Richard Wiig

To be honest, Adam, I do not know. I know that dying for Allah - martyrdom - is not new, and that pious followers have sought martyrdom throughout the history of Islam. The earliest suicide action I know of is recorded in an exchange between Muhammad and an Islamic warrior after which the warrior threw himself into battle knowing that he'd die in the cause of Allah. The so-called suicide bomber though is a modern day thing.

This is where the big mistake lies. According to Gallop, 70% of Egytian men think Sharia law should be the only source of law. This compares to 9% of Americans (Bible). 70% is "mainstream" and mainstream is very bad. However, other muslim countries don't seem to be as bad as Eqypt, so there's hope, just not much for Eqypt it seems. Bob If numbers is what is mean't by mainstream, then it's a different issue to what's in the qur'an and sunnah. I don't know if anyone actually really has the numbers. You can only look at the trend and its opposition. The trend is towards Islamisation as opposed to moving away from it. That's all we need to know, and the numbers are really irrelevant in terms of combatting the trend. Not exactly sure what you mean. There are several points in play here. I was refering to Michael's use of the term 'mainstream' as opposed to Mr Spencer's use of it. I wasn't disagreeing with your poll numbers. Yes, it's not good at all. What's happening now is a Middle East that's becoming more anti-West, not less. That's not good for anyone, first and foremost, Israel. Essentally it's not the most important issue. How many support what they're fighting for - Shariah - is really the issue. Those working to bring it about by non-violent means are equally a threat. Yeah, but you're probably just a bigot, Bob ;-)

This is where the big mistake lies. According to Gallop, 70% of Egytian men think Sharia law should be the only source of law. This compares to 9% of Americans (Bible). 70% is "mainstream" and mainstream is very bad. However, other muslim countries don't seem to be as bad as Eqypt, so there's hope, just not much for Eqypt it seems. Bob If numbers is what is mean't by mainstream, then it's a different issue to what's in the qur'an and sunnah. I don't know if anyone actually really has the numbers. You can only look at the trend and its opposition. The trend is towards Islamisation as opposed to moving away from it. That's all we need to know, and the numbers are really irrelevant in terms of combatting the trend.

The FACTS disagree with you. When Mr Spencer, and others, say that mainstream Islam endorse Islamic supremacism, what they're refering to is the texts and tenets of mainstream Islam, not how closely the followers are or are not aligned with those texts and tenets. They do no such thing, and you leave the realms of objective analysis and replace it with your bias when you declare so. They say that in regards to combatting the movement that produces 9/11 and Beslan, and Mombai massacres, etc, that it is those parts of the Qur'an and Sunnah that drives them, and that to combat the problem it is THOSE PARTS of the qur'an and Sunnah that must be addressed. That isn't crap at all. It's the very things that must be addressed in order to reform Islam. Ignore those things, or dismiss any focus on those things as "nothing but bigotry" and Islam will never be reformed. To reform it requires a focus on the things that need reforming. You are acting contrary to what's needed for freedom.

Richard, According to what standard? Yours? According to the standard of objectively presenting the facts about Islam. Mr Spencer backs up everything he says with Islamic sources, which I have not seen you do once. All I've seen you do so is attack the character of those who've reached different conclusions from you. Just a choice of words, it doesn't mean I think it's a contest. The purpose is to ascertain the truth. Sure, and Mr Spencers research is extensive and impeccable. Seems to me that you let your bias get in the way of your thinking.

Well, between you and Spencer, Spencer wins hands down. You haven't as yet addressed a single point he makes to show where he he's wrong. Faithfreedom.org, say's pretty much the same things as Spencer, and they are all ex-muslims. Ali Sina, I think, was offering a large sum of money if you prove him wrong. You could go there and collect, because your knowledge would surely defeat him. In doing so you'd also land a large blow for peace. All you have to do is look it up and stop using sources like Spencer for your information on the "true intentions" of Muslims because of their religion and start looking at other explanations. After you have a bunch, analyze them and see which make sense to you and convince you credibility-wise.

So, basically everything Ayn Rand says about moral codes being the driver of human enterprise is wrong. Are our problems due to the Bible? Of course not. All this is human nature.

I don't understand why you even say that, Adam, because it is about the most obvious thing you could point out. I'm well aware of it, and have always been well aware of it, but people constantly mistake my position as being one of calling all muslims jihadists. The idea is plainly silly. I'd like to know what makes you think that's my position? Is it because you think of Islam in terms of race as opposed to creed, or what? I'd really like to know. German is a race, nazi is a creed. All nazis actually believed in the creed to some degree. Some to the point of gassing jews, some not. Followers of the creed of Islam are no different in that respect. The most ardent and pious will take Muhammad at his word and enact it to the full. The less ardent or more squeamish will be less inclined to do so, even to the point of denial - bottom line of that though is, it doesn't change the creed, anymore than the existence of nazis who would never dream of, let alone carry out, the gassing of the jews. Sure, but they tell us nothing about the creed. You are better than that, Adam. Separate the creed as it is written from the individual.

I haven't denied any nazi links. As I pointed out, it is well documented, but you claim that Islamic supremacism began with the Nazi link. It didn't. It began with Muhammad - and that is as equally well documented as the nazi collaboration. That Islamic faithful aligned themselves with the nazis is natural. After all, they both share the same hatred of Jews and are both supremacist in their thinking, a hatred and supremacism that is inculcated by Islam, not Nazism. Anyway, once again you avoid my questions. Hatred of what, and what agenda exactly?

Richard: Again, it is what one part of Islam produces. I will not use a broad brush to black wash Islam. Adam Yeah, hatred for jews and the gas chambers were just one part of what Nazism produced. It also produced work ethic, commitment to family, and nation, and gave people discipline and pride. I will not use a broadbrush to black wash Nazism. Why do you make excuses for Islam? Why? What's your motivation behind that?

Where is your logic? That can't be drawn from what I've said at all. What you're talking about is martyrdom. The martyr is known in Islamic terms as a Shaheed. Martyrdom in the cause of Allah has been around ever since Muhammad turned militant, and the modern day suicide bomber is just a martyr using modern tools. Modern tools for a savage barbaric mentality. Your snide comments are not endearing. Suicide bombers are actually popping up all over the place. They come from Holland, Luton England, Brussels, Kashmir, Scotland, Palestine, Chechnya, Indonesia, Pakistan, Germany, France, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Yemen and wherever piously militant muslims might be, this includes all the countries that haven't actually produced suicide bombers yet, such as America, Australia, etc. In those cases it is just a matter of time. As Islam grows, the likelihood of homegrown martyrs grows. In fact, America has produced more than a few already, they just haven't chosen the suicide bombing route, as has Australia. The common thread to all this isn't nazism. The common thread is advocacy for Sharia and the supremacist rule of Islam over the world. As for the hate-it-all agenda. Hate of what, exactly? The agenda is what, exactly? You keep talking of it, but you never clarify and solidify it.

It is indeed very obvious. No one has equate the two be equal in size or social and cultural scope. It's a mistake, or horribly misleading of you to suggest that Bob did equate the two in size and scope. He's refering to the similariy of the creeds, and there is nothing misleading in that. It is an actual fact, and to evade that is to try to cheat reality. The Islamic collaboration with the Nazis is well known, but the birth of the Nazis wasn't the origin of Islamic anti-semitism, or the idea of jihad and the subjugation of non-believers. Those things were born with Muhammad,and they well documented. It was those things that make them - Jihadists - favourably inclined to work in league with nazis. Islamo-Nazis as you call them, are Jihadists, or Mujahideen, and they draw their inspiration from Islam, not Nazism.

Oh, it's not an argument, but it is an observation of what Islam produces.

Yes, it does depend on a level of education, but even with the events of the 70's (and in the 70's politics and world events were the last thing on my mind) I think very few are well educated in Islam. It really needs to change, and I think it is gradually changing - thanks of course to the likes of Mr Spencer. Not really America specifically, but the growth of Islam in the West, wherever it is. Europe is worse off than America. In a nutshell, by not accomodating it. The welfare state is a big problem in that regard. No, I'm not really aware of that. As to why they're attracted, I couldn't say. There's so many potential possibilities. Each would be a personal story, but there may well be a common thread. You'd have to interview the reverts and find out what space Islam fills for them.

You do realize that there were prominent Muslim leaders, in England, not Iran or some other Middle-Eastern death pit, who were agreeing with Khomeini's fatwa. Not only that, but supposedly "civilized" people were ACTUALLY WILLING TO KILL RUSHDIE THEMSELVES IF THE OPPORTUNITY PRESENTED ITSELF. Hell, even the Muslim Parliament supported the fatwa. These aren't psychos or minority viewpoints. What the hell can you say about people, full citizens of a first-world nation like England, who are willing to kill a man for writing a novel in order to defend the faith? I especially fear for America. How many Muslims here would be willing to turn martyr for the glorious Allah once things intensify in the Middle East? Yusuf Islam has even said he'd do it.

If you mean I say that Islam is monolithic, then no, I don't. I know that it isn't monolithic. All that's needed is the Sunni/Shiite divide to see that. What I say is that there are certain things within Islam that are destructive and inseparable, and that they are ignored at our peril. As Islam grows in the West, those destructive forces will grow with it, regardless of how nice any particular muslim might be. That we are even debating this is evidence of that. Prior to 9/11 Islam was hardly on anyone lips, but now all but the most dimwitted are aware of it.

Richard: You mean I have to? I thought that I asked you if you had read what our own Libertarian Muslim put forth is developing his proposition that libertarianism and Islam are compatible. Was I not clear as to what I asked you? Adam Given what I know about Islam, I know that it isn't compatible. I don't need to read his arguments to know that. I have looked at the thread on the Dhimmi system though, and I will look at more.

Another snippet: The hater says Islam and Nazism are practically the same thing as he blanks out massive chunks of history. Michael is attempting to equate Nazism and Islam, the creeds, to their history. Of course they have different histories, they are of course different creeds, each being born at different periods of time. The creeds, however, share very similar ideas. It is Michael who is practicing the blank-out here (by substituting history for creed), not Bob. As I said in my other snippet, or is it an intellectual box or what, Nazism isn't dead. It still lives on in the minds of many. It may indeed one day have a long and rich, so to speak, history.

Adam, I take it that you place me in the bigot category. Why exactly? Could you please do me the favour of breaking down one of my statements and explaining how and why it is bigoted?

How can you square Libertarianism with the death penalty for apostasy? You can't. The two are incompatible.

Nazism still exists today. It isn't dead. Nazism existed for a short time and did not survive.

Moustafa Zayed was rattled. P.S. Libertarian Muslim is an oxymoron.

I just finished watching the entire debate. Mr Spencer made excellent points, and Mr Zayed clearly caim out lacking. There wasn't a single thing that Mr Spencer presented in the debate that could even remotely be compared to KKK bigotry. He produced and addressed the Islamic teachings that jihadists such as OBL act upon. The Objectivist definition of justice is, the virtue of judging a man objectively and then treating him according to that which he deserves. You are not judging Mr Spencer objectively. You are simply attacking his character and doing him an injustice. You don't convince me that his points are wrong or that they are crap in doing so, you merely show me that you are about as bigoted as you claim me to be. Mr Spencer is exposing things that need to be known about Islam, because they explain much of the behaviour of jihadists today. All you're doing is trying to cover it up. I don't see how that helps anyone.

Once again you don't actually address the issue or raise any points made in the debate and dispute those points. You merely shoot the messenger.

But you haven't done that. To take just one example of how off the mark you actually are: Mike, Be careful with agenda-driven people like Robert Spencer. I don't think it would be a good idea to go to, say, one of Ahmadinejad's advisers for information on the Jewish faith or the history of Israel. So why go to an Islam hater for information on Islam? Spencer is a walking-talking agenda seeking corroboration and proudly so, not a person seeking "let the facts fall where they may" kind of understanding. Mr Spencer doesn't merely give his own opinion on events, he goes to the actual Islamic sources themselves. He's merely repeating what Islamic Scholars say. You could actually deal with that material, but you don't. You attack Mr Spencer's character. A clear case of attack the messenger. If people see bigotry in my comments then it's because they're seeing those comments through a distorting PC lens. I don't prejudge muslims - other than to know that they are to some unknown degree religious - I take them as individuals to be judged on their own individual merit.