Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

You're welcome.

It is always good to go back and quote people in full and in context - and read what they wrote/said.

I am indeed very interested in Shaw's conclusions - especially where he reiterates/emphasises the fact that Orientalist views of Islam are now discredited.

I suggest you re-read this part of Rao's article as well - and then let us know whether you have any problem understanding this (or whether you disagree with Shaw/Rao/Kung et al)

Cheers,
Shafique

While you're at it, maybe you can break down this quote from Shaw as well:

"...While not an anti-Semite (Shaw wrote of Hitler that the "one hitch with his statesmanship" was his "bee in his bonnet" about the Jews) he showed marked indifference towards their lives, favoring a eugenicist’s argument, in 1938, "I think we ought to tackle the Jewish question by admitting the right of the State to make eugenic experiments by weeding out any strains they think undesirable."

Interesting quote. I can dig out loads of quotes from US presidents saying Saddam Hussein is 'our friend' - or even point to the training and support given to Bin Laden and the Mujahedeen.

Shaw was passionately anti-war - this affected some of his judgments, but by your line of reasoning he should therefore have been a passionate opponent of the caricature of a bloodthirsty prophet - instead he studied the material and came up with the right conclusion that the caricature is of a previous century.

Shaw's hatred of war badly affected his later judgment. But in that, he represented a generation. He was neutral on Spain in an era when authors were supposed to take sides. He saw Nazi anti-semitism as "insanity", though he had judged that Hitler "shrinks from the massacre which the logic of his phobia demands". He was far from the only one - on left or right - to still be contemplating a negotiated peace with Hitler after war had broken out.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... 6/gbsat150


However, interesting silence on the points relevant to this thread that I brought up in my posts.

The medieval ecclesiastics, either through ignorance or bigotry, painted Muhammadanism in the darkest colours. They were in fact trained both to hate the man Muhammad and his religion.

Which begs the question - Were you similarly trained by medieval ecclesiasts, or will you sometime in the future join the 21st century? (to be clear, this is rhetorical and won't count as one of the legion of questions you won't answer)



Cheers,
Shafique

Shaw was passionately anti-war - this affected some of his judgments,

Really? His views on war affected his strong belief in eugenics and a Germany free of undesirables?

or even point to the training and support given to Bin Laden

Ok, you do that.

Perhaps that's right up there with your other poorly researched beliefs. Right next to your belief that Jesus is the speaker in the epistle of James, the fourth crusade or some of the numerous other mistakes you've made.

instead he studied the material and came up with the right conclusion that the caricature is of a previous century.

In what way was that a 'right' conclusion?

Oh forget it, you're simply the dumbest poster I've ever encountered.

The medieval ecclesiastics, either through ignorance or bigotry, painted Muhammadanism in the darkest colours. They were in fact trained both to hate the man Muhammad and his religion.

That's an opinion that the previous scholars 'were trained to hate'. Normally this would go without saying.

I can dig out loads of quotes from US presidents

Indeed, you can also dig out Hitler's favorable views on Islam. I'm actually surprised that none of these Dawah websites have quoted Hitler - who studied Islam just as George Bernard Shaw had and found its teachings on warfare attractive:

“Hitler had been much impressed by a scrap of history he had learned from a delegation of Arabs. When the Mohammedans attempted to penetrate beyond France into Central Europe during the eighth century, his visitors had told him, they had been driven back at the Battle of Tours. Had the Arabs won this battle, the world would be Mohammedan today. For theirs was a religion that believed in spreading the faith by the sword and subjugating all nations to that faith. The Germanic peoples would have become heirs to that religion. Such a creed was perfectly suited to the Germanic temperament. Hitler said that the conquering Arabs, because of their racial inferiority, would in the long run have been unable to contend with the harsher climate and conditions of the country. They could not have kept down the more vigorous natives, so that ultimately not Arabs but Islamized Germans could have stood at the head of this Mohammedan Empire.

“Hitler usually concluded this historical speculation by remarking, ‘You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness….”5 (A. Speer, Inside the Third Reich, pp. 142-143)

Or Thomas Jefferson's views on Islam as reported to him by a Muslim ambassador:

The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.

I can only imagine that *if* Jefferson had actually spoken something remotely positive about Islam his quote would be plastered on 50.000 dawah websites for drawing the 'right conclusion'.

I feel sorry for anyone who has to rely on quotes (often times forged) to try and prove a point. I mean, how brain dead do you have to be to not realize that for every positive view held by a historical figure, there is going to be some other popular figure who holds the opposite view. Let alone, what does quoting historical figures actually prove?

Oh well, I think the tactics of dawah websites, whether it's scouring the internet for quotes or posting on the scientific 'miracles' of the Koran, show how absolutely primitive most Muslims are.

I would like to think that not all Muslims are as dumb as shafique and the missionary websites he quotes from are, but my encounters on the web have so far revealed little evidence to the contrary.

To be honest, unless you confirm that you've actually read what you've pasted and posted, I'm not sure its worth my while answering.

I presume you haven't actually addressed the quotes I've given where people have actually studied Islam and the Prophet, pbuh, and concluded that:

The medieval ecclesiastics, either through ignorance or bigotry, painted Muhammadanism in the darkest colours. They were in fact trained both to hate the man Muhammad and his religion.

I also imagine that you haven't addressed the fact that you believe the medieval ecclesiastics to be telling the truth - and as such you are still content to live in the past.

I couldn't help but notice that you've made reference to Thomas Jefferson though. I'm intrigued - presumably you know which century he lived in and realise that he may also have been labouring under the impression that the Orientalist view of Islam is correct? Jefferson, was actually sceptical about Christianity as well - just see Dawkins in 'The God Delusion' - but I don't recall him being particularly religious or presenting himself as someone who studied Islam (despite owning a Quran)

Now what was that I said about living in the past?

I also presume you've picked up some other quotes that seek to deflect attention from the fact you can't refute the conclusions of Professor Rao etc.

Cheers,
Shafique

but I don't recall him being particularly religious or presenting himself as someone who studied Islam (despite owning a Quran)

Neither did George Bernard Shaw - or perhaps he did. That would explain his sympathy for a totalitarian state, something I have noticed your reluctance to comment on.

But what I can only imagine is, as I said in my last post, how often Thomas Jefferson would be quoted on Muslim missionary websites if he had said something complimentary on Islam.

And, doubtless, some braindead Muslim would have claimed that Thomas Jefferson, like George Bernard Shaw (who advocated eugenics and supported the government to rid its population of undesirables) had 'studied' Islam and arrived at the 'correct' conclusions.

I also presume you've picked up some other quotes that seek to deflect attention from the fact you can't refute the conclusions of Professor Rao etc.

The guy you copy/pasted on this forum and the other forum who himself cites fabricated quotes? Why would I take someone's opinion seriously if they can't do some basic research?

This is like thinking some Muslim who needs to crawl through Muslim missionary websites (and is caught doing so) for talking points and Bible verses when having a discussion on the New Testament actually has more than a second grader's understanding of the topic he is discussing.

Worse, this same opinionated Muslim pontificates on passages he doesn't know who the actual author is.

Perhaps that's why you've quoted from this professor? Both of you write long, rambling posts ascribing quotes to the wrong people.

Did you have something new to add?

I fully understand your quaint desire to continue to live in the past and refuse to acknowledge that scholarship has moved on and recognised that:

The medieval ecclesiastics, either through ignorance or bigotry, painted Muhammadanism in the darkest colours. They were in fact trained both to hate the man Muhammad and his religion.

It's telling that you've had to resort to quoting Jefferson - did you have problems finding modern day historians/scholars who agree with you?

Cheers,
Shafique

It is worth repeating Shaw's quotes:

I have studied him — the wonderful man, and in my opinion far from being an Anti-Christ he must be called the Saviour of Humanity. I believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it the much-needed peace and happiness.

Now, note the first words above - Shaw says his conclusions are based on his study of Muhammad, pbuh - not just blind hatred borne out of medieval orientalism. You can disagree with him, but at least he studied the subject first.

But to proceed, it was in the 19th century that honest thinkers like Carlyle, Goethe and Gibbon perceived intrinsic worth in the religion of Muhammad, and thus there was some change for the better in the European attitude towards Islam. But the Europe of the present century is far advanced. It is beginning to be enamoured of the creed of Muhammad.
Interview, (April 1935), as quoted in The Genuine Islam, Vol. 1 (January 1936),

This just re-emphasises how out-of-date your notions are - in the 19th century, the 'honest' thinkers recognised the distorted views of the past.

The fact that Rao chose to quote the 'abridged quote' doesn't change the actual quotes from Shaw above. Why not address these head on?

Cheers,
Shafique

Shafique, you are very good at contradicting yourself with the articles you copy/paste from, I must say.

Did you read your copy/paste?

I couldn't help but notice that you've made reference to Thomas Jefferson though. I'm intrigued - presumably you know which century he lived in and realise that he may also have been labouring under the impression that the Orientalist view of Islam is correct?

But to proceed, it was in the 19th century that honest thinkers like Carlyle, Goethe and Gibbon perceived intrinsic worth in the religion of Muhammad, and thus there was some change for the better in the European attitude towards Islam. But the Europe of the present century is far advanced. It is beginning to be enamoured of the creed of Muhammad.

Uh, oh. Thomas Jefferson was a contemporary of both Goethe and Gibbon (Gibbon died before the 19th century so wasn't actually a 19th century thinker and Goethe passed away a decade after Thomas Jefferson). But perhaps you were confused as to which century Thomas Jefferson had lived in so I can understand the mistake on your part.

But, and this is the big issue here, why not also quote Hitler's views of Islam?

I mean, both Shaw and Hitler shared a passion for dictatorship (like Muhammad) and a belief in eugenics, in addition to the right of a government to sterilize the 'undesirables' in society.

Do you also hold the same belief as Shaw or are you reluctant to acknowledge Shaw's fascist beliefs because these same beliefs would also have helped to form his opinion on Islam and Muhammad - whom Shaw said would make a great dictator (I agree, he was a dictator).

In any event, here is HItler's thoughts on Islam again (He was a fan - just like George Bernard Shaw!):

‘You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness….”5 (A. Speer, Inside the Third Reich, pp. 142-143)

event horizon wrote:Shafique, you are very good at contradicting yourself with the articles you copy/paste from, I must say.

Did you read your copy/paste?

Yes. Do you?

I believe I commented on what I pasted - perhaps you didn't read those posts?

event horizon wrote:

I couldn't help but notice that you've made reference to Thomas Jefferson though. I'm intrigued - presumably you know which century he lived in and realise that he may also have been labouring under the impression that the Orientalist view of Islam is correct?

But to proceed, it was in the 19th century that honest thinkers like Carlyle, Goethe and Gibbon perceived intrinsic worth in the religion of Muhammad, and thus there was some change for the better in the European attitude towards Islam. But the Europe of the present century is far advanced. It is beginning to be enamoured of the creed of Muhammad.

Thanks for re-posting this part - the operative words here are 'honest thinkers' - and what their conclusions were. Some others still harboured the earlier views - and that is my point - you are stuck with the quaint medieval view of Islam that some (not all) started realising was wrong a few centuries ago.

Shaw makes the point that these people rejected the Orientalist past (because it was wrong) and uncovered that there is much intrinsic worth in Islam. That was the 19th century. Shaw said that as the 20th century is more advanced, the old misinformation is accepted by fewer people and Europe was starting to accept Islam much more ('it is beginning to be enamoured' of Islam)

What the views of the Catholic-raised Hitler was of Islam is neither here nor there - and raising his views shows that you can't actually address the facts in what Shaw and others have said (i.e. that your views are Orientalist and were being rejected as far back as the 19th century)

Cheers,
Shafique

Uh huh.

I'll put as much stock into Shaw's views on Islam as I will on his views on eugenics and his belief that the state has the right to get rid of 'undesirables' through sterilization programs.

To me, that only sounds fair.

I think your tactics of relying on quotes from historical figures (if they say or write something favorable about Islam but ignoring historical figures if they speak the truth of Islam and its prophet) speaks volumes.

Perhaps this is a tactic of desperation - when the evidence is shown that Muhammad supported ethnic cleansing or the early Muslims were war criminals, you must quote what some dude thinks.

As if that changes the facts that Muhammad was a warlord or the early Muslims waged offensive wars of aggression and carried out numerous war crimes.

But hey, why let facts get in the way of a good quote?

Ahh, thanks for clarifying.

You can't actually address the accurate points made by Shaw which expose that your beliefs belong to pre-19th Century orientalism - so you'd rather talk about Hitler etc. Repeating the Orientalist line just reinforces this point.

Fair enough - you could have just said that you want to keep to your pre-19th Century 'European' views about Islam.

But to proceed, it was in the 19th century that honest thinkers like Carlyle, Goethe and Gibbon perceived intrinsic worth in the religion of Muhammad, and thus there was some change for the better in the European attitude towards Islam. But the Europe of the present century is far advanced. It is beginning to be enamoured of the creed of Muhammad.

It must be quite galling that you have to refer back to pre-19th century interpretations of Islam to justify your views.

Which raised the interesting question - back then, there was no doubt that the Jews were responsible for the killing of Jesus - as this is explicit in the NT. And back then, it was a given that slavery was condoned by the Bible and that women shouldn't be given the right to vote (or divorce, or inheritance). Do you also subscribe to these 18th century quaint beliefs too?

It appears that you've also lapsed into your bad habits of not actually reading what is posted (including what you yourself paste) again.

Cheers,
Shafique

You can't actually address the accurate points made by Shaw which expose that your beliefs belong to pre-19th Century orientalism - so you'd rather talk about Hitler etc. Repeating the Orientalist line just reinforces this point.

It's difficult to comprehend that you have the brain power to turn your computer on.

It must be quite galling that you have to refer back to pre-19th century interpretations of Islam to justify your views.

That Muhammad advocated ethnic cleansing? I have the hadiths to prove it. Do you want them posted again?

Which raised the interesting question - back then, there was no doubt that the Jews were responsible for the killing of Jesus - as this is explicit in the NT. And back then, it was a given that slavery was condoned by the Bible and that women shouldn't be given the right to vote (or divorce, or inheritance). Do you also subscribe to these 18th century quaint beliefs too?

Yup - good thing for the West that they actually abolished slavery. Islam, on other hand, was still busy indulging in the horrible practice 14 centuries after Muhammad enslaved hundreds of women and children.

Not only did the West abolish the Western slave trade, but they also abolished the slave trade and slavery in the Muslim world (in addition to curbing the practice of polygamy in Arab countries). I can understand if Muslims still have a bee in their bonnet over the abolition of these practices despite the fact allah and his messenger sanctioned such reactionary behavior.

Re-iterating the 18th century views about Islam is just a long way of saying that you are content to live in the past.

Fair enough. Let me now see what you have to say about other 18th century beliefs (in the other thread)

Cheers,
Shafique