First, partly in jest but more in seriousness, I offer you your own gas tank. The largest portion of the fuel in your tank comes from the Middle East, not from Venezuela, Russia, Nigeria, Canada, Indonesia or even the good old U S of A. And most of that Middle Eastern petrochemistry comes from the non-Islamofascist Islamic states of the Middle East. They demonstrated in 1973 that they could shut off our oil supply without hurting themselves very much, and they could repeat the demonstration today. But they’re good businessmen, and at least as honest as Western businessmen.

Second, their defense of polygamy (ironically). Unfortunately, it seems to have disappeared from Google, but the best defense of polygamy I have ever read was written by a Muslim woman, who either was a polygamous wife or intended to become a polygamous wife, of an Arab businessman. Her essay roundly condemned the West’s denunciation of polygamy, pointing out the hypocrisy of the West and the West’s lack of understanding of what polygamy entailed. I believe that this essay was the first one to use (or at least to shout from the rooftops) the term “serial polygamy” to refer to the West’s cycle of marriage and divorce. Her essay also pointed out how this cycle of marriage and divorce served to take away the rights and dignity of Western women, far worse than the West’s caricature of polygamy could do. She also described the real benefits to Muslim women of living in a polygamous relationship. And she emphasized, as the Mormons must emphasize over and over, that polygamy wasn’t about the sex.

Sorry I can’t find that essay on Google anymore.

(By the way, I’m not the same Ray that D.S. was replying to earlier.)

Someone asked what Islam has given the world. Allow me to respond, as a mathematics teacher.

Some of the greatest mathematicians ever were Greeks. You’ve doubtless heard of Euclid. These Greek mathematicians wrote books, volumes and volumes of books, on mathematical subjects. Until a few years ago, modern geometry textbooks followed the pedagogical pattern first outlined in Euclid’s “Elements” around 300 B.C.

As the centuries went by, these Greek books were copied and passed around. One of the most complete sets of them was found in the library at Alexandria, Egypt. During the Dark Ages, many of these books disappeared or were destroyed, and the knowledge that they contained was lost.

… or would have been lost, were it not for the Arabic scholars of that same age. To oversimplify things, the Dark Ages affected Christian lands, but not Muslim lands. In the countries where Islam was the dominant religion, intellectual growth was not stifled, but actively encouraged. Muslim scholars collected as many of these Greek texts as they could, copying them and translating them into Arabic.

The greatest example of this Arabic preservation of Greek mathematical works is a 13-volume work, called “The Great Treatise,” written by Ptolemy around 147 A.D. It was translated into Arabic in the 9th Century, long after it had been lost in Europe, and was commonly referred as the “Almagest,” an Arabic transliteration of its Greek name.

The Almagest finally made it back to Europe, starting with a Spanish version in the 12th C. and a back-translation into Greek in the 15th C. If it hadn’t been for the Islamic love of learning (from all sources) and their preservation of the Almagest, Europe would no longer have these writings of Ptolemy and would have lost the knowledge that they contained.

As I have said, the Almagest is only one example of the scientific texts that the Muslims preserved, while the European Christians were destroying them.

In addition to preserving texts, Islamic scholars made some original contributions to mathematics. The Persian scholoar Muhammed bin Musa al-Khwarizmi published a book called (loose translation) “A complete discussion on the way to solve mathematical problems.” One word from the title, “Al-Jabr,” was Latinized into “algebra,” which is essentially a system of rules that can be used to solve mathematical problems.

Either in his book or in addition to his book, Al-Khwarizmi asserted that any mathematical problem can be broken down into a series of steps, which can be codified and learned by anyone. This methodical breakdown of a problem into a series of definable steps has come to be known as “the Al-Khwarizmi method,” or, if you want to Latinize his surname, an “algorithm.”

Now, depending on your personal feelings towards mathematics, geometry, algebra and algorithms, you may consider this fruit to be good fruit or evil fruit. But bear in mind that it came from Islamic countries, as a result of their openmindedness, love of books and love for learning — at a time when practicing Christians had none of these three qualities.

Pardon me, but asking that question is like asking the Indianapolis Colts what did they do lately.

More seriously, that question could be asked of virtually every group at one time or another. 1000 years ago, Christianity could have been asked the question of what did they do lately besides rape and pillage en route to conquer lands from relatively peaceful Muslims. Atheists and other skeptics are asking similar questions today!

(Of course, a good answer is that we Christians spent the last century or two forcibly eradicating the scourge of slavery!)

To answer your question with an example that comes foremost to mind: Islam provides the moral framwork and discipline for denizens of the USA’s inner cities to emerge from that toxic environment of poverty and promiscuity and disease and violent criminal activity.

That, I think, is worthy of esteem!

What are the fruits of greater Islam in modern times?

You said:
**I do not “conflate Islamofascism with Islam.” I clearly see a distinction between the vast majority of practicing Muslims who are good, kind, and honorable, and the tiny minority of Muslims who are evil, brutal, and thuggish.**

I am glad you see that distinction. I had wondered when you implied that bin Laden, et al., would not attack the USA if we were to completely pull out. Of course, that is untenable; Indonesia hasn’t supplied troops for either Afghanistan or Iraq, yet, Bali was bombed. Moreover, Nick Berg, who was there to PROTEST the Iraq War, was beheaded.

You said:
**My disagreement with you is not about the existence of extremism within Islam, it is how to label that extremism. As I have previously argued, “Islamofascism” is a term that should not be employed because (a) Islamic extremism is not fascist by the dictionary definition**

They used Hitler’s playbook. Even now, various spokesmen for the extremists claim that Hitler’s only flaw was his failure to kill ALL of the Jews.

I would happily use the term “extremists,” but they (and some normative Muslims–and normative LDS and other Christians!) would consider it a compliment, since one cannot be too extreme is obeying Allah!

You said:
**the term is purely pejorative with the goal of inciting Americans to support jingoistic military and foreign policies**

There you go again! America is ALWAYS wrong, isn’t it?

For the record, the last time the USA intended on permanently occupying conquered foreign territory was in 1945, when we occupied Micronesia, and that was because _they_ freely voted to ask us to do so!

While we have been expansionary and jingoistic, the American empire (if you could call it that) is decidedly different from the Roman, Mongol, Japanese, or even the British one.

You said:
**I certainly do not believe that “removing both the USA and Israel from existence…would make everything ‘peaches and cream.’”**

I didn’t say that you did. I apologise if I gave that impression. I wanted to show that, since that extreme pullout into non-existence won’t solve the problem, neither will the less-extreme withdrawal to our shores fix things.

You said:
**But it is quite evident to everyone but neoconservatives that Islamic nations have legitimate grievances against the United States**

You have called me a neo-con. Am I an idiot?

By the by, maybe you should pay more attention to just what it is that neo-cons advocate–before you attack their intelligence or character.

It is true that they have legitimate grievances against us. But we have some legitimate grievances against them, as well. But that is beyond the scope of my posts up to now.

You said:
**by talking to them, treating them as sovereign nations, and not using our military to intimidate them**

We DO talk to them. From my view, they still act as they do because we reward them by treating them as equals, rather than pariahs.

Moreover, I don’t think they were ever intimidated by our military; they were too busy trying to intimidate their subjects, each other, or Israel. If Saddam Hussein were intimidated by the US military, they would have pulled out of Kuwait in 1990.

Furthermore, we had some peace agreements–at Israel’s expense. This was ONE instance where we HAVE intimidated another nation, and the Extremists’ response was an intifida aimed at getting a radical Palestinian state to replace Israel, rather than just the 95% of their stated demands we pressured Israel to give in to.

You said:
**does not apply to extremist NGOs, of course, but even there we could be smarter about how we deal with them.**

Agreed, but I am unconvinced that your way is smarter.

You said:
**The Bush administration has employed a very blunt approach to the Middle East that has been an abject failure and made the United States less safe.**

Frankly, Mike, I don’t see how.

Look here, Mike, if we are clear that terroristic adventurism will result in overwhelming force applied against it, terrorists are less likely to “do their thing,” because the costs are too high. The reason they did attack the WTC in the first place was that they were convinced that we wouldn’t impose a cost on that terrorism.

You said:
**My respect for you is not diminished by the fact that you hold a different paradigm about the use of U.S. military force. I accept the fact that your view is a legitimate one; I simply think it is the wrong one. **

That got lost among all the negative character-driven thing you said about a policy that I support. Jeremiah Wright was quite clear that he thought that the American character–NOT just its policies–was irredeemably beyond the pale. Since you averred agreement with him–using similar, if not identical words, I concluded that you must have something against MY character, as well. Hence, the request to reconsider, since you consider what I suport to be wrong-hearted, as well as wrong-headed.

I hope this clarifies.

I wish I could convey to you how frustrating it is to dialog with you, simply because you frequently misstate my position, thereby creating a straw man that you can easily knock down.

For the record:

1. I do not “conflate Islamofascism with Islam.” I clearly see a distinction between the vast majority of practicing Muslims who are good, kind, and honorable, and the tiny minority of Muslims who are evil, brutal, and thuggish.

2. My disagreement with you is not about the existence of extremism within Islam, it is how to label that extremism. As I have previously argued, “Islamofascism” is a term that should not be employed because (a) Islamic extremism is not fascist by the dictionary definition and (b) the term is purely pejorative with the goal of inciting Americans to support jingoistic military and foreign policies.

3. I certainly do not believe that “removing both the USA and Israel from existence…would make everything ‘peaches and cream.’” But it is quite evident to everyone but neoconservatives that Islamic nations have legitimate grievances against the United States, and that by talking to them, treating them as sovereign nations, and not using our military to intimidate them, we will get much better progress toward constructing a mutual peace. This does not apply to extremist NGOs, of course, but even there we could be smarter about how we deal with them. The Bush administration has employed a very blunt approach to the Middle East that has been an abject failure and made the United States less safe.

4. My respect for you is not diminished by the fact that you hold a different paradigm about the use of U.S. military force. I accept the fact that your view is a legitimate one; I simply think it is the wrong one. Your honor remains intact.

I stand by my request that you rethink my honour.

Why? Let’s say, for the sake of argument that you’re right about US policy in the Middle East–and the nature of those I call “Islamofascists.” According to you, the USA is engaged in mass murder of innocents. I would submit that anybody who condones such mass murder–let alone _supports_ it–is utterly undeserving of the adjective honourable. Moreover, justice would demand that such dastardly villains be executed in the method that would inflict the greatest agony–and get a one-way ticket to the hottest part of the lake of fire in the outer darkness of hell, to be poked by infinite numbers of demons with pitchforks.

Now, let us suppose that, even though you are still right about US policy, I am right about the Islamofascists. While that is not as severe as mass murder, it is still vigilante justice, still a sin, and still dishonourable.

Leaving your distaste for US policy aside, in my view, you DO wrongly conflate Islamofascism with Islam. While you may be right that fascism is usually racist, that doesn’t mean that Muslim extremists cannot be fascists. Though mainstream Islam certainly does treat races equally, this doesn’t apply to the fringes. For example, one reason the extremists hate Jews is their being of a “European” race, rather than the “Middle Eastern” one. By the by, this is also a reason why enslavement of Blacks existed–even into the second half of the twentieth century–in many Muslim lands; Blacks weren’t of the “Middle Eastern” race. I know–I asked them.

Your conflation of Islamofascism with Islam illustrates exactly why I wanted to differentiate the two. Attacking those who criticise the extremists puts the moderates on very poor ground to marginalise those extremists, and it gives outsiders, who see the threat but not the difference, a false picture of who our friends and foes are. Ray, I think, very eloquently detailed the benefits of normative Islam, which would be lost if we cannot distinguish the mainstream from the virulent fringe. That could lead to killing MORE innocents than if we had a clear view of both and the distinction of the extreme fringe from the mainstream, and the threat of the former.

Mike, if you think that removing both the USA and Israel from existence (If we don’t exist, we cannot butt into their affairs or do harm to them!) would make everything “peaches and cream,” you are in dire need of being awakened from that Utopian dream. Normal Muslims would still be existing in squalor, under the thumb of their extremist oppressors–and those oppressors would find some other scapegoat.

That, Sir, is human nature.

Furthermore, I would submit that, if not for US intervention (and before that, British intervention), slavery of Blacks–and others, would still flourish.

What has Islam given us?

Historians of Islam would be best qualified to answer that. I think Dr. Peterson could also give a good summary.

What does it give us today? What are the fruits of Islam?

I think it gives us what just about every religion does: An “answer” to the meaning and purpose of life. And I say “answer” because everyone receives this “answer” individually, and people born in countries where a specific religion dominates tend to accept that religion. Every religion that I know of has progressed and accommodated to modern views in some aspect, some more than others. Who could ever believe that Catholicism would go from burning heretics to officially accepting evolution, and offering an apology to Galileo? This same religion which tied Giordano Bruno to a stake and burned him for his philosophical and scientific ideas, one of which was the vast plurality of the universe and the possibility of other inhabited worlds, has just issued a media release speculating about how and to what extent the mediation of Jesus Christ might cover aliens in other worlds. Marvels never cease. Before 1890 the Mormons were implicit that polygamy would never change, and suffered persecution and imprisonment for it. The penalty for this failure to change is now seen in the FLDS abuses and the heartache that polygamy really causes.

The critics of Islam have a leg to stand on when they criticise extremists. But “mainstream” Islam extends the same benefits that most religions do - it tends to make people more civilised, more honest, and to deal justly and mercifully with others. Maybe others don’t see this, but to me it’s all too obvious (53 year old turtle speaking here). Like the sun shining at midday. There is one purpose in which I would join with both Mormons and Muslims, and that is to stop the tide of apparently growing belief that atheism is sound, or healthy, or “natural”. Religions need to stop fighting each other, and join in this common cause. There is plenty of room for dialogue here, but none with the hardcore, pro-active atheists a la Hitchens and Dawkins and Shermer. The extremists and fundamentalists in any religion aren’t going to help this cause, they will only give the gold medal to the proactive atheists by default. This isn’t to say fundamental beliefs shouldn’t be kept, in fact that might be necessary to preserve any religion. It’s when we resort to “my God can beat up your God”, then we are in for trouble.

“By their fruits ye shall know them.”

What has greater Islam contributed to modern society (aside from ancient innovation and record-keeping)? World’s fastest growing religion- an ideology with over a billion adherents. What has Islam given us? What does it give us today? What are the fruits of Islam?

Perhaps you ought to rethink your praise of my honour!

Certainly not. I appreciated your last post, and while I disagree with your conclusions in this post, my disagreement with you doesn’t make you any less honorable.