Should those of religious faith be allowed to run this country?

If you bother to read what these people write, you would find overwhelming evidence. But, it would appear, you will not do that much, choosing, instead, to assert that they lack credibility.

They're big on denial around here Canadian Steve. They call it "science" and "facts and logic" (chortle). Keep up the good work, it's fun watching.This message has been edited by Faith, 06-07-2005 05:09 PM

Funny, all that evidence that they provide, yet you can't seem to put a single one into any of your posts.

quote:

---

Funny, all that evidence that they provide, yet you can't seem to put a single one into any of your posts.

---

He has been giving quite a few sources, both quoting and linking directly to pages. Are you looking for a specific number of sources? Sources that don't reference or link to one another? What does he have to provide before you consider it evidence?

Aurelius, I have read the articles. But maybe I missed some evidence.CanadianSteve claims that the Wahabbis have "taken over" mosques and Islamic organizations. Has someone actually compiled a list of the governing boards of all the North American mosques and Islamic organizations? Does this list explain the links between the individuals on these boards and Wahabbi groups? Is there evidence that Wahabbis are exerting influence on these boards, evidence like changes in policy or membership?More to the point of this thread, CanadianSteve also claims that Wahabbi control of these organizations indicates that North American Muslims are not supportive of "liberal democracy". Has there been a poll of American Muslims? Who conducted this poll? How was the sample selected? How were the questions phrased? Were they simple yes/no questions, or were longer responses given?Of course, maybe there is other evidence for CanadianSteve's assertians other than the these. But I did not read anything other than people just making assertians.If you have read the articles, and if you came across the mention of some evidence that I missed, then I would appreciate it if you could point it out.Edited to correct a typo.This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 07-Jun-2005 09:26 PM

This thread has sort of wondered all over the place -- off-topic posts, shifted goal posts, and the like. Let's try to remember what the topic was.First of all, no one disputes that radical Islamic extremists exist. No one is disputing that the Wahabbi sect is anti-democratic and illiberal. It is disputed that these groups are representative of Islam as a whole, and it is disputed that these groups pose a significant threat to the US, but these are topics for another thread.One point of contention is whether the Wahabbis dominate the mosques and Islamic organizations in the US. This is not inconceivable -- in fact, I could readily believe it. I just would like to see some evidence. One potential datum, not necessarily the only possible evidence, is some sort of data base linking the governing bodies of the majority of mosques and organizations (or at least a representative sample of such organizations) in North America to Wahabbi groups, linking them financially and, preferrably, showing how the policies and opinions of these governing bodies are in line with Wahabbi doctrine, and are the result of Wahabbi influence.The second claim is that Wahabbi dominance of North American mosques and Islamic organizations indicate that North American Muslims cannot be trusted, in general, to support democratic and liberal ideals. This, too, I can believe -- it does not seem to me beyond the realm of possibility. I can even come up with reasons why this might be true. But, again, I would like to see some sort of evidence that this is the case. What studies have been done on this? Who performed these studies? Do all the studies show a consistent pattern?Finally, and this is the main topic of this thread, even if the Wahabbis are in control of organized American Islam, and even if the majority of American Muslims are insufficiently supportive of democratic values, what does this mean if a Muslim were to run for president? Remember, people who are serious contenders for the presidency have a long and public track record. If this individual has experience in elected offices, then her voting record is available for everyone to see. The organizations and activities of this individual would be open for public scrutiny. Friends (non-Muslim and Muslim alike) would be interviewed, colleagues would be giving their opinion. So, is it credible that a viable contender for the presidency could really have some sort of "secret agenda"? Would her Islamic beliefs, in and of themselves, be sufficient reason to disqualify her as a candidate? That is the topic of this thread.

You can't quote a Muslim source to argue against a critic of Islam. Sorry. You talk about people making assertions, you demand proof beyond all reason, but then you come up with this kind of "evidence."A person's credentials as an expert have to be counted as evidence. You can't just dismiss everything as an "assertion" -- who's making the assertion has to count for something. Weigh it against other evidence, fine, but this is a mindless habit of just dismissing "assertions" as if all assertions were equal and demanding perfect evidence when creditable evidence has already been given.Schwartz is a controversial scholar but there is no doubt he has expertise on Islam and particularly Saudi Islam and the Wahabbis -- which is why he testified before Congress. He himself is a Sufi.In my opinion, although he does a great job identifying the Wahabbi influence - about which he knows a GREAT deal - he is too much of an apologist for Islam overall, and not given to facing the implications of the calls to violence against unbelievers that are in the Muslim holy books.The problem with Islam is in its holy books and its history. However moderate Muslims may in fact be, as long as the Koran is their guide to any great extent they are being conditioned against the values of the West. To what extent can a Muslim truly respect and incorporate our Constitutional values -- freedom, equality, democratic politics? The doctrines of Islam could not be more opposed to them. It must be difficult to seek the freedoms of the West when you are tied to a Muslim mindset.There is probably no evidence of the sort you keep asking for --- yet. It would be nice to have all the statistics you want to see, but without them you have to take what you can get. Does that mean we ignore the implications of the work of scholars who have studied Muslim history and the current expressions of Islam in the Wahabbi sect?

Why? Because an expert's credentials have the power to leap off the wall and out of their picture frames and muffle him before he says something wrong?No? That's kind of what I thought. There's no harm in offering an expert's conclusions from whatever evidence he's seen, but there's no reason to accept his conclusion absent the evidence that caused him to arrive there. Experts are, after all, only human.

quote:

---

Schwartz is a controversial scholar but there is no doubt he has expertise on Islam and particularly Saudi Islam and the Wahabbis -- which is why he testified before Congress. He himself is a Sufi.

---

Actually, there is doubt as to his expertise. The article to which I linked claims that he has never visited Saudi Arabia, and that he does not demonstrate a familiarity with primary Wahabbi documents. Very good of you to notice that the web-site is a Muslim site. But that does not mean that one should just automatically discount it, unless the you know that the specific individual or group is not credible.Also, unless you believe that all Muslims are automatically supportive of the Wahabbis, I don't see why one should even be automatically suspicious of the information on that site. As usual, though, the claims of that article should be judged on its own merits.Now all the articles supplied by CanadianSteve simple repeat the assertian claimed by Schwartz and others. At no point is any actual factual evidence presented that could be refuted. On the other hand, the article to which I linked does present factual evidence -- Schwartz has never visited Saudi Arabia, nor does he have familiarity with primary Wahabbi documents. It also mentions that he is a member of an Islamic sect that considers all other versions of Islam to be heretical. These are facts that can be checked and refuted. Has Schwartz ever been to Saudi Arabia? Does he quote from Wahabbi literature in proper context? Is he a member of the mentioned sect, and does the leader of the sect express intolerance for other Islamic sects?But I would like to ask why a Muslim website is not credible when it comes to criticizing Schwartz? Do all Muslims support the Wahabbis? Is that site itself a Wahabbi site?--

quote:

---

However moderate Muslims may in fact be, as long as the Koran is their guide to any great extent they are being conditioned against the values of the West.

---

This, too, is unsupported. Just as there are so many different versions of Christianity, Roman Catholics, Baptists, Quakers, Jehova's Witnesses, Lutherans, and so forth, all of them quite different from one another, all of them having undergone profound evolution in the course of their histories, yet each one, all through their histories, claiming inspiration from the Bible, so I cannot understand why I should believe that there can only be one possible interpretation of the Quran and that all Muslims must automatically be indoctrinated into that interpretation.--

quote:

---

There is probably no evidence of the sort you keep asking for --- yet.

---

Then what is the basis for the claims that people are making here?

CAIR is not credible, and they are highlighted at that site. CAIR is KNOWN to be a propaganda organ for Wahabbi Islam.

In fact, it is not known that CAIR is a propaganda organ for Wahabbi Islam. That, too, is simply an assertian that has been made with no evidence.But supposing that this does indicate that atrueword is a Wahabbi propaganda site; what about the very specific allegations that they have made against Mr. Schwartz? These are claims that can be confirmed or refuted. Do you simply dismiss them?

Hello, Faith.I have been on CAIR's home page, and I am having trouble finding pro-Wahabbi propaganda. Could you point it some out for me?Thanks.

Maybe it's 'cos I should be in bed by now but I'm wondering why nobody else found this hilariously funny?To see why substitute two words and image Faith saying this: Plausible or what?

---

Oops! Wrong Planet

Possibly because they reocognize it as the standard among the Establishment at EvC. Nobody laughs when they do it to us. Anything that a conservative or Christian "fundy" brings up is challenged as invalid *because* it's by Christians or conservatives who have an Agenda that disqualifies everything they say. The Bible writers are disqualified as experts on the things they wrote about because, well, they wrote it. Nobody laughs at that. It's considered valid criticism around here.And normally I wouldn't use it because it's bogus and I resent it when it's done to me. HOWEVER, the specific criticism that is made of CAIR and its American Muslim allies is that it is a propaganda organization designed to present a whitewashed image of Islam while actually promoting the agenda of Wahabbism, threatening moderate Muslims, and using American law to shut up all critics. Something more than their testimony is needed in such a circumstance. Yes, that is exactly what is said to Christians all the time here. I turned the tables, and my version is with actual justification for a change.This message has been edited by Faith, 06-07-2005 09:44 PM

quote:

---

HOWEVER, the specific criticism that is made of CAIR and its American Muslim allies is that it is a propaganda organization designed to present a whitewashed image of Islam while actually promoting the agenda of Wahabbism, threatening moderate Muslims, and using American law to shut up all critics.

---

What is the "real image" of Islam that is being whitewashed? So far, there have only been some vague claims that American Muslims are somehow a threat to liberal democracy.Where is an example of CAIR's promotion of the Wahabbi agenda?What threats against moderate Muslims have been made?Finally, how is the American law being used to shut up all critics?