Is Islam the problem or is it politics? -- Starshark vs. Rathpig

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

This thread has been set up for a formal debate between Starshark and Rathpig who will debate the following resolution:

"Resolved: Islam is not the Problem, It's Politics."

Starshark will affirm and Rathpig will oppose. The debate will have 5 rounds and Starshark will go first, per the parameters (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=3994104&postcount=17).

A Peanut Gallery (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=3997570#post3997570) is set up in the Political Discussions forum for the rest of us to comment on the debate.

Enjoy the debate!

- KWSN, FD Moderator

[Starshark]

First of all, I'd like to thank Rathpig for accepting this debate. I'd also like to offer my condolences to countjulian who initially offered to take up this debate. As he has not been online since accepting, I assume there are extenuating circumstances which prevented him from following through.

Islam has been accused in the court of popular opinion of being a violent, backward religion. While there have been many advocates for Islam, they have been put on the back foot by the nature of the attack on this belief-system's reputation. They need not have been.

The essential problem is that Islam's defenders have been required to prove that Islam is not that which it has been accused of being. This, ironically, would not stand up in a court of law in the very Western countries from which many anti-Islam pundits come. This debate will serve two purposes. First, a person who will argue that Islam is violent and backward will have to provide comprehensive evidence that this is the case. I will not be proving a negative.

What I will be doing is trying to nut out where the actual problem lies. To do this, I will be making comparisons to decidedly non-Muslim countries and regions, such as those in Africa, East-Asia, and, in some instances, the West. I will be demonstrating that the problem is more complex than a religion; that it is tied up with politics, economics, and just plain human nature.

I will illustrate this by examining three key areas which Islam's critics commonly focus upon. The first is violence against women. In particular, three areas: How they are dressed, domestic violence (ie, fathers, husbands and brothers beating or killing women) and atrocities such as stoning. The second will be to look at violence and Islam. Here, I will be focusing upon suicide bombings, rioting, conflict and 'jihad'. Finally, I will examine the notion that Islam is a backwards or 'Medieval' society. We often hear that Islam is in the Medieval age, if not the Stone age, and I will be arguing that this is an unfair characterisation.

My opponent - who will detail his position shortly - will be arguing that, while my position is largely true, Islam makes the problems worse. As such, I will be demonstrating that there is no causal link between Islam and the problems that it faces. These problems may be made in the name of Islam, but removing the religion with a magic wand would not affect the problems one iota.

I will also be using my remaining four posts to rebutt my opponent. I am loathe to repeat myself - which isn't to say I never repeat myself - so if I seem to leave an issue untouched, it may be worth looking over my previous posts in this thread to see if I've addressed it already. My final post will be dedicated to a summation of the debate followed by a conclusion.

It is worth, at this point, defining a word which has traditionally caused confusion in PD. The word is 'racism'. Usually, when I use this word, the first reaction anti-Islam opponents have is to say that this word does not apply 'because Islam is not a race'. The other words available are bigotry, xenophobia, and prejudice. I will not be using these three words. 'Bigotry' sounds like Archie Bunker: Annoying, sometimes amusing, but not very harmful. "Xenophobia" sounds like a condition which the afflicted has little control over. "Prejudice" sounds like a newspaper that hasn't covered both sides of the story due to vested interests. Only 'racism' adequately conveys the emotional message: That racism against Islam is harmful, and based upon a willful hatred of that religion. My opponent may either accept or reject this definition, but I will not be entering into debate about its true meaning.

So I now hand over to my opponent. I would like to thank him once again for participating, as well as Nightshade for moderating, and to those who post their opinions in the Peanut Gallery.

Starshark

[Rathpig]

Greetings to the audience for this debate, and my appreciation to IIDB and Nightshade for a formal opportunity to present my views on this topic. I would like to thank Starshark for the courage to put his opinions into the formal arena.

Starshark has proposed the following:

Islam is not the Problem, It's Politics.

And he has outlined three specific areas where he intends to show this thesis is valid:

Three issues will be focused on: Islamic misogyny, Islamic terrorism and violence, and the perception that Islamic countries are 'Medieval'.

Before I make my introductory arguments, I must comment on the intentional effort of my opponent to mischaracterize my position and poison the well in this exchange:

Only ‘racism’ adequately conveys the emotional message: That racism against Islam is harmful, and based upon a willful hatred of that religion.

I would encourage my opponent to debate the facts and the evidence of his position and avoid making broad emotional appeals, which depend upon political posturing, to discredit my motivations rather than the validity of my viewpoint. I accepted this debate in good faith that the format would avoid the normal petty argumentative styles so common in the Political Discussion forum. Based on a large percentage of my opponent’s opening statement, it appears my desire for a reasoned debate may remain unfulfilled.

I must also address the following crass foreshadowing:

My opponent – who will detail his position shortly – will be arguing that, while my position is largely true, Islam makes the problems worse.

I am at a loss of how to respond to what is both an intentional mischaracterization of my position and a blatant attempt to skew the audience opinion.

My efforts in this debate will derive from the strength of evidence, testimony, and fact presented in support of my position. I would also encourage my opponent to make an argument based on supporting evidence rather than an incorrect characterization of my position. My opponent, by challenging for this debate, should simply argue his position. My position will be adequately presented in due turn, and the audience can decide the outcome based on individual strength of argument.


Now that the unseemliness of the opening has been addressed, let me present the basis of my opinion in this matter:

Islam, as a religious culture, is the single constant factor which combines various world regions in a destructive display of misogyny, external and internecine violence, as well as an almost proud embracing of primitive social actions.

Of course, religion does not exist alone in a vacuum. Both politics and the underlying cultural mores of a society combine with religion to create an overarching social philosophy. When examined without detail this comprehensive social philosophy has a neutral connotation. The social philosophy can exert both positive and negative aspects onto a population, and only upon examination of evidence can the overall characteristic of the trend be determined.

Based on the evidence which I will present, my conclusion is that Islam exhibits a powerful negative force on the comprehensive social philosophy of any group which embraces the religion. Islam is a destructive belief system.

My research for forming this conclusion is derived from three major source groups:

1). Religious Text and Testimony: The Koran (holy text of Islam), the Hadith (sacred commentaries on the faith and the Prophet), and the practical traditions of Islam as displayed throughout Muslim culture support each aspect of my conclusions.

This area includes the teaching, text, and testimony of practicing Muslims worldwide. The evidence is clear that Muslims believe their cultural practices derive directly from the practice of Islam. These cultural practices are not externally attributed aspects but behaviors which Muslims themselves proudly embrace.

2). Former Muslim Testimony: (apostates): The writing and personal testimony of Islamic apostates firmly supports my conclusions.

In the more widely accepted interpretations of Islam, rejecting Islam is a capital religious crime. Strong evidence from the Koran suggests this is a valid scriptural interpretation. Evidence of the destructive nature of Islam is the basis of almost all Islamic apostate literature. This community clearly shows that the problem is not the people who follow Islam, they can be reformed by simply removing the destructive religion which dictates their behavior.

3). Observation and Reporting: (third party sources): These sources show the religion of Islam to be the one constant factor linked to the problematic behavior of Muslim culture. It is not the political leader or political party to which Muslims swear their loyalty. A Muslims first loyalty is to Allah and the Prophet as explained by their affiliation with a Muslim interpretive religious sect. National identification, tribal identification, and even family ties are all subordinate to the religious loyalty. Because this has been a constant problem for secular governments in majority Muslim nations there exists much supportive documentation.

My position concerning Islam is not an aspect of “racism” or “xenophobia” or “prejudice”.

My argument is one of humanity.

Political attempts at mischaracterization should simply be considered at the source. How can anyone justify a religion which teaches open misogyny to the point of practical enslavement of women? Where is the political justification for external violence that teaches children to hate and kill civilians just because they don’t believe in the same interpretation of god? Where is the outcry by the emotional humanitarians of the world for a culture which embraces civil and criminal institutions that were outlawed over a century ago in the otherwise “civilized” world?

Several centuries ago Christianity exhibited many of the exact same destructive behaviors that is evidenced in Islam today. I believe if that religion could have been exposed for it’s true nature at it’s most destructive height then it would not have taken over four centuries to reach a world where freedom of conscience could be considered a human right. Since this is an area we still haven’t completely conquered, how long will it take to reform the Islamic world?

Rathpig
Debate Opening: 12 December 2006

[Starshark]

Before I continue with my part of the debate, there are a few issues with my opponents position which I'd like to address.

First of all, he says:

I would encourage my opponent to debate the facts and the evidence of his position and avoid making broad emotional appeals, which depend upon political posturing, to discredit my motivations rather than the validity of my viewpoint. I accepted this debate in good faith that the format would avoid the normal petty argumentative styles so common in the Political Discussion forum. Based on a large percentage of my opponent’s opening statement, it appears my desire for a reasoned debate may remain unfulfilled.

My opponent would do well to read, carefully, what I write before rebuttal. At no stage did I say he was racist, nor did I seek to 'discredit his motivations'. It is irrelevant to this debate whether or not my opponent is racist. However, in this debate there are racist arguments. Those who argue - as in IIDB - that logic and reason are more virtuous than religion would do well to address them rather than dismiss its critics as emotive or posturing.

Next, we have an interesting contradiction of sorts. First of all, my opposite is mortified that I would crassly foreshadow his position in a blatant attempt to skew opinion. Specifically by saying "My opponent – who will detail his position shortly – will be arguing that, while my position is largely true, Islam makes the problems worse" - an 'incorrect characterization', apparently. He then goes on to say:

Of course, religion does not exist alone in a vacuum. Both politics and the underlying cultural mores of a society combine with religion to create an overarching social philosophy. When examined without detail this comprehensive social philosophy has a neutral connotation. The social philosophy can exert both positive and negative aspects onto a population, and only upon examination of evidence can the overall characteristic of the trend be determined.Based on the evidence which I will present, my conclusion is that Islam exhibits a powerful negative force on the comprehensive social philosophy of any group which embraces the religion. Islam is a destructive belief system.

In other words, Islam makes the problem worse. Hmm. So now I've skewed people's opinion - negatively, one assumes - by correctly foreshadowing what my opponent was going to say. Well, this is a day!

The other points he makes are meaningless without detailed argument and evidence to back them up, so I will address those points when they arise. It is now time to discuss Islam and violence against women.

In a small town in Australia - Cobar - there was a rugby grand final which was, for reasons best known to the organisers of the game, held on a Wednesday afternoon. At the end of this grand final, the women and children of Cobar would be forgiven for thinking themselves under attack. Womens' shelters - there are three in a town of 5300 - were filled. Absences at the schools were at record highs, either because the children themselves were too abused to come to school, or because their mothers were. What makes this episode so unusual is that Cobar had actually won the grand final - this was not husbands venting their frustrations on their loved ones.

This episode, unreported in newspapers, made me curious. I have since found, through anecdote alone, that there seems to be a correlation between domestic violence and grand finals. People who work in womens' shelters tell me they can expect a higher intake on the night of a grand final. Perhaps, then, we should ban rugby matches, or at the very least acknowledge that rugby makes domestic violence worse?

Immediately, we can dismiss such claims. Domestic violence is more complicated than that, and removing rugby would not alleviate the burden on women at all. Yet when it comes to Islam, we can immediately dismiss any notion that somehow there are more complex issues present. After all, we have a linking factor - Islam. Surely if we remove that, we would solve the problem? Here is a lesson in, among other things, correlation and how it doesn't always mean causation.

If you were told that there was a country in which twenty four percent of men and sixteen percent of women thought domestic violence was permissible, and had no specific laws against domestic violence, with its media trivializing reports on the issue, which religion would you say is the majority of such a country? If you answered 'Islam', you would be incorrect. The country is Belarus (http://www.stopvaw.org/Belarus2.html), and it's religion is overwhelmingly Christian (https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/bo.html).

In fact, according to Stop Violence Against Women (http://www.stopvaw.org/The_VAW_Monitor.html), domestic violence is a problem in many Christian or non-religiously affiliated countries in Central and Eastern Europe. The problem is not with religion. It is more likely to be poverty.

According to studies cited here (http://www.endabuse.org/resources/facts/Welfare.pdf), over half of women receiving welfare payments in America face domestic violence compared to 22 percent of the country. Anyone doing a detailed study on domestic violence will find much the same correlation. The most common factor among victims of domestic violence isn't religion (you can be Christian), or Arab (you could be in Africa, like the Congo, Burundi or Sudan), or even alcohol. The most common factor is poverty.

This ties in with what domestic violence is really about: Not a mandate of religion, but an issue of control. Football fans beat their wives because they are in control (or not, depending on how their team went), and they aren't about to take orders from their wives saying they should forgo that next drink.

Of course, violence against women is still more complicated again. What about stoning or genital mutilation?

The first thing to realise about stoning is that this is not purely a crime against women. It is a crime against the population: Men can be stoned as well as seen in the United Arab Emirates (http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/theuae/2006/June/theuae_June301.xml&section=theuae). It would be a mistake to characterise stoning as violence against women - it would be more sensible to call it cruel and unusual punishment.

The second point about stoning and genital mutilation is that they are not common practice in Islam. Genital mutilation, for example, is banned in Indonesia (http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=9919), and doubtless many other Muslim countries, though a comprehensive study is neither available nor within the scope of this debate. It would appear to be largely an African phenomena, suggesting that its foundations are not within Islam but Northern African tribal practices. Similarly, stoning is only practiced in half a dozen countries (one of which, interestingly, is Nepal, a decidedly non-Muslim country). This means that the norm for Islam is not to stone.

What this all amounts to is that, since these practices are not common to Islam, removing Islam would not remove these problems. There is a more complicated root which probably dates back to pre-Islam tribal practices.

Lastly there is the issue of 'honour killings'. It is estimated that there are some 5000 killed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing) world wide. What is interesting, however, is that honour killings are forbidden (http://www.brandeis.edu/projects/fse/Pages/honorkillings.html) in Islam.

In Qur’an, prophetic tradition, and law, one finds a very strong presumption of women’s chastity along with numerous safeguards to prevent any imputation of unchastity. Within such a context, honor killings are utterly criminal. Numerous prophetic traditions report that when asked about a husband finding his wife with another man, the Prophet agreed that the husband must procure three additional witnesses to her act before the public authority can judge her offense; otherwise he would be liable to lashing for publicly accusing her or to being killed if he killed. If a woman discovered in flagrante cannot be even publicly accused unless there are four witnesses to her act, then mere suspicion can never justify slaying a woman. Questioned by another man who claimed that his honor (ghira) would require him to immediately slay his wife’s lover in such a case, the Prophet reportedly declared that God’s honor was greater than any human’s. (See H (http://www.brandeis.edu/projects/fse/Pages/honorkillingshadith.html)adith page (http://www.brandeis.edu/projects/fse/Pages/honorkillingshadith.html).) The implication is that God’s revealed procedures for dealing with illicit sex must take precedence over human ego and emotion. This does not mean, of course, that human honor is unimportant. The stress placed on safeguarding women’s reputations and punishing slander demonstrates an awareness that such accusations can have devastating consequences for those accused.


Again, a study (or even quick read of a Wiki article) will indicate that the problems are tribal rather than religious. Islam isn't the problem here.

It is in a similar vein that we can look at clothing women adopt for religious purposes. This is an intensely interesting issue, perhaps worthy of a debate all on its own. Particularly noteworthy is the double-standard applied to how the West scrutinises Islam over other religions. We do not, for example suggest that Jews are somehow forced to wear the Kippah. We do not consider women to be oppressed in Western society because they must wear make up to work (see Naomi Wolf's The Beauty Myth and Susan Faludi's Backlash for a detailed study on requirements to wear makeup in the workforce, as well as the dressing double-bind women in the US and the West find themselves in).

Yet we apply a different standard to women who show their faith through the Hijab, Hiqab or Burka. This double-standard is a racist one, only applied because the real problem is not with the dress, but with perceptions of Islam. As seen by Muslim women who live in the West, who are free to wear whatever they want, women wear these items to show their faith. This is not to say that some Muslim men unfairly force women to wear these items. And indeed, women should be protected by law so that they do have a choice. But it is racist to characterise this religious apparel as somehow suppressing women who are, far from being suppressed, demonstrating their faith.

So it is that we see that violence against women, where it exists, is not peculiar to Islam. The peculiar forms of violence found in some Muslim countries are not common, in some cases even condemned, in Islam. What we have is a double standard, borne of racism, in which Islam is to answer for crimes committed by a minority of its followers. And sometimes they are not even crimes, but a mere expression of faith painted as a crime. These crimes are a result of complex factors mostly linked to poverty and specific regional areas. Islam cannot take the blame for problems which would exist even if another religion were dominant in those areas.

[Rathpig]

The following essay is part two of a five part formal debate.

Before I begin my examination of role of Islam in misogyny, I must address how my opponent continues to mischaracterize my argument and misuse the English language. Starshark wishes to present my argument as “racist” while somehow avoiding placing that label on my person. I simply can not allow such an intentionally false position to stand.

He has, by his own admission, chosen to misuse the word “racism” for emotional effect. This is commonly called ”playing the race card” in United States politics, and he must be held accountable for all the implications of taking such an openly antagonistic position in this debate. By calling my arguments “racist” he has more than implied that I hold “racist” views. The two positions can not be separated. His position relies on creating emotional imagery to support an incorrect interpretation of the effects of Islam; therefore he must be held to account for setting a poor opening tone in the debate. Emotional posturing is the house which Starshark built. He has to deal with the consequence. He desires to use the debating technique of gutter politics, and I will continue to call him on this technique.

Now on to the issue of misogyny in Islam:

What has been presented so far in this round of the debate is a very incomplete picture of how Islam plays a negative role in the life of female Muslims. The crime of omission is very evident in my opponent’s argument. First I will deal with the limited view given, then I will complete this picture to show that the religion of Islam is a very real factor in the mistreatment of women in Islamic society.

First I should clarify the concept of what it means to be a Muslim according to Islam. Very often when the topic of Islam is discussed a distinction is made between a specific Muslim, who invariably is “moderate” and “peaceful”, and the radical Muslims who seems to be the news media focus. This is presented as if somehow the two were not connect by the exact same religion. When discussing Islam one must understand the difference between The Muslim and specific individuals who may accept Islam as a religion in varying degrees. The Muslim is a religious adherent who follows the mandates of Islam with strict adherence. The definition of “Muslim” is submitted one, and it is to these submitted ones who I refer when discussing Islam. The Koran and ahadith clearly show that only those who strive to follow the exact unchanged mandates of Allah and the Prophet are Muslim. It is disingenuous to point to various loose adherents of the religion and then extrapolate that somehow Islam is not what Islam clearly shows itself to be from any examination of Islamic text.

My opponent has opened this round with an anecdotal tale of domestic violence related to rugby. Somehow the fact that one culture may have incidents of domestic violence dismisses the code of domestic violence outlined in the Koran. Beating your wife can not be found within the rules of rugby; however it can be found in the rules of Islam.

Sura 4:34 ”Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.”

This is perhaps the most well known Koran passage dealing with the issue of domestic violence. It has been widely interpreted in Islamic apologia; however the meaning of the passage is clear for anyone to read: as a last resort to insure obedience a Muslim may beat his wife.

This passage could be examined in the context of 7th century Arabia, if it was not for modern evidence and scholarship that also supports the view that physical “discipline” is accepted in Islam.

On January 14, 2004, Sheikh Muhammad Kamal Mustafa, the imam of the mosque of the city of Fuengirola, Costa del Sol, was sentenced by a Barcelona court to a 15 month suspended sentence and fined € 2160 for publishing his book 'The Woman in Islam.' In this book, the Egyptian-born Sheikh Mustafa writes, among other things, on wife-beating in accordance with Shar'ia law.
On pages 86-87, Mustafa states: "The [wife-]beating must never be in exaggerated, blind anger, in order to avoid serious harm [to the woman]." He adds, "It is forbidden to beat her on the sensitive parts of her body, such as the face, breast, abdomen, and head. Instead, she should be beaten on the arms and legs," using a "rod that must not be stiff, but slim and lightweight so that no wounds, scars, or bruises are caused." Similarly, "[the blows] must not be hard."
(source) (http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area%20=sr&ID=SR2704 )

It is true that domestic violence is a worldwide and multicultural problem, but I think we can blame rugby for domestic violence when the rugby rulebook allows the practice and the rugby coaches endorse specific technique. It is a disservice to the abused women in both cases to equate the two issues as if the codified practice of Islam is somehow dismissed by the drunken behavior of sports fans. On the one hand the law addresses what is illegal behavior, and on the other hand the law of Islam allows the practice. Both cases are equally important, yet it is the religion which must be addressed before the problem can be corrected in Islamic society. Beating your wife is a legal practice under Islamic law. It would be impossible to argue that this is not prima facie evidence of Islamic misogyny.

On the issue of stoning, I believe my opponent makes the case for the barbarity of the practice and that it is a decidedly Islamic problem.

Similarly, stoning is only practiced in half a dozen countries (one of which, interestingly, is Nepal, a decidedly non-Muslim country). This means that the norm for Islam is not to stone.

Of the “half a dozen” countries which practice stoning, one is not Islamic, so therefore we can dismiss stoning as an Islamic problem? Somehow I do not interpret the data this way. If we refer to the Wikipedia article on this issue it contains the following statement:

Stoning In Nepal, Maoist guerillas who control certain areas of the country have used execution by stoning to enforce some of their mandates. While the guerillas are not recognized internationally as a legitimate government, this is a rare and noteworthy example of contemporary stoning used by a non-Islamic group.

So the practice of stoning as a punishment is unique to the world of Islamic law since these are the only government and religious systems which codify the practice. Once again the evidence shows that the problem is Islam. It is true that this capital punishment is not reserved solely for women and doesn’t in and of itself show misogyny. Stoning, like much of Islamic law, is however an increased burden of a religion that does not value the testimony of a women as equal to a man therefore it is difficult to determine fair use of any punishment under Islamic law.

Sura 2:282 in part: .... and call in to witness from among your men two witnesses; but if there are not two men, then one man and two women from among those whom you choose to be witnesses, so that if one of the two errs, the second of the two may remind the other;

A direct quote from the holy text of Islam presents the testimony as only worth one half that of a man, but that would be typical of 7th century misogyny existing as an anachronism in the 21st century world.

On the subject of female genital mutilation, this is obviously an issue which is not directly linked to Islam. Though there are Islamic supporters of the practice it is not directly addressed in the Koran. A weak hadith reports Mohammad as saying ”A woman used to perform circumcision in Medina [Madîna]. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said to her: 'Do not cut severely as that is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband.'–Sunan Abu Dawûd, Book 41, #5251.” (source (http://www.minaret.org/fgm-pamphlet.htm)). It would appear that female genital mutilation is not a central tenet of Islam. It should also be noted that male circumcision is not specifically outlined in the Koran. This doesn’t prove Starshark’s thesis, but merely shows if one cherry-picks evidence carefully you can find issues of specious evidence.

Likewise on the subject of “honor killing” this is a complex issue which is not always cited as the primary evidence of misogyny in Islam. I will respond to it’s inclusion in this debate as simply another presentation of an easily answered question. The practice, though prevalent in many Islamic countries, may not be Islamic in nature. It is however not punished under Islamic law with the same voracity which many other crimes are prosecuted. If anything Islamic law acts as an enabler to the practice.

One other issue raised by Starshark in his presentation was religious apparel. He writes:

But it is racist to characterize this religious apparel as somehow suppressing women who are, far from being suppressed, demonstrating their faith.

As we have seen previously it is impossible for my opponent to debate this issue without frequent misuse of the word “racist”. It seems his position is that a religion which mandates specific dress for females, and many countries have physical punishments for violating this dress code, is acceptable; however anyone who questions the practice is “racist” even though no issue of race has even been addressed. It is beyond my ability to comprehend the ludicrous position of my opponent. He has stepped beyond all reason with these continuing attempts to use the emotional sensationalism of the word “racist” at every turn. On this point alone he has willingly forfeited any seriousness in this debate.

On the issue of the burka and the hajib let me just assert that it is exactly what it appears to be to the casual observer: a draconian dress code applied only to women. All countries have some type of legal dress code for public decency. Only in Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia do you have a religious police force which physically whip women who show an ankle in public. A women can be jailed for not covering her head in Saudi Arabia.The burka and hajib are de facto evidence of misogyny in Islam. By once again playing the “racist” card, Starshark has shown how he refuses to actually debate this issue but would rather play a sensationalist game.

Now let me address where Starshark avoids the issue of misogyny in Islam through what appears to be purposeful omission of issues. Rape is perhaps the single most traumatic crime which shows a difference between Islamic law and the rest of the world. Yes the crime of rape happens everywhere, but only under the Islamic Shariah law does a women have to provide four witnesses to prove she was raped and has not committed the sex crime of zina (extramarital or premarital sex). Recently the country of Pakistan voted to update its rape law to a more modern standard, and these changes were protested against as “un-Islamic”. (BBC ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5346968.stm)), (Amnesty (http://web.amnesty.org/wire/July2004/Pakistan)). Imagine a women who is raped and can not report the crime because she doesn’t have four male witnesses to testify on her behalf. If she reports the crime she has confessed to zina and can be punished by stoning.

That many Islamic countries have grossly underreported rape statistics should not come as a surprise when the burden of overwhelming proof is placed upon the victim. It should also not come as a surprise that rape is supported by Islamic law and attitudes under many circumstances. Mufti Harussani Zakaria of Malaysia in opposition to a law concerning marital rape says, "If the wife refuses, then the rule of 'nusyuz' (disobedient) applies and the husband is not required to provide financial assistance to her." “Islamic lawyers have voiced their support for the mufti, saying that a woman may only refuse her husband sex if he has a sexually transmitted disease.” (BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3592740.stm))

Sydney-based Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali stated in a controversial Ramadan sermon, “"It is said in the state of zina (adultery), the responsibility falls 90 per cent of the time on the woman. Why? Because she possesses the weapon of enticement (igraa)." He likened women to meat, and said, “"If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred." (The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20646437-601,00.html)) These comments come following a string of highly publicized gang rapes by Muslims immigrants targeting Australian women. These rapes were racially motivated attacks (wiki ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_gang_rapes)) which were then excused by the most senior Muslim leader in that nation by blaming the victims.

Samira Bellil in Dans l'enfer des tournantes wrote of the culture of the Muslim immigrant ghettos in France (wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samira_Bellil)) where gang-rape is common and expected, but the real tragedy was the way the Muslim culture reacts to the victim. Yes crime and poverty are too often intertwined, but it is the religion of Islam that blames and devalues the rape victim.

Sura 4:24 of the Koran also allows female slaves/servants to legally be used as sexual objects. This is the ” except those whom your right hands possess” exception to the marriage laws. When the Muslim viewpoint is that the world is divided into the two regions of the Dar al-Islam and the Dar al-Harb (realm of war), it should surprise no one when young male Muslims begin to act much like their 7th century counterparts. It is cultural. It is political, and it is also a central tenet of Islam. When a culture that devalues women to the point that their testimony is half that of a man, when even the very hair of the head is considered a sexual object that must remain covered in public, how can this not be seen as religious misogyny? From where else do these cultural beliefs arise?

Sura 2:228 ” And the divorced women should keep themselves in waiting for three courses; and it is not lawful for them that they should conceal what Allah has created in their wombs, if they believe in Allah and the last day; and their husbands have a better right to take them back in the meanwhile if they wish for reconciliation; and they have rights similar to those against them in a just manner, and the men are a degree above them, and Allah is Mighty, Wise.

There are many areas of misogyny under Islam upon which the limited space of this essay can only touch briefly. Islam is a polygamous religion which allows husbands to take up to four main wives, but they may add numerous “temporary wives” and “possessions of their right hand” to their sexual conquests. Islam restricts women to a single marriage where they are required to submit to the will of their husband. Under Islamic law a Muslima (Muslim woman) can only marry a Muslim man. A Muslim man however can marry freely from the People of the Book (Jews, Christians, Muslims). Marriage is an obvious male double-standard under Islamic law without reference to politics or culture since this social institution is dominated by religion.

Divorce law is also an area of Islam where male dominance is preferred. Under Islamic law a women who desires a divorce requires the permission of her husband. Men may initiate divorce with the only restriction being that a three month period should be observed if the women is of child-bearing age. The issue of divorce under Islam was great enough to warrant the entire 65th Sura to the subject.

Temporary marriage or Mut’a is another area where a vast difference between the rights of males and females is enjoyed. This is a Shia’ concept which appears to be merely a legalized form of Islamic prostitution. Obviously the Muslima doesn’t enjoy the same privilege as her husband in this regard. The concept of Mut’a is very ritualized and can only be enjoyed with females members of the people of the Book. This is not a Koranic concept and stems from various hadith interpretations. (source (http://www.al-islam.org/al-serat/muta/))

Various restrictions apply to females under the numerous interpretations of Shariah or Islamic law. Many of these laws are not a direct result of the commands in the Koran. Many things in the Islamic world stem from both a political totalitarianism and an anachronistic social culture; however one single aspect runs throughout these countries and that is the religion of Islam. A cleric in Malaysia opposes a law against marital rape, the most senior Muslim leader in Australia blames gang rapes on the victims, religious leaders in Pakistan oppose modernizing rape laws because it would be “un-Islamic”, a cleric in Spain writes a “how-to” book on wife beating, and the only thing which binds all these issues together is the religion of Islam.

All of these issues show a clear trend of misogyny throughout the religion of Islam. Islam is not the only source of misogyny on the planet. No one has made that claim, but just because other examples exist that is a poor excuse to excuse Islam for the negative view of women within the religion. Many moderate Muslims exist who do not accept the tenets outlined in their religion; however just because every aspect of a religion is not accepted by every adherent that does not excuse the underlying negative aspects of that religion. Islam is very clear that Bid’a (innovation) is not allowed to alter the religion. (source ( http://muttaqun.com/bida.html)) It must be recognized that the Muslim who follows the Koran closely is a true representative of the philosophy outlined by this book.

It seems the entire position of my opponent in this debate is to mischaracterize me as a “racist”, or the purveyor of “racist” arguments, as if there is a difference. As evidence that Islam is not a primary cause of misogyny in Islamic culture he has offered cases where similar behavior exists in other cultures. No one has made the argument that certain misogynous behaviors might not be found in diverse cultures.

The question at hand is if the misogynous behavior in Islamic countries is only political in nature.

This was the thesis which he presented and which he chose to defend. So far he has only shown that such behavior exists elsewhere, and that he has a penchant to misuse and abuse language for emotional purposes. In the space allotted for my rebuttal, I have shown that Islam as a religion, does share at least an equal blame for many of the attitudes of the believers.

The evidence shows religion plays a central role in the misogyny present in Islamic culture.

There are Muslims who do not ascribe strictly to every tenet of their religion. This is only evidence that everyone doesn’t follow the religion in an exact fashion. This speaks to the individual adherent and not the religion as a whole. The Muslim as described by the Koran does adhere strictly to the text of the faith. An adherence to the Koran and ahadith leads to an attitude of misogyny. You only have to listen to numerous highly regarded Muslim leaders from around the world to realize the truth of the relation. Politics and culture have created a fertile area for the negative attitude of women demonstrated by the religion of Islam.

Rathpig
Second Round Essay 23 Dec 2006

General Source Material:

The Holy Koran located at University of Virginia ( http://etext.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/HolKora.html)

Islamic Dictionary located at Muttaqun Online ( http://muttaqun.com/dictionary3.html)

(Other sources cited in-text.)

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Starshark had earlier requested an extension of 3 days (to Jan. 2) for his next statement. I have agreed to grant his request.

- KWSN, FD Moderator

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Starshark has informed me that his statement will be overdue. He will have a grace period until Jan. 5 to submit his statement.

- KWSN, FD Moderator

[Starshark]

It's the first week of the new year (a bastard of a week just btw), and what better way to end it than with a quick rebuttal of my opponent? Yeah, I thought 'lots of things' too, yet here I am...

My opponent rather unfortunately said,

He has, by his own admission, chosen to misuse the word “racism” for emotional effect. This is commonly called ”playing the race card” in United States politics, and he must be held accountable for all the implications of taking such an openly antagonistic position in this debate. By calling my arguments “racist” he has more than implied that I hold “racist” views. The two positions can not be separated.

I submit that the two positions can, in fact, be separated. Especially when one goes to the trouble to write,

It is irrelevant to this debate whether or not my opponent is racist. However, in this debate there are racist arguments.

Look at that. I go to all the trouble to point out that it doesn't matter whether he is racist (and holding racist views falls neatly into there as well), I'm interested in racist arguments. "Arguments" in italics no less.

Making an argument without actually reading what your opponent has said is what's known in Australian politics as 'listening to the sound of your own voice'. The reason I went to the trouble of participating in a formal debate was precisely to avoid this sort of thing from happening. It just goes to show that no matter how hard you try, some things in life are inevitable.

It's interesting that he should mention the dumb fuck Imam who blamed women for rape. As I noted (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=184305) when this story first broke, he was quickly and roundly condemned by the Islamic Council of Australia, the Muslim Advisory Board and a woman who appeared wearing the Hijab. In other words, one idiot's minority opinion was shouted down.

The rest of my opponents argument can be boiled down to one basic argument, although he took a rambling, words-heavy approach to make this one point: It says so in the Qu'ran, therefore it is so.

Examples he gives include passages of the Qu'ran codified in some Islamic countries, people using the Qu'ran to justify unpleasant views, the odd dimwit Imam justifying a reprehensible act with the Qu'ran. This leaves us with the rather odd notion that a single book has brainwashed over a billion people. That, although most of these billion people don't do anything particularly wrong - in the sense that most Westerners don't do anything particularly wrong - we could make the world a better place should we remove this work.

Of course, this is nuts. Many people world wide base their beliefs on something handed down from the divine. Similarly, laws are codified using those religious texts as justification. You can save arguments that way. But religious texts cover a lot of ground, and politicians cherry-pick which parts of those texts suit them.

For example, you may have heard of the Rev Fred Phelps of 'God hates fags' fame. He concentrates his political mileage in an anti-homosexual agenda. He is not nearly so concerned about other practices forbidden in the old testament, such as wearing blended fabrics, mixing crops in the same field, or eating hyraxes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyrax).* Why, if the book he quotes is so important, does he not pursue these issues and many others with equal fervor? Because he is not a man of religion first and foremost, whatever he may think. He is a politician, pursuing an agenda, justifying it with the means most available to him.

As there are five parts to this debate, with one part devoted solely to rebuttal, I shall be pursuing this in more detail later. Suffice it to say, for now, that my opponent has a wide gap which he needs to bridge.

You might be forgiven, if you're a follower of world news, for thinking that Islam has the market cornered on violence. Hardly a day goes by when we don't hear mention of Muslim-related violence, such as in Palestine, Iraq, Indonesia, or Sudan. But are the causes of this violence to be found within Islamic religion, or is there a more complex force at play?

Let's begin with suicide bombings. These days, suicide bombings are inextricably linked in the public mind with Islam. They have lead to the coining of the word splodeydope (http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=splodeydope&meta=), which is almost exclusively used to describe Islamic suicide bombers. I say 'almost', though in truth I have never seen it used to describe any other type of suicide bomber.

Perhaps there is a passage in the Qu'ran which encourages this tactic. Well, not really. Suicide (http://www.answering-islam.org/Index/S/suicide.html) is forbidden in Islam, in fact suicide bombers and their supporters have to perform mental contortions worthy of a yoga master in order to justify (http://www.answering-islam.org/Index/S/suicide_bomber.html) them.

(As an aside, this is one reason why Fox is being counter-productive when they refer to 'homicide bombers'. Suicide bombers would love to be referred to by everyone as that, it guarantees them martyrdom among their followers. Just one example of why ignorance isn't bliss.)

Suicide bombings, of course, aren't limited to Islam. Tamil Tigers and the Japanese Kamikaze are also suicide bombers. Without Islam as the causal link, we can conclude that Islam isn't the problem. Without Islam, we'd still have suicide bombers. Islam may be used as the rallying cry, but that's not the same as a cause.

Terrorism, particularly after 9/11 (although even well before that, especially with regards to the Israel/Palestine conflict), is also linked with Islam in the public mind. This is a particularly interesting issue. First of all, what is a terrorist, exactly?

As observers of international events would know, it's almost impossible to agree on what is terrorism. We can use vague definitions such as this (http://www.answers.com/topic/terrorism) one:


The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.


Are Americans terrorists when they crop-dust coca fields in foreign countries? Is the Iraq war one big example of terrorism? Are Palestinians terrorists when they fire upon Israeli settlements? Are Israelis terrorists when they bomb indiscriminately in Lebanon? These are only a few examples which demonstrate how difficult it is to find a clear-cut example of terrorism.

One thing is certain: Islamic violence is usually characterised as terrorism. The war in Iraq is a good example of this, with insurgents who attack American convoys characterised as terrorists. Or Iraqis killing other Iraqis in what is obviously now a civil war being called terrorism.

There are examples, though, which most people can agree are clear-cut terrorism. And what's interesting is that when these terrorist episodes are examined (http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~aabadie/povterr.pdf), the link isn't Islam. In fact, it isn't religion at all. Per Alberto Abadie's abstract:

In line with the results of some recent studies, this article shows that terrorist risk is not significantly higher for poorer countries, once the effects of other country-specific characteristics such as the level of political freedom are taken into account. Political freedom is shown to explain terrorism, but it does so in a non-monotonic way: countries in some intermediate range of political freedom are shown to be more prone to terrorism than countries with high levels of political freedom or countries with highly authoritarian regimes. This result suggests that, as experienced recently in Iraq and previously in Spain and Russia, transitions from an authoritarian regime to a democracy may be accompanied by temporary increases in terrorism. Finally, the results suggest that geographic factors are important to sustain terrorist activities.

As we've seen with Islamic misogyny, the connection is not religion, but politics. This makes sense. There are conflicts going on all the time which have nothing to do with Islam, such as the Basque separatists in Spain, the Thai conflict, the Solomon Islands revolt, and, of course, that honorable nation the United States who has been responsible for millions of deaths in wars of aggression since World War II.

Societies are prone to racism. It is a natural phenomena - in the sense that it derives from animal territorialism. This is not to say it is therefore acceptable in a natural law fallacy, but it is an explanation. One characteristic of this social racism, as illustrated by Jane Elliot of Blue Eyed (http://www.newsreel.org/nav/title.asp?tc=CN0015) fame, is to exclude and revile the minority until they revolt, then punish them for revolting. Or, as Edmund Burke succinctly put it, "We whip the child until it cries, and then we whip it for crying".

No-where can this be seen more clearly than in Europe. As John Ralston Saul details in The Collapse of Globalism**, Europe was facing a labour crisis after it's working class had virtually disappeared into the middle class. They needed more workers. What they did was import 17 million 'guest workers' into Europe, who were free to work there, but not afforded the rights of other working citizens.

As in France, they were shunted off to slums outside the city. Second-class citizens. Not much different to America's illegal immigrant workforce. This has lead to what should have been predictable tensions between Muslims and the society that uses, but rejects them.

This has come to a head in several nations. One is France, with rioting set off by what may appear to be the slightest thing to outsiders. Denmark, of course, saw widespread violence and death threats as a result of a newspaper printing cartoons designed to bait Islamic worshipers. Who could have guessed that if you prodded the hornets nest you get stinged?

Naturally, the Western world responded by condemning Muslims the world around. They were too violent. The ones who didn't participate in this violence weren't 'vocal enough' in condemning their brothers and sisters. The child was whipped for crying.

There was a similarly interesting episode in Cronulla, Australia, in which Muslim youths beat several lifeguards. Who knows why, probably because they were assholes, just like any group of teenagers trying to piss out their territory. What was interesting was the reaction.

Inflamed by mobile phone text messages and one of Australia's highest-rating radio broadcasters (http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/alan-jones-im-the-person-thats-led-this-charge/2005/12/12/1134236003153.html), the mob rioted. This time the mob was white - so that's okay, then. We don't need to create a case that white people are violent.

The people who were beaten were Muslims. Some of them not only had nothing to do with the lifeguard beating, but were in fact trying to make peace. They were beaten anyway. That's what happens in a mob mentality.

When other Muslims decided to go into white neighbourhoods for revenge attacks, Islam was once again characterised as the bad guy. There were no shortage of assholes on either side of this particular riot; but the acts of firstly blaming all the Muslims for the actions of a few, along with demonising them when they respond to unfair treatment is a familiar refrain.

This only leads us to discuss Jihad. There's hardly a lot to say about this, any student of Islam would know that it refers to a holy struggle and is not linked to violent behaviour. It is used as a clarion call for violence. Just like any religion is. Catholicism was used similarly during The Troubles in Ireland. That doesn't stop people from immediately linking 'Jihad' to 'a call for violence'. There are many reasons why this is, but the two simplest ones - reasons which are intimate bedfellows - are racism and ignorance.

So Islam isn't the problem when it comes to violence. There are many complex explanations, but one thing these explanations have in common is that they do not require religion. These problems can still easily exist with any religion, and probably with no religion at all.










* I linked to them because they're just too cute. Phelps really should be crusading against their consumption. It'd make him a more pleasant person, for one.
** John Ralston Saul, The Collapse of Globalism, (Camberwell: Penguin, 2005), 96-98.

[Rathpig]

Rathpig: Third Round (12 January 2007):


This portion of the formal debate will focus on violence and Islam as presented by Starshark in the debate opening[1]:

The second will be to look at violence and Islam. Here, I will be focusing upon suicide bombings, rioting, conflict and 'jihad'. (link)

Why does Islam have such a strong connection to the adjective “violent”? Should the “Western News Media” be blamed for a mischaracterization of Islam? The testimony Muslims and evidence from Islamic sources tell us this violence is being done in the name of Allah for the religion Islam. To show individual motivation we need to examine what the specific violent actors are saying motivate them to violent acts. We will examine this individual testimony before reviewing the religious source material. Both the religious adherent and the religious documentation seem to agree that Islam is a very strong factor in their justification for violence. The evidence does not show that Muslim violence is merely a function of politics as outlined in the debate thesis.

Starshark has presented the argument that because violence exists elsewhere, Islam can not be blamed for violence in or from Islamic groups. I would doubt anyone would desire to take such an argument to a logical conclusion because the one hand of violence in the one place doesn’t excuse violence in another nor does it excuse the admitted role of Islam. Starshark is attempting to turn the tu quoque (you too) fallacy into “because everyone is doing it” which makes for a questionable legal defense. Admissible testimony toward “motivation” plays a prominent role in the examination of any criminal action. When someone is giving testimony that Islam motivates them to violence then this is obviously, even if in their minds only, causal to the event.

Starshark’s claim is that 'Islam is not the Problem, It's Politics'. That is the thesis of the debate he created. I have not claimed that violence doesn’t exist outside of Islamic culture, nor have I claimed that all Muslims are violent. My claim is that Islam, as a religion, plays a central role in the justification for violence and therefore the continuation of violent actions.

First of all let us examine the woefully misnamed “suicide bombings”. This is a journalistic term with no usage or meaning in the Islamic communities which undertake these actions. A great overview of the phenomena can be found in the Joseph Lelyveld report “All Suicide Bombers Are Not Alike” [2].

Only, since it's universally accepted that suicide is contrary to the teachings of the Prophet, they are hardly ever called ''suicide bombings.'' That term -- our term -- can be translated into Arabic but seldom is. Those we call suicide bombers are called shaheed, or martyrs,…. (link) ( http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9900EFD81F3EF93BA15753C1A9679C8B63)


This Lelyveld report is a great resource for understanding the martyr concept because it shows just how difficult it is to separate the acts of violence from the underlying religion of Islam regardless of the vast diversity of opinions on what is justified within the doctrine of the religion.

The motivation of all potential bombing martyrs is not the same. It is probable that for some the martyr operation represents the only acceptable form of suicide in a culture where religion forbids this action; however that lends even greater evidence to the power of religion in these societies. For many martyrs, as the title implies, it is solely Islam which motivates their actions. The Islamic meme of seventy-two virgins in paradise was not created by a Western government or the Western news media to explain the violence and tarnish Islam. This belief was taken from the Koran and is the most commonly stated justification for self-destruction in a Jihad action. These martyrs believe they are doing the will of Allah in return for a tangible reward from Allah. It is obvious that the religion of Islam can not be discounted as a motivation for these actions.

Manuela Dviri [3] examines the role of female suicide bombers, and though various motivations are present, the underlying aspect of religion and religious culture permeate the lives of these women who choose violent action to make a statement.
One of the inmates, Ayat Allah Kamil, 20, from Kabatya, told me why she had wanted to become a martyr: "Because of my religion. I'm very religious. For the holy war [jihad] there's no difference between men and women shaid [martyrs]."

According to the Koran, male martyrs are welcomed to Paradise by 72 beautiful virgins. Ayat, as with many of the women she is incarcerated with, believes that a woman martyr "will be the chief of the 72 virgins, the fairest of the fair".(link) ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/06/26/wmid26.xml&page=3)
Though the Koran and the ahadith support these martyrdom actions, the best evidence that Islam is a strong influence for violence is to ask those who commit violence in the name of Islam. Yes, politics and culture play a strong role in creating this situation; however politics and culture are merely background for a situation where people literally believe their supernatural worldview offers a tangible paradise featuring tangible sexual, and other, rewards for violent acts of martyrdom.

To completely understand the relationship between Islam and violence, one must realize that like so many religions Islam is rife with double-speak. As we see with the Westernized term “suicide bombers”, when a Muslim is asked if a “suicide bomber” acts according to Islam they will reply “no” because suicide is forbidden. Yet, when asked if a “martyr” will be blessed in paradise a Muslim will say they are assured of this fact. The interesting thing from a non-religious perspective is that the violent event about which we speak can be the same event only changing the words with which we describe it.
This same phenomenon is found when we discuss the “killing of innocents”. A Muslim will frequently and correctly state that the “killing of innocents” is forbidden by the tenets of Islam. From the non-religious and often Western viewpoint we see civilians as “innocents” and then incorrectly assume that obviously suicide bombing of innocent civilians is forbidden by Islam on many levels. We never realize that the Muslim perspective is of a self-defense war against enemies of Islam through martyrdom actions. This is not only permitted by Islam but encouraged.

Iraq is a clear area where “self-defense” actions and political motivations are based upon religion and violence in the name of Islam. Aparisim Ghosh speaks with a potential martyr/suicide bomber while he waits for a mission in Iraq [4]:
While he waits, he spends much of his time rehearsing that last prayer. "First I will ask Allah to bless my mission with a high rate of casualties among the Americans," he says, speaking softly in a matter-of-fact monotone, as if dictating a shopping list. "Then I will ask him to purify my soul so I am fit to see him, and I will ask to see my mujahedin brothers who are already with him." He pauses to run the list through his mind again, then resumes: "The most important thing is that he should let me kill many Americans." (link) (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1077288,00.html)

Now it is obvious that politics has thrust this person into the role of warrior, yet it is the underlying aspect of Islam that has turned him into a holy warrior. The role of Islam in these violent actions simply can not be denied. It is not my place here to argue if his actions are politically justified. My assertion is that these actions are violent and this violence has a strong basis in and support from the religion of Islam. To be pleasing to Allah and achieve paradise is not the rallying cry of a political movement. These are religious in nature and remain for the most part unchanged since the introduction of Islam and well, violence, in the name of Allah.

Now on the subject of “rioting”, Starshark posted an interesting comment which begs a response[5]:
This has come to a head in several nations. One is France, with rioting set off by what may appear to be the slightest thing to outsiders. Denmark, of course, saw widespread violence and death threats as a result of a newspaper printing cartoons designed to bait Islamic worshipers. Who could have guessed that if you prodded the hornets nest you get stinged? (link)

This mirrors the rhetoric from the September 2006 incident where the Muslim response to comments by Pope Benedict XVI was often carried a violent component such as this staff story from MSNBC[6]:
Statement from al-Qaida
Al-Qaida in Iraq and its allies issued a statement addressing the pope as “a cross-worshipper” and warning, “You and the West are doomed, as you can see from the defeat in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya and elsewhere.
“You infidels and despots, we will continue our jihad (holy war) and never stop until God avails us to chop your necks and raise the fluttering banner of monotheism, when God’s rule is established governing all people and nations,” said the statement by the Mujahedeen Shura Council, an umbrella organization of Sunni Arab extremist groups in Iraq.
(link) (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14888444/)

Benedict XVI dared to quote a 14th century Byzantine on Islam violence and the reaction from much of the Muslim world was violence or threats of violence. Now this isn’t saying all Muslims share the trait, but the evidence seems clear that on some point Islam seems to create violence. At the very least defense of Islam can be violent business indeed.

The obvious best example of Muslim rioting would be the “cartoon” riots of February 2006. Regardless of the controversy as to the “true” cause of these actions, the violence of the “cartoon” riots added more clarity to the meme of Islamic violence. It is hard to separate the violent protests over cartoon depiction of a religious figure and the religion or its adherents. Much like “suicide bombing”, if examined even briefly the Muslim “rioting” may indeed have strong political elements; however the religion of Islam is tied just as strongly into the violent actors.

Benedict XVI quotes a medieval Byzantine Christian on the violent nature of Islam as presented by the Prophet.[7], and this creates violence in the name of Islam. Muslim rioting over cartoons in the name of Islam. Are just two examples of religious influence on Muslim rioting violence. The “Muslim riots” in France in 2006 may have indeed been purely political. The involved groups identified themselves as Muslims but it seems no strong religious element drove these protests. I include this because it shows contrast which is not evident in the debate thesis. Some things being political does not everything make “political”.

The subject of “conflict” specifically seems a bit broad for a category of discussion and Starshark did not go into much detail in his essay. My only comment on the area of general “conflict” would deal with the internecine violence such as the Sunni versus Shia conflict, the Muslim versus Hindu conflict of the Indian Peninsula, or the Muslim violence in Indonesia. I see no need to delve deeply into any of these conflicts to prove an obvious connection on some level to the religion of Islam. Many elements of these conflicts may be political, yet the influence of Islam remains the prime descriptive term both internally and externally. If the Muslims themselves view these conflicts as part of Islam it is not my place to argue the point.

Starshark’s last, and very rushly dealt, point concerned the concept of Jihad[8]. The link to Islamic justification for violent Jihad in the current world is deeply died to Islam as a religion. To simply dismiss this point with:
Just like any religion is. Catholicism was used similarly during The Troubles in Ireland. That doesn't stop people from immediately linking 'Jihad' to 'a call for violence'. There are many reasons why this is, but the two simplest ones - reasons which are intimate bedfellows - are racism and ignorance. (link)

It would appear we can’t be bothered with Starshark actually making a supported point. He claims anyone “linking 'Jihad' to 'a call for violence'” suffers from both “racism and ignorance”. However, it would appear making the case with evidence is not even contemplated. Starshark makes the claim and calls the names and moves on……

It would be nice if Jihad could be dismissed with a quaint little emotional appeal and a duet of magical words. But the concept of Jihad is much more complex than to be so easily dismissed. One area where Jihad and it’s obvious connection to the religion Islam is the Palestinian areas.
Perhaps reading Daniel Pipes overview on Jihad [9] would help Starshark to better understand the complexity of this subject. Even an overtly Islamic apologia web-site such as Answering Christianity (http://www.answering-christianity.com/ac.htm) would at least show the religious connection to the concept of “Jihad” whatever the interpretation. It is amazing that Starshark feels he can not even discuss this concept yet dismiss any criticism as “racism and ignorance”. Well, the audience can decide if his methodology is acceptable.

Without delving to deeply into Islamic scripture, I will examine one passage of the Koran which is a clear justification for heavenly reward for violence and violence in the name of Islam:
Sura 4:74 [i] Therefore let those fight in the way of Allah, who sell this world's life for the hereafter; and whoever fights in the way of Allah, then be he slain or be he victorious, We shall grant him a mighty reward. (link) (http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=DIV0&byte=114839)

I see only one way to interpret this passage. Violence in the name of Allah, even if “slain”, will receive a “mighty reward”. We have seen that people are willing to commit violent acts in the name of Islam and the holy book of Islam appears to justify such actions and outlines rewards. From this it does not appear to be a very great step in linking Islam as a religion to at the very least an excuse for violence but more likely to be in some cases a cause of violence.

In the missive by Starshark I can find no evidence that shows a purely political motive in the violence attributed to Islam. His attempts to draw all criticism of Islam into the fragile construct of universal racism is feeble at best [11].
Societies are prone to racism. It is a natural phenomena - in the sense that it derives from animal territorialism. This is not to say it is therefore acceptable in a natural law fallacy, but it is an explanation. One characteristic of this social racism, as illustrated by Jane Elliot of Blue Eyed fame, is to exclude and revile the minority until they revolt, then punish them for revolting. Or, as Edmund Burke succinctly put it, "We whip the child until it cries, and then we whip it for crying". (link)

This is not a specific event which spurs Starshark to make this statement but in defense of Islam generally. He has misapplied a view to Islam that can not an answer to any question proposed in this debate or any viewpoint I may have proffered. To continually beat the criticism of Islam is “racism” is for Starshark to effectively concede the debate. He has failed to make his point on two of the three listed points and seems rather irritated with the debate he started [12]:
It's the first week of the new year (a bastard of a week just btw), and what better way to end it than with a quick rebuttal of my opponent? Yeah, I thought 'lots of things' too, yet here I am... (link)

I would think if this is so much trouble and you have failed to make even your most basic point without a meaningless appeal to emotion, why do you not resign the field, Starshark? I would hate to put you off by continued participation in your own debate.

Rathpig
Third Round Essay 12 January 2006


[1] Starshark in post 3998715
[2] Lelyveld, Joseph, “All Suicide Bombers Are Not Alike”, The New York Times, October 28, 2001. (link) (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9900EFD81F3EF93BA15753C1A9679C8B63)
[3] Dviri, Manuela, "My dream was to be a suicide bomber. I wanted to kill 20, 50 Jews. Yes, even babies”, Telegraph.co.uk, June 26, 2005. (link) ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/06/26/wmid26.xml&page=3)
[4] Ghosh, Aparisim, “Inside the Mind of an Iraqi Suicide Bomber”, Time, June 26, 2005. (link) ( http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1077288,00.html)
[5] Starshark in post 4061167
[6] MSNBC staff and news service reports, “Islamic militants vow war after pope comments” MSNBC Online, September 18, 2006. (link) (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14888444/)
[7] CNN and AP staff, “Pope's Islam comments condemned”, CNN Online, undated 2006. (link (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/09/15/pope.islam/index.html).
[8] Starshark post 4061167
[9] Pipes, Daniel, “What is Jihad?”, The New York Post, December 31, 2002. (link) ( http://www.danielpipes.org/article/990)
[10] The Holy Koran trans. M.H. Shakir, Tahrike Tarsile Qur'an, Inc., 1983. (link) (http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=DIV0&byte=114839)
[11] Starshark post 4061167
[12] Starshark post 3998715

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Starshark has informed me that he must withdraw from the formal debate due to technical difficulties. Rathpig will now have an opportunity to post a concluding statement.

- KWSN, FD Moderator

[Rathpig]

Debate Closing:


In my opening essay for this debate I outlined three source areas to support my case. In actual practice I only pulled evidence from the first area which includes the holy texts of Islam and the testimony of practicing Muslims. In my final two essays I had intended to pull from the areas of Muslim apostate testimony and non-Muslim accounts, because the current debate has been prematurely ending I will only post a few source references at the end of this closing to allow those who are interested to explore the subject further.

I would like to thank KnightWhoSaysNi for his help in formatting and moderating this debate. Of course the Administration and owners of Internet Infidels deserve a special mention for allowing so many of us a forum for our thoughts. Starshark, though I have some serious problems with his methodology, at least made a stand for his point of view. I respect anyone who makes a stand because it is much easier to avoid confrontation and a lot of trouble to step forward.

Islam is an interesting current event topic on several levels. Though I think the external threat of Islam may in many cases be overstated for political reasons, an external threat from Islamic motivated groups is very real. However, the internal threat that Islam poses to its own adherents is a grave modern tragedy. It is appalling that so many in the world seek to downplay the crimes of Islamic governments against their own citizens; moreover it is almost criminal, in and of itself, the way in which some pundits overlook and excuse these crimes in order to make claims of political opposition. If the enemy of your enemy is made out to be your friend by necessity in the arena of politics, it is my opinion that such punditry and apologia deserves a harsh reaction.

In this harsh reaction the apologists often attempt to mischaracterize the criticism of Islam. Because this is standard procedure for so many, I will end this closing essay by outlining my personal view on the subject:

Islam as a religion requires only a literalist interpretation and within the Koran itself forbids any innovation or change to what is called a “perfect revelation from God”. Because of this doctrinal call to literalism, a “true” Muslim can be determined by outside observers. Now this isn’t to say that all Muslims are literalists, or that all Muslims follow the same exact doctrine. It does however show that those Muslim who make literal interpretations of the religion and then act violently upon these interpretations can not be dismissed as merely political actors. By their own admission, and the religious source material, these Muslims are acting in accordance with their religion.

Violence, misogyny, and cultural barbarism exist outside of Islam. This is no way dismisses the same behavior within Islam nor does it discount the religious influence. Starshark attempted to make this the centerpiece of his argument and it is simply wrong. Bad behavior on the one had never dismisses bad behavior on the other. Most of us learn this lesson when we are children, so forcing such an application into a formal debate seems at best an amateur approach to the subject. The old canard of saying “Christians do it too!” is not only a meaningless claim it fails to address the topic and should be dismissed out of hand by those debating this topic. It is puzzling to me that this even has to be discussed among educated adults.

Now as to me personally. I don’t “hate” Muslims. I think all religious adherents are superstitious fools, but I also understand that psychological weakness and cultural norms require people to adapt ludicrous and anachronistic belief systems. Islam is a topic frequently on my radar because it is an important and timely matter of discussion. When, and if, another ideology begins to impact the current world I will devote ample time to its discussion. I do believe fundamentalist Christian Dominionism is a similar topic to Islam, but it currently has less of a violent impact on the direction of world politics.

So to surmise my view of this topic: Islam is one of three important factors which affect the topic being discussed. Politics and culture complete the picture. All Muslims are not violent, or terrorists, or misogynist, and primitive; however the Koran and the ahadith outline exactly what a “true” Muslim should be behave. When examining this religiously documented “true” Muslim we find that violence, misogyny, and primitivism are central tenets of the religion. In addition to the religious documentation the testimony of the Muslims involved in this action refer back to religious mandates.

The evidence is clear that Islam, as a religion, has an overwhelming impact on the behavior of certain individual religious adherents, as well as, the societies and governments these adherents form. Existing culture and politics can not be completely discounted, but as with most sociological topics a complex and comprehensive picture includes all primary influences. To say the problems in the Islamic world can all be attributed to politics is either naïve or disingenuous apologia.


A few unreferenced sources:

www.apostatesofislam.com
www.challenging-islam.org
www.thereligionofpeace.com
www.faithfreedom.org
www.islamundressed.com

There are literally hundreds of possible resource sites that space in these essays have not permitted me to reference. Regardless of a persons initial beliefs about Islam it would serve them well to study Islamic reference material such as the Koran and ahadith, to read the Islamic apologia sites, the Islamic apostate sites, and all the various levels of information available before forming an opinion. Just because you think your cubicle mate, who happens to be a Muslim, is a “good fellow” this doesn’t excuse the religion as a whole. I assume that most people who read IIDB are not religious adherents, so it is counterproductive to your own ideology to immediately rise to the defense of Islam for political reasons. No matter how much you despise the current political demonization of Islam by the political Right, Islam is not your friend just because it happens to be the enemy of your enemy.

For a concise overview of both historical Islam and how it relates to the present I would suggest reading the Paul Fregosi book: [i] Jihad in the West: Muslim Conquests from the 7th to the 21st Centuries[i] (Amazon link) ( http://www.amazon.com/Jihad-West-Muslim-Conquests-Centuries/dp/1573922471). This text offers a well referenced dealing with the topic in a single volume.

Rathpig
Debate Closing 24 January 2007

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

The formal debate is now complete. We would like to thank Starshark and Rathpig for their participation. Discussion can be continued in the peanut gallery.

- KWSN, FD Moderator