This was in my email...Help debunking?

[dorktv]

>
> Can a devout Muslim be an American patriot and a loyal citizen?
>
>
> Theologically, no. Because his allegiance is to
> Allah, the moon god of Arabia.
>
> Scripturally, no. Because his allegiance is to the
> five pillars of Islam and
> the Quran (Koran).
>
> Geographically, no. Because his allegiance is to
> Mecca, to which he
> turns in prayer five times a day.
>
> Socially, no. Because his allegiance to Islam
> forbids him to make friends
> with Christians or Jews.
>
> Politically, no. Because he must submit to the
> mullah (spiritual leaders),
> who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of
> America, the greatSatan.
>
> Domestically, no. Because he is instructed to marry
> four women and
> beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him
> (Quran 4:34).
>
> Religiously, no. Because no other religion is
> accepted by his Allah
> except Islam (Quran, 2:256)
>
> Intellectually, no. Because he cannot accept the
> American Constitution
> since it is based on Biblical principles and he
> believes the Bible to be corrupt.
>
> Philosophically, no. Because Islam, Muhammad, and
> the Quran do not
> allow freedom of religion and _expression. Democracy
> and Islam cannot
> co - exist. Every Muslim government is either
> dictatorial or autocratic.
>
> Spiritually, no. Because when we declare "one
> nation under God," the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is
> NEVER referred to as our heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in
the
> Quran's 99 excellent names.

......The religious war is
> bigger than we know.
Knowledge
> is the best weapon.
>
>


I know that not every muslim follows the same exact path in Islam but I cannot find a decent refuting of this on snopes.

[EFerrari]

1. "The religious war is bigger than we know."

What kind of "loving and kind" "Christian" could send such a piece of biggoted cRaP?

[cynatnite]

2. Just this...

Tell whoever sent this to go to a Mosque here in the states and read it aloud.

They'll find plenty of American muslims who will set him or her straight.

This is some offensive shit.

[Rosemary2205]

3. I wouldn't bother to try.

You don't need snopes. Posting it here and asking the question shows you know it's a piece of racist shit. You cannot refute racism and hate because they are not based on logic. Somethings are just so born out of crap to begin with that it's silly to even try. It's like a Republican saying John Murtha is on Osama's team. It's just so fucked up there's nowhere to begin to set it right.

[BuyingThyme]

4. No offense, but you've got a long way to go

before you reach adulthood.

[dorktv]

10. Excuse me? I am an adult and I was asking for assistance to debunk this

trash. Not to be told I need to grow up.

[BuyingThyme]

16. I was giving you the benefit of doubt.

You're either a moron, or the lowest form of racist. I went with moron.

[DavidDvorkin]

17. Why are you attacking dorktv?

BuyingThyme, did you think that dorktv wrote the original anti-Moslem message?

[dorktv]

19. Apparently so, even though I was requesting assistance to debunk it.

Which just goes to show, some people need to learn how to read or at least comprehend.

[BuyingThyme]

30. No adult would need help debunking this trash.

It's impossible.

[dorktv]

34. Several other people were kind enough to help debunk it so obviously

it was possible. I do not see why you think it is necessary to attack me for no good reason.

[dorktv]

18. Riiight...you are attacking me for asking for assistance to smack down

some seriously inaccurate crap. Instead of providing a productive answer like the others on this thread have or saying it is stupid, you have decided based on no knowledge that I am a moron or a racist.

Who is the real childish one here?

[BuyingThyme]

37. Next you'll be asking if white people are white because they

drink so much milk.

[The Magistrate]

5. Ignorant Swill, Ma'am

One might as well say a Christian cannot be a loyal and patriotic American, because he or she owes allegiance to a diety based in Jerusalem.

One could just as easily say a devout Christian owes allegiance to the Bible,not the country, and could therefore not be a good citizen.

The direction one faces to pray hardly indicates anything about civil loyalty.

From my own experience, it is certainly possible for a Moslem to be friends with an atheist, as well as married to a Buddhist.

Neither destruction of Israel nor Satanic attributes of the U.S. are elements of Moslem doctrine, they are the interpertation of some Moslems only.

A Moslem is not instructed to marry four wives; he is permitted to.

No other religion is accepted by Christianity, either, so again, a Christian must be equally barred from being a good American.

The U.S. Constitution has nothing whatever to do with "Biblical principles", whatever those might be: it is a wholly secular document, and one that serious Christian fundamentalists, such as the Dominionists, have been known to rail against on exactly the same grounds it is urged a Moslem would.

Christianity, too, does not really accept freedom of religion and expression: Christian leaders had to be compelled by secular power into accepting they could not enforce their views, and deserve for this no more credit than a man jailed for burglary deserves for not breaking into houses while confined to a cell.

The various forms of flattery directed by believers in the contrasted faiths do not differ signifigantly: titles such as the merciful and the compassionate carry about as much, or as little, weight as do the Christian forms. Both dieties, on close examination, have a serious streak of mean as well....

[MissB]

13. Exactly.

Well put, as usual.

[Mr_Spock]

32. Very good comparison - our "Christians" are no better or worse

Fundamentalism is about the same no matter the "religion" of choice. Fundamentalism is more about control and bigotry than it is about peace and understanding. I would argue that fundamentalists of any religious persuasion are not Americans - and they certainly are not religious.

[cynatnite]

6. I did find out who wrote this...

A Dr. Anis Shorrosh. He grew up in Palestine and later became an evangelical. There are a few sites who say the guy has been an advisor to bush since his Texas gov days. He was in a debate about Jesus with Sheikh Ahmed Deedat and lost pretty badly from the little I read.

He's always about converting muslims to christianity and has written a few books on the matter.

Here is the link for the debate:

http://www.archive.org/details/48_Quran_or_the_Bible_which_is_Gods_Word

[BuyingThyme]

7. He also wrote, "The moon is made of cheese."

[charlie]

9. I notice that they edited

Shorrosh's original. The one small exception he allowed in an argument was too much latitude for these my-religion-is-better-than-yours idiots. So, snip. A little dishonestly in defense of good old Christian America is excusable, I suppose:

Philosophically, no. Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is dictatorial or autocratic except Turkey.

[adwon]

8. Bullshit citations

Sura 4:34 (via Wikipedia)

34. Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).

Looks a little different from the claim, does it not?

Sura 2:62

002.062 Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

Sura 2:256

002.256 Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.

Well, damn! Look at that. His citations don't match the text. Shocking, isn't it?

[dorktv]

14. Not really shocking but this is a nice lady who I want to show that

she is just passing on ignorance. Thanks for the help!

[alfredo]

23. He paints all Muslims as one.

That's wrong.

the Sunni are much more Liberal. The believe their Caliph (successor of Mohammed) should be elected. They also follow an oral tradition.


The Shiite are more conservative, more partisan. They see their Inman (guides) as infallible.

Sunni's make up a vast majority of the Muslim world. there are more denominations in the Muslim faith than there is within the Christian faith. It is also one of the fastest, if not the fastest growing faith in the US. There are more Muslims in the US than there are Episcopalians.


I don't see much difference between the Mullahs and our ministers and priests. Some are good, just men, some are assholes.

BTW. Just in case you get sent an e-mail about the Sura 9:11, and I'm sure your friend has, send him the true meaning of the Sura.

<9:11> If they repent and observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat), then they are your brethren in religion. We thus explain the revelations for people who know.

The above is from the Authorized English translation of the Koran.

[dorktv]

25. I deleted the 9/11 from another person. This lady is a librarian and

knows how to research. I was gently pointing out that what she sent was a ton of bull and I expect better from her.

[alfredo]

26. I blocked one lady for the same reason. I tried to to show her

how to use snopes.com even how to identify key words. I showed her how to identify propaganda and hoaxes, but it didn't work, so she is now blocked.

[dorktv]

27. This is the first one from her so I think there may still be hope.

[alfredo]

28. Use it as an oportunity to teach. Also ask her why there is so

much false propaganda from the political right. And why is it always pitting American against American, religion against religion?

Have her to to snopes.com and plug in the word "Clinton." Have her Scan the entries to see how many are true and how many are false.

[dorktv]

29. So far so good...no response yet from her but no other emails either.

[alfredo]

31. Life's too short to put up with bullshit.

[proud2BlibKansan]

11. Ask whoever sent this to you

what he thinks we should do about it. Lock all Muslims out of the US?

This serves no purpose other than stirring shit up. Reminds me of this video just posted:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1449753&mesg_id=1449753

[ComerPerro]

12. A Christian, therefore, can't be a patriot or true American

and, for the record, the Constitution is NOT based in ANY WAY on the Bible

[idgiehkt]

15. BINGO!!!!

I only read one line of this before I thought that. Christianity and America are not synonymous and that is why fundamentalist Christian conservatives are so dangerous to the United States. Any orthodox religion can ruin a progressive liberal democracy and the sooner the general public absorbs this truth the better. I almost wonder sometimes if that is why Bush is trying to wreck the American economy, look what happened in Germany when their economy started going downhill, they looked for a scapegoat. Something weird happens when the middle and working classes get desperate...

I wish the FBI would treat fundies as as much of a threat to America as they do groups like PETA.

[Sailor for Warner]

20. I can go point by point if you have the time

Most of it is bunk, some is true:
"Theologically, no. Because his allegiance is to
Allah, the moon god of Arabia."
Kind of true, there is complete submission to Allah so his will supercedes any nationalist loyalty.


"Scripturally, no. Because his allegiance is to the
five pillars of Islam and the Quran (Koran)."
This does not really match up, they are required to perform the 5 pillars: Proclomation, Prayer, Fasting during Ramadan, Direct Charity and Haaj but none of these is in conflict with US Citizenship unless we suddenly start denying Saudi Arabian Visas or attack Mecca with Nukes.

"Geographically, no. Because his allegiance is to
Mecca, to which he turns in prayer five times a day."
Well they used to do it toward Jerusalem during the time of the Prophet(pbuh) but this is really kind of silly.

"Politically, no. Because he must submit to the
mullah (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel
and destruction of America, the greatSatan"
Some mullahs and imams do, and some dont teach those things. But the mullahs hold no special requirement for obedience (Unless you are a "twelver" Shia and then the 12th Imam will come back and will hold the authority of the prophet, but whatever I digress)

"Domestically, no. Because he is instructed to marry
four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34)."
The Quaran says you may have UP TO 4 wives but must love ans treat them all equally which is impossible and most scholars think this meast that the Quaran advocates monogamy. as for the beatings, Leviticus says that you cant wear cotton and linen together either, does not stop most Christians.

"Religiously, no. Because no other religion is accepted by his Allah
except Islam (Quran, 2:256)"
Save the people of the Book, Jews and Christians who are 1/3 and 2/3 of the way to Islam respectively. Plus Christianity is pretty clear on the "One Way to G-d" thing too as I recall.

"Intellectually, no. Because he cannot accept the
American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he
believes the Bible to be corrupt."
Yes they believe the Bible is corrupt but more likely it cannot accept it because the constitution is based on Secular Enlightenment principles and the Muslims were never big fans of secularlism.

"Philosophically, no. Because Islam, Muhammad, and
the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and _expression. Democracy
and Islam cannot co - exist. Every Muslim government is either
dictatorial or autocratic."
The Prophet(pbuh) was ALL ABOUT freedom of religion he said, 'there is no compulsion in religion' and in its heday, Muslim nations were VERY tolerant of other faiths, in fact the Muslim world was the only place that the Jews could catch a break. As for democracy, I am afraid that is true, Islamic principles are quite clear that autocratic rule is the way to go.

"Spiritually, no. Because when we declare "one
nation under God," the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is
NEVER referred to as our heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in
the Quran's 99 excellent names"
Hes not refered to as our heavenly Father because that is a Christian construct, Jews dont call him that either. His love IS mentioned about 4 times in the Quaran, as well as his Mercy(about 3 times i think)


Hope this helped

[dorktv]

22. It was helpful...I did write a refuting of it...I pointed out that our

Constitution is completely secular, and is actually based on English Common Law.

Plus there is no religious test so any Muslim could serve in any capacity for our government since I have yet to see anything from the Qur'an that precludes service in government.

[Terran1212]

21. Just trash racist shit like this

[Igel]

24. One doesn't need to refute it. One merely needs to make it

more precise. Then refutation is impossible, and the thing's been defanged. You've been handed an ambiguity, something that means different things to different people, and therefore cannot be discussed. The only way to discuss it it is to remove the ambiguity. What do I mean?

Then there are the many Muslims that'll just disagree with it, and for which it is patently false. They're wishy-washy or moderately devout, or even fairly secular. They're excluded from coverage in this e-mail; they simply reject the premise, but they're not 'devout'. Now, no believer wants to be called 'wishy-washy', but most are.

There are many imams and Islamic scholars that will disagree with reading it and with the content. They are devout by most definitions. They should be excluded from this e-mail. The e-mail does not. Therefore, the e-mail is untrue. It makes a claim about 'devout Muslims' that is false.

There are imams and Islamic scholars, even some considered fairly moderate, that will disagree with reading it, but not the content. They are also devout. Therefore, this e-mail is not entirely untrue. It makes a claim about 'devout Muslims' that is true. Zing. Define 'devout'. Ah.

There are scholars that would agree with much of these--al-Qaradhawi, a 'moderate' whose visa to the US was recently rejected, was very recently cited as saying the disagreement in the schools of Islam isn't whether or not to kill gays, but the prescribed manner; gays, fornicators ... whatever, they should be punished. Of course, male homosexuality, as a practical matter, is worse than lesbianism ... He's also gone on the record for wife-beating, in the proper circumstances. He's not alone, and there are 'devout Muslims' that support him. Denying that they exist is a reflex for some people that like word games, like this e-mailer likes word games. They just have different motives and goals.

That there are such people, considered by themselves to be Muslim, and which a not insignificant section of the Muslim community unthinkingly accepts as being Muslim, makes it false to say that the e-mail is completely untrue. But one also can't say the e-mail is true. It is ambiguous. The e-mail is changing definitions mid-discourse; and for an argument or exposition to work, definitions have to be consistent, and either shared by both speaker and hearer or the speaker must make his definition completely explicit.

It's an annoying problem, since for most people something is true or false, and they get really cranky when you try to say "it's true, if you take the word in one common meaning, it's false if you take the word in another common meaning." It forces them to think and make their assumptions explicit, and if there's one thing people hate, it's that. It takes serious work.

Bear with me. This is fairly subtle, but obvious once you get it. "Devout Muslims" is a set of people. You hear the phrase, you assume you know the set. You have a definition of 'devout' and of 'Muslim', and you compose the two words into a phrase (think of it as the intersection all all people both devout and Muslim). Yippee, you think. Then properties are attributed to this set. The properties listed have the effect of restricting the set of people the term applies to: the term 'devout Muslim' is being given a definition, which you assume applies to the set you've already picked out. You can't get from "devout Muslim" to just the group of people defined in this e-mail by merging your usual meaning of 'devout' and 'Muslim'. There is such a group of people. And you have just been mislead to assuming that everybody in the first group, the set of all Muslims that are also devout, is the same as the set of "devout Muslims" you're left with at the end, at least partially because you know there is such a group, so you can't completely deny their existence; and you don't have time to tease out exactly where the trouble is. The final set of Muslims you're left with is, at best, nothing more than a subset of the first. You've been led to either redefine 'Muslim', redefine 'devout', or attribute a quirky meaning to 'devout Muslim', so that there are devout Muslims, and then there are "devout Muslims".

That's an implicit change of terms, a fallacy. A pretty basic, fundamental fallacy. But one that's not always easy to catch. Most people would use the word "extremist" to avoid the fallacy, with the understanding that 'devout' and 'extremist' are mutually exclusive (so that there aren't 'devout' Muslims that are also 'extremist Muslims'), or they'd be clear that they're offering a definition of 'devout' at odds with the one you assume.

Some will argue that the e-mail must be entirely false, since their definition of "Muslim" or "devout" denies the thing being described. They also don't see the fallacy, and frequently employ the exact same fallacy with the reverse outcome. Again, the definition of the word shifts mid-discourse, and a discourse without mutually accepted definitions is no discourse at all.

[0rganism]

33. Primary fallacy: the "answers" do not address the initial question!

This is the topic of the text, to which the commentary is nominally in answer:
> Can a devout Muslim be an American patriot and a loyal citizen?

Remember this as you read the rest: patriotism and loyal citizenship are the primary qualities we're looking for.

> Theologically, no. Because his allegiance is to
> Allah, the moon god of Arabia.

This is the first huge disconnect, on which the rest of the bullshit is premised. One's patriotism and loyal citizenship are not theological. For some, they may have extra roots stretching into a theology; for others they don't. Theism and patriotism are not mutually exclusive, or even selectively inclusive. This section establishes the non-sequiter approach for the rest of the comments.

> Scripturally, no. Because his allegiance is to the
> five pillars of Islam and the Quran (Koran).

I, for one, would prefer living in a country where one's patriotism and loyalty were not scripturally influenced. There really is no necessary connection between them.

> Geographically, no. Because his allegiance is to
> Mecca, to which he turns in prayer five times a day.

Again, so what? This is conflating a religious custom with nationalism. (One could levy a much more cogent critique against Catholicism on this basis, were the premise acceptable, as the Catholic church promotes what amount to political directives established by the Vatican, nominally an independent state.)

> Socially, no. Because his allegiance to Islam
> forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.

This one is just hilarious, because it couples American patriotism and loyal citizenship to friendship with Christians and Jews. What a load of crapola.

> Politically, no. Because he must submit to the
> mullah (spiritual leaders),
> who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of
> America, the greatSatan.

Now I would have to admit, there are at least some Mullahs who probably are teaching this kind of nastiness. However, it's hardly a universal teaching, from what I gather it's localized to some parts of the Middle East and first-generation immigrants thereof. Indonesia, the single most populous Muslim nation, could hardly be called a hotbed of anti-American or even anti-Israeli sentiment. So it's wrong in the premise.

While I grant the author that affirmative faith in the destruction of America could legitimately compromise one's prospects of loyal American citizenship, it's a false premise that all devout Muslims must follow such teachings, let alone act on them.

> Domestically, no. Because he is instructed to marry
> four women and
> beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him.

This has no bearing on either patriotism or loyal citizenship, and even if it did, it neglects the question with respect to half of the Muslim population who are women. Furthermore, it is an incorrect interpretation of the whole of the teachings. Next...

> Religiously, no. Because no other religion is
> accepted by his Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256)

Damn near every religion declares itself the One Way to Happiness. BFD. Of course, this has absolutely no bearing on the original question.

> Intellectually, no. Because he cannot accept the
> American Constitution
> since it is based on Biblical principles and he
> believes the Bible to be corrupt.

Another false premise. The American Constitution is in no more based on the Bible than it is on the Iliad.

> Philosophically, no. Because Islam, Muhammad, and
> the Quran do not
> allow freedom of religion and _expression. Democracy
> and Islam cannot
> co - exist. Every Muslim government is either
> dictatorial or autocratic.

Faulty premise and false evidence. Next.

> Spiritually, no. Because when we declare "one
> nation under God," the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is
> NEVER referred to as our heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in
> the Quran's 99 excellent names.

Ah, the undergod finally makes an appearance. The first 100 years of this country didn't even have a pledge of allegiance, let alone an undergod. By the author's standard on this point, an atheist or agnostic couldn't be regarded as a patriotic, loyal American citizen either. Maybe your e-buddy would like to consider this aspect as well?

> The religious war is bigger than we know.
> Knowledge is the best weapon.

If knowledge is the best weapon, this tripe-filled message of hateful non-sequiters, falsehoods and strawmen is the equivalent a dull butterknife.

[dorktv]

35. Bloody brilliant.

[Mz Pip]

36. Can a RW Christian be a good American?

I copied this a couple of months ago from another DUer who was responding to a request about the same email. Wish I knew who wrote it.


CAN A RIGHT-WING FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIAN BE GOOD A AMERICAN?

Theologically, no. Because his allegiance is to a God who he believes 'selected' a President that goes against Christ's teachings on a daily basis.

Scripturally, no. Because his allegiance is to a Bible that encourages the stoning of neighbours who work on Sundays.

Geographically, no. Because his religion admonishes him to fight against the rights of others that he disagrees with, whether they are protected by the Constitution or not.

Socially, no. Because his allegiance to the Old Testament forbids him to make friends with homosexuals, and he never really knows who they might be.

Politically, no. Because he must submit to spiritual leaders who teach the annihilation of cities where the great Satan has a stranglehold, like New Orleans, as well as the assassination of democratically-elected foreign leaders.

Domestically, no. Because he is instructed to beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Old Testament).

Religiously, no. Because NO other religion is accepted as the way to eternal life.

Intellectually, no. Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Democratic principles, and he believes democratic ideas like the separation of church and state to be corrupt.

Philosophically, no. Because Fundamentalist Christians abhor the rights of others to express their religious beliefs in any way other than their own.

Democracy and Fundamentalist Christianity cannot co-exist. That is why they they send out bigoted emails denouncing other religions.

Spiritually, no. Because when we declare "one nation under God," the Fundamentalist Christian demands exceptions to those who do not believe as they.

Therefore after much study and deliberation....I feel we must be very suspicious of ALL Fundamentalist Christians in this country. They cannot be good CHRISTIANS and good Americans. Call it what you wish...it's still the truth.


Mz Pip
:dem: