

(And no, our misunderstanding of the movement of the planets around the Ssun is not analogous: We have been able to observe that in fact, we orbit it. No one has demonstrated -- as Darwin confessed someone would need to do -- that an eye can arise from non-life by only random, natural processes.

Since Darwin brought it up: Just as a quasi-religious body fought vigorously centuries ago to protect its authority by defending its erroneous understanding of Nature, so today a quasi-religious body defends vehemently its power and its own false doctrine. Now that's ironic!)

Finally, Darwin knew nothing of genetics. If he had, I doubt he would have uttered a word about complex genetic program arising by accident.

And as for "creation myths . . . unprovable mythology"? Scientifically-speaking, since no scientist was present to observe and record abiogenesis, and since no scientists have demonstrated that abiogenesis and macroevolution can even occur, I would agree that it is beyond Science's ability to speak definitively on how Life began and developed.

However, to which explanation of Life's beginnings does evidence and experience offer support? To the one that claims Life arises apart from Life and its programs, or the one that speaks of a great Intellect designing and programming that Life?

A last thought: Science is not omniscient. It is not the only way of determining truth.

Darwin's creation myth

Here's another brief analysis of Darwin's creation myth. Couple it with the false dichotomy between the Word of Christ and Science, and you've got not only a great excuse for blasphemy, but ugly, anti-Christian bigotry also.

And nothing says, "Intelligent" like making things up to look down on Christians.

Posted in response to Charles's post here:

It's sad and ironic that one demanding truth of others would promote uncritically the pseudoscience of Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory.

Abiogenesis and macroevolution are not only unsupported by the empirical (scientific) evidence we possess, they're contradicted by it.

"Science" is not the untestable assertions of fallible men, it is a process by which we study natural phenomena. It is a process that is testable and repeatable.

In other words, if you cannot observe the subject, test it, and repeat that process, it isn't Science.

What do you know is actually true about Evolution?

Apart from the random, minor genetic mutations occurring within organisms (usually resulting in severe illness and death, but never newer, more complex genetic program, structure, and function), what can be demonstrated to be true about Darwin's explanations for the origin of Life?

No scientist has observed abiogenesis or macroevolution occur.

We know empirically that Life arises only from Life and Life's programs. No scientist has ever observed otherwise.

We know that no machine or program has ever arisen apart from a designer or programmer, but a living cell is a complex, metabolic, Von Neumann-type machine. And according to one state university's biology textbook, one human cell contains enough program to fill hundreds of such textbooks (all text, no pictures).

The fundamental logical error into which Darwinism falls is mistaking similarities in design for a chain of causation.

What Darwinism asks us to believe -- despite Reason and experience to the contrary -- is not only that the first abacus appeared spontaneously by only random, natural processes, but that somehow that abacus replicated and naturally (accidentally!) developed new structure and function and that this process occurred over and over again for billions of years until the computer with which you're reading this comment appeared. (This analogy is a bit weak: A human being is much more sophisticated than any computer.)

Asserting truths beyond Science's ability to test -- or worse, contrary to what Science, Reason, and experience shows us -- results in science fiction, not Science.

Essential points on Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory

In response to an debate on Evolution here:

The proper questions to ask are: Where's your proof? How do you know?

The fundamental weakness in Darwin's theory (besides the fact that it went against all reason, experience, and the Word of Christ) is that he based it on nothing more than the observation of some minor variations within a species. If you add to that his admission that the idea of a system as complex as an eye arising by chance was ridiculous, that he had no support from the fossil record, and that he knew nothing of genetics, it is clear that his explanation of Life's origins has always been science fiction, not Science.

Not only are abiogenesis (Life arising from non-life) and macroevolution (the sudden appearance of newer, more complex genetic program, structure, and function) unsupported by actual empirical evidence, they are contradicted by what we know.

For example, no evidence exists whatsoever that life arises apart from Life and Life's programs. Neither has anyone demonstrated that a genetic soup containing all the ingredients necessary for life can produce it by solely random, natural processes. And no, simulations don't count here, because a simulation is only as representative of reality as are the assumptions of its programmer(s).

Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory mistakes similarity in concept/design/function for evidence of descent. It is asking us to believe that Von Neumann-type metabolic machines containing enough program to fill hundreds and hundreds of college-level biology textbooks (all text, no pictures) arose by chance, apart from a Designer. It's asking us to believe that an Xbox evolved accidentally into an Xbox 360 with its new program, hardware, and function. It's asking us to believe that a wheel arose accidentally and evolved eventually into the space shuttle by only random, natural processes.

Every machine is the work of a designer. Every program has at its origin a programmer.

On the other hand, microevolution (the minor, random genetic mutations that occur within living things) is something that is observable and testable. It is therefore a scientifically-valid concept. It is important to remember, however, that such changes usually kill an organism (or make it really, really sick), they don't create new, more complex program, structure, and function.

The fact that microevolution occurs is not evidence of macroevolution having occurred.

In the matter of religion, the same questions apply: Where's your proof? How do you know?

The resurrection of Christ is the best attested-to fact of ancient history.

Not "reviling Muslims," just pointing out the commands of Allah and the example of his apostle

From here (at least for a while):

PM,

"Iago, you're off-base."

Let's see . . . .

"The religions 'of the book'"

This is a false Islamic construct used by Mohammed and his followers to try to persuade Jews and Christians to "revert" to Islam. That it also misleads those ignorant of the religions' authoritative texts into believing that Islam and Christianity are morally equivalent is amply demonstrated here.

"have a conundrum because 'the book' (no matter which one you're using) is riddled with contradictory statements, layers of history and dubious authorship."

A demonstration of that false moral equivalence just noted. Only the ignorant and the deceitful can make such a claim.

What statements from the Bible are contradictory? On what basis do you characterize either religion has having "dubious authorship"? What does the phrase "layers of history" mean?

"The b-i-b-l-e is so full of violent calls to holy war it's astounding. . . . Ephesians 6:10 - 13 . . . A close reading of this text will reveal that this is spiritual warfare . . . ."

As you admit, this is no call to "holy war," so you've already contradicted yourself and failed to support your charge.

Neither does this text require "a close reading" to understand it is speaking of spiritual matters, since it plainly says it!

More importantly (and to the point), do you have any Biblical passage that actually commands offensive warfare to make the world Hebrew? Christian?

No.

I've shared a few from Qur'an and Hadith. Unless you can produce the equivalent from Holy Writ, it must be concluded you're just making things up.

"Well... since the crusades, I guess."

Another false equivalence built on a foundation of historical illiteracy.

The essential difference between the Crusades and jihad is that the first Crusade was called in response to a desperate plea for help by eastern Christians under attack by . . . Islam.

"The same is true of the Quran. A close reading of the Arabic, in context, reveals the spiritual nature of the quotes you pulled (a reading neither you nor I are qualified to make, imho)."

So, you are not qualified to make such a call, yet you make the call.

Demonstrate from the texts where I've misrepresented any of them.

"Moreover, those statements are directly contradicted in other sections of the Quran. It is up to the devout to understand which excerpt to apply when, and to what extent."

And the devout resolving such contradictions would end up with what? Do you know?

The doctrine of Naskh, or Abrogation. Islam has traditionally interpreted the later revelations for offensive jihad to have abrogated the earlier verses speaking of cooperation and peace.

"The fact is that religious and philosophical communities are inspired and directed by flesh and blood leaders in real-time."

That is true. And any person or community of people may or may not accurately represent their religion. This is exactly why a person must go to a religion's founder and sacred texts if they want to have an accurate portrait of that faith.

"And in our current historical context, there are two men who can be "thanked" for the fundamentalism prevalent in both western and muslim society. . . For Islam there was Sayyid Qutb."

From where did Qutb derive his doctrines? How is it possible to call his ideology "fundamentalism" unless those teachings are "fundamentals" of Islam?

"The statement that this is a conspiracy theory not worthy for this board is ridiculous. The notion that Shiite and Sunnis have spilled more blood than Protestants and Catholics is... childish and unreal and blind to the facts."

Speaking of childish, unreal, and blind . . . for how long have Sunni and Shia slaughtered each other? Catholics and Protestants? From where do the sources of such conflict derive?

The split in Islam occurred after Mohammed's death over 1300 years ago. There was no Catholic/Protestant split until the sixteenth century.

Allah commands "kill the unbeliever wherever you find them . . . ," but Christ commands, "Love your enemies."

"There is no ideological basis for the current conflict."

You've never read Qur'an, Sira, or Hadith. How can you make such a claim? Rather than propagate your own enlightenment to receive praise from others equally unfamiliar with the texts, why not study?

Since 9/11 Muslims have carried out over 9,000 terrorist attacks around the world. For 1350 years before that event, Islam has enslaved and murdered Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists, animists, and assorted other pagans throughout Arabia, the Holy Land, the Middle East, Western and Eastern Europe, North Africa, and Asia.

"There is a hyped-up fear-mongering propaganda campaign, equally enacted on both sides for the identical reason."

You dismiss the clear word of Allah and the example of his apostle, muddy-up the clear word of Christ, and then claim "both sides" are "identical."

"Why Revile Muslims?"

Don't. Tell the truth about the Source and Sustenance of nearly fourteen centuries of offensive jihad to make the world Islam: the command of Allah and the words and deeds of his apostle.

"And until we get over this animalistic fight-or-flight response, we are enslaved."

Unless we wake up to the threat posed by jihad in service of Shari'a, we will end up with the same fate as countless non-Muslim civilizations before us -- enslaved or dead.

"A core tenant of post modernism (and beliefnet) is the understanding that every individual perspective (or "truth claim") IS equivalent."

That's false on several counts.

First, you're arguing that "All claims of truth are equivalent" IS equivalent to "All claims of truth are not equivalent." Second, BeliefNet bans people for posting Islamic texts. Third, how can you have any meaningful "debate" if everyone is right?

Finally, Allah calls non-Muslims like you "accursed," fodder for "hell-fire" (Muslim Book 37, Number 6666), and worth only a third of a Muslim (Muwatta Book 43, Number 43.15.8b). If you're a Jew, it's even worse. In addition to all that, you're also descended from apes and swine (Qur'an 2:65).

But, hey, everyone's right, right?

"Accusing me of moral equivalency is therefore a compliment to my position."

'Nuff said.

"I find fault in your attacks on Islam."

Stating Islamic "sacred" texts is an "attack"?

What does that say for what *you* conclude about those passages? Are you some kind of Islamophobe?

"The notion that Islam may be "defeated" or "wiped out" is a dangerous one."

I just scanned my two previous posts. Where did I write that?

"It leads to wrong-headed avenues, hard-lined beliefs in an ultimate right and wrong. Eventually it leads to camps."

That's a problem with false moral equivalences. Try as you might, reality eventually leads to unavoidable questions of "ultimate right and wrong."

(And speaking of camps, what do you know about dar al-Islam and dar al-Harb? How can such a distinction arise at all if Islam is all about "peaceful inner-struggling"?)

So, was the Holocaust right or wrong? You (and, according to you, BeliefNet) would claim of course that Hitler's truth was just as true as the truths of those 6,000,000 innocents slaughtered by his hand.

Is the enslavement, rape, and slaughter of millions of Sudanese Christians, animists, and black Muslims by the Arab-Muslim government and its allies right or wrong? (You know what that "compliment to your position" requires you to say!)

What other sorts of crimes against humanity must you defend in order to maintain your enlightened posture of moral equivalence? Slavery? Rape? Infanticide? Pedophilia? Genocide? The Ten Commandments?

"For contradictions in the bible, just google those two words and be amazed."

Yes, Google is the final arbiter of truth. But I thought you said all truth is true?

"For one, find out who Joseph's father was. Matthew says one dude. Luke says another."

Have you compared the genealogies, or is that just what someone wrote?

(Don't you think one of those obviously deceitful, power-hungry Christians would have noticed this and fixed it sometime in the last two thousand years? And doesn't that argue for the Church's faithfulness in preserving the Texts?)

Are you aware that the major difference between the two genealogies to which you refer reflects their authors' intended audiences?

Matthew was writing to a Hebrew audience. He traces Christ's human ancestry through his step-father Joseph (His legal father) to Abraham, the father of the Hebrews. Luke, writing to a Gentile audience, traces back through Mary's side (His blood relative) to Adam, the father of all.

Are you also aware that the genealogies are not necessarily intended to be exhaustive? Matthew's traces 14 generations from Abraham to David, 14 from David to the Babylonian Exile, and 14 from the Exile to Christ. Genealogies in the ancient world served a purpose other than just to list names.

See the 10 names in the Genesis 5 genealogy and the 72,000-year reigns of three Sumerian kings.

"For dubious authorship, tell me who wrote which book."

Perhaps you've noticed that many of the New Testament documents have either the author's name in the title (i.e., the Gospels and several of the Epistles) or in their openings and/or closings. Paul and Peter confess authorship within the first few words of all their letters (except, perhaps, Hebrews).

The only New Testament document for which a solid attribution of authorship is difficult to make is Hebrews, but even there many think Paul may have been behind it.

The New Testament's authors (in the common order of the texts): Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Luke, Paul, Paul, Paul, Paul, Paul, Paul, Paul, Paul, Paul, Paul, Paul, Paul, Paul, perhaps Paul, James, Peter, Peter, John, John, John, Jude, John.

"For 'layers of history,' tell me when each book was written. And what was the cut-off date?"

Within the lifetimes of their authors, which would put the last, Revelation, near the end of the first century, a.D. John writes that the revelation came to him when he was in exile on the Isle of Patmos.

"And how is it that some books are lying around, with the same cast of characters, but not included in the Canon?"

Do you refer to Apocrypha or the Gnostic gospels? Neither were considered Divinely-inspired by the Early Church. The Gnostic gospels did not appear until long after the last of the New Testament texts were composed.

"It's patently troublesome to base a belief system on a text."

I agree that just because something is written doesn't make it true. That doesn't mean, however, that all texts are false. Neither does it mean that we are unable to distinguish truth from falsehood (in a text or elsewhere).

"And its patently problematic to condemn a belief system based on texts you are not familiar with."

(Werent' you just doing that with the Bible? I guess consistency can be difficult for someone who wants truth to be true, unless he disagrees with it.)

I agree, which is why it is curious that you would argue from a position of -- as you admit regarding Qur'an and Sunnah -- ignorance.

"Your profile isn't much help, but I'm guessing you know as little about the Quran and Haditha as I do."

(Thanks for looking. Am I blushing?)

If I were willing to lie about Qur'an and Sunnah, why wouldn't I lie in my profile? If I wrote that I were a former Muslim with a doctorate in Islamic and Biblical studies, would you then believe me? If I were just an uneducated fisherman, would that make what I write less true?

You're engaging in an ad hominem argument. If what I write is false, prove it. Otherwise, let us reason together.

"I will handily demonstrate your false readings of the texts. Only two, because space is limited. I snagged them from about.com:"

Actually, you're falling on your own sword, as I am about to "handily" show. :)

"one verse (in its snipped version) reads: 'slay them wherever you catch them' (Qur'an 2:191). But who is this referring to? Who are 'they' that this verse discusses? The preceding and following verses give the correct context . . . . It is clear from the context that these verses are discussing a defensive war, when a Muslim community is attacked without reason, oppressed . . . ."

The only problem is I've not quoted Surah 2. That verse's context is specifically defensive (although it should be pointed out that "oppression" is often understood to include even the mere existence of non-Muslims and their unbelief).

PM added,

"Another similar verse can be found in chapter 9, verse 5 -- which in its snipped, out of context version could read: 'fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war).' Again, the preceding and following verses give the context."

What is the actual context of 9:5? Have you read it? Do you know what this verse is commonly called?

It's called, "the Verse of the Sword." I wonder how it got that name?

When you read Sura 9, do you understand that the clause citing "immunity" was for *only* those who kept their treaties with Mohammed? That it was an *exception* to the command for the slaughter of non-Muslims and only until the terms of those agreements expired?

Do you realize that Sura 9 (and the command for war) is understood traditionally to refer to the entire non-Muslim world, including Jews and Christians? Maududi makes the following observations regarding the historical background of Sura 9:

"...to make the whole of Arabia a perfect Dar-ul-Islam," "...to extend the influence of Islam to the adjoining countries," "...to crush the mischiefs of the hypocrites," and "...to prepare the Muslims for Jihad against the non-Muslim world."

"Now that the administration of the whole of Arabia had come in the hands of the Believers, and all the opposing powers had become helpless, it was necessary to make a clear declaration of that policy which was to be adopted to make her a perfect Dar-ul-Islam."

"A clear declaration was made that all the treaties with the mushriks were abolished and the Muslims would be released from the treaty obligations with them after a respite of four months."

"...In order to enable the Muslims to extend the influence of Islam outside Arabia, they were enjoined to crush with sword the non-Muslim powers and to force them to accept the sovereignty of the Islamic State."

"...The object of Jihad was not to coerce them to accept Islam they were free to accept or not to accept it-but to prevent them from thrusting forcibly their deviations upon others and the coming generations. The Muslims were enjoined to tolerate their misguidance only to the extent that they might have the freedom to remain misguided, if they chose to be so, provided that they paid Jizyah (v. 29) as a sign of their subjugation to the Islamic State."

"...In order to prepare the Muslims for Jihad against the whole non-Muslim world, it was necessary to cure them even of that slight weakness of faith from which they were still suffering. For there could be no greater internal danger to the Islamic Community than the weakness of faith, especially where it was going to engage itself single-handed in a conflict with the whole non-Muslim world."

"...a clear declaration was made that in future the sole criterion of a Muslim's faith shall be the exertions he makes for the uplift of the Word of Allah and the role he plays in the conflict between Islam and kufr. Therefore, if anyone will show any hesitation in sacrificing his life, money, time and energies, his faith shall not be regarded as genuine."

"In this portion the Muslims have been urged to fight in the Way of Allah with the mushrik Arabs, the Jews and the Christians, who were duly warned of the consequences of their mischievous and inimical behaviour."

"In this discourse, the Muslims have been told clearly and explicitly that they will inherit the rewards promised by Allah only if they take active part in the conflict with kufr, for that is the criterion which distinguishes true Muslims from hypocrites. Therefore true Muslims should take active part in Jihad, without minding dangers, obstacles, difficulties, temptations and the like."

Do you know that the traditional position of all four Sunni schools of jurisprudence (85% of Islam), Sahih Muslim, Sahih Bukhari, and other Muslim experts say that offensive warfare against non-Muslims is the Qur'an's final word on the subject? That 9:5, "abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolater"?

Again, immunity from slaughter belonged only to those who kept their part of a contract with Mohammed, and only for as long as that agreement was in effect.

Outside of that -- even for the "People of the Book" -- only subjugation and humiliation or war exists.

What do you do with the rest of Allah's revelation and Mohammed's example? Consider:

"the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: 'Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them . . .'" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4294).

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29).

"Allah's Apostle said: 'I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle . . . '" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).

“Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror. The treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).

PM continued,

"Who are you to tell others what the truth is?"

But you said all truth is true. Doesn't that include my truth? Who are you to tell me what the truth is?

(Moral relativism is a double-edged sword, isn't it?) :)

Actually, what I've done is cite Qur'an and Hadith, and rather than demonstrate I've erred in that, you've only demonstrated an unfamiliarity with the Biblical and Islamic texts.

"Is Catholicism wrong on all counts because of the molestation? No. Is the molestation criminal? Yes."

A red herring. A tu quoque.

The obvious difference (sorry, obvious to those who reject Absolute Moral Relativism) is that molestation is not only illegal in Western societies, it is forbidden by Christ.

On the other hand, in Islam you've got Mohammed telling his favorite wife Aisha that he began raping her when she was nine because Allah ordained it (Tabari 9:131; Bukhari Volume 9, Book 87, Number 139-140; and many others).

"Is a Muslim wrong because his text can be taken piecemeal by sociopaths and twisted into perversions?"

You've not demonstrated yet that any mujahideen are taking any verses out-of-context. Do you have any evidence for that claim?

Do you have any evidence that I've misrepresented anything?

"No. The text isn't wrong. The sociopath is wrong."

But I thought everyone's truth was true?

So, there's nothing wrong with the texts just noted?

"And the way to remedy the situation is to BE FOR SOMETHING and not AGAINST ANYONE. That something is peace, tolerance, understanding... in a word: love."

"Love" lies about hellish commands to convert, enslave, and kill all non-Muslims to make the world Islam?

Perhaps it's time for a new definition of the word.

"Sure there are criminal Muslims. There are criminal Jews. There are criminal Blacks. . . ."

Islam is not a race, it is an ideology.

And as for the jihadist who kills non-Muslims because Allah and his apostle say "kill non-Muslims," who are you to call him "criminal"? Is he not just following his own equally-valid truth?

"Ask yourself: do I know who Leo Strauss is and what he stands for? Do I know who reveres his teachings and attempts to exert his world-view? Do I know who Bin Laden's mentor is? And his mentor's mentor?"

Instead ask yourself: Who is waging offensive warfare against those who reject their ideology in fulfillment of their deity's "sacred" texts?

"How did this madness begin? It didn't begin in the book. It began in the men, and the men went and found what they needed in the book."

But I thought you said men wrote the books. And I thought you said their truth is also true.

Who are you to call their truth "madness"?

"What is your beef with moral equivalency? I really want to know. You use it like an insult and I just don't get it? Don't we use metaphors and historical allusions to... you know... learn and not repeat mistakes?"

True is true. False is false. We can and *should* learn from the past.

Ironically, you have been advocating ignoring jihad's past (and present) in Qur'an and Sunnah by attributing it to madmen and sociopaths taking verses out-of-context.

"and pps I hope nobody takes down your post. I found it insightful, on topic, all that good stuff. It's very instructive to hear the other side on this issue."

Thanks for the kind words. I hope we can continue this discussion.

Later,

"First, a critical distinction should be made. . . . swirling around the spiritual world of truth."

You have no evidence for that.

I agree that there is a difference between the physical and the spiritual realms, but I vigorously oppose the idea that there are different, contradictory "truths." Objective Truth is true regardless of whether many, one, or none confess it.

When I've heard that particular argument before it has been used by those seeking to dismiss Christ's claims to being the Truth.

(This is one reason that the Neo-Darwinian creation myth is both so popular and so dangerous. Either YHWH created all that exists as He says He did, or it came about by accident, disease, and death as Neo-Darwinism claims.)

"Spiritual texts are a bridge to get the physical onto a philosophical track. All the religious paths lead to the truth."

So, those who worshiped Teutates by drowning their human sacrifices, their path led to truth?

Followers of Molech, who as part of their devotion offered their little children to a fiery death in the arms of their god, their path led to truth?

Those who wage offensive warfare against non-Muslims who refuse to convert or submit to degradation and humiliation as commanded by Mohammed (Muslim Book 19, Number 4294), their path leads to truth?

Those who believe absolutely, "Allah's Apostle said, 'The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him"'" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177), their path leads to truth too?

Does this path lead to truth: "Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them). And fight them on until . . . there prevail . . . faith in Allah altogether and everywhere . . ." (Qur'an 8:38, 39)?

What about this: "Allah's Apostle said: 'I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle . . . '" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24). Does that lead to truth?

"In physics, this same concept was discovered by Albert Einstein. Basically, there is no favored position or perspective. All perspectives are in motion. From foot the train is going by very quickly, in a car it is actually going backward. Both perspectives are "true." All it takes is understanding to see why one sees it this way and the other that."

This is an odd confusion of two different categories of phenomena. You are describing two possible physical perceptions of a physical event, but this is not analogous to your "all roads lead to truth.”

That for which you are actually arguing would be:

-From foot, the train is going by very quickly,

-From foot, the train is going by very slowly,

-From foot, the train is not moving at all,

-From foot, the train is moving backwards,

-From foot, the train is floating in the sky,

-From foot, the train fell into a chasm,

-From foot, the train ran over a pedestrian,

-From foot, -- what train?

All at the same time and in the same place.

"The physical world is ruled by inalienable rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" or some wording thereof. To hinder those is a crime, and punishable as such as determined by the prevailing culture."

That is not true. In some cultures, such “rights” are alienable. In fact, they are not recognized at all (or for only a few).

(Besides, how can you call anything a “crime” since everyone is right? And who are you to condemn someone else's truth?)

Only one culture in the history of Man has formulated such a statement of belief, and that was the one founded on the Christian religion. Quite a few other cultures have no problem enslaving, raping, and murdering those who refuse to submit to their ideology (Communism, Nazism, and Islam, for example).

"There have always been, and will always be, corrupted and false teachers who distort spiritual and philosophical texts to justify crime."

If, as you say all religious paths lead to truth, how can you call anyone “corrupted” or “false”? If their truth is true, how can you call what they (allegedly) do to their texts “distortion” or a “justification of crime”?

(By the way, you've still not demonstrated the Islamic texts I've cited as having been misrepresented.)

"It will always be incumbent on the world spiritual community to point out and rectify the false understandings and penalize those involved in criminal activity."

A part of that "world spiritual community" believes it is their Allah-given duty to war against you if you refuse both the "invitation" to Islam and the demand to pay the jizya (just as Mohammed commanded. See Muslim Book 19, Number 4294).

In light of this, how can there be any consensus on what "criminality" means?

And if, as you say, their path also leads to truth and is beyond criticism, how can you call their understanding "false" or their activity “criminal”?

"There is an infinite tangle of paths . . . Each and every one leads without exception to the truth."

Really?

Does this one lead to truth: "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day . . . until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29)?

How about this one: "O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him" (Qur'an 9:123)?

Or this one: "The punishment of those who . . . strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land . . . " (Qur'an 5:33)?

Or this: "It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise" (Qur'an 8:67)?

How about this: "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him" (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57)?

"Every human has a legitimate and personal relationship with the ineffable source."

Really? What is your evidence for that?

"Don Miguel Ruiz puts it well . . . ."

Mr. Ruiz equates Christ and Allah. Are they really morally equivalent?

One God committed no sin, healed the sick, raised the dead, and commanded, "Love your enemies."

The other ordained the habitual raping of a nine-year-old child by his fifty-something-year-old prophet (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 87, Number 139-140), approved slavery, rape, theft, deceit, and murder, and commanded unending offensive warfare against all who refuse to submit to its rule (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24; etc.).

Defending the latter as "an unquestionably true path to truth" is itself a special kind of craven immorality, is it not?

Advocating obviously false moral equivalences causes those who should defend it to question whether or not the civilization that produced Shakespeare, Mozart, Michelangelo, the Moon Landing, the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights is even worth defending.

It makes a Republic that defends the unalienable Rights of all human beings to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness no better than Ahmadinejad's child-raping, stoning-rape-victims-for-adultery, "Kill-the-Jews"-chanting hell.

Still later,

“You defended the bible, but not terribly well. Mark and Luke didn't even know Jesus.”

Thoroughly answering all your objections constitutes an inadequate defense?

The other authors of the New Testament – Matthew, John, Paul, James, Jude, and Peter – did know Him. That means you believe them, right?

Mark and Luke composed their Gospels from eyewitness accounts. Their relying on others' firsthand testimony is insufficient reason to reject them.

(Ironically, Moral Relativism is a belief system that rejects critical thought, judgment, logic, evidence, and moral courage. It's just a “swirling mass of unassailable spiritual truth to which all religious paths lead without exception – except, of course, for Christianity.”)

“There's a whole forum on here called the Jesus Seminar where they break down that basically everything we think Jesus said and did he didn't really say or do.”

So much for that “swirling mass of unquestionable truth.”

Where's the Mohammed Seminar where “they break down that basically everything we think Mohammed said and did he didn't really say or do”?

Isn't that an interesting illustration of the reality of our situation? If Christ is attacked, Christians forgive, tolerate, ignore, or refute it. If Mohammed is attacked, people die and buildings burn.

Why is it that the only time Muslims protest in large numbers it's not over their daily, global violence against non-Muslims, it's over cartoons about Mohammed or a quote from a fifteenth century emperor whose great city was under siege by their co-religionists, to whom it fell in just a few decades?

The Jesus Seminar has been around a long time. They make claims for which they have absolutely *no* evidence. Where are the documents from which they say the Gospels are derived?

They don't exist, yet we have several thousand ancient manuscript copies of entire and partial New Testament texts. Homer's Iliad, the second best-attested-to text from Antiquity, has only a few hundred.

“There are basic inconsistencies like the fact that Matthew 1:16 says Joseph's father is Jacob and Luke 3:23 says Joseph's father is Heli.”

Addressed [above].

“These are just a few of the hundreds of apparent contradictions in the bible. I say apparent and I mean it because someone within the tradition, using the bible as the tool to truth, can maneuver and interface with the text to get to the spirituality they're longing for.”

(“a few”? Not even one.)

Which implies they're being dishonest.

How is approaching the Biblical texts with careful attention to the historical, cultural, and linguistic factors that help us determine the texts' actual meanings “maneuvering”?

Do you see the bias, the hypocrisy? When Christians read their texts and find Christ, the Truth Who said, “Love your enemies,” they're “maneuvering.” When Muslims read their texts and find jihad, they're “distorting.”

Moral relativism is an enemy of truth.

“To an outsider, Leviticus is CRAZY. If a priest's daughter is a whore, she has to be stoned to death. In Exodus 'thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.'”

Capital punishment under the Mosaic Covenant was administered for a number of crimes that today are glorified in pop culture and defended as Constitutional rights.

It should be noted (for all who want to equate Islam with Israel) that those punishments were only for the Hebrews of Ancient Israel living under that Covenant who broke *their own* laws.

“And I can't count how many times in the old testament God helped the Israelites conquer other tribes through warfare.”

Sounds like someone who's actually read the Old Testament except that, you can count them.

Forty years after being delivered from slavery in Egypt, Israel was commanded to enter the land promised to their ancestors. They were commanded to kill everything in order to remove false theology, to demonstrate to the “My god is bigger than yours” nations around them that their God really was bigger, and to carry out Divine judgment against those peoples for their great wickedness.

Israel ended up disobeying, following Canaan's false gods, and being destroyed.

It is worth noting that, according to you, “Leviticus is CRAZY,” but “sociopaths distort Qur'an,” and, “All truth is true,” but there are “hundreds of contradictions in the bible [sic].”

Apparently, your moral relativism is only a single-edged sword. :)

“Now a well-versed Jew could explain to me why prostitutes today should not get the death penalty. There is probably a more relevant text later that supercedes the ancient Leviticus.”

“Probably”? If “probably,” how do you know a “well-versed Jew” can explain it?

(I did just a moment ago.)

“I know a Christian would say that Christ's new message of love trumps the old laws (although that book is still included in the Christian canon).”

Only if that Christian is ignorant of the Word of Christ.

The New Testament makes very clear that the Mosaic Covenant has been replaced (fulfilled) by the New One written in Christ's blood (an interesting, not coincidental connection between the ancient making of covenants, the sacrificial system under Moses, the our Lord's Supper, and His sacrificial death).

Recall the adulterous woman Christ saved from stoning. After pointing out the hypocrisy of her accusers, He only told her to stop sinning.

“An irresponsible critic would say 'The bible is false teaching!' because it contains these lines that can be taken out of context.”

How do you know those lines are taken out of context? By reading the texts. Still you have not demonstrated that I've misrepresented any of Islam's.

“To sum up, your point here and on your blog seems to be that Islam is a violent religion and worthy of revulsion.”

My point here has been, “This is what Allah commands. This is what Mohammed – described by Allah as a “beautiful pattern of conduct” -- commanded, practiced, and permitted.

The point on my 'blog has been, "We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ." -Paul of Tarsus, 1st century a.D.

One of those is Mohammed's blasphemy. Another is Moral Relativism.

“My argument is that this claim is based on ignorance and every instance of what appears to be textual proof of Islam's violent nature can, when placed in context, be revealed as wisdom.”

Prove it.

Whose claim is based on ignorance? I cite sura, ayah, and hadith, but you admit knowing nothing of Qur'an and Sunnah (and demonstrate no awareness of 1400 years of jihad to make the world Islam).

Demonstrate a Biblical contradiction. Show that I've misrepresented any of the Islamic texts I've cited.

If you do not (and you can't), then your arguments must be regarded as insubstantial as a “swirling mass of spiritual 'truth.'”

Good luck revealing the wisdom of: “Allah's Apostle said: 'I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle . . . '" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).

More from PM:

But I'd like to respond to the Mod that my main perspective is that there is a false argument which goes, "We SHOULD revile Muslims because it says ____ here on page ___."

It should be clear that I have actually spoken against reviling Muslims.

It would be a grievous logical error to infer that I advocate treating Muslims in any way other than the way that I would want to be treated.

There are decent, moderate Muslims. Some recognize the calls for jihad in their religious texts and tradition and work to modify Islamic understanding of them.

Islam itself, however, is not moderate, as evidenced by the command of Allah and the example of Mohammed.

"The problem with this argument is that you can go to ANY spiritual tradition's text and lift lines out of context that are OUTRAGEOUS."

That is true.

The problem with your argument is that you've NOT demonstrated at all that I've taken any Islamic texts out-of-context.

The best you've been able to do is make up stuff about the Bible.

Demonstrate from Qur'an and Hadith that the texts I've quoted do not mean what they actually say.

Show from them that Mohammed didn't actually steal, lie, enslave, assassinate, rape, slaughter, and wage offensive war against non-Muslims (or command the faithful to do the same).

". . . how to word a) what I think is happening (with the incorrect textual analysis) and b) what I think should happen . . . ."

In response to a): One needs to actually familiarize himself with the texts and Islamic theology, jurisprudence, and history to be able to determine whether it is the "tiny minority of extremists-ists" or the "Islam is peace-ers" who distort the word of Allah and the example of his apostle.

With regard to b): Name a world Muslim leader (or school) who rejects utterly offensive jihad against non-Muslims, the superiority of Muslims over non-Muslims, and the institutionalized subjugation and humiliation of non-Muslims under Shari'a.

If Allah and his prophet actually command believers to wage offensive war against non-Muslims who refuse either to convert or pay the jizya (they do), then no possible response should be rejected out-of-hand.

Admit what the Islamic texts say, what Mohammed did, and what his followers have done in obedience to him and Allah.

"Attempting to censor me from quoting the bible or any other text in this discussion isn't helpful, imho."

Quoting the Bible in a debate on Islam is a non sequitur, a red herring, a tu quoque argument. All are logical fallacies and therefore unbecoming someone claiming to seek truth.

"Basically Iago is saying that Islam IS worthy of revulsion on the basis of armchair textual analysis."

Please do me the courtesy of attributing to me only what I've actually written.

I am saying, "This is what Qur'an and Hadith say: . . . ."

Your revulsion at "divine" commands for (and approbation of) slavery, theft, rape, murder, extortion, pedophilia, and genocide is something you must reconcile with your own "all religious paths without exception lead to truth" creed.

(By the way, for someone who's written post after post impugning my knowledge of Qur'an and Sunnah though admitting he knows nothing of them, "armchair textual analysis" seems a little too ironic, doesn't it?)

"Basically I'm saying that no, if you run that level of analysis on any of the powerhouse spiritual texts you'll come up with a handful of problems."

Really? You've only attacked the Bible. Not Qur'an, not Hadith. And what "handful of problems" have you found? Mark and Luke didn't meet Jesus.

No open-ended, universal commands to war against all Gentiles to make the world Israel. Not even a suggestion of warfare from the One Who commanded, "Love your enemies," and, "Do good to those who persecute you."

Even "armchair textual analysis" should produce something better than that, shouldn't it?

"The REAL reason we're being fed the scary muslim fairy tale is . . . .

An odd, immoral equivalence between people who VOTE and those who SLAUGHTER INNOCENTS.

But everyone's truth is true, right?

Perhaps that "scary muslim fairy tale" has something to do with nearly one and one-half millennia of the enslavement, rape, and slaughter of non-Muslims to make the world Islam.

Or 9/11 and over nine thousand terrorist attacks around the world since then.

"Further, their students made successful use of this strategy during the cold war with the USSR."

Yes, the Soviets were pacifists. Unfortunately, American leaders were no more cognizant then of with whom they were dancing in the pale moonlight than they are today.

In light of Qur'an and Sunnah, who is truly the "father of Islamic fundamentalism?" Here's a hint:

"Allah's Apostle said: 'I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle . . . '" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).

From PM:

"It's obvious that Iago isn't down with lateral thinking - he shoots down my references to apparent contradictions without connecting the dots to realize how easily a real Muslim could shoot down his."

"Apparent contradiction" means it only appears to be a contradiction.

You've produced no Biblical contradictions. You've produced no contradictions in Islamic "sacred" texts, either.

First, if you know nothing of Qur'an and Sunnah, how do you know at all what a "real Muslim" can demonstrate? Or how "easy" it would be?

How can you even define what a "real Muslim" is?

Second, you mischaracterize my *quotations* of Islamic texts as "apparent contradictions," but I've never written of contradictions. I've only quoted texts!

Third, you've not demonstrated that I've taken anything out-of-context.

Fourth, there are actual -- not apparent -- contradictions to the commands for unmerciful offensive warfare against those who refuse to convert or submit to Allah's rule. What do you know about them?

Early in Mohammed's prophetic career, when his movement was numerically, politically, economically, and militarily weak, the revelations he received regarding warfare consisted of cooperation and peace with non-Muslims.

Later, as he grew in power, the revelations evolved from allowing defensive warfare to *requiring* it.

Finally, at the end of his career and at the height of his power, the last of Mohammed's revelations regarding warfare (Sura 9) demanded ruthless offensive combat against all who refuse to convert or submit to Allah.

How does Islam deal with those earlier, peaceful passages that conflict with commands like The Verse of the Sword? The doctrine of Naskh. (Look it up.)

"You chose to name yourself after St. James the Moor Slayer?! . . . I don't know much about Catholicism. Apparently there's another Saint who's known as the Indian Killer, too. That's real cool, you guys."

But I thought "everyone's truth is true"? Don't "all religious paths lead without exception to truth"? Who "are you to question [my] truth"?

Be careful, your historical illiteracy is showing.

"Man, you've got to explain to me how that's ok. What would you do if I called myself Paranoid the Killer of Christians? You'd hit the freakin roof! . . . James, the moor killer. We live in a funny world."

Truthfully, you don't know how I'd react.

Though you "don't know much about Catholicism" and "nothing about Qur'an and Hadith," you don't mind hysterically objecting to my nom de plume.

Other than the English translation of his name and that he is a Catholic saint, what do you know about Santiago Matamoros?

Do you know that he was the patron saint of Spain? Do you know that he was only St. James until something happened to Spain in the 8th century? Who were the Moors? Why would Spanish Catholics care at all about them? Why would they add such a violent appellation to one of their saint's names?

After Mohammed's death, the followers of his new religion, in obedience to his and his god's commands and acting in accord with his example, exploded out of Arabia and throughout the Holy Land, Middle East, North Africa, Asia, and both Western and Eastern Europe raping, enslaving, and slaughtering those who refused to convert or submit.

Spain is in Western Europe. It was one of Islam's victims. It is one of the few Infidel states to regain its freedom from Allah. That is why you've heard bin Laden and other "extremists" use Al-Andalus (Andalusia) as both a lament and a call to arms.

Contrary to [. . .] multiculturalist historical revisionism/Islamic propaganda, there was no [. . .] "Golden Age" of Islam there. The native, Christian Spaniards [. . .] fought for over seven hundred years before finally throwing off the yoke of their Islamic oppressors.

In other words, St. James was believed to have helped the Spanish in their resistance to Islam's tyranny.

Since we are today facing a resurgent global jihad, it seems neither "funny" nor "freakin" to choose as a nom de guerre the name of someone attributed with defending Christians against Allah.

Choosing "Santiago Matamoros" is no less reasonable, timely, or defiant in the face of tyranny than using Charles Martel, Jan III Sobieski, or Manuel II Palaeologus . . . .

Histrionics at the name is the equivalent of objecting to someone calling himself, "Winston Churchill" or "G. Washington."

"Now we're getting into territory that really intrigues me! Which is: what do we do when the basis of a culture has flaws?"

Which would be off-topic.

"In a sense, every human endeavor faces this issue. Even we, the USA, have to live up to the fact that our founding documents did not count as full human beings slaves or females."

Also off-topic.

(By the way, the Constitution made that compromise for the purposes of representation, not a qualitative evaluation of anyone's humanity.)

"For those within the flawed culture, there are basically two positions . . . ."

Sounds pretty limited for an "all religious paths lead to a swirling mass of spiritual truth" kind of guy.

"I know you hate the moral equivalence of analogies"

Actually, I am opposed to false moral equivalences.

Analogies are just comparisons and when accurate, can be quite useful.

"but I can't help it) What would have happened if, for instance, a foreign power had invaded the US during the Civil War . . . .?"

Americans were warring against Americans. No foreign power's uninvited intervention would have been justified.

Which is of course, NOT analogous to Iraq or Afghanistan.

"Given that we (humanity) are moving from a generally less to a generally more enlightened state"

Only if a dog returning to its vomit can be considered "enlightened."

What evidence do you have of our "enlightenment"?

In the twentieth century, hundreds of millions of human lives were sacrificed on the altars of Nazism, Communism, and Islam, all of which are a form of fascism and reject Christ.

Tens of millions of Americans have been exterminated over the last few decades and one of our two major political parties defends such barbarity as a Constitutional right.

The principles of human equality and God-given Rights to Life and Liberty expounded in the Declaration and codified in the Constitution have been so consistently violated that nearly all our major political parties' leading presidential candidates espouse Socialism to one degree or another.

The institutions nominally-responsible for intellectual inquiry and governmental accountability -- higher education and the media -- are predominantly propaganda arms for any enemy of the American Republic crafty enough to yell "Racism!" or "First Amendment!"

And the religious tradition that led to the West's greatness is increasingly ignored, ridiculed, and rejected by its heirs.

"basically still a message of hate."

"Message of hate"?

Muslims kill in the name of Allah because he says, "kill the unbelievers wherever you find them." I point out that fact, but mine is a "message of hate"?

Such a false moral equivalence calls into question the judgment of the one making it.

"And I think holding this position closes the door on the forward motion we're looking for in the Islamic world."

How does lying about what Qur'an and Sunnah teach "move forward" the Islamic world? How can one reform that which one denies needs reformation?

Real progress within Islam must begin with acknowledging that which retards it.

"I'd also like to point out that jihad is an appropriated term . . . ."

A half-truth designed to deceive ignorant and gullible Infidels into believing "Islam is peace."

Who best defines "Islam"? Who better than Allah and his apostle? I've already shared a significant portion of their thoughts on this whole "offensive warfare" issue.

Yes, "jihad" means "struggle." Yes, one questionable hadith has Mohammed referring to the "greater jihad" being a struggling against oneself.

Did your Islamic expert tell you what the word for combat is? Qital.

Let's put your new, "enlightened" definition of "jihad" into the context of Qur'an and Sunnah:

-Does, "kill the unbelievers wherever you find them," really mean, "struggle against your ego the unbelievers wherever you find them"?

-Does, "Fight against . . . the People of the Book [Jews and Christians] . . . until they pay the jizya . . . and feel themselves subdued," really mean, "Struggle against your ego . . . until they pay . . ."?

-Does, ". . . invite them to Islam . . . If they refuse, demand the jizya.. . . If they refuse that, then fight," really mean, ". . . If they refuse that, then struggle against your ego"?

-Does, "I have been ordered to fight against the people until all confess that no one has the right to be worshiped but Allah and Mohammed is his apostle," really mean, "I have ordered to struggle against my ego against the people until all confess . . ."?

-Does, ". . . fight until all religion is for Allah," really mean, ". . . struggle against your ego until all religion is for Allah"?

-Does, "they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain" really mean, "they struggle against their egos in his cause, and slay and are slain"?

-Does, "I have been made victorious with terror," really mean, "I have been made victorious with struggling against my ego"?

There's more. Shall I continue?

"those preaching violent jihad against "the West" are essentially snake-oil salesmen, appealing to the basest human fears in order to prop up their desire for power."

That may be, but to what do they appeal in recruiting members of that "large majority of moderates"? Qur'an and Sunnah.

"paint Islam as a violent and dangerous religion."

Who's painting Islam as violent and dangerous but Muslims themselves?

Do not 3/11 (Madrid), 7/7 (London), Bali, Mumbai, Israel, Sudan, Somalia, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, and all the other more than nine thousand terrorist attacks since September 11th paint that picture?

Do not Allah and Mohammed paint that picture themselves?

You keep trying to blame Islamic terrorism on neo-Conservatives. That is grossly inaccurate and immoral.

"To me, a message of hate cannot be erased with an equal and opposite message of hate."

How is reporting a message of hate itself hate? Does not such a usage make the word meaningless?

"I feel that there must be a solution which involved empowering and supporting those with more legitimate views."

"feel"? While you're feeling, Shari'a advances not only through terrorism, but also by demographics, litigation, da'wa, and the ballot box.

As for "legitimate," didn't you say that, "All religious paths without exception lead to spiritual truth"?

Those Muslims with more legitimate views find themselves at the business end of apostasy law. Mohammed said, "If anyone changes his religion, then kill him."

"And, more than anything else, getting our act together when it comes to invasions and occupations in the Arab world."

Finally, we get to the point you've danced around these many posts. President Bush's occupation of Iraq is responsible for 9/11.

Amazing. Not only is he too dumb to be president but smart enough to deceive the entire Democratic party, he's also powerful enough to cause global warming and retroactive mass slaughter in the name of Allah and in accord with Islamic "sacred" texts!

"It's called "The Girls of Riyadh"

But you read it just for the articles, right?

If one wants to know about Islam's "sacred" texts, one ought to read Islam's "sacred" texts.

"You have no faith that this correct knowledge exists in Islam. That's a real problem, a core pessimism that doesn't dissolve the issues we're facing but only exacerbates them."

I would suggest you reread my posts. I've not addressed contradictions in Islamic texs, real or imagined, until one of my last posts, and that was not in the context to which you keep appealing.

"You are very intent on textual analysis of work we are not familiar with!"

Are you using the royal "we," or are you again projecting onto me your "total ignorance of Qur'an and Sunnah?"

"You simply do not choose to hear that this is problematic from the very beginning."

It should be clear from my replies that I've heard quite well everything you've written. :)

"I have no working knowledge whatsoever of how to approach the Islamic spiritual texts - how they are understood, which to take in what order, etc."

Rest assured, you've demonstrated that!

How 'bout working next on that little "out-of-context" libel?

"I don't know enough about its context to talk about the specific meaning. But I will throw up instead a contradictory one:"

If you don't know its meaning, how can you offer one in contradiction?

Why not just stick with, "What does Allah say? What did Mohammed say and do?"

That would be much more intellectually honest, productive, and (literally) life-affirming.

"And dispute ye not with the People of the Book"

Perhaps you didn't have a chance to read my earlier comments on those Qur'anic texts that are traditionally understood by Muslims to contradict the later Verses of Blood.

"So a real Muslim has a problem - which verse is true-er? And a real Muslim will have the answer, too."

But you don't know what that is, right? There is one. It's called the doctrine of Naskh.

"Why will you not be honest about this yourself?"

I brought this up first in an earlier post and again in this one.

Perhaps it's better to read what someone writes before stating something false about them (of course, you've been doing that even when you've read my comments).

You're confusing actual Islamic contradictions (addressed in Muslim theology) with only alleged Biblical contradictions fabricated by the ignorant and the antagonistic.

"I . . . would be happily surprised to find out otherwise."

Argumentum ad hominem, another logical fallacy.

How about we do the intellectually honest thing and look at the texts?

"In a certain sense, I have to confess it does not matter."

I thought so. At least that's honest.

"You ask me to show from the texts you quote that "Mohammed didn't actually steal, lie, enslave, assassinate, rape, slaughter, and wage offensive war against non-Muslims (or command the faithful to do the same)."

"Well. No. I can't do that. But I bet someone can.""

That's called "wishful thinking."

You admit you don't know anything about Islam's authoritative texts and then bet on the basis of that ignorance.

"Or else 1 billion people wouldn't devote their lives to this religion."

That is another false dichotomy ("Islam is peace or it wouldn't have so many adherents").

"I don't know how else to do it, but could you prove the same for the following: "You shall devour all the peoples that the LORD your God is giving over to you . . . from Deut 7:16"

From its context, Deuteronomy 7:16 is a command for Israel to completely wipe out the peoples of Canaan.

However, it is not an open-ended command for offensive warfare to make the world Hebrew, as apologists for jihad and their useful idiots usually argue.

"I know, Mod, I know! No fair to quote the OT!"

What's truly unfair is the false moral equivalence.

And World Citizen didn't say it was unfair, just off-topic.

"What I'm getting from the Moor Killer is hatred of Islam on the basis of quotes pulled out of context."

You're getting Islamic texts, but you've not yet demonstrated that I'm taking any of them "out of context."

Are you going to do the intellectually honest thing and demonstrate the truth of your assertions, or will you retract them?

To do anything else just hurts your credibility.

"the dedication to this cause that you have, Moor Killer, is disturbing."

Telling the truth is disturbing?

"You keep mentioning the 1400 years of violent jihad. They've been a rough period for all humanity, indeed!"

Another immoral equivalence. That makes it not so bad, right?

"I'm sitting this very moment on the site of the largest genocide produced in the history of earth, the systematic destruction of untold millions of lives and erasure of entire civilizations, all for the slogan "God, gold and glory!"

Really, the 70 to 80 million Hindus killed by Islam?

Again, the point you're hoping to make by this, another false moral equivalence, is that Christ is just as bad as Allah.

The essential distinction is that nominally-Christian nations engaged in imperialism had no Biblical basis for such behavior, while offensive jihad to make the world Islam is permitted by Allah and his apostle, it is a duty!

But that disintegrates your "mass of spiritual truth," doesn't it?

"attacking a religion you do not understand is not helping the situation."

How is quoting from Islam's foundational texts "attacking Islam"? What does that characterization say about YOUR opinion of those texts? Are you some kind of Islamophobe?

"If you really want to know the spiritual meaning behind any of the quotes you pulled"

If you know nothing about Qur'an and Sunnah, how can you imply I do not know what they mean?

"After all, who is this James if there is no Moor Killing to do?"

Historical illiteracy is an ugly thing. Civilizational self-loathing is even uglier.

"Islam is worthy of ____"

Telling the truth about its texts.

As for a "Sufi revival," be careful of what you wish:

"Sufism as practiced in the Indian subcontinent was quite intolerant of Hinduism, as documented by the Indian scholar K. S. Lal:

'The Muslim Mushaikh [Sufi spiritual leaders] were as keen on conversions as the Ulama, and contrary to general belief, in place of being kind to the Hindus as saints would, they too wished the Hindus to be accorded a second class citizenship if they were not converted. Only one instance, that of Shaikh Abdul Quddus Gangoh, need be cited because he belonged to the Chishtia Silsila considered to be the most tolerant of all Sufi groups. He wrote letters to the Sultan Sikandar Lodi, Babur, and Humayun to re-invigorate the Shariat [Sharia] and reduce the Hindus to payers of land tax and jizya. To Babur he wrote, "Extend utmost patronage and protection to theologians and mystics... that they should be maintained and subsidized by the state... No non-Muslim should be given any office or employment in the Diwan of Islam... Furthermore, in conformity with the principles of the Shariat they should be subjected to all types of indignities and humiliations. They should be made to pay the jizya...They should be disallowed from donning the dress of the Muslims and should be forced to keep their Kufr [infidelity] concealed and not to perform the ceremonies of their Kufr openly and freely. They should not be allowed to consider themselves the equal to the Muslims" (The Legacy of Muslim Rule in India [1992], p. 237).

"Since that time, while researching my forthcoming book, The Legacy of Jihad, I have discovered that there are many other influential Sufis who shared, and who share today, these bigoted views. Sufi intolerance is clear from, most importantly, never-before-published translations of the great Sufi Al-Ghazali himself . . . as well as from statements by an important contemporary Shi'ite Sufi ideologue, Sultanhussein Tabandeh (Andrew Bostom)."

PM adds,

"uh huh... So Christ was for slavery? Equality for all!! (except if you're black or a woman that is) If history has taught us anything its that a belief in God has NOTHING to do with morality. Religion is probably the most evil concept man has ever devised."

If by, "So Christ was for slavery?" you're implying that He was not, you are correct: "It is for freedom that Christ has set you free" (Galatians 5).

If the Son of God is for human freedom and He created (or completed) His own religion, then how can all religion be "probably the most evil concept" ever created?

If the Christian religion inspired the essential truth of the Declaration of Independence -- "all men are created equal . . . they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights . . . ," then how can all religions be evil?

"Love your enemies" (Matthew 5), "treat others the way you want to be treated" (Matthew 7), "as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me" (Matthew 25), "the law is not made for a righteous one, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for . . . slave-traders . . . " (1 Timothy 1).

Despicable!

Using the hypocrisy of a nation that preached Liberty but allowed slavery as an excuse to indict the religion that inspired its ideals is not wisdom.

Despite what many il-liberal institutions of "higher learning" propagandize, Christianity is not the Source of All Evil. Slavery has existed for as long as one group of human beings were powerful enough to subjugate another.

Christ recognized slavery's ubiquitousness. In this context, He commanded His followers who did own slaves to treat them as "beloved brothers" (Philemon 1). He also encouraged His followers who were slaves to serve in a way that would honor Him (Ephesians 6) but to gain their freedom if they could (1 Corinthians 7).

Why did slavery in America end? Because its predominantly Christian citizens ended it.

Finally, it seems unwise to argue that the only other alternative to religion -- atheism -- encourages moral behavior. Atheism's lack of morality allowed it to slaughter tens of millions of people in the twentieth century alone.

wontgetfooledagain offers,

"Christianity has a brutal and oppresive history. It even tried to keep Galileo and other scientists from spreading 'lies' and would force them to admit the 'truth'.... or else."

Criminal and unjust behavior by Christians does not make the faith itself "evil," as any cursory examination of its texts would indicate.

"It's kind of funny really... You could be a backwoods hick..but if you read the bible (or have someone read it for you and tell you what's in it)"

Must have hit a nerve.

"then suddenly you are smarter than all the scientists in the world."

First, not all scientists accept that Darwin's creation myth is even possible.

Second, you want to call "ignorant" those who believe that an omnipotent, omniscient God directly created Life. Here are some questions with which you might be able to help a "backwoods hick":

-What scientific (observable, testable, repeatable) evidence do you have that Life arises apart from Life or Life's programs?

-What actual empirical evidence do you have that by random genetic mutations alone newer, more complex genetic program and physical structures and functions can arise in an organism?

-Is not your faith that Life arose suddenly from non-life by random, natural processes alone -- and then somehow managed to survive normally lethal genetic mutations to form all Life -- irrational?

In other words, what do you know is empirically true about Neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory?

"Not only that...Christianity also has the nerve to tell the Jews that they don't know who to interpret their own Torah and have decided they know more about the OT than Jews do and only THEY could really know what God was trying to say."

To imply that "Jew" and "Christian" are two mutually-exclusive categories is absolutely false and indicative of an unfamiliarity with history.

-The Christian New Testament. Who composed its texts? Jews.

-The first Christians. Who were they? Jews.

-The first witness to Christ's resurrection. Who was he? No one. She was a Jewish woman.

-The Apostles. Who were they? Jews.

-The Promised Messiah, the Son of God. Who was He? The King of the Jews.

Before his conversion, one of the New Testament's authors, the Apostle Paul, was a Pharisee and referred to himself as a "Hebrew of Hebrews." He warned Gentile (non-Jewish) Christians to avoid arrogance for they had been "grafted into" the vine, of which Jews were the natural branches.

If any Christian speaks arrogantly to anyone, they violate Christ's teachings.

Telling the truth is not arrogance.

"Intolerant Christians trying to force their views of morality onto others."

Are you not now expressing intolerance? Are you not "forcing your morality onto others?"

Every society follows (to whatever degree) a set of moral codes. The question then is: Whose morality do we follow? That of atheism? Nazism? Communism? Islam?

The One who created the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule, Who never sinned but only did good healing the sick, raising the dead, dying for the sins of all, and then rising from the dead Himself -- His morality seems like a wise choice.

"lago, You're doing a great job of destroying PM's ridculous arguments but this is not the board to discuss the 'human rights' track record of Christianity (which is abysmal)."

Whose record is good? The Assyrians'? Romans'? Greeks'? Islam's? China's? Aztec's? Japan's? Atheism's?

You seem to suggest that today in the West we respect human rights. From where did that respect come? It did not arise in a vacuum. It came from no other religious or philosophical tradition than Christianity.

The behavior of a religion's adherents must always be evaluated in light of its sacred texts. Only then can one determine whether or not someone is representing that religion faithfully.

Like all people, Christians have committed evil. When the power of the State was united with the Church, abuses occurred. Nominally-Christian states engaged in wars of expansion.

All of that was contrary to the teachings of Christ. None of it can be justified by His words or deeds.

"If you would like to debate Christianity I would like to invite you over to the Christian debate board....you will find me there."

Thanks for the invitation. I'll see how things go here. It looks like PM has replied. :)

Regards,

Iago

PM rejoins,

"I've put my points down pretty firmly, but no one with an ounce of humility is reading this post."

I imagine that's a jab at me.

Competence is not arrogance.

If you want to make a point in a debate, facts are often helpful.

"I'm happy to admit my deficiency in the Koran. I've read as much as will satisfy my curiousity and no more."

You admit to knowing nothing of Qur'an and Hadith. And now your curiosity is satisfied.

I would be happy to explain some of the basics in dealing with that material. No one reading it for the first time without the necessary background can be successful with it.

"Moreover, I haven't lived and learned from those practicing Islam, other than to know that many in the world do practice it, with success, and count Islam as their path to truth."

What is "success" in Islam? Must not it be defined in a way consistent with Mohammed's words and deeds?

When he says, "Fight . . . until all religion is for Allah," how does "success" look?

Are you really sure you want to subscribe to Mohammed's definition of it?

"The Moor Killer"

Are you unwilling or unable to appreciate the timeliness of recalling a hero of the West's resistance against jihad?

"To him, he is a full authority on the Koran and understands without fail every line."

Perhaps only in comparison to someone who knows "nothing" about it and refuses to learn but argues anyway.

Will you demonstrate where I've misrepresented any Islamic texts? If not, will you retract?

"Every line is to be taken at face value, with the translation given."

If you actually knew any of those "successful Muslims," you'd know that the texts are taken pretty much literally.

"That textual analysis of historical documents is not easy and shouldn't be done in a vacuum"

I agree.

But you're trying to do it without the documents.

"The Moor Killer has found troubling passages relating to violence. How will he resolve this difficulty? Will he engage with a Quranic scholar, work on gleaning the truth from the text, actually learn what the spiritual people have to say and separate the temporal historical topical meaning from the timeless wisdom?"

Have you?

As you admit, you don't know Qur'an and you don't care to learn. How then can you talk about doing anything with "timelessly wise Qur'anic scholars"?

"He'll get on the bullhorn and post like the authority he is."

Facts are to moral relativism as light is to darkness.

"Islam demands violence!"

I've cited Islamic texts.

Again, please have the courtesy to refer to what I've actually written.

"I've made references to Christian genocides, many of which had a baloney "scriptural" basis, in reaction to his references of Muslim genocides."

Making red herring and tu quoque arguments is not something about which to brag.

"His response is: 'Again, the point you're hoping to make by this, another false moral equivalence, is that Christ is just as bad as Allah.'"

Finally.

"Allah isn't bad. Evil men have misused these genuine spiritual paths for evil ends."

Mohammed confessed, "I have been made victorious with terror." Is that "genuinely spiritual" terror?

You're not saying Mohammed was "evil," are you?

"Hindu genocide is gnarly and unacceptable. Native American genocide is gnarly and unacceptable."

The former commanded by Allah and his apostle, the latter diametric to the person, work, and word of Christ.

"Take your name, the Moor Killer. To me, on the surface, that's an awful and hateful name. But there's a historical conflict I'm "illiterate" of, and from one perspective at least some Moors did need killing at a certain point in time, and there are meanings and references and layers of identity at work here and it's also mostly metaphorical and probably St. James would never ACTUALLY kill a guy, unless they REALLY deserve it, and on and on."

The actual St. James was an Apostle of Christ. Tradition has it that all the Apostles but John died violent deaths for their testimony. I too doubt he killed anyone.

As to being unfamiliar with the historical context of Matamoros, there's no shame in not knowing. All of us start there. The challenge you face here is now that you know the truth, will you admit it or persist in suicidal fiction?

"Without the subtext and footnotes, the name is pure hate"

In other words, "To the ignorant, the name is pure hate."

"Wishful thinking here: we've got to move this dialogue forward. We've got to understand that a few snipped sentences don't sum up an entire religion."

You've still not demonstrated I've "snipped" some sentences, and considering your admission of surrender to Qur'anic illiteracy above, I doubt you will.

(I would like to point out that I've never said that Allah and Mohammed's commands to war to make the world Islam "sums up the entire religion." It only sums up the parts relevant to non-Muslims' Rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

And the structural integrity of their throats.)

"And super wishful thinking is that we could get onto the REAL topic: who benefits from the hateful attitude, here and abroad? Who taught them this very effective method of division? Where will it be played next?"

Allah,

Mohammed,

and everywhere, of course.

"There is - it's called love."

Love is not ignorance, nor is it silence in the face of evil.

"The question must be asked because websites like this exist:

www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/"

Reporting on Islamic terrorism is "reviling Muslims"? That's an odd way of blaming the victim.

If Muslims stop slaughtering innocents in the name of Allah, then reports of their barbarism will cease.

"In responding to the slave-friendly nature of the Christian-inspired founding fathers"

Only some supported the institution. Political compromise was necessary to achieve unity in the struggle for independence against Great Britain.

"Now I'm pulling a number of your lines and placing them, out of context, side by side. I find it compelling . . . ."

That's intellectually honest.

Ever find evidence of my misrepresenting Qur'an and Sunnah?

"Criminal behavior does not make the faith itself evil. This is so difficult and so real. When the Inquisition is on, how can someone of conscience NOT consider Christianity evil?"

According to you, when a Christian does evil -- such behavior being DIAMETRIC to the command of Christ -- the religion is evil.

When Muslims enslave, rape, and slaughter non-Muslims to make the world Islam -- in FULFILLMENT of Allah's command and Mohammed's example -- it's "a religious path leading without exception to a swirling mass of truth."

"How can someone NOT believe that the texts themselves condone and even command the criminal?"

Read them.

"find the false understanding, find the bad teaching, and resolve it, refocus attention, and get over the madness. That activity has to take place from within the tradition, at a critical distance from the crime. The prevalent mind control has to be busted up, by those with an interest in improving and retooling the system."

How is that possible when Allah commands genocide and his "beautiful pattern of conduct" Mohammed preached and practiced it?

"Despite my latest appeal regarding the nature of textual analysis from outside a tradition, Iago would like to play the tit for tat game."

If it is impossible to understand a religious text unless you are a devotee of that religion, then it is impossible for you to make that argument since you wouldn't understand the texts well enough to know that no one else did either.

What you call "tit for tat" is actually addressing the facts.

"Give me the number one, bulletproof, surefire "Allah commands violence" piece of text."

I've provided not a few of them in this thread.

I thought you read my posts.

"I did this a little bit once, and you said I chose the wrong one and debunking it didn't mean anything. I've picked out an expert to consult with. I'll come back with the proper reading and shoot the surefire "Allah commands love" response."

You chose a passage on defensive warfare, and citing propaganda sympathetic to jihad meant to obfuscate it and The Verse of the Sword to non-Muslims is not "debunking."

As for your expert, is this person of a greater authority than Allah? Mohammed? Will he report accurately what Islam has traditionally understood and practiced regarding offensive warfare against non-Muslims, Shari'a, and dhimma? Will he admit that no major school of Islamic jurisprudence rejects offensive warfare to establish the tyranny of Allah over all mankind or the superiority of Muslims over non-Muslims?

Not even Sufism -- a revival of its ideology for which you expressed a fervent desire -- does that. I shared some information on this point with you earlier. Here's a little more:

Al-Ghazali was “acclaimed in both the East and West as the greatest Muslim after Muhammad."

Al-Ghazali on jihad and dhimma:

"[O]ne must go on jihad (i.e., warlike razzias or raids) at least once a year . . . one may use a catapult against them [non-Muslims] when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them and/or drown them...If a person of the Ahl al-Kitab [People of The Book – primarily Jews and Christians] is enslaved, his marriage is [automatically] revoked . . . One may cut down their trees . . . One must destroy their useless books. Jihadists may take as booty whatever they decide . . . they may steal as much food as they need . . . .

"[T]he dhimmi is obliged not to mention Allah or His Apostle . . . Jews, Christians, and Majians must pay the jizya [poll tax on non-Muslims] . . . on offering up the jizya, the dhimmi must hang his head while the official takes hold of his beard and hits [the dhimmi] on the protruberant [sic] bone beneath his ear [i.e., the mandible] . . . They are not permitted to ostentatiously display their wine or church bells . . . their houses may not be higher than the Muslim’s, no matter how low that is. The dhimmi may not ride an elegant horse or mule; he may ride a donkey only if the saddle[-work] is of wood. He may not walk on the good part of the road. They [the dhimmis] have to wear [an identifying] patch [on their clothing], even women, and even in the [public] baths…[dhimmis] must hold their tongue…. [2] (From the Wagjiz, written in 1101 A.D)" --Bostom

PM continues,

"We can do that for all your ammo. But one at a time, 'cuz I have a day job."

So, if you were independently wealthy, you'd somehow discover a curiosity for Qur'an and Hadith and then demonstrate that all the Islamic texts that command the slavery and slaughter of non-Muslims are really just talking about "peacefully struggling inwardly" toward that "swirling mass of truth"?

Note the Islamic Newspeak in this brief bit from scholar Bassam Tibi on how Muslims have traditionally understood Islam:

"At its core, Islam is a religious mission to all humanity. Muslims are religiously obliged to disseminate the Islamic faith throughout the world. “We have sent you forth to all mankind” (Q. 34:28). If non-Muslims submit to conversion or subjugation, this call (da’wa) can be pursued peacefully. If they do not, Muslims are obliged to wage war against them. In Islam, peace requires that non-Muslims submit to the call of Islam, either by converting or by accepting the status of a religious minority (dhimmi) and paying the imposed poll tax, jizya. World peace, the final stage of the da’wa, is reached only with the conversion or submission of all mankind to Islam…Muslims believe that expansion through war is not aggression but a fulfillment of the Qur’anic command to spread Islam as a way to peace. The resort to force to disseminate Islam is not war (harb), a word that is used only to describe the use of force by non-Muslims. Islamic wars are not hurub (the plural of harb) but rather futuhat, acts of “opening” the world to Islam and expressing Islamic jihad. Relations between dar al-Islam, the home of peace, and dar al-harb, the world of unbelievers, nevertheless take place in a state of war, according to the Qur’an and to the authoritative commentaries of Islamic jurists. Unbelievers who stand in the way, creating obstacles for the da’wa, are blamed for this state of war, for the da’wa can be pursued peacefully if others submit to it. In other words, those who resist Islam cause wars and are responsible for them. Only when Muslim power is weak is “temporary truce” (hudna) allowed (Islamic jurists differ on the definition of “temporary”)."

More from the thread . . . .

"Smell the bacon"

Pork.

Being an authority on Islam, you undoubtedly recognize such a remark as offensive to Muslims. Is that an Islamophobo-Freudian slip?

"There is a myth at work . . . The new bad guy . . . is the Islamic fundamentalist."

Those who preach and practice the slaughter of innocents is *not* a "bad guy"?

Shameful.

According to you, no 9/11. No Beslan. No London 7/7. No Madrid 3/11. No Bali. No Mumbai.

No genocide against the Black Christians, animists, and Muslims of Sudan. No Buddhist monks murdered. No Armenian Genocide. No nuns killed over a cartoon. No Pakistanis gunned down in front of their students for teaching females. No Indonesian Christian school girls beheaded for Allah.

No Copt teenage daughters kidnapped, raped, forcibly converted, and married into Islam whose fathers are greeted at police stations with "Don't worry. She's in the arms of Islam now." No journalists forced to confess their and their mother's Jewish ethnicity before having their heads torn from their necks.

No raping of the nuns dead on the floors of the Hagia Sofia. No Janissaries. No Banu Qurayza. No Asma bint Marwan. No Al-Andalus. No Siege of Vienna. No Battle of Tours. No Barbary Pirates. No Reconquista.

No jihad. No Shari'a. No dhimma.

No commands to, "Invite . . . demand the jizya . . . [or] fight" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4294).

No confession from Islam's "Ideal Man" that, "I have been ordered to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshiped but Allah and Mohammed is his apostle" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).

It's just one 1400-year-old, gigantic, worldwide myth aimed at defaming Islam.

If they had any decency, those Infidels would stop getting killed by Muslims. It's making Islam look bad.

"AM radio . . . LGF . . . every event or statement regarding Muslims into proof that they are evil and to be reviled."

Almost *no one* on AM radio has the intellectual integrity or moral fortitude to even approach the Islamic texts. LGF links to *news* agencies' reports on what Muslims do and say.

If they don't want others to know about their slaughtering Infidels, they ought to start killing in private.

"the Empire State building . . . lit be green for one night in honor of Ramadan. For people of the hateful mindset, even a simple gesture of inclusion like that"

Whose got a "hateful mindset," those protesting the honoring the ideology that slaughtered nearly 3,000 fellow New Yorkers just down the street, or those who support that bloodshed?

"innocent German citizen . . . the myth of the Islamic fundamentalist jihadist masses."

A billion people claim fealty to a god and prophet commanding them to wage offensive warfare against all who refuse to convert or submit (that many do not is attributable to ignorance, cowardice, apathy, and a lack of resources).

In every nation where Muslims have the power to vote, they choose Jihad.

"In my last post I offered an olive branch and opportunity to study with me to Moor Killer #1. And he won't have it!"

You know that is false, as does anyone who's read our exchange.

You asked me for "One verse, just one verse!" to dismantle with your Islamic "expert."

I've already given you not only many passages from Qur'an and Hadith, I've provided Islamic scholars much more authoritative, influential, and representative of traditional Islamic orthodoxy than any you could possibly find.

Unsurprisingly, you address none of that but instead choose to (again) falsely accuse me of wrongdoing.

"illegal conduct which masquerades as spiritual truth"

In Christianity, "illegal conduct" is recognized as "masquerading" because the Biblical texts prove it to be immoral.

In Islam, what you call "illegal conduct" (offensive jihad to subjugate the world to Allah) is not only permissible, it is required.

"I'm still waiting for one quote you'd like me debunk. I don't want to pick my own because when I did that the last time I picked the 'wrong one.'"

The quotation marks implying that it wasn't really wrong. You tried to use a verse on defensive jihad to prove I was taking out-of-context a verse on offensive jihad.

Your aversion to supporting your "argument" is becoming tedious. First, it was, "All religious paths lead without exception to a swirling mass of spiritual truth -- except yours." Then, it was, "You're taking verses out-of-context" (which is your admission that I've already given you the verses you claim now I'm withholding). Most recently, it's, "I want to study, but he won't!"

It's like Steve Martin from The Man with Two Brains, asking his dead wife for a sign that he shouldn't get involved with Kathleen Turner:

Martin: "Just give me a sign."

Dead wife: "No!" "No!" "NO!!!" "NOOOOOOOOOO!!!" [Painting spins violently on wall, lights flicker, house shakes.]

Martin: "Just any kind of sign. I'll keep on the lookout for it. Meanwhile, I'll just put you in the closet."

rabello jumps into the fray with . . .

"Sorry, IagoMatamoros, you are the one making nonstop, scurrilous charges against all Muslims, and all of Islam, itself"

Scurrilous? There is coarse, vulgar, and abusive language in my posts, but those are not my words; as you concede, I am just quoting Allah and his apostle.

And if I am quoting Islamic texts, how am I making "vulgar and abusive" charges against "all Muslims"? What does that say for what you believe about those passages?

Are you some kind of Islamophobe?

"with your repetitive copy/pastes of passages from the Qur'an that you've found somewhere"

Where? Qur'an and Sunnah.

First you accuse Allah and Mohammed of making "scurrilous" revelations; now you accuse me of not doing my own homework. How dishonest.

Without the knowledge to prove it (or the courage to admit your error), you falsely accuse me of misrepresenting Islam's "sacred" texts.

As for the repetition, that's called using relevant evidence to support your arguments.

You want to prove your tolerance and enlightenment by defending "divine" commands for offensive warfare until the whole world is subjugated to Allah.

That is scurrilous.

"The onus remains on YOU to prove that your interpretations of those copy/pasted passages are the ONLY correct interpretations in all of the world."

A red herring.

As you and PM have ably demonstrated, anyone totally ignorant of Qur'an, Sunnah, and 1400 years of jihad can interpret a confession like, "I have been ordered to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshiped but Allah and Mohammed is his apostle," to mean, "I have been ordered to peacefully struggle inwardly toward a swirling mass of spiritual truth until everyone confesses that all cars drive to Cleveland."

Next, you'll argue that when Mohammed bragged, "I have been made victorious with terror," he really meant, "I have been made victorious by baking cookies. Aren't cookies delicious?"

"The majority of Muslims across the world aren't doing that either. But why are we in Iraq, again?"

Another non sequitur. Have you ever met a logical fallacy you didn't want to use immediately to defend calls to genocide?

You can talk about numbers all you want. Because a person's behavior does not necessarily tell you anything about his religion, one must go to that religion's sacred texts and founder to understand the faith the way its god intended.

By one count, since 9/11 there have been nearly ten thousand terrorist attacks in the name of Allah. Is that a "tiny" number?

Of that large majority of Muslims who have not carried out offensive qital against non-Muslims, how many support it in other ways (financially, logistically, morally, spiritually, etc.)?

Of course, those numbers have not been my point. My point in citing Islam's authoritative texts relevant to the Life and Liberty of non-Muslims everywhere is . . . to cite those texts.

"We shall also conveniently ignore the war we brought onto the innocent people of Iraq"

Another non sequitur (with a hint of tu quoque), since I've not argued anything about Iraq. I've been reporting on Allah's commands and his prophet's example.

Saddam brought it. And we haven't warred against innocents. Saddam, his agents, and Muslim terrorists have been the targets.

"Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, secret renditions"

Terrorists captured in battle. Hardly "innocent."

"all things that are certainly terrorizing to ordinary human beings."

They're not ordinary, they're monsters. If they don't want to be captured trying to kill Americans, perhaps they might stop trying to kill Americans.

"You think that NO Iraqi's were killed in Shock and Awe?"

The blood of innocent victims killed in our war against Saddam is on the hands of Saddam alone.

How morally courageous (and clear-headed) of you to blame victims of Islamic terrorism for defending themselves.

Unlike our enemy, it is not our policy to target innocents.

And that's just like Islam. Its devotees intimidate, coerce, inconvenience, enslave, rape, and slaughter non-Muslims around the world, but what do Muslims protest?

Cartoons.

Perhaps instead of blindly arguing (to your own chagrin), "It doesn't say that!" you should study the texts for yourself.

Again, demonstrate from Qur'an and Sunnah that I have misrepresented anything.

I'll be waiting.

santiago_matamoros wrote (great name, by the way!) . . .

"FAR too many Christian Iraqis have been killed by US forces. 1 is too many actually. And the fact is, Iraqi Christians, Mandeans and other minorities are the biggest victims in all of this (although the Azeris get whatever is coming to them). They will be swallowed up and forced to live under radicalized Sunni and Shi'ite militias and are being killed and harassed by them daily."

But I thought that Islam means "peace," and that all people have an innate desire for freedom?

You don't mean that democracy in Iraq was just a tool used to enshrine Shari'a in its constitution, do you?

Next, you'll be telling me that the president wants to establish a Muslim stronghold in the center of Europe by granting Kosovo independence.

I read something about Iraq's ancient Jewish population being reduced to almost nothing.

First, Clinton bombed Christians to aid Muslim terrorists. Now, President Bush not only hosts iftar dinners, he's again claiming that we all worship Allah and that Islam is peace.

Goodness.

In response to whirlinggal . . .

wg (is that for whirling dervish?). If so, that would be ironic!

"I want to thank the self-titled "Moor-killer" for spamming my thread--"

Are you and your co-ideologues unwilling to recognize this ancient historical refutation to your "Islam is peace" nonsense, or can you just not help yourselves?

Spain would have never attributed victories over Muslim invaders and overlords to its patron saint if Islam had not been invading and oppressing it.

And that's not "spamming." I posted from the word of Allah and the example of Mohammed. Others replied with assorted logical fallacies and outright falsehoods, and I addressed them.

"and proving my point."

Your point was that Allah's commands and Mohammed's words and deeds cause non-Muslims to revile the faithful?

Well done.

rabello continues . . .

I'll be waiting for your proof, Moor Killer, that your interpretation, which is really just a wordy opinion that sounds awfully hateful for a Christian, of the passages you copy/paste is the ONE AND ONLY correct one in all the world.

Another red herring? Unable to support your base and scurrilously false accusations, it appears.

Are you unwilling or unable to address this topic and my words openly and honestly?

My argument has been: "This is what Allah commands. This is what Mohammed said and did."

I proved this by referring to Allah's commands and Mohammed's words and actions.

Your (false) charge has been that I've misrepresented those Islamic texts. Now it is your turn to prove it.

If you cannot, then you should retract.

Quoting Islamic "sacred" texts and renowed Islamic scholars does require words; however, those statements are not *my* opinions, they are Allah's.

As for "hate"? I cite plainly the words of Qur'an and Sunnah, but you defend calls for unrelenting offensive warfare against non-Muslims to enslave or kill all who refuse to submit to Allah.

Which is truly hateful?

The fact you require the question to be asked should give you pause.

In response to whirlinggal,

WGal,

It looks like you're a fan of irony. :)

Self-proclaimed "Moor-Killer" says--

'wg (is that for whirling dervish?). If so, that would be ironic!'

I take it you're not a fan of mysticism?

What's in a name?

If yours is derived from "whirling dervish" (you neither affirmed nor denied it), it would be doubly ironic for my nom de guerre recalls one attributed with the defense of non-Muslims against Allah, while yours is tied to the very ideology making necessary that defense in the first place.

Self-proclaimed "Moor-Killer" says

"Are you and your co-ideologues unwilling to recognize this ancient historical refutation to your "Islam is peace" nonsense, or can you just not help yourselves?"

More unquestioning prejudice rears its unknowing head.

That's also ironic, for I've said, "Don't revile Muslims." I've quoted and referenced Islam's god, founder, "sacred" texts, and scholars.

Your accusing me of, "unknowing, unquestioning prejudice," looks more like projection than description.

Kill them all and let G-d sort them out?

That uncharitable and baseless suggestion is the most unfunny irony of all, for Mohammed commanded:

". . . Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them . . .'" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4294).

rabello added . . .

"What proof? That's the whole problem."

[Proof:]

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29).

"fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) . . . " (Qur’an 9:5).

"Allah's Apostle said: 'I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle . . . '" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).

“Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror. The treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).

"Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him" (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57).

[Not proof:]

"Sequential, overly verbose posts don't make 'a truth.' Opinion is an opinion. A biased opinion is a biased opinion."

You cannot refute the substance of what I've written, so you attack its length.

Be terse in your ignorance and I will be terse in its correction. Refrain from logical fallacies and libelous accusations, and I will spend no words refuting them.

By the way, everyone's opinion is biased, and "overly verbose" is redundant.

"I don't blame Iraqi people for 9/11 just because they're 'The Muslims' and whether 'targeted' or not, innocent children in Iraq have died because of our actions, over the past 15-16 years, just because they're 'The Muslims'"

A straw man. Who blames Iraqis for 9/11?

If innocent children are not targeted, then it can't be "because they're 'The Muslims.'" Neither can it be "because of our actions."

"Can you post opinions without personally attacking those who disagree with you?"

Can you produce anything substantive in supporting your (false) charge that I misrepresent Islamic texts?

All you've offered are ad hominem, red herring, straw man, and tu quoque "arguments."

you responded that yes, too many Christians have been killed in Iraq; even 1 is too many. You didn't include Muslim Iraqi's in your lament. See what you don't say is as revealing as what you do say.

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence?

Even if he did feel that, so what? That's not the point under discussion, so you're just throwing out another red herring.

In your defense of genocide in the furtherance of Islam, you attack, vilify, and demonize those illuminating the Source and Sustenance of that bloodlust.

If you want to be a moral person, stop defending the god and prophet who've wrought this:

". . . We were (sitting) in the mosque when the Messenger of Allah . . . came to us and said: (Let us) go to the Jews. We went out with him until we came to them. The Messenger of Allah . . . stood up and called out to them (saying): O ye assembly of Jews, accept Islam (and) you will be safe.

. . . .

"he killed their men, and distributed their women, children and properties among the Muslims, except that some of them had joined the Messenger of Allah . . . who granted them security. They embraced Islam. The Messenger of Allah . . . turned out all the Jews of Medlina. Banu Qainuqa' (the tribe of 'Abdullah b. Salim) and the Jews of Banu Haritha and every other Jew who was in Medina.

. . . .

"It has been narrated by 'Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah . . . say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4363-4366).

Just added,

rabello,

ParanoidMystic has already pointed out the error of copy/pasting quotes from any religious text and presenting them as proof of something without any historical or scholarly or spiritual context.

Another red herring, for that's not what he's argued, and neither have you.

Instead you've claimed that I've misrepresented the texts I've posted.

You still have not proven from Qur'an and Sunnah that I've erred or lied. Not doing so only demonstrates a lack of competence and integrity.

You can find as many scary posts in the Qur'an that you want; none of it means that all Muslims are terrorists, "potentially," of course, which is the bottomline message of all your posts.

Another straw man, since that's not what I've written.

I've argued, "This is what Allah commands. This is Mohammed's example."

You are either unwilling or unable to refute this, so instead you attack the messenger, continually misrepresenting what I write in the process.

What does this say about your "spirituality"?

Well, yes, it was under discussion. It was you who put it into discussion. Somewhere you said that while Muslims terrorize us, we do not terrorize them; that in fact, they accuse us of terrorizing them to guilt trip "the west"

Are you outright lying and hoping no one will notice? Are you hoping that everyone is too busy or too lazy to go back through this thread to see who wrote what and when they wrote it?

Or are you really unable to keep straight even what you yourself have written?

For in post 304 you wrote in response to santiago:

Do you think that it's possible that people in the Muslim world feel equally terroized [sic] by all of us, seeing how many innocent people that have been killed in Iraq, alone, since March 2003, and could be saying the same things about "us" that you're saying about "them?"

My post 306 (which you bastardize above) was in reply to that.

The point of the thread was, "Why revile Muslims?" The point of my comments were, "This is what Allah says; this is Mohammed's example."

I said the war on Iraq, the loss of life OF COURSE TERRORIZES human beings, that the loss of life has been terrible

You were making a false moral equivalence between Islamic terrorism and American self-defense, blaming us for innocent Iraqi deaths.

santiago sufficiently addressed that last point.

Tenlionz,

Islam and Christianity have proven them selves to be destructive religions. How many have died in the name of your Gods?

The alternative to religious faith, atheism, slaughtered and enslaved hundreds of millions of people in the twentieth century. Are you really sure you want to appeal to irreligion?

As for your immoral, historically- and textually-illiterate false equivalence . . .

Jesus committed no sin, healed the sick, raised the dead, died for the sins of all, and rose from the dead. He taught, "Love your enemies," and "Do good to those who persecute you."

Mohammed lied, stole, enslaved, raped (including little Aisha beginning when she was nine), assassinated, slaughtered, and waged genocidal offensive warfare against non-Muslims (and commanded others to do the same). His Allah commanded, "kill the unbelievers wherever you find them," and, "Fight against those who believe not in Allah. Make a holy war . . . until they feel themselves subdued." Mohammed confessed, "I have been made victorious with terror."

As for allowing people to make their own, even immoral choices, that is one of risks of Liberty. There is no virtue in coercion.

You're rejecting a morally perfect God (Christ) for what? Anarchy?