Stephen Schwartz has replied, in a manner of speaking, to my remarks in yesterday's FrontPage; his reply (at today's FrontPage) consists mainly of declaring that he will not reply. My additional remarks follow.
Spencer's Continuing Attacks on Me By Stephen Schwartz[...]Third, I do not feel compelled to reply to Mr. Spencer's disquisitions on my religion because I not not consider him in the slightest manner competent to comment on my religion. He has a magpie knowledge of what he imagines Islam to be based on fairy tales and armchair reading. His obvious aim is to instil fear of Islam in Western readers who know even less than he knows about the faith of Muhammad. I do not in general respond to comments on Islam by non-Muslims, except when they are made by apologists for Wahhabism. I am more interested in convincing Muslims of the need for moderation, than in wasting my time trying to persuade biased non-Muslims that moderate Islam exists.
Fourth, I consider that Robert Spencer has disqualified himself from serious consideration on any matters having to do with interfaith relations by publishing the writings of Srdja Trifkovic, the well-known apologist for Serbian war crimes in Bosnia-Hercegovina, whose testimony at the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia, in the Stakic case, was discredited....
*
Silencing Non-Muslim Voices
By Robert SpencerI was saddened to read Mr. Schwartz's letter, particularly its heading, since I have never attacked him in any way. I have merely asked questions about his recommendations for a reconfiguration of Islam so as to make it no longer a refuge and motivating force for international terrorists. Had Mr. Schwartz answered these questions honestly, fully, and civilly, we might have been on the way to a fruitful dialogue that could have helped accomplish what he professes to work for: "convincing Muslims of the need for moderation.”
But instead, we learn that he does not “in general respond to comments on Islam by non-Muslims.” In this I suppose Schwartz demonstrates his bona fides as a moderate Muslim, for while his radical coreligionists want to kill, convert, or subjugate us (cf. Qur’an 9:29), Schwartz merely won’t speak to us. Thank heaven for small favors. But I can’t help but wonder: this Islamic Ozymandias may demand that I tremble silently before his mighty works, but what of other non-Muslims? Does he really mean to dismiss out of hand the great scholarly works on Islam of John Wansbrough? Patricia Crone? A. S. Tritton? Arthur Jeffrey? Joseph Schacht? Bat Ye’or?
Are ex-Muslims acceptable? Would Schwartz deign to respond to Ibn Warraq? Ali Sina? Or does leaving Islam disqualify one from understanding it? What about, then, the heroic Iranian dissident Ali Dashti, author of a revealing study of Muhammad’s career, 23 Years, who as far as anyone knows never explicitly renounced Islam? Would Schwartz have responded to Ali Dashti before he was tortured and killed by Khomeini’s thugs? Yet many of the questions I have raised about Islam and the Qur’an are raised also by Ali Dashti. Are they valid questions coming from him, but not from me?
Unfortunately for Schwartz, his stance is self-defeating. I have asked him a number of questions about the Qur’an and Islam. He has chosen not to answer them, but to characterize them as personal attacks and to content himself with impugning my knowledge of the subject. The result is that for every person of good will, the questions remain. Islamic texts are widely and easily available today. Do they mean one thing when non-Muslims read them and another when Muslims read them? If only Muslims possess the secret key to understanding them, and will not share that key with anyone else, non-Muslims will continue to read these texts, and to see the easy use to which Muslim radicals put them in recruiting and motivating terrorists. But Schwartz will not share his secret decoder ring with us, and so instead of demonstrating true Islamic moderation, he leaves the field to the radicals.
As for Schwartz’s guilt-by-association attacks on Srdja Trifkovic, they are all the more beneath contempt for the fact that Trifkovic himself over a year ago supplied in this very publication a string of quotations from his own work going back to 1990 showing that he was an early and consistent opponent of the Milosevic regime. Trifkovic, of course, does not need me to defend him.
It is true that in Sharia courts, the testimony of non-Muslims need not be considered; but Stephen, we are now in a different court: the court of public opinion.
Open enquiry in and debate of christianity has been going on for centuries in the west. However there was a time in the west when such freedom of intellectual expression and open enquiry wasn't allowed. Such thought and knowledge was deliberately shut down by the clerics...the time was called the middle ages and it was full of incredible ignorance.It took alot of suffering before mankind broke free from the consequences of that ignorance.
I hope then that Stephen Schwartz wishes for his fellow muslims to not suffer the fate of my christian ancestors and restrict open enquiry and debate of his religion with non-muslims. Anyone can dictate their opinion about any religion but if those opinions and the associated religion isn't open to free enquiry by all (e.g. non-muslims) then all that results is ignorance. Non-muslims have every right to scrutinize islam as much as muslims have every right to scrutinize christianity. It is a precious fundamental freedom and is an mortal enemy of all tyrrany.
I don't want to live in a world where any kind of knowledge or ideas is denied to anyone...muslim or non-muslim. I don't like the ignorance it would generate. It harks back to a darker time in human history that should never be revisited.
By his attack on the qualification of Robert Spencer to comment on Islam, Stephen Schwartz does not make the case for "moderate" Moslems.
Rather, he assumes the posture of a defender of a "faith" (read "ideology") that brooks no questioning by non-adherents.
So much for "moderate" Moslems. They are not to be trusted, no matter how much they attack Wahhabism as being the sole cause of Islamic violence against the "non-believers" (in Islam). The license to commit violence against "infidels" is contained in the Koran; it was not added to it by Wahhabis.
If Schwartz chooses to to invalidate our comprehension of Islamic scripture and establishes himself and his fellow Moslems as the exclusive authorities and interpreters of Islam, his moderation is is in question.
By his attack on the qualification of Robert Spencer to comment on Islam, Stephen Schwartz does not make the case for "moderate" Moslems.
Rather, he assumes the posture of a defender of a "faith" (read "ideology") that brooks no questioning by non-adherents.
So much for "moderate" Moslems. They are not to be trusted, no matter how much they attack Wahhabism as being the sole cause of Islamic violence against the "non-believers" (in Islam). The license to commit violence against "infidels" is contained in the Koran; it was not added to it by Wahhabis.
If Schwartz chooses to to invalidate our comprehension of Islamic scripture and establishes himself and his fellow Moslems as the exclusive authorities and interpreters of Islam, his moderation is is in question.
typo: I meant:-
"I hope then that Stephen Schwartz doesn't wish for his fellow muslims to suffer the fate of my christian ancestors by restricting open enquiry in and debate of his religion with non-muslims."
Stephen Schwartz has proved once again that in the Muslim world, open inquiry died centuries ago. His statement, and the statements by other Muslims, that non-Muslims have no right to comment on Islam are egregious and contrary to the spirit of Western thought. The idea that any individual or group could come into the West and DEMAND that we be silenced is beyond belief unless we consider that this pattern of behavior has been repeated millions of times over more than a thousand years. Schwartz has reinforced my belief that there is no room in the West for Islam as Islam would shut us all down.
Not smooth enough as we have found him out, Schwartz needs to work on his technique as he is not YET a master of taqiyya and kitman.
Obl r us,
Islam still dwells within the dark time of history that you speak of, and will never move beyond that, especially with the closed minded attitude which Stephen Swartz has shown.
This man had a chance to clear up any misunderstandings we may or may not have about islam, but instead, like many muslims, chooses to wallow in self-pity, contempt for infidels, and ignorance, safe in the knowledge that no infidel dare push too hard for fear of being classed as "racist" and accused of discrimmination.
He is doing neither moderate muslims nor non-muslims any favours with this approach.
I am struck by how similar is Mr. Schwartz's style of argumentation to that of a Kerry supporter: petulance.
All,
Mr Stephen Swartz comments are regrettable. Perhaps he has something personal against Mr. Spencer I don't know the history between them.
Personally I have nothing against non-muslims looking at Islam or the Koran in particular. I don't know if I can say the same for all the Hadiths ot the Sira as it is difficult to know whuich are genuine...but one cannot say the same of the Koran.
The Islamic faith is solid, with wonderful examples of how to live life. All ages and groups submit to the will of almighty Allah (swt). The Koran teaches us that Allah (swt)is loving, all forgiving and just....why would you want to hide that message!
Lets have it all out in the open, I don't belive that in today's world you can keep a lid on this information anyway....so what's the point.
The koran teaches; no orders muslims to kill infidels.... what's so peaceful and loving about that???
you're full of shit....
“Others abide our question. Thou art free.” These were the words with which Matthew Arnold addressed Shakespeare. Now I knew William Shakepeare. William Shakespeare was a friend of mine. And you, Mr. Stephen Schwartz, are no William Shakespeare.
Wow. Stephen Schwartz reveals that, when push comes to shove, he is just as much a practitioner of the art of taqiyya as any other devout Muslim. What arrogance to suggest that only a Muslim is capable of commenting on the Qur'an. At least he didn't suggest that Mr. Spencer was insane or some other such ad hominem attack which, no doubt, will be his next argumentative tack. I am surprised at Mr. Schwartz. I read his Two Faces of Islam and he seemed fairly rational; however, when someone dares to criticize Islam who is non-Muslim, he shows his true colors.
I guess an Islamic fanatic is an Islamic fanatic once you scrape the apologist sugar coating off. Too bad for you Mr. Schwartz. As Naseem above infers, all you are managing to do is make Islam look bad. If Islam is so great, debate with Mr. Spencer and show us why he is wrong and you are right! However, I must admit, you are certainly showing us the "two faces of Islam" now!
Why don't you call Stevie, Achmed or Abdul..?
Didn't Stevie change his name?
Steven Schwartz sounds so Jewish, ya know?
frankly it makes me ill......
so lets call him by his real name.
(guess I misspelled his former name)
One knows that it is not permissible for Muslims either to acknowledge or to recognize the religious holidays of Infidels, unless of course such dissimulating good will helps the Faith. Thus it would be indelicate for Infidel employers to include Muslim employees among those receiving Christma s bonuses -- indeed, it would be regarded by good Muslims as an insult to the faith.
But in a no-hard-feelings spirit of reconciliation, Robert, unattached to any Infidel holiday, perhaps you could have a T-shirt made for your non-interlocuting interlocutor, who apparently believes that serious discussions about Islam are to be held in private, and only between consenting Muslims.
On the front of the shirt, written in bold letters, would be the all-purpose you-Infidels-wouldn't-understand explanation:
IT'S A MUSLIM THANG!
Stephen Schwartz is an archetypical "true believer" in the mold of autodidact Eric Hoffer, the famed San Francisco dock walloper and philosopher who authored the book of the same name that I read in my callow youth. He's hitchhiked from his "red diaper origins," to become in his intellectual dottage a Sufi Muslim, as a result of his dalliance with the late unlamented Bosnian Muslim political leader, Itzebegovic. Yes, the same Itzebegovic jailed by Tito for recruiting Bosnian Muslims to the ill-famed Hanshar Waffen SS division formed by Arafat's "hero:" the Haj Amin al Husseini-Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and Adolph Hitler's "house guest" in Berlin during W.W.II. So Schwartz-he's Jewish by name only on his father's side, has cut a figure for himself among Middle East seekers after moderation in the belief system called Islam, by becoming an anti-Wahhabi Sufi Muslim convert: the heterdox marginalized sect of Islam. By the likes of these sophist and block head remarks in today's FrontPagemagazine in response to Bob Spencer's reasoned criticisms in yesterday's edition, he has dropped the veil from the eyes of his "admirers," and become a true believer in the darkest, most unreasoned total denial excesses of Islam. Bravo to Bob, brickbats to Suleyman Schwartz-an oxymoron if there ever was one. As a play on that fabled Mel Brooks Movie, "Space Balls," one-liner--"may the Schwartz [not] be with [us}."
So, like Edward Said believes that Occidentals are incapable of understanding and fairly commenting on Orientals, Schwartz figures non-Muslims can't sufficiently comprehend the nuances of Islam. What about Schwartz's own professed respect for Bernard Lewis? So far as I know, Lewis hasn't forsaken the religion of his ancestors.
I do not know how long it has been since Schwartz embraced Sufism or why, but suspect he'd fit in with the "radical departures" theory just like Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam and Bob Dylan when he got swept up by the born-agains in the music industry at a rather lousy time in his life. (Dylan, happily, wisened up a bit.)
Appropos of this discussion, from an article posted today on MEMRI.org, an Israeli Arab author and poet (who I assume is Muslim and not Christian or Jewish) makes the following comment in his piece, which argues that the underdeveloped state of Arab society has much to do with the low regard in which women are held.
He makes this rather stunning comment:
"Just as Islam introduced nothing new from the religious standpoint, it introduced nothing new from the social standpoint, and changed nothing among the Arab nomads..."
Schwartz is an old hippie. He found himself in a state of anomie and was then forced to flee into Sufism. He's abdicated all critical thinking, and the fact he refuses to respond to Robert is indeed proof positive.
You see, were Mr Schwartz to consider the questions raised by Mr Spencer, then he'd have to seriously question his adherencee to any form of Islam. His arguments are, therefore, circular. Non-muslims cannot comment on Islam; that job belongs to true believers, but when you're a 'true believer' you can't competantly criticize because you're blinded by belief!
In short, Schwartz cannot bode criticism of his faith, and that, my dear people, is the hallmark of an extremist.
" I do not in general respond to comments on Islam by non-Muslims ....."
Muslims worldwide believe that only Muslims can comment on Islam, especially negative ones.
Need we not be reminded again that Islam is a dictatorial religion? There is no freedom of speech for Muslims. Who do we, infidels, who are perceived to be lower that Muslims, think we are to criticize Islam? Hmmm .....
People with that kind of attitude, do not belong in this great US of A.
Moderate Muslim = Taqiya Muslim
They are more dangerous than the radicals. They are wolves in sheep's coat
John P: thanks for the background info on Schwartz.
In response to Naseem (and all others) who happily dismiss the suras and the hadiths, but exhalt the Koran's value:
Noting that there is no precise translation of the name/word "Koran" and its various spellings, the Encyclopedia of the Orient describes it as,
Revelations given to Muhammad in the period 610- 632 (Muhammad's death), written down by various unnamed persons in a period probably starting some years after 610, and ending a couple of years after 632 and compiled some time between the mid-630s and perhaps until mid -650s.
Does Mohammed's claim to be a prophet of God really differ from, say, Joseph Smith's claim to fame (other than there isn't any missing gold plate supposedly given as a gift from God and delivered by an angel)? Or is it just a matter of blind faith?
I'm still contemplating what the [broad Islamic] response will be to Israeli/Arab writer Salman Masalha's recently published observations on the sad state of Arab society in general (arising from the very poor status of women) and, in particular, his comment about how little Islam has contributed to the development of Arab society over and above the two preceding monotheistic faiths -- Judaism and Christianity.
It's a pity that someone who has worked so hard exposing the evils of Wahhabism and Wahhabi-related groups like CAIR reacted so evasively when cornered.
Courageous anti-jihadis like Steven Schwartz, Daniel Pipes, and Steven Emerson have done so much for our cause. But since all of them enlist the services of moderate Muslims ("bad" Muslims woud be a more apt description for their Muslim collaborators), they cannot publicly confront the core truths about Islam.
On one level, people like Schwartz are good at building bridges to Muslims who love the West, but on another level they help perpetuate the myth that Islam can be reformed.
If we never put people like this on the spot, the myth will never be exposed. If we push too hard, we might lose some of our best allies against jihad.
It's a tough balancing act. These are interesting times...
Five points: two red herrings, a cowardly appeal to authority, and two ad hominems...my goodness Mr. Schwartz is serving us up easy fodder for a critical thinking textbook on fallacies.
And now we know: the supposed moderate 'Sufi' mind (whatever that means) is imbued with the 'them and Us' categories, 'believers and nonbeliever', that the Koran pounds in the text, again, and again, and again.
'Don't talk to 'them', especially those that are attacking the faith..' (and a question is an attack). Robert is one of 'them' alright.
But what are you going to do with 'them'? What does the Koran say? What would Allah do? The prophet tells us what Allah will do many times. What do you say Mr. Schwartz? What should be done with an Infidel who attacks the faith? An important question for someone who wants promote 'moderate' Islam? Pass us by in silence? And, will I suffer that kind fate in an Islamic society? Let's say I am known as one of 'them' who attacks (questions) the faith in Pakistan, in Saudi Arabia,in Iran, or any Islamic country. Will Muslims just pass me by in silence and leave me alone and let me go about my irrelevant business? Why would they want to bother me?
Oh, but don't listen to me. I am only one of 'them' who does not deserve and answer. And I understand full well, from my magpie knowledge, and armchair reading, that only a masochistic Infidel fool would 'attack' Islam in an Islamic society. That is all the knowledge and reading one needs to know that you are an Infidel, that you are worthless, and that you should tow the line or else.
Get the message Infidels?
Schwartz, Is an author and journalist and has reported on religious affairs around the world for many years. He was on the staff of the San Francisco Chronicle, worked as a reporter for the Weekly Forward, and is currently a news writer at Voice of America. Schwartz has testified in house, and senate committee hearings several times over the past 2 years on terrorism.
His main focus has always been on the fundamental Wahhibist movement as being the primer for most, if not all the terrorism that we see in the name Islam today that was founded and is rooted deeply in Saudia Arabia more than 200 years ago.
I find it deeply troubling that Mr.Schwartz has chosen to denegrate Robert Spencers knowledge of Islam simply because he is non-muslim. Could this be the reason that this half Jewish writer himself turned to Sufism so that he could justify his right to discuss Islam?
Could it be that Schwartz ,who has gained considerable prominance in the Washington Political arenas among the makers and shakers of our government policies when it comes to Islam is begin to behave like big wig in the state department?
Having read Stephen Schwartz book " The Two Faces of Islam" , I find it somewhat hard to understand why he is displaying this kind of arrogance . He does quote from other non-muslim scholars in his book. However, I cannot find mention of scholars like Joseph Schacht who spent most of his life studying Islam and the Quran.
He did memorilize his book to a murdered Kosovo Muslim Myhedin Shehu who was murdered in july of 1998. And pays tribute to many islamic sayings in the book. I believe he was moved to write this book because of his experiences with the Kosovo war where he was an interfaith activist in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo.
Certainly if he wants to be recognized as an expert on Islamic affairs then he should be showing and open mind to all .
The B-H/Kosovo connection is an interesting one, in light of the reconsideration this conflict has received recently vis a vis the Kosovo Liberation movement's origins/connections.
Had Milosovitch and his compatriots not been such bloody thugs in their attempts to protect the region's Serb population, the world's sympathies might not have turned toward the Kosovar/Albanians the way it did. As Michael Ignatieff noted, he had never been witness to such deep, bitter,long-entrenched and naked hatred between two sides in a conflict and he saw keeping the two sides apart as the only solution.
Discourse is hopeless! One cannot reason with people who's "tenants of faith" explcitly requires them to reject reason and facts when they contradict their "truth."
The whole question of who, in the Western world, "reverts" to Islam -- or to borrow a phrase from Jim Jarmusch, reverts to "His Own Private Islam" -- is worth investigating. There are the clearly marginal characters, at the bottom of society, such as Richard Reid. There are the ex-gang members wishing to find another kind of community for solace, and choose the community of the umma al-islamiyya, such as Jose Padilla. There are the spoiled brats whose minds are video-rental stores rather than well-stocked libraries, and whose parents, themselves comically adrift, offer little guidance, such as John Walker Lindh. [It should be noted that there are wonderful parents, who do everything right, and their children unaccountably fail to appreciate this, and become a constant heartache for parents who did absolutely nothing to deserve it]. There are those who, having married a Muslim, "revert" to please him, or her, and may come to realize that there is a bit more to this belief-system than had at first been apparent, and then are forced to cope as best they can.
Some native speakers of English, including those who seldom read books in their own immediately accessible literature, will spend years learning another language, in their search for the picturesque or unusual. Not Dickens, but Gottfried Benn or Raymound Roussel, is what their souls seem to require. A taste for the new, and the exotic drives so much in this world. One wants to be different, to display unusual tastes. And in now becoming a Muslim in the West, one is also making a statement not only that fortunately is still one that is unusual, but also contains elements of defiance and alienation.
One suspects that such a person must be just a bit off, just as 20 or 30 years ago one regarded those who joined what were then easily dismissed as cults, and had to be de-programmed, with a mingling of sympathy and contempt. Muslims, however, regard Western "reverters" as objects of great interest, if they appear, outwardly, to be respectable and not the dregs-of-society sort. They carefully toss out the same names: the French doctor Maurice Bucaille, the Jewish convert Leopold As'ad, and a few others. For such an aggressive belief-system there is also a touching need to be validated by the "reversion" of non-Muslim Westerners -- not Africans, not Indians, but Westerners, and the more famous they are, like Cat (ne Georgiou) Stevens, the better. The Reid-Padilla-Lindh variety fails to impress, but a Hollywood star, a political figure, even Prince Charles -- well, now you're talking.
Hari Krishna-Hari Rama, Tantric yoga, Scientology, Marxism, Sokka Gakkai, Liberation Theology, not to mention controlled substances, sex of every conceivable and inconceivable sort, compulsive shopping by a sad heart at the supermarket, and all sorts of other things. Feel free to make your own list.
Those who, in their Journey In Search of a Final Truth, pull the cord and get off at the stop marked "Islam," may be potentially dangerous, but also are likely to be regarded as slightly --well, comical, as well.
But apart from those who marry Muslims and tepidly "revert" in an updated domestic version of All-for-Love-or-the-world-well-lost, there are still few such "reverters." What motivates those few? A need for the solace of certainty, and of complete regulation of what is haram and what halal, a need to be special, when one is otherwise so un-special? Students of the psyche, get your tape-recorders and data-disks ready.
Not everyone dislikes, or cannot cope with, the messiness of existence. And as for the "meaning of life" -- well, one may invoke the answer that J.P. Morgan gave when someone asked how much his yacht had cost. "If you have to ask," he said, "you can't afford it." My sentiments exactly.
Hugh:
That's exactly it, isn't it (the allure of Islam or other exotic beliefs/practices)?
A simple answer held out in a world where most things are grey and messy rather than black-and-white and clear-cut.
And a damned easy way to bolster one's ego. My religion is so much better than your religion that you should either convert or die. Hmmmmn. How very like Nazism.
Hugh:
You stand revealed as a closet skeptic - or maybe we just haven't seen your true colors before. Get ye to Skeptic.com immediately, where ye will find the like-minded.
Repost of intellectual ammunition for those who are not moral relativists:
Here is a great little summation of the evils of cultural relativism:
In his excellent book, The Killing of History (San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2000)Keith Windschuttle says, among many other intelligent things, as follows:
"The late Ernest Gellner pointed out the basic logical flaws in cultural relativism. In his book Postmodernism, Reason and Religion, Gellner showed that relativists are saddled with two unresolvable dilemmas. They endorse as legitimate other cultures that do not return the compliment. Some other cultures, of which one of the best known is Islam, will have no truck with relativism of any kind. The devout are totally confident of the universalism of their own beliefs which derive from the dictates of God, an absolute authority who is external to the world and its cultures. They regard a position such as postmodern cultural relativism as profoundly mistaken and, moreover, debasing. Relativism devalues their faith because it reduces it to merely one of many equally valid systems of meaning. So, entailed within cultural relativism is, first, an endorsement of absolutisms that deny it, and, second, a demeaning attitude to cultures it claims to respect." (p. 301-2)
Hugh, Mentat, Waterdragon, ChineseGordon, and the rest.
Bingo! For what it's worth. You've nailed Schwartz and exposed the fallacies of his argument and those of "reverts" and Islam in general. Thank you.
Oh you hit him where it hurts Robert,and ripped the masks off his two faces. Good for you!
Sufism is still mohammedism,no matter how many times you do zikhr and repeat the names of the moon god allah. One of the most notorious muslim clerics, Sheik Gilani, adviser to Osama, implicated in the murder of Daniel Pearl and leader of the muslims of the americas and their jihadi arm, al-fuqra, is a sufi and a direct descendant of a sufi saint.
Exactly, Hugh. I revel in uncertainty. That I do not have all the answers bothers me not a whit. It adds to the spice of existence to not know everything. Similarly, people who say that science is the enemy of faith are so wrong. Science is the most spiritual pursuit of which I am aware. To peck away at the most basic questions in Nature and the Universe has to be the most exalted spiritual quest out there.
As Michael Schermer, President of the Skeptics Society (website, Skeptic.com) stated recently regarding the relationship between science and religion:
Schwartz:I do not in general respond to comments on Islam by non-Muslims, except when they are made by apologists for Wahhabism. I am more interested in convincing Muslims of the need for moderation, than in wasting my time trying to persuade biased non-Muslims that moderate Islam exists.
This is a typical example of muslim conceit, whether of the Wahhabbi or Sufi kind, it is of no moment. It is the conceit and arrogance at the heart of islam, that they are the carriers of the latest instalment of the divine message from allah.
We should write to the Weekly Standard and inform them that Schwartz’s missives in their journal are, in his own words, only for a very small religious section of society and not addressed to non-muslims at large; or if so then only for purposes of dawa. By the same token, why should civilised people (non-muslims), pay any attention to what he has to say on the Secular State or anything non-muslim.
I have always felt that Schwartz was merely an apologist and devious missionary for islam under the guise of Sufism. His intemperate outburst to Mr Spencer gives an indication of his nature. "How dare an infidel question me, a believer".
I guess relative to people like OBL, this Schwartz character is moderate. Instead of killing you by the most gruesome means possible, he merely insults you and ignores you. This reaction by Schwartz certainly isn't unique for so-called moderate Muslims either. In my limited experience with the type they seem to be quite unwilling to logically defend their faith or the Qur'an, usually getting around to blaming or projecting or otherwise acting irrationally. So why exactly am I supposed to sympathize with people who, if I were being beheaded, would merely counsel me with the advice that it's not for me to question Allah's will and besides, it's all the Zionists' fault anyway?
Schwartz sounds a Lot like kerry: 'You don't know how these things work."
And how messy is life? Is life so messy that the categories of science, religion and God gotta get messier? And how messier do they gotta get to get as messy as life? We could have a real mess on our hands, maybe even messier than the category of skeptic, maybe messier than the category of category.
Now that is gettin' pretty dang messy...
No wonder Hugh writes clerihew and does modal logic for hobbies (pretty weird if you think about it)...a little defiant rhyme and reason with a chaser to mess with the mess.
Well, I ain't gonna ask how much that whiskey costs, not me buddy, I'm a beer man on a budget, the elixir of poor man's wisdom.
Folks should know by now not to take me seriously this time of day...Best to all.
Interesting thoughts about religion and how it may be a crutch used by the weak of mind and heart in order to keep reality at bay. There is another way to look at it, however.
Just as a displined person chooses an exercise regimen to keep his body in shape and at its peak, he also may practice a religion to keep his soul well protected for the rigors of the future. Is that future only on earth? Perhaps, but religion is helpful here, too. And I defy ANYONE to say with complete surety that there is no life after death. Agnostics I can understand; atheists are overtly arrogant.
As reasoned intellectuals wanting to defend our current Western (Judeo-Christian) civilization, if you do not find it in your hearts to believe in God, you must realize it is counterproductive to admit it in public. Our many citizens need to be encouraged along a healthy path, not one of aimless searching, ending in social anarchy or Islam.
I am not sure if Christianity is the one true religion; I am positive that Islam is not.
God bless.