This is a serious charge. The quotation from Some Dude you provided in making this charge was "...a person making a claim about another religion that is demonstratively a problem for their own religion..." which is a sentence fragment that I admit doesn't seem like an outright lie to me, nor indeed can I discern a clear factual claim in the fragment. So I'm asking for your help with this, Gomtuu77.

John, are you still accusing Darren of deliberate falsehood? We deal in disagreements regularly here, so I am trying to work out whether Some Dude made a demonstrably false claim that he demonstrably knew was untrue, or whether he instead merely made a claim that is inconsistent with your interpretation of the available facts, while believing it to be true himself.

So that I can understand your allegation more clearly and then make a decision as to whether Some Dude's status as a moderator here should be revoked, please do me a favor and identify his specific alleged falsehood, with a brief and straightforward argument indicating that he knew that his claim was indeed factually untrue. I should think it would be possible to do this in just a few sentences. I thank you in advance for your assistance in ensuring that our moderators' conduct is consistent with my goals for this site.

What, exactly, was Some Dude's lie?

Gom, this is important. Please don't let this topic escape your notice.

This post did not escape my attention. I simply chose not to respond to it, as I’d hope that you’d come to your senses and take it down before I was forced to leave a response. If anyone should be questioned in such a public way, it is Some Dude. But I should have known that this would be the follow-up, were there to be any at all. I say, it is a fact that Darren aka Some Dude lied in a discussion he and I had regarding the basis for and therefore nature of the violence we see within Islam versus Judaism and especially Christianity.

What is the essential argument?

It is illegitimate to group Judaism and Christianity together with Islam on the basis of violence.

This is not because you cannot find violence within the bodies of both religion’s (i.e. Judaism & Christianity) professing believers.

It is illegitimate to group Judaism and Christianity together with Islam on the basis of violence because the nature of the violence itself is both qualitatively and quantitatively different from the violence we find within Islam. The following is explicitly, not rationalization, it is factual explanation as to the reasons for necessary distinctions which make Islam markedly different from Judaism, Christianity, and indeed all other religions that I am explicitly aware of.

Qualitative – involving distinctions based on qualities; an inherent or distinguishing characteristic; a property.

Quantitative – involving or relating to considerations of amount or size; measurable or comparable by amount or time.

Muslim violence and/or Jihad (i.e. Holy War) is derived from a multiplicity of places and/or authorities within broader Islam, which is precisely why it is such an intractable and inescapable doctrine of Islam. I cannot and will not cover all of them, but I will mention the most important and bedrock sources that cannot be excised from the religion itself without essentially gutting it and making it nothing more than an arbitrary exercise.

Within an Islamic framework, the world is divided into two pieces or halves. One is called Dar-al-Islam (The House of Islam). The second is called Dar-al-Harb (The House of War). This is so, in part, because the goal of Islam is to bring all the Earth under submission to Allah. Indeed, the word Islam means “acceptance of and submission to Allah (i.e. God)”, and Muslim means “one who submits to Allah (i.e. God)”. In homage to our recent discussion of means & ends, there are several currently, historically, and theologically accepted means by which Muslims are commanded and allowed to achieve Islam’s desired end (i.e. to bring all the Earth under submission to Allah). Among the commanded and acceptable means are conversion (unforced & forced), migration (emigration & immigration), and war or conquest (individual or corporate Jihad or Holy War). These are aided and/or controlled by lesser doctrines or beliefs drawn primarily from the Qur’an & Hadith (i.e. doctrine of abrogation [added authority by linear chronology], taquiyya [allowable lying], no compulsion in religion [within stages of Jihad], and 3 stages of Jihad [weakness, preparing, fighting]).

And the point is that Muslim violence is absolutely unique in that it is a direct outgrowth of the commands contained within the Qur’an and the authoritative traditions of the prophet contained within the Hadith, particularly the most widely used and authoritative Hadith by Muhammad ibn Ismail al-Bukhari. By this, I mean that the theology and doctrine derived from the Qur’an, the Hadith, and the example of the prophet Muhammad’s own life are the prescriptive basis of Muslim violence throughout Islam’s history and all the way to the present.

This is in distinct contrast to either Judaism or Christianity. Within Judaism, you have limited examples of violence within the context of a theocracy (i.e. direct rule of God), which no longer exists, on specific and limited sets of people who no longer exist, and at a specific point in time thousands of years ago. This limited example of violence was not understood to be prescriptive into the future, nor was it understood to apply to any people other than those indicated by God at the time. It never developed into or became part of a Jewish theology of violence, in stark contrast to Islam, which does possess a long history and theology of violence. Were Jews ever violent, they must be violent without any prescriptive command from their God or religion to do so.

The situation is even worse with regard to Christianity, as Christians were more often known as pacifists within the Roman Empire for the first 300 to 400 years of their existence. There are absolutely no substantial examples of prescriptive violence within the New Testament scriptures, and those contained within the Old Testament have always been understood within their Jewish context, and have therefore, never been considered prescriptive for Christians. In addition, there are all kinds of non-violent examples and prescriptive commands within the Christian scriptures that are binding upon Christians today. Loving and praying for your enemies. Being nice or heaping coals (i.e. eliciting guilt through kindness) when you are mistreated or persecuted also comes to mind. The example of Jesus’ sacrifice is likely another. Jesus Christ, who could have simply wiped mankind from the face of the earth, allowed himself to be betrayed, beaten, and nailed to a cross so that those same people and all who come after them might have an opportunity to be reconciled to their Creator. In short, there is absolutely no theology violence, no behavior driven by a doctrine of violence, no founding example upon which to legitimately base prescriptive violence, and no history of such, driven by those things already mentioned. This is not a denial of violence on the part of those who profess Christianity. Where Christians have been violent, they have had to violate or act in a contrary fashion to the theology, doctrines, and founding example of their religion.

This is distinctly untrue with regard to Islam. There is nothing inherently inconsistent with violence in the name of Islam, as can be seen within Islamic theology & doctrine, as well as the example of the Prophet Muhammad himself. Not only that, but within Islamic theology, the peaceful passages within the Qur’an are also considered the least authoritative, as that which happened later in the Prophet’s life is considered the most authoritative and worthy of mimicry.

This overall explanation is not the rationalizing of violence in any sense. These are real and factual differences between the three religions, irrespective of what anyone thinks about Judaism, Christianity, or Islam.

To lump the three together as doing the same thing, “rationalizing violence” and having the same problem (i.e. actual prescriptive violence) is simply to deceive or lie. It matters not whether one believes or disbelieves any or all of the religions mentioned, as their efficacy is irrelevant to the facts regarding the nature of violence within the three religions.


I submit that this more full quotation is a lie. For what relevance, in our current context, are mere violent acts that do not turn out to be prescriptive through time, large-scale in comparison, long-lasting in comparison, and of current concern today in comparison ... none driven by or derived from a developed theology & doctrine of violence based on the prescriptive commands of sacred texts and the example of the religions' founders, which are still binding to this day?

The irony of this lie is that the only one who is truly rationalizing is Darren aka Some Dude. Whatever it takes, he intends to make a connection, however false and spurious, between the violence or rationalization of violence by Islam with that contained within Judaism and Christianity. He cannot and will not entertain the fact that the violence within Islam is different in its very nature, and is therefore, singled out for concern amongst all the world's religions. He is essentially unwilling to entertain a genuine discussion of Islam, as it relates to violence, unless he can simultaneously accuse and therefore undermine the reputations and sully the names of Judaism and Christianity at the same time. I submit that this is deeply dishonest, an example of bigotry, and a supremely ironic example of the very thing he was attempting to show (i.e. rationalizations).

Rationalize – To devise self-satisfying but incorrect reasons for (one's behavior) [i.e. hatred and/or disdain for religion, Christianity most specifically]

Based on the facts of the matter, my explanation of the differences and distinctions between the violence contained within Judaism and Christianity versus that of Islam does not fit the above definition.

The mere fact that I’ve had to go through this long explanation is another example of uneven treatment. The discussion I had with Some Dude was of sufficient length and detail for any fair-minded observer to understand that he was refusing to make fully appropriate distinctions simply so that he could lump the three religions together and collectively undermine their credibility for his own purposes. I say this with all deference to your position and power, as creator/chief moderator and sustainer of this site, but shame on you [spblat] for making a further spectacle of this fiasco of a discussion between myself and Some Dude. I have not and do not request any disciplinary action be taken against him. The only thing that I would have liked to see happen, which cannot happen now, is that true statements such as the declaration of “liar” be allowed to stand unchallenged when they are appropriately made.

I do not and will not make it a habit of calling people liars, but then I rarely find that people are purposely lying throughout a discussion. On the rare occasion when such a thing occurs, I reserve the right to point it out. And in the aforementioned discussion, Some Dude was simply lying. In other words, his contention was, factually speaking, not the case.

You may consider this as both my attempt at a resolution to my apparently controversial choice of words, as well as a series of suggestions as to how one might go about improving the site. That is, if one is interested in having opposing viewpoints present to a substantial degree. I will not be repeating these suggestions later if you or anyone else has chosen to ignore them, nor will I be making them more specific than they have already been made.

In His Grip,

christian_concern@yahoo.com

"Fiasco" may be a strong word, but we agree that the discussion between you and Some Dude failed, even if we do not agree about the reason(s). This surprises neither of us I am sure, and I do not feel shameful for examining your charge of "liar."

I understand, but I am not comfortable with the idea of a liar representing this site as a moderator. I wanted to examine your charge and give you an opportunity to explicitly substantiate it, rather than simply ignoring it.

You want to call someone a liar on the basis of your interpretation of the available facts, and you want your declaration to "stand unchallenged" simply because you think your argument is sound? I'm sorry, but you ask far too much. Any declaration here can be challenged by anyone, at any time, for any reason, so long as the challenge is in accordance with our rules. No one person's convictions--no matter how passionately they are held--are contemplated by those rules.

And I explicitly affirm that right, if and only if you affirm my right (and that of everyone else) to argue that you are mistaken.

I am not persuaded that he made a false claim that he knew was untrue; I believe the two of you simply disagree on this matter.


I didn't see a "series of suggestions"; I saw one, namely "The only thing that I would have liked to see happen, which cannot happen now, is that true statements such as the declaration of 'liar' be allowed to stand unchallenged when they are appropriately made." I respectfully decline. Let's talk about what's "true."

Pardon me. You want me to prevent others (or myself) from challenging you when you call someone a liar, and you think this will improve the climate for opposing viewpoints to be aired? I must have misunderstood you, because I cannot see the sense of such an approach.

Your suggestion has been noted and rejected, not ignored. Additional suggestions from you and the rest of our membership are welcome.

I was just currious if Dude still believes that Christianity and Judaism are the same as Islam when it comes to their respective teaching on war and violence.

If he did, would this mean that he is a liar? Or would it mean that you and Dude disagree on this opinion/belief/view?

Even if he were to concede that you have accurately summarized his position (which I doubt), I suspect no minds were changed as a result of this exchange.

My position hasn't changed from what has been discussed over the last twelve months, but I also would not sign onto the statement that you made there. I have very explicitly stated that I believe Christianity, to it's credit, left a lot of ugly baggage behind, at least in name anyway. But unless you reject the OT and the God portrayed in that, then you're simply being a hypocrite when you point to others doing the same and pretend that you're doing something different.

Gomtuu77 has given his argument, and now Some Dude has given a concise counterargument.

I now ask that everyone use one of the threads linked from the post above (or start a new one) to continue the discussion if you want to talk about whether Some Dude or Gom is right about this issue.

I'm offering Gom the final word if he would like it. I plan to lock this thread on Sunday.

That's to be expected.

In His Grip,

christian_concern@yahoo.com