Wednesday, July 29, 2026

Islam Stuff

From the Colson Center 

"Recently, a handful of popular podcasters have claimed that Islamic regimes are historically “very kind” toward Christians. Those who make this claim are either willfully ignorant or are advancing an agenda. The historical record is not ambiguous.
For example, the claims that relations between Islam and the Christian world were peaceful for 500 years until the First Crusade are false. Mohammad died in 632. By 732, Islam had taken the Holy Land and North Africa from the Christian Byzantine Empire. It had also conquered Spain and advanced into France a few hundred miles from Paris.
After taking additional land in southern France and establishing bases in the Alps, Muslims launched raids into Germany. They also sacked the outskirts of Rome and took control of Sicily. In 1071, they defeated the Byzantines and took control of most of modern Turkey. Twenty-four years later, the Byzantine Emperor asked the Pope for help, leading to the First Crusade.
Christians in these conquered territories were treated as dhimmis, second-class citizens who were required to pay the jizya, a special tax and sign of submission that was often accompanied by ritual humiliations. Failure to pay the tax could result in death, enslavement, and the destruction of the local church building.
No public displays of Christianity were allowed, including the ringing of church bells or even praying aloud in one’s own home within earshot of a Muslim. No new churches could be built, and no old churches could be repaired without permission, which was rarely given. Criticism of Islam and evangelizing Muslims was strictly forbidden. In court, a Christian’s testimony was worth less than a Muslim’s. Christians could not have authority over a Muslim or have a house taller than a Muslim’s. They could not bear arms or ride a horse. At times, they were forced to wear distinctive clothing.
Another claim is that Muslim rulers protected Christian holy sites and repaired them when damaged. Again, nothing could be further from the truth. Typically, important Christian holy sites were converted to mosques to show the victory of Islam. The most prominent example is Hagia Sophia in Istanbul, the largest church in Christendom for 1000 years. When the city fell to the Turks, it and other churches were desecrated and converted to mosques.
An exception was the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, perhaps because it was a major pilgrimage site that generated revenue for the Caliph. However, in 1009, Caliph Al Hakim destroyed it. It lay in ruins for decades until his successor allowed the Byzantines to rebuild it, likely to again collect pilgrimage revenues. 800 years later, the church was severely damaged in a fire. Local Christians blamed Muslims, but the official story is that it was caused by a candle or oil lamp. The Ottomans allowed it to be repaired using Christian funds donated from overseas. They did not pay for the repair.
In the Ottoman Empire, that some claim was kind to Christians, boys were taken from Christian homes to be raised as Janissaries, or Muslim slave-soldiers who were taught to despise their Christian families. Girls were often taken as slaves into harems, and violence often broke out against Christian communities in Ottoman territories. The worst violence was the Armenian, Assyrian, and Greek genocides of the early twentieth century, in which between 1.5 million and 2.5 million people were killed by the Ottoman government.
The same violence against Christians continues today, with abductions, forced marriages, murders, arson of churches, and oppression of Christians in places like Pakistan and Egypt, and increasingly in Europe. There is a prohibition of churches in Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries and, of course, the ongoing slaughter of Christians by Islamists in Nigeria and elsewhere in Africa.
So no, Islam has not been kind to Christians. The only reason to make this claim is to make the occasional anti-Christian acts of Israelis look worse. But there is no comparison. Christians in Israel have more rights and freedoms than in any Muslim country, especially in history. To claim otherwise is to ignore reality.."

73 comments:

Marshal Art said...

islam isn't kind, period. Not even to all muslims. Rumi's a faker and he's buffaloed at least one marxist fake Christian from Jeff St, Louisville KY.

Anonymous said...

Islam is kind to the very few who’ve amassed power, either through being royalty, oil rich, or a big Imam. It’s pretty bad for girls and women, and not great to non Muslims.

But they’ve got enough good PR to convince idiots.

Marshal Art said...

Sucking up to power isn't kindness. It's total self interest.

Anonymous said...

Marshal...

"Rumi's a faker"

I don't really care too much about all y'all have written here. I am curious about this one claim from Marshal. I wonder what he means by that or if he's even familiar with Rumi.

Dan

Craig said...

Islam, as a system, is based on control. The word itself means submission. It means to submit to Allah, and to the governmental system that Allah ordained. So, for those who have power, Islam is a very sweet deal. Whether that power is spiritual or temporal or both doesn't seem to matter. Much like communism, the power structure in Islam and Islamic countries is concentrated in the hand of a very few, and oppresses the rest of the population. Because they're (at least the men) are promised a teenage boy's wet dream in their version of heaven. Therefore they're willing to kill themselves or sacrifice their children to get the wet dream, because their temporal lives are so shitty.

Just like communism and socialism, the power and wealth gets concentrated at the very top, and the bulk of society gets shit.

Strangely enough, the Dans of the world who complain about the top 1% in the US, have no problem with the top 0.1% oppressing people in Islamic countries. They don't get that in a capitalist society, it's possible to achieve the top 1-10%, while in an Islamic of communist society, there is no chance.

Craig said...

I guess you'd have to start by proving objectively that Art is wrong. So maybe you should try that. Of course you'd have to prove that Rumi was not engaging in taqiyya first, then go from there. Feel free to do so.

I do find it interesting that you "don't really care to much" about the actual history and practices of Islam. That makes me wonder what you mean by that and if you're even familiar with the history of Islamic oppression, genocide, and ethnic cleansing. For someone who spends a lot of time bitching about "oppression" in the US, it seems like your concern about oppression doesn't extend very far from here. Which seems strange for someone who has an entire gospel based on including the poor and oppressed.


وز نما مُردم به حیوان برزدم
مُردم از حیوانی و آدم شدم
پس چه ترسم کی ز مردن کم شدم؟
حملهٔ دیگر بمیرم از بشر
تا برآرم از ملائک بال و پر
وز ملک هم بایدم جستن ز جو
کل شیء هالک الا وجهه
بار دیگر از ملک پران شوم
آنچ اندر وهم ناید آن شوم
پس عدم گردم عدم چون ارغنون
گویدم که انا الیه راجعون

Translation:

I died to the mineral state and became a plant,
I died to the vegetal state and reached animality,
I died to the animal state and became a man,
Then what should I fear? I have never become less from dying.
At the next charge (forward) I will die to human nature,
So that I may lift up (my) head and wings (and soar) among the angels,
And I must (also) jump from the river of (the state of) the angel,
Everything perishes except His Face,
Once again I will become sacrificed from (the state of) the angel,
I will become that which cannot come into the imagination,
Then I will become non-existent; non-existence says to me (in tones) like an organ,
Truly, to Him is our return.

Yeah, those seem like words for a Christian to live by.

"Despite references to other religions, Rumi clearly holds the superiority of Islam. As Muslim, Rumi praises the Quran, not only as sacred book of Muslims, but also as tool to distinguish truth from falsehood. As such, the Quran features as guidebook for humanity and those who want to understand the reality of the world.

The prophets of Islam, according to Rumi, constitute the highest point of spiritual development and are the closest to God. Throughout Rumi's writings, Muhammad is the most perfect example of all previous prophets."

Seems pretty contradictory to Christianity. Have you forsaken Christian and Jewish Scripture for the Quran? Do you use the Quran to distinguish truth from falsehood? Do you use the Quran to understand the reality of the world? (The Quran which talks about Mo and his magic horse, as reality) Do you agree that the prophets of Islam are the highest point of spiritual development and the closest people to god?


If any of us made these types of claims in regards to Christianity, you'd freak out and accuse us of all sorts of idolatry and tell us the prophets aren't all that. But you don't apply that same standard to some mystic from the 1200s.

Got it.

FWIW, I see no reason to believe that Rumi was a "faker" in the sense that he didn't believe what he spouted. I'll grant that he was probably sincere. That doesn't make him objectively correct, or some sort of spokesman for all if Islam.

Anonymous said...

Craig...

Prove what??. Marshal made a claim that Rumi is a faker. I asked him what he knew about Rumi. That's a question. It's not staking a position. What does he mean by "faker"? In what sense is Rumi a "faker"?

Craig...

"Yeah, those seem like words for a Christian to live by."

?

His poetry that you cite here is very Pauline in nature as well, of course, as very Jesus-y in nature. What's wrong with these words?

Die to self?
There is no fear in God?
Live within God?
In God, we return?

That seems exceedingly Christ-ian even by conservative human tradition theories.

I'm asking you both questions. What does Marshall mean by "faker" and if he even knows anything about Rumi. I'm asking you what is not Christian in these words of poetry from Rumi?

Dan

Anonymous said...

Perhaps you can help me understand you better by answering some questions. For me I embrace truth wherever I find it. If Rumi speaks of a divine love, a divine love of all that we are to embrace, THAT is a truth, a beautiful glorious truth. If a communist speaks of sharing things in common and watching out for the needs of the most marginalized, that is a truth, a wonderful Christian truth. I don't have to agree with every part of Marxist philosophy or Islamic teachings to affirm those truths because there aren't different types of truths. There's just truth and if we accept that God teaches that we should love our neighbor, it doesn't matter if the Marxist or the Muslim also affirms that truth. The importance is the truth and its universality.

Thus I'm not bothered at all by citing good words and teachings from a specific Muslim any more than I'm bothered by citing good words from a specific Calvinist, even though both Calvinist and Muslims have awful teachings and abuses in their past. John Calvin and his like-minded thugs persecuted and tried to kill or oppress many of my Huguenot ancestors. I don't hold that against all people who affirm Calvinism. I can affirm the positive parts or words from a Calvinist and disagree with the awful parts. Same for Islam or communism. With me so far?

It seems that for you you are very reluctant to acknowledge any good words or ideas coming from a Communist or a Muslim and really prefer to only cite and celebrate the words of people who fairly closely align with your particular flavor of Protestantism. Is that true? Are you more than glad to rejoice and celebrate the beautiful poetry of Rumi when it's good and solidly Christ-ian in its ideas that it's promoting? Or do you feel a need to reject it out of hand because in your mind all Islam and all Muslims are a bad influence?

Dan

Craig said...

Well, you'd have to prove objectively that Rumi was not a "faker" which would solve the probem.

"?"
These random punctuations with out any connection to a sentence are bizarre and make me wonder if you understand how English actually works.


"His poetry that you cite here is very Pauline in nature as well, of course, as very Jesus-y in nature. What's wrong with these words?"

Well, I can't recall Jesus or Paul ever suggesting that we become plants or animals, or that we become angels. Sounds like he's suggesting reincarnation more in line with Hindu philosophy.



"Die to self?
There is no fear in God?
Live within God?
In God, we return?"

These aren't really questions.

You're reading "die to self" into his words.
Really?
Sounds panentheistic, not Christian.
Which means what exactly in a Christian context?

I'm not Marshall, I don't know, so it's stupid to ask me.
As Rumi was a very devout Sunni Muslim Mystic, and found all truth in the Quran, it seems impossible to think that he was writing Christian theology.

Now, you've clearly read some christian meaning into them, but given the difference between how Allah is described and how YHWH is described, it seems impossible to believe that his mysticism and poetry is Christian in any real sense.

Anonymous said...

Here's an example of a back-to-back Jesus story and Sufi story. What do you think of the wisdom of both?

There is a beautiful story from the Sufi tradition, which runs parallel to
many of Jesus teachings.  It relates to the verse from Matthew, where
Jesus said “you strain out the gnats, but swallow the camels.”  ... The
Pharisees had focused only on the gnats, and forgotten the camels, or the
weighty stuff- Justice, mercy, compassion.

With that in mind, let me tell you a Sufi story about the trickster, Mullah
Nasruddin.  He was a smuggler, who traveled each day from Saudi
Arabia to Egypt.

Loaded on his donkey were many packs, and each day the border officials would
search his packs to see what he was smuggling in, and they never found anything suspicious.  After four years, Nasruddin became very wealthy and he
retired. 

In his retirement, he happened to meet the official that had checked his bags each day as he crossed the border.  The official said,
“Now that we are both retired, you are not in any danger. For my own sense of
curiosity, please tell me what is was that you were smuggling.” 

His answer was, “Donkeys.”

Their focus on the minutia caused them to not see the donkey, a different
donkey every day for four years.

The mystical strands of Christianity and Islam, the teachings of Jesus, and
the stories of the Sufis call us back to the big stuff- Justice, mercy, and
compassion.  We only get at the big stuff when we take that inner journey
and surrender our attachment to the separate self. The donkey represents our
greatest opportunity for inner awareness, our every day lives and ordinary
situations. The donkey is consciousness.

Dan

Craig said...

"With me so far?"

So far there's nothing surprising about what some would call "cafeteria christianity". You pick and choose things that sound good from anywhere (regardless of the problems with the source) and "baptize" those "truths" into your hodgepodge theology based on things you find to be appealing and "true".

"Is that true?"

No.

"Are you more than glad to rejoice and celebrate the beautiful poetry of Rumi when it's good and solidly Christ-ian in its ideas that it's promoting?"

No. I can acknowledge the historical value of it, and perhaps even the craftsmanship. But given his position on the Quran, Mohamad, and Islam in general, I cannot see the value of taking snippets of his mysticism or poetry out of that context and trying to force them into a Christian context. Given that he came hundreds of years after Christ and had access to Jewish and Christian material, it's not surprising that he might have "borrowed" some concepts and Muslimized them.

"Or do you feel a need to reject it out of hand because in your mind all Islam and all Muslims are a bad influence?"

If one looks at the effects of Islam as a whole across the history of it's existence. it is hard to see how it has been a net positive to the world. Conquest, genocide, ethnic cleansing, terrorism, FGM, oppression, slavery, child/cousin marriage, how Kuffars are to be treated, Taqiyya, Jizya, are the legacy if Islam.

That you can cherry pick tidbits from that legacy and pretend that you can ignore the historical actions of Islam, is simply beyond me.

But, as always, you do you. You cling to the "truths" you find wherever you find them, and put those "truths" on an equal footing with The Truth if that makes you feel warm and fuzzy. This notion that you can take tiny bits of one Muslim mystic out of context, and pretend that you've magically found what "real" Islam is is simply nuts. But, you do you.

Dan Trabue said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dan Trabue said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dan Trabue said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Craig said...

Wow!!!!!!! You found a story from some random Muslim that kind of, sort of. has a similar moral to one that Jesus told. Shocking!!

But it's a nice fantasy you've constructed.

Craig said...

How very defensive of you. I merely made the simple, logical, suggesting that you could prove Art wrong if you chose to. You clearly choose not to, which is your prerogative. Regardless, the simple fact is that you seem more interested in going after Art, than in proving him wrong. I find that interesting. Especially given your guilty/innocent BS.

You chose to bitch about Art, instead of proving him wrong. That's your choice, but your choice isn't immune from criticism.

I realize how stupid this comment is, and that it violates a rule I established a while ago, so it is getting aborted.

Craig said...

That's two comments that violate a rule I established a while ago. I'll note that Dan was creative in slinging BS in an attempt to establish some strange equivalence between random Sunni mystics and Jesus.

Craig said...

"This is PRECISELY speaking of dying to one's "plant" self, to one's "animal" self, to one's HUMAN self and arising in God's face. He's being poetic, you know?"

Given that he's a poet, one would hope he was being poetic. Yet, one can convey Truth through poetry. Humans literally do not have a "plant" or "animal" self. It's like Haekel's embryos hundreds of years later.

"What do YOU think he's meaning with those words?"

Don't know, don't care. Sounds more Hindu reincarnation than Christian or Muslim.

"I'm saying, THIS is true, whatever one's religion."

You "saying" something is "true" does not make it "true". Yes, it is possible for people to find and communicate things that are True regardless of their religion. That doesn't make this crap True, nor does it offset the hundreds of years of Muslim conquest, oppression, slavery, and the like.

" Jesus was a mystic poet healer who spoke of God's truths and those truths are great and eternal, wherever they appear."

You think that simply making these pronouncements makes them True without you having to prove your claims.

Jesus was the incarnate Son of YHWH, the second person of the Trinity, who was born, raised and lived as a 1st century Jew.

Sorry, your bad memory keeps tripping you up and the comment this is responding to will be aborted.

"Am I mistaken in my three examples?"

You are not mistaken in identifying instances where Jesus affirmed that non Jews also had access to The Truth, which was the beginning of The Gospel being spread to non Jews. You are mistaken in your attempts to establish some sort of equivalence between Jesus and Sunni Mystics because they said similar things. Hell, the Sunni mystics probably stole their crap from Jesus.

Craig said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Craig said...

"what WAS Rumi's position on the Quran, Mohamad and Islam in general?"

This is what happens when you don't read what other people write or forget what was written and are too lazy to go back and check.

"WHY would we assume YOU have a better understanding of Rumi's thoughts than what Rumi himself expressed?"

We wouldn't.

"Did you know that?"

Don't know, don't care. I generally don't dig through piles of BS hoping to find things I can cite as "true".

Again when you speak of "surrender" you demonstrate that you didn't read what I said. Yet expect me to take you seriously.

"Here's one final question: (actually it appears to be at least two questions)... God of love. (one more unproven claim) No doubt, literally BILLIONS of people have been inspired to love, peace, unity, contemplation and love of God (again and unproven claim) ... "Can you at least honor the potential for positive impact that sort of following can have?"

Given the reality of Islam and it's history of doing none of those things, no, I see no reason to "honor" a potential which hasn't come to fruition after hundreds of years. When those alleged followers actually make a positive impact by reforming Islam, rolling back the conquest and oppression, you might have a case.

"I mean, can you imagine the more extremist and militant segments of Muslim populations truly embracing this loving unity promoted by Rumi?"

They've had centuries to do so, and have chosen to instead spread death, oppression, conquest, ethnic cleansing, genocide, terrorism, slavery, and FGM across Europe, Africa, The Middle East, and elsewhere. The only "unity" I see in Islam is the desire to unify the world by forcing submission to Islam. Hell, even Islam isn't unified you moron.


"Or, for that matter, the impact of more militant white nationalists like Hegseth and his high testosterone bubba entourage reading and understanding these notions of love and unity?"

If you aren't going to ground your "questions" in reality, I'm not going to take them seriously.

Craig said...

I'm out for until Sunday afternoon at the earliest. I'll try to post comments by Art or from Dan that don't violate the rules if I have the time. If your comments don't get posted immediately, don't bitch and whine.

Marshal Art said...

I'm only familiar with what you've presented here regarding this dude, Rumi. He suffers greatly from the mere fact that you've seen fit to present him as someone worthy of consideration. But he's muslim and one considered...I take it...as rather special. But why? For pretending to be "Christian-like" in his ramblings? Sorry. That's not good enough if those ramblings are steeped in islamic culture. As a part of that, he can only pretend to be someone with something substantive to offer, but in reality, he has nothing.

Fools believe that something is "good" because it sounds nice. That's Rumi. That's what make him a fake, even if he himself tries to be sincere. He's sincere about that which is false, and dressing it up by "talking nice" doesn't make the underlying ideology better than it truly is.

I keep thinking of the word "nuance" and how you like to pretend you're tuned in to nuance, when in truth you're enslaved to that which is wholly unChristian by virtue of its superficial resemblance. "Nuance" is another word perverted to posture as wisdom and insight. You're a fool and nothing more. Your reverence for Rumi is more evidence of that.

Marshal Art said...

Rumi isn't talking about God. He's talking about "Allah", who isn't the God of Jesus or the OT prophets.

Marshal Art said...

I agree with Craig here. But Rumi's words are good enough for Dan because Dan's theology is "Christ-like" in exactly the same superficial way. Dan's as fake as Rumi.

Marshal Art said...

What need of we of Rumi because his "beautiful poetry" sounds "Christian-y" when we have Christianity without any blemish Rumi's islamism would put upon it? Anything he says which sounds to you like "Christian" is tainted by his islamic devotion. Again, stick with Christianity and you can't go wrong...though you go wrong at the drop of a hat.

BTW, your Huguenot ancestors were Calvinists, not victims of them.

Marshal Art said...

Dan is UNconsciousness.

Marshal Art said...

Dan's middle school girl fascination with Rumi is no more than Rumi being a blind squirrel finding an acorn now and then. But in doing so, he praises a false God and thus, he's a fake. He preaches "Allah", not God. He's a fake because there's only God.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Dan always supporting/defending Islam PROVES he has never read any real history of Islam, never read the Qur'an, etc. He continues to prove his foolish ignorance of Islam.

Craig said...

There's a saying that kind of fits here. "Even a blind pig finds an acorn." Yes, people from other worldviews can stumble across something that aligns with the Truth, and good for them. Some might argue that this is an example of YHWH's common grace. That YHWH's attributes are available to all to some degree or another. Much like when a pop songwriter writes a lyric that expresses a Biblical Truth, or even when someone who is generally not orthodox in their Christian faith, does communicate Biblical Truth on occasion.
No one is suggesting that the Truth communicated isn't good at some level, but why search for Truth in a place known for lies?

I agree that demanding that something be considered "good" because it sounds "good" is shallow and foolish. Especially given the reverence Rumi has for Mo and the Quran. To get Truth from a person and a book, which contain so much falsehood seems bizarre, even though it can happen.

Nuance, in Dan speak, simply means accepting whatever he reads into something and chooses to take it in a wooden, literal fashion because it's convenient for him. Noting the vast amount of unChristian nonsense that spewed from Mo and the Quran isn't nuance, it's Islamophobia. Or insanity.

Craig said...

If he's read even a smidgen of what I've [posted regarding the history and stated goals of Islam, it's more that he chooses to ignore that which doesn't fit his rose colored view of some mythical Islam which disagrees with virtually everything Mo and the Quran said, and agrees with Dan's worldview and faith.

Craig said...

Absolutely, this cannot be stressed enough. The Allah of Mo and the Quran is wildly different from the YHWH and Jesus of The Bible. Allah is a god who appeals to the basest instincts of poor, young men who want to feel powerful.

Craig said...

Exactly, why settle for something not Christian which bears a superficial similarity to Christianity, when the real thing is available. What did Paul say about the whole dim mirror thing?

Dan seems to be choosing to search for truth in a secondary or tertiary source (at best) while ignoring the primary source.

Anonymous said...

Glenn (and the others saying similar things demonstrating a profound lack of reading comprehension):

Dan always supporting/defending Islam PROVES he has never read any real history of Islam, never read the Qur'an, etc.

Here's the real world reality: I have never once defended "Islam." NOT ONE TIME can you point to my words and say, "look, Dan is defending the entire group of the followers of the religion of Islam." Never, not one time, not ever in any of my actual words. I'd ask if you all understand that, but clearly, you don't.

What I HAVE done, in the real world, is make the reasonable, data-driven claim that in the real world, there are MUSLIMS (speaking of specific Muslims, like Rumi, for instance - known FAR and wide for his teachings on peace and love of God and humanity... known WAY more than you gentlemen will ever be for the same thing. sadly) who are clearly good people advocating notions of Love, Grace, Peace, Community, Acceptance, Welcome. The very notions that are key components of Jesus' actual literal teachings (ie, what Jesus actually taught, not the bastardized human traditions that some humans have taught in Jesus' "name...")

And when I do that, I'm merely noting objective, observable facts. And one can disagree with reality if you want, but it only makes you look delusional when you do so, right?

Noting the objective reality of good, decent Muslims is NOT the same as defending Islam or some sects of Islam.

I don't believe or promote Islam for the precise reason that I do not find the teachings compelling or sufficiently Godly, as they read right off the pages of their holy text. Indeed, I've regularly noted that wide swaths of followers of Islam are hostile to love, peace, grace and welcome. Some Muslim extremists, much like some Christian extremists, are a threat to human rights and decency.

(And when I say, "Some muslim extremists... some Christian extremists..." I'm merely speaking of abusers of religion who use the name of that religion to do harm, to oppress, to hate... I'm not saying that they ARE actually good followers of Islam or Christianity, because I don't think they are... before you miss that point and jump to another wrong conclusion.)

The problem you all have is presuming that YOU are the ones who can speak to the "true" followers of Islam are only the abusers of mankind, while the Christian abusers of mankind are not "true" Christians... That is, you use the No TRUE Scotsman fallacy when it comes to defending conservative abusers but don't allow that for Muslims who would say that the "bad" Muslims are not truly following Islam.

That is, you're being inconsistent. You want grace for the Christian extremists but not for the Muslim extremists. You want to judge ALL of Islam by the abusers but you want Christians to be judged only by the "best" of Christians.

Myself, on the other hand, I'm just noting that when Rumi speaks of Love, of Grace, of Welcome, of Joyful beloved community, he IS speaking of God's Way, even if he attributes it to Islam or "Allah," (again, just the arabic word for God). I'm glad to break bread with the beloved community of grace-givers, love-sharers, community welcomers, whoever they might be. AND, at the same time, I'm glad to rebuke the abusers, whether they are Muslim, Christian or otherwise.

Welcoming the loving and gracious is NOT a defense of Islam. It's just not.

You all read but fail to understand. Much like the Pharisees, you all speak from a legalistic, death-affirming place, not from a place of grace and welcome.

Dan

Anonymous said...

Craig, contradicting himself in ONE short paragraph, said:

The only "unity" I see in Islam is the desire to unify the world by forcing submission to Islam.

Hell, even Islam isn't unified you moron.


Precisely. NOT ALL Muslims desire to "unify the world by forcing submission to Islam." Thus, you are making a stupidly false claim. That is not the desire of "Islam." It is the desire of SOME SECTS and strains of Islam. SOME Muslims, not all.

Now, I GET that you REALLLLLLLLY want to make the claim, "but, but, but I, CRAIG THE ALLWISE!! am the One who can tell you what TRUE Scotsmen, I mean Muslims, believe...." But you really are not.

Islam does not have any one spokesperson, any more than Christianity does.

SOME Christians affirm the graceless theories of "Penal Substitutionary Atonement" and a god of great and graceless anger and fury hell-bent on punishing most of humanity (and I get that you wouldn't use those words, but the effect is the same), but not ALL Christians agree with that human theory. SOME Muslims might affirm a more brutal, "submit or die" approach to Islam, but not ALL Muslims agree with THAT human theory.

Objectively, that is just the case.

Can you agree to that very basic, objective, observable reality?

Dan

Anonymous said...

Craig:

If he's read even a smidgen of what I've [posted regarding the history and stated goals of Islam, it's more that he chooses to ignore that which doesn't fit his rose colored view

OR, and isn't this MORE likely - he's opted to not place much value in the posts and sources of an acknowledged Islamophobe, thinking it's better to get information from primary sources and non-bigoted sources NOT out to try to find anything they can to "prove" that "muslims are always evil, ready to lie to promote evil ideas and actions..."?

Seriously, WHY would I take YOUR personal opinions and posts seriously when I can listen to actual Muslims, including Rumi, make clear their OWN views?

That is a reasonable question.

Unlike bigots, I'm not willing to judge first and assume guilt unless they prove otherwise.

Don't be daft. Be a more adult-thinker.

Dan

Anonymous said...

And I'll note that Marshal has not even BEGUN to try to defend his accusations that Rumi is a faker beyond positing his own bigotry. But bigoted opinions are not adult conversation nor reasonable defenses. Indeed, Marshal SEEMS to be admitting that he is nearly entirely ignorant of Rumi.

WHY would anyone take the opinions of a self-confessed ignorant bigot as worth even a pile of shit?

And NO, Craig, I'm not going to "prove" to a bigot that the Muslim in question needs to be defended from the unsupported accusation. In rational, moral adult conversations, it is the onus of the accuser and Satans to prove their accusations, not the rest of humanity to react to unsupported slander.

Do not be confused: neither slanderers, nor bearers of false witness, nor gossips nor bigots will enter the realm of God.

Be better.

Dan

Anonymous said...

Craig:

Given the reality of Islam and it's history of doing none of those things, no, I see no reason to "honor" a potential which hasn't come to fruition after hundreds of years.

So, given the reality of Christianity - with Christians being involved in defending slavery, the oppression of women, the oppression of minorities, the oppression of LGBTQ friends and family - you're unwilling to "honor" those Christians who've been opposed to all these oppressions?

You see, for me, it makes sense to give respect to those (Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Pagan or otherwise) who promote and support human rights, an end to oppression and the beloved community, while condemning those in each group who do NOT do so.

Judging each person according to their fruit, not blanket, bigoted accusations against who groups because of the actions and abuses of many in that group.

Well, hell, that's almost Jesus-like, in its practice, right?

In other words, can you agree with me that we ought to be opposed to oppression NO MATTER WHO is oppressing/causing harm/abusing/molesting, etc. AND we should be allies with those who promote human rights and decency, no matter which "group" they're from... can you agree with that?

And if not, why?

Dan

Craig said...

"What I HAVE done, in the real world..."

To be accurate, what you have done is to find and selectively quote ONE Muslim who says a few things that you've concluded sound kind of christian-y. That is a far cry from what you are claiming that you've done. You haven't shown us the "hundreds of millions of Muslims" you claimed in a post at your blog who are actively working for "peace". You haven't shown an example of "peace" in the Muslim world that doesn't involve subjugation of non Muslims. You insist that some tiny minority of Muslims (and only quote one) represent real Islam, while the billions of the rest are somehow wrong. FYI, you pet Muslim, Rumi, seems pretty clear about being a bog fan of Mo and the Quran as being the only source of Truth, which doesn't bode well for you.

"...but it only makes you look delusional when you do so, right?"

In what world does looking beyond you small sample of cherry picked "facts" and considering all of the available evidence "delusional"? You've cherry picked a few snippets from one guy, and pass those off as much more than they really are, then you exaggerate whet you've provided as if it offsets the real world evidence we see every day.

"The problem you all have is presuming that YOU are the ones who can speak to the "true" followers of Islam ..."

!. Which is exactly what you are claiming that Rumi does. Once more doing exactly what you claim we do.
2. For me, I just let them speak for themselves. I post their words regularly. I watch the news, listen to and read what they say, and evaluate the reality of their words and action.

"but don't allow that for Muslims who would say that the "bad" Muslims are not truly following Islam."

Where are these Muslims? Please show me the masses of "good Muslims" in the streets protesting the killings on Berlin. Please show me the "good Muslims" advocating for the prosecution of those who raped @ 250,000 girls and women in the UK? Where are the "good Muslims" counter protesting the rally in MI? Strangely enough, we see "good Muslims" protesting, and being killed in Iran for their protests and you haven't said a word in support of them.

"You want grace for the Christian extremists but not for the Muslim extremists. You want to judge ALL of Islam by the abusers but you want Christians to be judged only by the "best" of Christians."

If you are going to lie, I guess you might as well go for BIG lies. None of these claims are True, and wouldn't even begin to attempt to prove these false claims.

The "Allah" described in the Quran bears no similarity at all to the YHWH described in the Jewish and Christian Scriptures.

"I'm glad to rebuke the abusers, whether they are Muslim, Christian or otherwise."

Yet you don't. Progressive christians and Muslims don't get an iota of the hatred, vitriol, and lies you spew about "conservative" Christians. Much like Muslims, I read your words and see what you do, and it doesn't match this BS.

" you all speak from a legalistic, death-affirming place, not from a place of grace and welcome."

I'd ask you to prove this wildly false claim, but you wouldn't even attempt to.

Craig said...

"Precisely. NOT ALL Muslims desire to "unify the world by forcing submission to Islam." Thus, you are making a stupidly false claim. That is not the desire of "Islam." It is the desire of SOME SECTS and strains of Islam. SOME Muslims, not all."

This is where your ignorance of Islam makes this conversation difficult. I mistakenly assumed that you understood that the differences in Islam focus primarily on authority, who followed Mo as the leader, and what the final Caliphate looks like. While the one most unifying factor which runs through the Quran, Mo, and the history of Islam is a world united under Islam. That this has manifested in almost 60 countries being conquered, ethnic and religious cleansing, and genocide, seems beyond your ability to comprehend. Islam literally means "submission" and it's the one thing the vast majority of Muslims seem to agree on.



"Now, I GET that you REALLLLLLLLY want to make the claim, "but, but, but I, CRAIG THE ALLWISE!! am the One who can tell you what TRUE Scotsmen, I mean Muslims, believe...." But you really are not."

Well, since it's a claim that I've never made nor would even make, your lies here seems egregious. I understand that when you are arguing from ignorance these ad hom/false claims are what you are reduced to. The problem is that you choose to ignore the totality of what I've posted about Islam, and rely on your BS hunches.

"Islam does not have any one spokesperson, any more than Christianity does."

Yet they do have Mo, they do have the perfect and final revelation of Allah and they have plenty of expert clerics to expound on those things.

"Can you agree to that very basic, objective, observable reality?'

Why would I agree with a claim you've made but haven't proven? Why would I ignore the vast majority of Muslims who are quite public with their goals for Islam, in favor of this mystery group of secret Muslims who you claim exist? You quote ONE guy who lived hundreds of years ago as if those snippets somehow magically prove your claims.

Nah, I'll stick with what I can see and verify, not with your unproven claims.

Craig said...

"OR, and isn't this MORE likely - he's opted to not place much value in the posts and sources of an acknowledged Islamophobe, thinking it's better to get information from primary sources and non-bigoted sources NOT out to try to find anything they can to "prove" that "muslims are always evil, ready to lie to promote evil ideas and actions..."?"

Ahhhh, spoken like someone who revels in his ignorance and hides from anything or anyone that disagrees with his hunches. It's fascinating that somehow posting video of actual Muslim clerics and leaders speaking openly about their beliefs and goals, isn't enough for you. It's fascinating that you simply dismiss everything that doesn't fit your preconceived notion without even a casual perusal. You'd rather name call and lie that explore anything that might upset the fantasy world you've created for yourself. It's obviously easier to dismiss, hide from, and lie about things that it is to prove that those things are wrong. Laziness and cowardice aren't surprising from you at all.

"Seriously, WHY would I take YOUR personal opinions and posts seriously when I can listen to actual Muslims, including Rumi, make clear their OWN views?"

I've never suggested that you should. I have provided you with a much wider spectrum of information that your one pet Muslim from hundreds of years ago. That you can't cite anyone more contemporary, makes your claims look even stupider.

"That is a reasonable question."

I guess you can consider basing a question on a false premise "reasonable" if you redefine "reasonable".



"Unlike bigots, I'm not willing to judge first and assume guilt unless they prove otherwise.
Don't be daft. Be a more adult-thinker."

Dan has no evidence or inclination to offer any, so he's reduced to lies and name calling.

Craig said...

"And I'll note that Marshal has not even BEGUN to try to defend his accusations that Rumi is a faker beyond positing his own bigotry. But bigoted opinions are not adult conversation nor reasonable defenses. Indeed, Marshal SEEMS to be admitting that he is nearly entirely ignorant of Rumi."

Well, since you have only name calling and BS, I guess that's all you need. You could prove Art wrong, but choose not to.

"WHY would anyone take the opinions of a self-confessed ignorant bigot as worth even a pile of shit?"

We don't take you opinions.

"And NO, Craig, I'm not going to "prove" to a bigot that the Muslim in question needs to be defended from the unsupported accusation. In rational, moral adult conversations, it is the onus of the accuser and Satans to prove their accusations, not the rest of humanity to react to unsupported slander."


Because that's not how you roll. It's hard to prove your claims, or to prove someone else's claims to be wrong, so you don't even try. Instead, you stick to the ad homs and name calling we expect from you.

"Do not be confused: neither slanderers, nor bearers of false witness, nor gossips nor bigots will enter the realm of God."

So, that means that you won't be there...

FYI, I think that "faker" is a poor choice of words. I am willing to grant that Rumi is not "faking" his devotion to Mo and the Quran as the perfect source of Truth. I am willing to admit that Rumi was fantasizing about some mystical (perhaps with chemical help) fantasy world where all people's are united under Islam. That doesn't mean that he's correct, or that he's somehow agreeing with Jesus/Scripture. but I'll grant that he's probably sincere in his visions and dreams.

Craig said...

So, given the reality of Christianity - with Christians being involved in defending slavery, the oppression of women, the oppression of minorities, the oppression of LGBTQ friends and family - you're unwilling to "honor" those Christians who've been opposed to all these oppressions?"

1. By all means, let's do an apples to apples comparison between how Christianity and Islam deal with your pet issues.

2. Christians came late to the practice of slavery, and led the fight to end slavery long before any other religion/worldview. England took on a crushing amount of financial debt, as well as the commitment to risk the lives and limns of their military to end slavery. The US fought a long and bloody war to end slavery. Slavery was eradicated in the Western/Christian world long ago. What Muslim nation took any actions comparable to the US and England? What countries still practice slavery today? When did the last Muslim country "officially end" slavery? (Hint, about 100 years after the West) Do you know why there are descendants of slaves in the Western hemisphere, but not in Muslim countries?

We can play this game all day long, history isn't kind to you on this.

Craig said...

3. What Christian country "oppresses" women as a matter of law? What countries do oppress women in 2026? How many women in "Christian" countries have been executed on the last 5 years for failing to properly cover themselves? How many women in the past 5 years have suffered FGM or been raped/killed to protect the honor of their families? How many hundreds of thousands of women and girls have been raped in Europe because they aren't Muslim and therefore fair game? What countries allow marriage as young as 9, forced marriage, spousal rape and beating, and polygamy?

History and reality are not kind to you on this topic either.

3. What Christian country "oppresses" women as a matter of law? What countries do oppress women in 2026? How many women in "Christian" countries have been executed on the last 5 years for failing to properly cover themselves? How many women in the past 5 years have suffered FGM or been raped/killed to protect the honor of their families? How many hundreds of thousands of women and girls have been raped in Europe because they aren't Muslim and therefore fair game? What countries allow marriage as young as 9, forced marriage, spousal rape and beating, and polygamy?

History and reality are not kind to you on this topic either.

5. In what countries is it punishable by death to be LGB? What is the one country in the Middle East where LGB are free?

Again, news and history aren't your friends here.

Craig said...

"You see, for me, it makes sense to give respect to those (Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Pagan or otherwise) who promote and support human rights, an end to oppression and the beloved community, while condemning those in each group who do NOT do so."

And if you did so consistently, you might have a point.

"Judging each person according to their fruit, not blanket, bigoted accusations against who groups because of the actions and abuses of many in that group."

Yet you do this so often when you do your blanket condemnation of "MAGA whatever". Noting the reality, and speaking in generalizations based on facts is simply how people communicate. Especially when one is referring to specific, stated, positions or tenets of a group/organization/worldview/religion. To expect noting every tiny minority of a group that is quite up front and vocal about their shared beliefs is absurd.

"Well, hell, that's almost Jesus-like, in its practice, right?"

You and Jesus often criticize "the Pharisees" as a group, yet we know for certain that there were Pharisees who followed Jesus. So, either it is appropriate to generalize about a group like you and Jesus do/did or one must somehow define the entire group based on a tiny minority. You contradicting yourself is funny as hell.

"... can you agree with that?"

In theory. However, your practice of emphasizing the failures of groups you dislike, and minimizing the failures of your pet groups, render your BS meaningless. The fact is that you bitch and moan loudly and publicly about those in groups you hate when you think they transgress, yet you merely make bland, vague, general "criticism" of those in groups you like to cover your ass. If you were consistent in you words and actions, I'd take this BS more seriously.



"And if not, why?"

The absolute arrogance in this question is amazing.

Craig said...

Before you do anything else, there are questions you need to make sure to answer. Failing to lead with specific, direct, answers to the questions puts your comments at risk of either automatic abortion, or being dismembered first.

You have 100% control over whether or not your comments get aborted, take care.

Anonymous said...

I'm not at all sure which questions you think need to be answered but I do see your five points, some of them with question marks. I'll start there, starting with point two...

Craig:

"Christians came late to the practice of slavery, and led the fight to end slavery long before any other religion/worldview. "

Not really a question... it's just a statement but it's a factually incorrect statement. Christians were owning slaves starting in the first century of Christianity.

https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/articles/early-christian-slavery-early-christian-slaves

And of course Christians were owning slaves right through the 19th century here in the U.S. until it was finally abolished here.

Right?

Craig...

"What Muslim nation took any actions comparable to the US and England?"

I do not know the answer to that. I'll try looking into it.

"What countries still practice slavery today?"

I don't believe there are any nations where it's legal to own slaves anymore, Christian, Muslim or otherwise but I could be mistaken on that point too. We do know that slavery exists outside of legal arenas. It seems your point is there are a lot of Muslim countries with bad human rights practices. If that's all you're trying to say, I'll repeat for the hundredth time, of course there is. Don't be an idiot. I am not a Muslim and I'm not defending Muslim extremists or human rights abuses. I'm just noting the reality that not all Muslims are Muslim extremists. There are progressive human rights loving Muslims as well. Do you agree with that simple reality?

More...

Dan

Anonymous said...

Craig...

"What Christian country "oppresses" women as a matter of law?"

Women in the United States gained the legal right to get bank accounts, credit cards, and mortgages in their own name without a male co-signer in 1974 with the passage of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.

White women couldn't vote until 1920. Black women couldn't vote until 1965.

Today, there are "Christian nationalists" - including in Hegseth's orbit, who would remove the right to vote for women, once again.

There are many states in the US today who have removed their right to make their medical decisions regarding pregnancies .

These are all forms of oppression.

Craig...

"How many women in "Christian" countries have been executed on the last 5 years for failing to properly cover themselves?"

None that I know of.

More...

Dan

Anonymous said...

Craig...

"Do you know why there are descendants of slaves in the Western hemisphere, but not in Muslim countries?"

No.

"We can play this game all day long, history isn't kind to you on this."

That there are nations that practice human rights abuses, including our own, has nothing to do with me. I'm consistently opposed to human rights abuses. You're the one who supports an administration that uses the justice system to harass and arrest innocent people, as we see with this recent reflecting pool disaster, and kill innocent people, as we see in the waters of Latin America.

History will not be kind to you as one who is actively defending that sort of oppression and human rights abuse. I'm not sure how it impacts me at all.

Craig...

"How many women in the past 5 years have suffered FGM or been raped/killed to protect the honor of their families?"

I don't know. I do know it is a cultural thing and not a religious thing. That is, neither Islam nor Christianity endorses that kind of thing. Although many conservative religionists read the Old Testament and assume that it endorses, at least at times, the killing of innocent women and children and babies. That's on you, not me.

Dan

Craig said...

"Not really a question... it's just a statement but it's a factually incorrect statement. Christians were owning slaves starting in the first century of Christianity."

Yet, slavery predated Christianity by thousands of years, did it not? I stand by my statement, Christianity came into a world where slavery was already practiced and was a/the primary driver of abolishing slavery. But, by all means, judge Christianity as a whole by the actions of a minority.

"Right?"

This bizarre notion that you can impugn Christianity as a whole, by only focusing on the actions of a few people and ignoring the actions of the rest of Christendom is bizarre and I fail to see how such a twisted way of thinking could be "right" by any measure.

"I do not know the answer to that. I'll try looking into it. "

At least you admit your ignorance. I'll give you a hint. There will be no "Christian" countries at the top of the list. Communist, Muslim, and others dominate.

"I don't believe there are any nations where it's legal to own slaves anymore, "

Yeah, the last holdouts finally made slavery officially illegal in the mid/late 20th century. Yet, despite this, slavery persists. Last I saw there were more slaves being held when they did the survey than at any point in history.

"I'm not defending Muslim extremists or human rights abuses. I'm just noting the reality that not all Muslims are Muslim extremists. "

No, you are just focusing on some small minority of Christians and ignoring the vast number of Muslim countries that engage in slavery. Which Muslim countries are not run by "Muslim Extremists"? Where are the "moderate Muslims" fighting against these practices? Define "not all" precisely?


"There are progressive human rights loving Muslims as well. Do you agree with that simple reality?"

There may be, yet they certainly don't accomplish anything that would end or reduce the "Muslim extremists" actions. Yet, you haven't provided one actual example of these people or what they are doing. But you can cherry pick Rumi from hundreds of years ago.

The warning above continues to apply to any questions your response generates.


Craig said...

"Women in the United States gained the legal right to get bank accounts, credit cards, and mortgages in their own name without a male co-signer in 1974 with the passage of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act."

1. Do you not understand the meaning of the present tense? Based on the question actually asked, you have nothing.

2. Your talking point is one of those things that has a degree of truthiness, but is not the smoking gun you think it is.

"White women couldn't vote until 1920. Black women couldn't vote until 1965."

So, still no.

"Today, there are "Christian nationalists" - including in Hegseth's orbit, who would remove the right to vote for women, once again."

Still nothing. FYI, that is actually a misrepresentation of what is being advocated.

"There are many states in the US today who have removed their right to make their medical decisions regarding pregnancies ."

Again, no actual oppression.

"These are all forms of oppression."

No they aren't. Especially compared to being killed for not covering your hair.

Craig...

"How many women in "Christian" countries have been executed on the last 5 years for failing to properly cover themselves?"

None that I know of.

Well, how many in Muslim countries?

Craig said...

"No."

Because Muslim slave owners castrated male slaves so that they would not reproduce, and simply bought more slaves from African slavers. Your ignorance is astounding.

"I don't know. I do know it is a cultural thing and not a religious thing."

It's a "cultural thing" that almost exclusively exists in Muslim culture(s) and countries, which is not controlled by the Muslim governments. Distinction without a difference. Especially considering that Islam an all encompassing system that includes religion/culture/government/legal system. Compare and contrast how women dressed in countries that are now Muslim, prior to Islam subjugating those countries and cultures.

The return of the false equivalence.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Dan refuses to look at the actual history of the teachings and actions of Islam. For over 1300 years Muslims--all versions-- have followed the Qur'an and Hadiths, etc and have committed genocide against Christians and Jews. They pretend to be friendly until in a position of power and then BAM. Spain is now lost, England has been lost as has much of Europe as they have succumbed to Islamic invasions. Those counties who have not succumbed yet, such as the USA, still have the murdering, raping and other terrorism by the "peaceful" Muslims.

Marshal Art said...

"I'm consistently opposed to human rights abuses."

Except for the wanton murder of the conceived in utero. You're totally supportive of that most heinous abuse, which you lie about constantly.

"You're the one who supports an administration that uses the justice system to harass and arrest innocent people..."

...like harassing and arresting those who defend the lives of the conceived in utero...even those who are only praying in front of the butcheries where those innocents are murdered. And like harassing and arresting those who gathered to worship outdoors during a fake pandemic, and harassing and threatening those who wouldn't take an unproven drug, wear a totally useless mask and not pretend standing six feet apart makes any difference. Like harassing and arresting those who supported a presidential candidate cheated out of a most well deserved second consecutive term, and those who protested that most questionable election. Like harassing and arresting those who were merely present at what turned into an unruly protest at the Capitol. Oh wait! That was Biden, the man more fit for the presidency than Donald Trump!

Or maybe you mean the harassing of journalists who received information leaked to them about very questionable administration practices. Oh hell, that was Obama! And that ain't all this "non-oppressing, non-abuser" did:

https://www.cato.org/commentary/top-10-ways-obama-violated-constitution-during-presidency

"as we see with this recent reflecting pool disaster"

This is just stupid.

", and kill innocent people, as we see in the waters of Latin America."

People you haven't come close to establishing as having been "innocent" of drug running. Never mind the thousands of innocents killed simply by your guy letting so many cross the border illegally and stay here.

Craig said...

I knew this would happen. I knew that Dan would be unable to exercise enough self control to follow directions. Than Dan would go chasing off after shiny objects instead of doing what he was asked. Unfortunately, I've got to do what I said I would do, and dismember and abort Dan's comments because he lacks self control.

But, I'll try to address his foolishness before I crank up the vacuum.

"Of course they have. There have been very abuses of human rights in very many majority Muslim nations. There have also been very many human rights abuses in very many majority Christian nations. If I had to guess I would guess there have been way more human rights abuses in Muslim majority nations."

It's amazing that Dan fails to acknowledge that is "Of course there have" demolishes his entire argument. He claims that there is this (vast "tens of millions I believe) number of "moderate Muslims" who really don't agree with the "Muslim extremists", yet the "moderates" go along quietly, do and say nothing, while the "extremists" run wild. These moderates are so committed to their version of Islam, that they stand by and do/say nothing as genocide, ethnic cleansing, 250k rapes, and conquest happen. Oppressing women, nothing (except the few with enough courage to get beaten or killed for ditching the bag), yet Dan somehow thinks that this silent bunch are the "real" Muslims. Because Dan is such an expert in "real" Islam that he's decided that he's gonna join the silent, impotent, "moderates" and do nothing but whine about "Christians, Jews, and Trump".

A quick not about the false equivalence. Dan equates "Christian majority" nations with Muslim nations governed by Sharia. If these nations were "Christian", he might have a point, but they're not. They're secular (many of them are headed toward a Muslim majority government). But that's how Dan rolls. He has to draw the false equivalence because if he doesn't he has to deal with the reality that there are almost 60 Muslim nations, governed under Muslim law and Muslim practice.

"I'm not blaming all Muslims for actions of their leaders or even for the actions of a significant portion of Muslims..."

Of course you're not, to do so would destroy your fantasy world. The reality is that we are seeing the results of individual and collective action by a majority of Muslims worldwide.

Do you really have the courage to specifically condemn the tens of thousands of military aged Muslim men that physically overran the Spanish border the other day? Do you really believe that tens of thousands of individual Muslim men independently decided to overrun the Spanish border? Are you really that stupid or gullible?

"...and I'm not blaming all Christians for the human rights abuses by some Christians."

Really? Then are you saying that you do not support additional reparations paid by the general public? Are you saying that you'll stop your "MAGA..." nonsense, and only criticize individuals not groups? That you'll stop assigning responsibility to law abiding gun owners for the actions of criminals? That you'll stop generalizing?

"I'm just noting the objective reality that we should not judge all by the actions of the portion."

I'm just noting the objective reality that you do what you bitch about, and that generalizations have value.

Craig said...

I aborted it, but Dan pretending like he has some deeeeeeeep, siginficant knowledge of Islam was pretty funny. Especially given how much ignorance he's expressed, and how he's acknowledged that he doesn't pay attention to any Muslim that doesn't fit his tiny little box.

But he'll generalize all day about CNs, and hold everyone he can tar with the title responsible for the beliefs of one or two people.

Craig said...

"The other side of the well-reasoned argument is that I'm dealing with what MY nation is doing because policies in MY nation are ones I can impact. I can't directly impact Muslim nations or other nations where human rights abuses might be happening, not directly."

This is just a taste of the aborted comment where Dan spews self justifying BS to excuse the fact that he simply doesn't give a shit about anything outside of the US. 250,000 girls and women raped in the UK, doesn't get Dan upset because it's not in the US. Genocide and ethnic cleansing in Africa, again, not in the US so not on his radar. 9 year old girls being forcibly married to geriatrics, not in the US so not on his radar. Now, forcibly marrying the women that the Hebrews conquered thousands of years ago, that'll get Dan worked up. But 9 year olds in 2026, not his problem because his interest stops at the US border.

The reality is that you could impact Muslim nations, you just choose not to.

Craig said...

I mentioned that at Stan's' and it seems fitting here. I allow Dan great latitude in his commenting privileges because I told him that I would do so. That I would not treat him as he treats me and others. My word is important to me. In the same way, when I occasionally give Dan some temporary guardrails to focus his tendency to go off topic, I also believe that my integrity requires me to enforce those temporary restrictions. Obviously, if Dan abides by the temporary restrictions, I'll post everything. If he doesn't honor those restrictions, my integrity gives me no alternative other than to enforce the results of Dan's choices.

Craig said...

Dan really should have read the extensive analysis of maritime law as it applies to the drug runners from Nicaragua, strangely he chose not to.

Perhaps if Nicaragua would police it's citizens, we wouldn't have this problem.

Dan Trabue said...

As you can see, I was answering your questions and intended to keep answering them, no matter how ill-informed or biased the questions were. They were all, of course, based upon a false premise. But still, I was answering them - even while you don't answer mine - just to show you how it's done. But I DID stop to address a stupidly false claim that Glenn made before it got lost in the avalanche of irrelevance. But you cannot have the grace to just wait until I returned to the little nonsense questions you had.

Well, graceless is as graceless does. A pharisee is going to die by their own graceless, rule-following pharisee-ism and that's just the way you all swing.

Good luck with that. That graceless-ness did not serve the Pharisees well and I suspect it only will harm you, as well.

Nonetheless, grace be upon you all. Just understand that you've exposed your bigotry and you can't even allow the grace to say, "Dan's only condemning those muslims, Christians, etc who are abusers of humanity and deniers of human rights... but he's not going to condemn ALL of Islam for the abusers, any more than he's going to condemn ALL of the conservative religionists for the misdeeds of those who abuse. That's only rational..."

Those who lie with the pigs, you know. Or those who live by the sword, if you prefer.

May God's peace find a way to soothe your small sad graceless hearts.

In the meantime, educate yourselves, humble yourselves, read outside of your bigotry silos.

https://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/2016/06/from-op-ed-by-haroon-moghul-fellow-at.html

Craig said...

I was going to abort this because not only is it a clear refusal to follow the temporary restrictions on you commenting, but it is just as clearly your excuse to refuse to answer the questions you were asked to answer. It's not a surprise that you were unable to exercise the self control to do what I asked before you went off on a tangent, nor is it a surprise that you came up with an excuse to stop answering questions. It's not a surprise at all.

As usual your self serving, self aggrandizing, BS always comes before all else. Had you shown the tiniest bit of humility and explained your predicament, or asked for forbearance, I would likely have granted it. Instead you simply chose to do what you wanted with no regard for anyone else.

Your lack of grace is only to be expected, as are your demands for that which you deny others.

I understand your need to leave in such a hostile, vitriolic, way leaving false grace in your wake to make yourself look somehow less bad. Don't worry, we understand and could have predicted this. You made your choice, now you want to blame me.

I had to let you speak for yourself on this one, so your comment stays.

Anonymous said...

I think most of us can agree that Dan might not be as smart as he thinks he is. But, I’ve got to hand it to him here. He’s managed to both blame me for his lack of self control and provide me with the perfect response to his “You never answer any questions.” trope in the future. I’ll be copying the above and deploying it in the future.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

I'd say Dan's post about Muslims is nothing but Muslim propaganda to make Muslims acceptable to the West.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Here's a great story to show Dan's ignorance of Islam.
https://notthebee.com/article/while-trying-to-prove-islam-is-not-violent-muslim-debater-warns-opponent-that-muslim-mob-outside-would-cook-him--if-not-for-her-benevolence

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Another interesting article about real Islam, which Dan will have some excuse for, of course.
https://www.westernjournal.com/watch-oxford-debate-islam-goes-off-rails-man-threatens-show-pic-mohammed-terror-dead-silence-descend-fight-starts/

Anonymous said...

I haven’t re read it yet, but every post of his that I recall was pro Muslim propaganda.

Craig said...

I saw this, it's hilarious. It's literally proving the point that Islam is a bunch of violent thugs.

Craig said...

Yeah, the whole "don't show pictures of Mo" or will kill you thing is also a problem for Dan's narrative.

Craig said...

The problem with the peaceful, moderate, Muslim trope is that (if they exist) they are silent and invisible. They don't protest, let alone speak out, when a Muslim rams a parade in Germany, or any of the violent Muslim actions.

The simple Truth is that, to the extent that they exist, they know better than anyone that speaking out will get them killed. So they stay silent, and alive.

Craig said...

"The hundreds of millions of Muslims who reject extremism must start building out real, institutional alternatives to extremism, with serious funding, talent and commitment behind them."

1. There is no proof that "hundreds of millions" of "moderate Muslims" even exist. It's just a made up number.

2. This post is over 10 years old, and what "institutional alternatives" have they built?

3. This whole piece is a money grab. They want non Muslims to give them billions of dollars.

Marshal Art said...

And of course, Scripture doesn't say that the Israelites "forced" captured girls to marry them, and we know how Dan feels about what Scripture "literally" says when it matters to him. Here, it doesn't even hint at force. I just thought I'd mention that.

Marshal Art said...

Oh gee, Nancy! I'm totally ignorant of Rumi and I believe I stated quite clearly that I'm going by what you've said, which is that he's muslim. It is THAT which makes him a fake and not worth the time of day for anyone seeking truth, because islam is not truth in any way. I won't give points for superficial, superfluous similarities in minor points because they sound "nice".

Craig said...

I just realized something very important to this thread. For all of Dan's bitching, whining, and obfuscation, he never even bothered to deal with the content of the post. He didn't even attempt to prove the post wrong, he didn't argue that the information contained in the post was inaccurate, nor did he even address the content at all.

He simply launched into his usual spin, buzzwords, narrative, and BS.

It seems to me that the accuracy of the information in the post should be important.

Where am I wrong?

Craig said...

YHWH regulated the practices that were common at the time and held His people to a higher standard. Yet He never commanded that they engage in those behaviors.