Islam, Christianity, and Rubbish
Robert Houghton
Riyadh called "It is Truth". Its aim is to proselytize English speakers, and
its name is an egregious falsehood. In another thread I have remarked upon
the gross falsehoods libeling Christianity circulating under Islam; on this
website I believe we can see them being fabricated.
One of the site's specialities is to promote the claim that, unlike Islam,
Christianity is hostile to science. Its explanation of this alleged
hostility lies in the Genesis story of the Fall of Man, which it
systematically falsifies in an article "Islam and Science":
"The Bible in which the Christians believe, states that the tree from which
the Prophet Adam ('alaihi salaam) was forbidden to eat was the tree of
knowledge. Thus after he ate from it, he gained certain knowledge that he
had not had before. For this reason, Europe spent two centuries arguing
whether or not to accept scientific knowledge coming from Muslims.
The Church ruled that the pursuit of such scientific knowledge was the cause
for the original sin. The bishops drew their evidence from the Old
Testament, where it is mentioned that when Adam ate of the tree and gained
scientific knowledge, Allah was displeased with him and denies him mercy.
Scientific knowledge was therefore rejected by the Church as taboo."
This piece of naïve fiction depends upon a false description of the tree in
the Garden of Eden; it is not the tree of knowledge, it is the Tree of the
Knowledge of Good and Evil. As the name indicates the knowledge that Adam
acquired when he ate of the tree was, ironically, knowledge of his wrong
doing; it was not knowledge of natural science.
We have the common Muslim supremacist claim that science originated under
Islam.
We also have the routine mis-statement of the Christian doctrine of Original
sin. The phrase is not "THE original sin", it does not refer to one sinful
act, but "original sin". This is not ACTUAL sin but the weakened, sin-prone
human nature which we inherit (in our origins) with our human nature derived
ultimately from Adam.
The account of the Church rejecting science is, of course, naïve falsehood.
This website is evidence of a low level of culture among those behind it and
a low level of culture in the Islam that it promotes.
Zuiko Azumazi
news:000601c70a5a$e541d620$4101a8c0@rhdt...
Thanks to Robert
<snip> ...
> There is a polished, evidently well-financed, Islamic website, based in
> Riyadh called "It is Truth". Its aim is to proselytize English speakers,
> and
> its name is an egregious falsehood. In another thread I have remarked upon
> the gross falsehoods libeling Christianity circulating under Islam; on
> this
> website I believe we can see them being fabricated.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
What do fair minded critics make of this opening diatribe? What kind of
"criticism" is this? Does it reflect reason and critical thinking skills?
Where is the intellectual rigour (intellectual honestly)? Isn't it just a
pure vituperative appeal to emotion? Isn't this statement meaningless until
all these terms are defined: i.e. "polished", "well-financed",
"proselytise", "English speakers", "egregious falsehood", "gross
falsehoods", "libelling Christianity" and "being fabricated", in the purpose
and context of this wider Islamic forum?
Why do people continue to ask in this forum - What is Islamophobia? Isn't
this it? Does one website constitute the whole of Islam or represent global
Muslim opinion? Will fair-minded commentators express an opinion criticising
and condemning the author or will they remain tacitly silent?
Don't forget folks that "polished" means 'showing a high degree of
refinement and the assurance that comes from wide social experience', so are
we dreaming or is this a nightmare based on someone else's unreality? You be
the judge.
--
Peace
--
Propaganda does not deceive people; it merely helps them to deceive
themselves. [Eric Hoffer]
Zuiko Azumazi
zuiko....@gmail.com
Mike
Zuiko Azumazi wrote:
> "Robert Houghton" <robe...@f2s.com> wrote in message
> news:000601c70a5a$e541d620$4101a8c0@rhdt...
> Thanks to Robert
>
> <snip> ...
> > There is a polished, evidently well-financed, Islamic website, based in
> > Riyadh called "It is Truth". Its aim is to proselytize English speakers,
> > and
> > its name is an egregious falsehood. In another thread I have remarked upon
> > the gross falsehoods libeling Christianity circulating under Islam; on
> > this
> > website I believe we can see them being fabricated.
> <snip> ...
>
> Comment:-
> What do fair minded critics make of this opening diatribe? What kind of
> "criticism" is this? Does it reflect reason and critical thinking skills?
Zuiko, have you been to the site? Have you actually read what is there?
I have.
While I might not word my response it quite so stongly a manner as
Robert, the site itself does propogate misleading beliefs about
Christianity. Nor is it the only Islamic site to do so.
> Where is the intellectual rigour (intellectual honestly)? Isn't it just a
> pure vituperative appeal to emotion?
No, it isn't.
Robert clearly states his case against the site, giving direct
quotations. Would you contend, as the site does, that the Church turned
its back entirely on science? Do you believe, as the site contends,
that Christians believe that Adam and Eve were forbidden to eat from
the tree of Knowledge, and by implication knowledge itself is regarded
with disdain by the Church?
Do you?
These are the sorts of ideas that this (and other Islamic sites) put
forward.
Now, this is not to say that all Islamic sites fall into this sort of
error. But I do not see any problem with criticism of sites which
purport to support Islam and claim to provide truth, and yet which at
the same time are interspersed with derogatory and misleading
statements about those of other faiths. Do you?
> Isn't this statement meaningless until
> all these terms are defined: i.e. "polished", "well-financed",
> "proselytise", "English speakers", "egregious falsehood", "gross
> falsehoods", "libelling Christianity" and "being fabricated", in the purpose
> and context of this wider Islamic forum?
I believe this is a forum about Islam. Not Wittgensteinian semantics.
If you are uncertain as to the meaning of the above terms, I would
suggest a small dictionary would suffice. Certainly they are more
accessible to an English-speaker than many of the Arabic terms used in
this form by Muslims. This is not to criticise the use of Arabic, but
rather to point out that quibbling over the use of (fairly obvious)
english terms seems somewhat pointless and overly picky.
If you are going to criticise a post, it would be better to concentrate
on its central points, rather than the language used.
> Why do people continue to ask in this forum - What is Islamophobia?
It is a fear/loathing of Islam, commonly caused by misinformation.
Exactly the sort of misinformation used in sites such as those
criticised by Robert, which in turn cause Christophobia amongst some
Muslims.
> Isn't
> this it? Does one website constitute the whole of Islam or represent global
> Muslim opinion?
???
I don't believe Robert here claimed that this one website did represent
"the whole of Islam". Is that not your inference rather than his claim?
>Will fair-minded commentators express an opinion criticising
> and condemning the author or will they remain tacitly silent?
I don't know whether I am regarded as a "fair-minded commentator". But
I see little wrong in Robert's criticism. I might point out, though,
that your use of such an obvious tautology as "tacitly silent" does beg
the question as to whether your criticism of his use of English is
somewhat ill-concieved.
Blessings to you and yours,
Mike.
Zuiko Azumazi
news:1164651116.6...@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
<snip> ...
> Zuiko, have you been to the site? Have you actually read what is there?
> I have.
> While I might not word my response it quite so stongly a manner as
> Robert, the site itself does propogate misleading beliefs about
> Christianity. Nor is it the only Islamic site to do so.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
No, I haven't visited that particular website and have no intention of so
doing. I steer clear of all austere and intolerant websites, Wahhabi or
otherwise, wherever and whenever possible. If you want to criticise its
specific contents then do so, just don't try and tar all Muslims with the
same radical brush.
Do you think broadcasting this relatively 'unknown' website in a popular
public forum like SRI is a good idea? Isn't the knee-jerk reaction just the
publicity they are trying to achieve?
--
Peace
--
Allah is one but Islam is a mosaic. The Muslim world is a linguistic tower
of Babel, an ethnic patchwork, a geographical puzzle and a political
kaleidoscope offering a picture of extraordinary doctrinal diversity.
[Slimane Zéghidour]
Zuiko Azumazi
zuiko....@gmail.com
Mike
...
> Comment:-
> No, I haven't visited that particular website and have no intention of so
> doing. I steer clear of all austere and intolerant websites, Wahhabi or
> otherwise, wherever and whenever possible. If you want to criticise its
> specific contents then do so, just don't try and tar all Muslims with the
> same radical brush.
It might just be my perception, but I didn't believe that Robert was
trying to do so. My comments do not go near tarring all Muslims with
the same brush, and it was never my intention to do so. Furthermore it
strikes me as rather peculiar that you should make defamatory comments
on an Islamic website you have not even bothered to visit. Are you
trying to imply that any website purporting to represent Islam which
makes the sort of statements Robert has quoted *must* be "austere" or
"intolerant". Is it not possible for them to merely be mistaken?
If you wish to see other comments of this nature on Christian belief
made by those claiming to be Muslim you don't have to look too hard.
Robert even gave a clue that this was not necessarily an "extreme"
web-site. AFAICT it isn't. A little conservative, perhaps, but it isn't
the extreme sort of site you can find elsewhere. If anything I believe
Robert's description of the site wishing to appeal to non-Muslims
should give the game away. It does, in fact, concentrate more on trying
to promote Islam from a position of Islam being supported by scientific
discovery.
> Do you think broadcasting this relatively 'unknown' website in a popular
> public forum like SRI is a good idea? Isn't the knee-jerk reaction just the
> publicity they are trying to achieve?
For a site which is "relatively unknown" it is interesting to note that
a number of (Christian) refutations of the site have already appeared.
There is also the issue that a lie which goes unchallenged is tacitly
supported. The problem with the website is not one of extremism, but
rather of ignorance dressed up as wisdom. The site does not go out of
its way to criticise other religions; rather it slanders in passing. In
that, it displays more of an attitude of flippancy or carelessness
towards other faiths than outright loathing.
This seems not unakin to some criticism of the Pope's comments on Islam
in recent months.
I believe Robert's posting is, perhaps inadvertently, a salutory
reminder that whenever we speak of the faith of others, we do so at
least partly in ignorance. We find this both in sites such as the one
Robert complains of, and also in public speech, publishing, and so on.
Is it wrong to complain when people misrepresent our beliefs? If not,
should we be surprised when others complain when those claiming to
believe as we do turn around and do the very same back? In that at
least the Qur'an's warning to be careful not to insult other peoples'
religious beliefs is worth heeding.
I am also dismayed that a post whose primary concern is to point out
clear error on the part of some Muslims is treated with the level of
contempt you have displayed, to the point of failing to criticise the
points he has actually made, and instead resorted to doubting the
sincerity or truthfulness of the poster. In this, your reply to Robert
seemed rather more due the level skepticism you heaped upon his
original post.
Mike.
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip>
>> No, I haven't visited that particular website and have no intention of so
>> doing. I steer clear of all austere and intolerant websites, Wahhabi or
>> otherwise, wherever and whenever possible. If you want to criticise its
>> specific contents then do so, just don't try and tar all Muslims with the
>> same radical brush.
<snip> ...
> It might just be my perception, but I didn't believe that Robert was
> trying to do so. ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Then what are your perceptions, in hindsight, about this quote from Robert's
first post in this thread; "In another thread I have remarked upon the gross
falsehoods libelling Christianity circulating under Islam; ..."? Isn't that
prima facie evidence of artfully trying to collectively tar all Muslims with
the same brush?
<snip> ...
> My comments do not go near tarring all Muslims with
> the same brush, and it was never my intention to do so.
<snip> ...
Comments:-
That's not the point. The point is that you, and other non-Muslim
subscribers, have not censured Robert for so doing. Isn't this lack of
censure indicative of application of a double-standard following Kofi
Annan's statement: "And in too many circles, disparaging remarks about
Muslims are allowed to pass without censure, with the result that prejudice
acquires a veneer of acceptance."? To put it bluntly, isn't Robert's
irrefutable prejudice not acquired a 'veneer of acceptance' with non-Muslim
subscribers in the context of this particular forum? Is their silence not
then proof of that fact?
<snip> ...
> Furthermore it strikes me as rather peculiar that you should make
> defamatory
> comments on an Islamic website you have not even bothered to visit.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
What weasel words are these, (i.e. 'Weasel words can be used to draw
attention away from adverse evidence') ? See this link for details:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_words
What 'defamatory' comments have I made about the "It's the Truth" website
other than to correctly identify its radical aims? Isn't this, according to
your idea, tantamount to saying that discerning subscribers would have to
uncritically visit this radical "Christian Identity" website:-
http://www.wckkkk.com/identity.html
How do you now perceive the comparison?
<snip> ...
> Are you
> trying to imply that any website purporting to represent Islam which
> makes the sort of statements Robert has quoted *must* be "austere" or
> "intolerant". Is it not possible for them to merely be mistaken?
<snip> ...
Comment:-
In comparison, just to avoid the use of a double-standard, do you 'imply'
that the 'Christian Identity' website represents Christianity (I don't)?
Aren't they purporting to represent Christianity?
<snip> ...
> If you wish to see other comments of this nature on Christian belief
> made by those claiming to be Muslim you don't have to look too hard.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Why don't you look at this 'Christian Identity" article and follows it
links to find out their nature on Islamic and Jewish beliefs:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_identity
<snip> ...
> Robert even gave a clue that this was not necessarily an "extreme"
> web-site.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
I have frequently provided evidence from Robert's own transcripts that he
doesn't have a clue about anything, let alone Islam or Muslims. His ability
to be inconsistent and contradictory is self-apparent. For verification see
these explanatory 'transcripts' from the archives demonstrating Robert's
maladroit (I'm being kind <G>) and puerile attempts at valid 'criticism':-
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.religion.islam/search?q=transcripts&start=0&scoring=d&hl=en
Why do you, or any subscriber for that matter, have any confidence in a
soi-disant 'critic' who consistently contradicts themselves and ignores all
censures when these transgression are pointed out? Should Islam or Muslims
be
'critically' subjected to, and judged by, inconsistencies and prevarication?
It's the well known ideologues tact - when confused, assert; when ignorant,
fulminate.
It's called colloquially 'spitting the dummy' or "dhummitude" to those in
the know. <G>
--
Peace
--
When a new word enters the language, it is often the result of a scientific
advance or a diverting fad. But when the world is compelled to coin a new
term to take account of increasingly widespread bigotry, that is a sad and
troubling development. Such is the case with Islamophobia. [UN Secretary
General Kofi Annan]
Zuiko Azumazi
zuiko....@gmail.com
Mike
> Comment:-
> Then what are your perceptions, in hindsight, about this quote from Robert's
> first post in this thread; "In another thread I have remarked upon the gross
> falsehoods libelling Christianity circulating under Islam; ..."? Isn't that
> prima facie evidence of artfully trying to collectively tar all Muslims with
> the same brush?
No.
The Ummah does have sections which are rife with misunderstandings
about Christians and Christian belief. This does not mean that the
majority of Muslims fall into the trap of believing all/any of them.
But there are those in the Muslim community who do propogate erroneous
myths about those of other beliefs, either through ignorance or
otherwise. Just as there are those who propogate myths about Muslims
and Islam.
Pointing out that these people exist is not an attempt to "
collectively tar all Muslims with the same brush". Methinks you are
perhaps a little paranoid on that score.
> <snip> ...
> > My comments do not go near tarring all Muslims with
> > the same brush, and it was never my intention to do so.
> <snip> ...
>
> Comments:-
> That's not the point. The point is that you, and other non-Muslim
> subscribers, have not censured Robert for so doing. Isn't this lack of
> censure indicative of application of a double-standard following Kofi
> Annan's statement: "And in too many circles, disparaging remarks about
> Muslims are allowed to pass without censure, with the result that prejudice
> acquires a veneer of acceptance."?
Is it my "job" to track Robert's posts? If so, why? In some cases he
does go too far, but I simply lack the time (or the energy, it has to
be said) to comment on his every post when there are plenty of Muslim
respondents here who are more than capable of answering his posts
effectively.
However, on those occasions where he *does* hit the nail on the head
(as I believe he has done here), I cannot allow the sort of lazy
dismissal of his argument you have attempted to go unchecked. His
criticism is correct - the site he complains of IS wrong to spread
falsehoods about those of other faiths, and it is not the only one to
do so.
Am I to expect that Muslims will vocally and openly criticise those of
their own community who spread false rumours about other faiths? If so,
I fear I am to be sorely disappointed in the majority of cases.
> To put it bluntly, isn't Robert's
> irrefutable prejudice not acquired a 'veneer of acceptance' with non-Muslim
> subscribers in the context of this particular forum? Is their silence not
> then proof of that fact?
Not necessarily. You cannot expect everyone to be able to respond at
all times to all posts. I have fewer opportunities to contribute to
this board now, and my time is taken rather more with trawling through
posts which touch on the relationship between Islam and Christianity
than those which criticise Islam with no reference to Christianity. You
see, I see my primary role here as a means for engendering a proper and
balanced debate between our two faiths so that misunderstandings can be
avoided. Not all of Robert's posts fall into this category; indeed it
is a minority which do so. If I feel I can contribute positively within
this framework then I will. But as I said before, criticism of Islam
per se is not something I have the time to become involved in, and
there are plenty of people who can.
> <snip> ...
> > Furthermore it strikes me as rather peculiar that you should make
> > defamatory
> > comments on an Islamic website you have not even bothered to visit.
> <snip> ...
>
> Comment:-
> What weasel words are these, (i.e. 'Weasel words can be used to draw
> attention away from adverse evidence') ?...
Let's see...
> >> No, I haven't visited that particular website and have no intention of so
> >> doing. I steer clear of all austere and intolerant websites, Wahhabi or
> >> otherwise, wherever and whenever possible.
A few questions:
1. How can you tell whether a site is "austere" or "intolerant" if you
haven't been bothered to look at it?
2. How can you tell whether a site is "radical" if you haven't been
bothered to look at it?
3. Is not labelling a site you *haven't* visited as "austere",
"intolerant" or "radical" tantamount to making defamatory comments
about it?
These are *your* words, not Roberts or mine. Robert's complaint is that
the site contains erroneous comments about Christians. He is right - it
does. But that does not mean that the site as a whole is "austere",
"intolerant", or "radical".
Were my words "Weasel Words"? I rather doubt it. And so I restate the
case, namely that it strikes me as rather peculiar that you should make
defamatory comments on an Islamic website you have not even bothered to
visit.
> Comment:-
> In comparison, just to avoid the use of a double-standard, do you 'imply'
> that the 'Christian Identity' website represents Christianity (I don't)?
> Aren't they purporting to represent Christianity?
They are, and I tend to concur with you. But I do so on the basis of
having visited their site. This is not to say that there is nothing of
worth there. But I certainly don't concur with everything they have to
say.
...
As for your comments that Robert "doesn't have a clue about anything,
let alone Islam or Muslims", all I can say is that I hope I never
dismiss anyone so freely, regardless of how annoying I find them.
It would also help if I found your comments rose above mere belittling
of Robert's integrity and knowledge; a worrying trend I have noted in
your posts of late. Might I suggest that you refocus on what really
matters, rather than resort to (what amounts to) ad hominem remarks. I
don't know about anyone else, but it comes across to me as though you
don't actually have an answer to his point, but somehow feel the need
to.
> Why do you, or any subscriber for that matter, have any confidence in a
> soi-disant 'critic' who consistently contradicts themselves and ignores all
> censures when these transgression are pointed out?
I didn't. Strange as it may seem, I don't accept anything and
everything Robert posts without question. In this case I checked his
sources and found he was actually right. Which seems to be rather more
than you did. One response to his post is to concur with his objection
but point out that not all Muslims fall into this sort of error. That
answers the post without resorting to name-calling.
> Should Islam or Muslims be
> 'critically' subjected to, and judged by, inconsistencies and prevarication?
> It's the well known ideologues tact - when confused, assert; when ignorant,
> fulminate.
I'm afraid you'll have to get used to it; for every poor critic of
Islam there's another equally poor critic of Christianity. It's not a
question of whether this situation should occur or persist; it will
persist regardless of what we do. All we can do is be patient.
Mike.
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip>
> The Ummah does have sections which are rife with misunderstandings
> about Christians and Christian belief. This does not mean that the
> majority of Muslims fall into the trap of believing all/any of them.
> But there are those in the Muslim community who do propogate erroneous
> myths about those of other beliefs, either through ignorance or
> otherwise. Just as there are those who propogate myths about Muslims
> and Islam. ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Certainly there a number of Muslim apologists who feel it necessary to
spread Islam with some 'missionary zeal' to counteract, what they deem is,
Christian missionary propaganda a sordid fact. This unfortunately is a trend
that they have recently emulated from Christian missionaries, who have a
much longer pedigree in this somewhat doubtful and dubious proselytising
area. Personally, I think 'missionaries' are misguided.
Regardless of that fact, the history of 'missionary' activity, on both
sides, is strewn with false information, exaggerations, erroneous
interpretations and often outright lies. It's futile to catalogue all the
infractions that have been done in this so-called 'missionary' area since
mediaeval times, from Guibert de Nogent on. Trying to apportion or attribute
blame is a zero-sum game. Unless, of course, you want to look at the matter
as an historical curiosity, but that takes a awful lot of academic
'disinterest', which would be pointless in the context of this partisan
forum. In that you must agree.
My last point is that you have used the term 'Ummah', whereas, Robert
artfully used 'Islam' in his Islamophobic casuistry. These terms are not
interchangeable or synonyms for one another, that's my point. One could even
argue, there is a pernicious difference, rather than a bland matter of
incorrect categorisation, as you have superciliously suggested. Can you now
see the difference? I have caught Robert out too many times in the past
doing exactly the same thing to believe otherwise. Do you want me to post
the transcripts again? You are correct when you say, and, paraphrasing, I
quote, 'there are those in SRI community who do propogate erroneous myths
about those of other beliefs, either through ignorance or otherwise." I
believe that Robert is one of those, and have supplied sufficient evidence
confirming that fact from his own transcripts, you don't, that's where we
differ. Have you ever censured him for "propagating erroneous myths" now or
in the past? What's the use of discussing 'rubbish' if you won't admit to
yourself who the 'rubbish' maker and raker is? But, I'm probably wasting my
time.
In passing, what do you think of this paranoid outburst from Robert:-
news:1165340855.0...@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
" I would remind you that when Thatcher called Mandela a terrorist the
elite of the African National Congress were all Communists, and
Communists were committed to terror in order to establish political
control, as, I believe, Islamists are. The rank and file of the ANC
practised terror: you may know about 'necklacing' - killing alleged
informers by hanging a burning tyre around their neck. Critics of
Mandela (and Mbeke) still fear assassination, as I know from first hand
testimony." ...
Isn't this appalling Christianity of the Afrikaner - Dutch Reform Church
kind?
Methinks a veneer, even a whitewash, perhaps!
--
Peace
--
And in too many circles, disparaging remarks about Muslims are allowed to
pass without censure, with the result that prejudice acquires a veneer of
acceptance. [UN Secretary General Kofi Annan]
Zuiko Azumazi
zuiko....@gmail.com