Rational passion and passionate reason
who is chatting on SOLO ChatThe Free RadicalPopular contentWho's onlineThere are currently 6 users and 16 guests online.
PollWhat should the government do about ailing financial institutions? Nothing, except to back off and get out—as any Objectivist knows, intervention is treating the disease with the disease 85% Intervene judiciously—enough to avert a catastrophe that is otherwise imminent 3% Intervene massively—as it's doing 2% Nationalize the whole economy and be done with it. Bring on the USSA! 2% Something else (specify) 8% Total votes: 59
 Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell
 Economics In One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt
|
Islam Submitted by NickOtani on Sat, 2007-07-28 17:56.
When many non-Muslim Americans think of Islam, they envision angry mobsters burning American and Israeli flags. They may think of an old and angry looking Ayatollah, sitting on a Persian rug, resisting pleas from Americans to free American hostages. They may think of women being forced, by men, to wear clothing which covers their bodies, including heads and faces, and not being allowed to go to school or vote or even walk outside the home without being accompanied by a man. Certainly, they think of terrorists flying airplanes into buildings or strapping bombs onto themselves to blow-up themselves and innocent people to protest against Americans and those America supports, like Israelis. However, Islam is more than this. Muslims are adapting to a variety of different cultures. They are not all the simplistic stereo-types shown on the media, in headlines. Some Muslim women are going to school, voting, and even serving in political offices. Yes, some wear head scarves, as a personal choice, and some do not. Some wear western dress. Many Muslims disagree with Osama bin Laden. Many do not like the Taliban. Many are as unlike the terrorists in the headlines as any typical American. To be a Muslim, one must accept the Five Pillars of Islam: One must make a declaration of faith, that there is no god but God [Allah] and Muhammad is the messenger of God. One must engage in prayer five times daily: at daybreak, noon, mid-afternoon, sunset, and evening. One must engage in “purification” rituals, which consists of giving to the poor. One must fast during the month of Ramadan, and one must, when one can, make a pilgrimage, or hajj, to Mecca. Sometimes referred to as a sixth pillar, although it has no official status, is the jihad, the struggle to be a good Muslim, to be virtuous, to defend Islam. Some people consider the later to be “holy war,” and extremists such as bin Laden have used it for their own purposes. Prior to Islam, in 7th century Arabia, People roamed in tribes and families. Religions like Christianity, Judaism, and Zoroastrianism were represented, and so were polytheistic pagan religions. The tribes would often fight among each other to take what they could and survive by being most fit. Mecca was a commercial center, as it is now, and tribes would often stop there to trade goods, to the extent that private property and fair trade was respected. The most powerful tribe in Mecca, in the late sixth and early seventh century, was the Quraysh. In 570 C.E., Muhammad was born into this tribe. His parents died when he was still very young, so his uncle, Abu Talib, a respected member of this tribe, raised Muhammad. A woman named Khadija, a widow who was 15 years older than Muhammad, (He was 25, and she was 40.) approached him, married him, and hired him to manage her caravans. He became known for his honesty and contemplative nature, and he would often retreat to a hilltop to reflect on the meaning of life. On one such night, in 610 C.E., he heard a voice commanding him to recite, and, as Muhammad reported, it turned out to be the voice of the Angel Gabriel revealing to him, Muhammad, what would latter be collected and complied into the Quran, basically a correction of what had been corrupted over time from the prophesy which was in the New Testament in the Bible. Much of Muhammad’s message was unwelcomed by tribal leaders and the business community. He denounced the status quo and called for social justice for the poor and for women and children. He was, like prophets before him, persecuted by those who had different religious views. In 622 C.E., Muhammad and 200 of his followers emigrated to the town of Medina, approximately 250 miles away from Mecca. Here, they set up a community where the call for prayer, five times a day, went out over the roof-tops. It was the first Islamic community-state, even though non-Muslims also lived there. There were conflicts with the Meccans. They fought wars with each other, and, ultimately, Muhammad and his force at Medina, although overcoming greater odds, won. This established Muhammad as a great leader, and his influence spread. His followers grew. One problem, however, was that some Jews at Medina did not accept Muhammad as a Prophet. They made a deal with the Meccans to attack, in the Battle of the Ditch, from the rear. After the Medina victory, Muhammad had all the male Jews killed. He saw them as traitors and treated them in the customary way traitors in those times were treated. However, many people today, including Osama bin Laden, cite this as support for anti-Semitism. Later, when Muhammad and his followers subdued Mecca and consolidated his rule over Arabia, he was magnanimous in his victory. He allowed pagans and non-Muslims to co-exist with Muslims, but most would freely convert to Islam. The pagan idols were destroyed. Muhammad died in 632 C.E.. The decision about his successor split the Muslims into two camps. The majority thought the successor to Muhammad should be the most qualified person. They chose, as caliph, Abu Bakr, and they became the Sunni Muslims. The minority thought the successor should be hereditary within the Prophet’s family and that Ali, Muhammad’s first cousin, should be the leader, the imam. They became the Shiis, or “Party of Ali.” Ali was passed over for the position of caliph three times but finally got the position after 35 years, but he was assassinated a few years later. His son, Hussein, and a small band of followers revolted but were massacred by Caliph Yazid, a Sunni. This event is reenacted each year in a passion play, and it brings tears to the eyes of grown men sympathetic to the Shiis. There is lots of emotion in the Muslim community. For the Sunnis, Islam experienced a golden age. It spread from North Africa to South Asia. It continued to expand, as a religion and a political power, from the 8th to the 12th centuries. While Greek and European civilizations were going trough a dark ages, the Muslim world flourished. The built elaborate mosques with intricate architecture, and they made contributions to philosophy and science. Much of what we have from Greece’s golden age, the age of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle was preserved and restored by the Muslims. However, the Christian Crusades massacred Muslims in Jerusalem. When the Muslims took over, they were much less cruel. Later, when the Muslims left Spain, their wonderful buildings were either destroyed or taken over by Christians. Today, Muslims are dealing with images of the Taliban and Osama bin Laden, of profiling, and of discriminatory laws. In France, a country with a large Muslim population, a law was passed forbidding women from wearing scarves in classrooms, but they made no such law forbidding Jews or Christians from wearing their religious trappings. Is this fair? In Spain, there are still public celebrations of the expulsion of Muslims when Ferdinand and Isabella took over. This has got to be offensive to Muslims. Muslims have lots of challenges in getting along in cultures around the world. They are doing so. There are Muslims who are traditional, and there are Muslims who are secular, who think Islam should be personal and not political. The Five Pillars of Islam are still followed by all Muslims (They were not followed initially by the Black Muslims of Elija Muhammad, in the 60s.), but Muslims are finding ways to fit into cultures. Islam is the third largest religion in America, behind Christianity and Judaism, and it is the second largest religion in Europe. It is growing. bis bald,
|
To Lindsey, Matt, and Richard;
To Lindsey,
It's a bit presumptuous to walk into someone's house and demand that everyone inside sit up straight and listen, isn't it? And dismiss them as "shallow" when they don't?
First, I’m not really demanding anyone to do anything. This is a false accusation. Second, yes, I’m calling people shallow, which is a pretty shallow criticism compared to the flames thrown at me, even by a host who tells me that most of my post is silly and then walks away. I could be less honest and not share my good faith evaluation of the depth of people on this forum, but that would be in violation of the guidelines.
You complain that I personally put in a dismissive cameo appearance on your threads occasionally and then leave. I'd only deal to your errors at length if I saw someone else here getting flummoxed by them. Thus far there's been no evidence of that.
Yes, it is hard for people to get flummoxed by my views if all they do is ignore them or sidestep them. Of course they won’t get flummoxed by “errors” since I don’t have any. You assert that I do but don’t support your assertion with reason and logic. You make a passing reference to “errors” and then rationalize not dealing with them. I’m honestly not impressed with the depth of such a response.
To Matt,
I disagree with a lot of your opinions and I think most of your posts on this thread at least exhibit intellectual laziness…
Oh, I’m lazy? You are the one complaining about the length of my posts.
Loneliness is a curse and I wouldn't wish it upon anyone. It's apparent to me (and looking at the last thread in your alice aeries I'm not the only one whose picked up on this) that you have somewhat of a personality complex and I'm guessing that often isolates you somewhat, even outside of the internet.
I am a loner, but I’m not lonely. I’m pretty happy with the way I am. I keep myself isolated by choice. I have more freedom that way.
As far as your literary challenge is concerned, you're on. Find me some impartial judges and I think I could write a far more enjoyable piece of satire.
Find your own impartial judges, and I’ll contribute my work. Remember, satire is not just judged on how enjoyable it is. The Alice series also accurately and concisely describes complex philosophical issues and different philosophies. It takes some training in philosophy to do this well. If you had such training, I’m certain you would appreciate the Alice series much more than you do.
To Richard,
I don't know who Franklin Graham is or if he is open to reason.
Gee, if you don’t know who Franklin Graham is, you cannot be much of an authority on contemporary Christianity. It is irresponsible and less than reasonable to claim, as you did, “Christianity is open to reason.”
You tend to think anyone who disagrees with you about Islam is unreasonable, superficial, deceitful, militant, evil, and worthy of killing.
Nope, I do not tend to think any of those things just because someone disagrees with me. Is the above said in a quest for the truth?
I may have exaggerated a little. It’s hyperbole. However, I did disagree with you only a little, and you accused me of appeasement and most of all those other things I mentioned above, as if I am somehow worse than Osama.
Ayn Rand was certainly a woman of reason I'd have thought.
Was it reasonable for her to have an extra-marital affair with Nathaniel Brandon? Was it reasonable for her to think women are not cut out to be leaders of men? Was it reasonable for her to say homosexuals are immoral? Was it reasonable for her to condemn all non-Objectivists as evaders of the truth and thus immoral?
But you still haven't answered Duncan. You've responded, but certainly not with an adequate answer.
Duncan asked me on what grounds I based my claim that the authorities I cited spoke for mainstream Islam. The authorities I cited, themselves, had made visits to Iran and other Muslim countries and reported on their observations. These observations are also confirmed in news reports which say most Muslims are tired of their poverty and want modernization and better relations with the United States. This is the grounds upon which I base my view that my authorities speak for mainstream Islam and that Osama doesn’t. I said all this about three or four times in this thread, yet you guys still maintain I did not answer that question.
Osama focuses on the more aggressive passages and gives them his own spin, a spin not shared by all Muslims, perhaps not even average Muslims.
Again, you haven't shown this, you've merely stated it. What exactly is the "own spin" that he puts on it? How about showing us these passages that Osama works from, before and after "the spin"? If he is taking Islam and then twisting it to suit his own antisemitic agenda, then it should be fairly easily shown.
I did explain this in my initial post in this thread. I shouldn’t have to show that Osama’s views are not those of the average Muslim since you agree to this yourself, in your own words, “Because there is a distinction. Not all Muslims are part of the Mujahideen like Osama is. That's a simple undeniable fact.”
I pointed out in my initial post how Osama used Mohammed’s killing of Jews in Medina as justification for anti-Semitism. Other Muslims reject this interpretation. They point out that even after that battle in Medina, Muslims lived in harmony with Jews and Christians. The peaceful passages in the Qur’an were not abrogated.
But what they tell you there is contrary to the facts. The spread of Islam after Muhammads death was swift and brutal. There was no "living in harmony", there was a vicious imposition of the Dhimmi system wherever Islam conquered. Also, you say they use Muhammads killing of Jews as justification for their own killing, as if that is some bastardisation.
It is not contrary to the facts that when the Muslims took over Jerusalem, long after the death of Muhammad, they lived in harmony with Jews and Christians, the people of the book, until the Crusades attacked and brutalized the Muslims.
However, Islam considers Muhammad to be the moral exemplar for all of mankind to emulate. They emulate Muhammad because Islam teaches them that they should emulate Muhammad. It is why, when the Aytollah took power, one of the first things he did was legalise marriage and sex with young girls, from as young as 6. He was following the example of the prophet, the model for the perfect man.
This is all a different issue. I do not approve of everything in the Qur’an, and I made this clear several times. We were talking about initiating war against other countries of religions. You are changing the subject, an evasion tactic.
Osama is sitting back in his cave laughing at you, Richard. He doesn’t have to do anything, yet he has you spooked. Basically, he accomplished his task with 9/11. He got our attention. He knows he is important to us. His life matters. He won.
You know, I really think he has affected you more than he's affected me. I don't give Osama too much thought really. I'm more concerned with the wider Jihad, its nature, what motivates it, and the best way to combat it. You're the one who seems shit scared of the scum. So shit scared that you even fear other people calling them scum or even just saying things that Muslim might find offensive. Don't call them scum, don't say anything "offensive". Jjust pretend they don't exist, or who knows what might they might do.
No, I don’t care what you call extremists like Osama. I think these Islamists, the fundamentalists who want Islamic government and condemn everyone who doesn’t agree with them are as bad as Nazies. They are scum. I’m not afraid of calling them such. I do not, however, want to condemn all Muslims for the beliefs and actions of some. I think there are good and bad people in all religions, and it is not good to judge people by their religions alone. It is just as bad as putting all Japanese people in relocation centers or dropping bombs on crowded mosques. Now, I know you will deny having such views when I directly accuse you of having them, but you arguing with me just for arguing against them. I do think, regardless of your protestations, you think the vast majority of Muslims are terrorists, and that’s just bigotry.
(Nick)Abrogation actually weakens these texts. If God can change his mind, or if his messenger can be wrong about a prior revelation, then one cannot be certain now about the truth of God’s so-called word.
That's not what the Islamic doctrine of abrogation is. Allah didn't get it wrong, nor did his messenger. Things evolved over time, and that's where abrogation kicks in. When a later verse contradicts an earlier verse, it's the later verse that has authority. Abrogation strengthens the militant texts. It doesn't weaken them. It's your own reasoning here that is weakening them, in your mind and your mind alone, and that's very unIslamic of you.
Good, I don’t clam to be Islamic. And, if I can weaken these texts with my own mind, then so can Muslim
Mind, then so can anyone else. The idea is to convince them with persuasion, not bombs.
Bis bald,
Nick
reply
People here are not
People here are not interested in knowledge or learning.
Really? It seemed to me as though you're not interested in explaining your opinions, or even defining them clearly. Any time you're willing to answer my questions, let me know ...
---
Buy and wear InfidelGear - 100% of all InfidelGear profit goes to SOLO!
Now they are answered
(Nick)The questions were in response to your statement that Christianity is more reasonable than Islam. You said, “Christianity is open to reason. Islam isn't.” I said, “This is debatable. There are as many different kinds of Christianity as there are Christians, it seems. Is Franklin Graham open to reason?
To answer your questions:
I don't know who Franklin Graham is or if he is open to reason.
Are you?
Is that a serious question?
You tend to think anyone who disagrees with you about Islam is unreasonable, superficial, deceitful, militant, evil, and worthy of killing.
Nope, I do not tend to think any of those things just because someone disagrees with me. Is the above said in a quest for the truth?
Most reasonable people are not that narrow.
Who is reasonable? Ayn Rand?...”
Ayn Rand was certainly a woman of reason I'd have thought.
My questions went unanswered,
Now they are answered.
yet nobody came onto the forum to accuse you of evading and dodging and being dishonest.
There wasn't much there to dodge and evade, but whatever, they are now answered.
They did with me, even after I answered Duncan.
But you still haven't answered Duncan. You've responded, but certainly not with an adequate answer.
(Nick)All Muslims speak from the mainstream texts of Islam.
No, not all Muslims speak from the mainstream texts of Islam. There are some minority sects who shun traditional mainstream Islam.
Osama focuses on the more aggressive passages and gives them his own spin, a spin not shared by all Muslims, perhaps not even average Muslims.
Again, you haven't shown this, you've merely stated it. What exactly is the "own spin" that he puts on it? How about showing us these passages that Osama works from, before and after "the spin"? If he is taking Islam and then twisting it to suit his own antisemitic agenda, then it should be fairly easily shown.
You distinguish, yourself, between Osama and average Muslims.
Because there is a distinction. Not all Muslims are part of the Mujahideen like Osama is. That's a simple undeniable fact. It's also a fact that that distinction means little to nothing at all. Whether a Muslim has gone off to fight with the Mujahideen or not tells you nothing about whether that muslim supports the supremacy of Islam, but that is something that you fail to acknowledge.
I pointed out in my initial post how Osama used Mohammed’s killing of Jews in Medina as justification for anti-Semitism. Other Muslims reject this interpretation. They point out that even after that battle in Medina, Muslims lived in harmony with Jews and Christians. The peaceful passages in the Qur’an were not abrogated.
But what they tell you there is contrary to the facts. The spread of Islam after Muhammads death was swift and brutal. There was no "living in harmony", there was a vicious imposition of the Dhimmi system wherever Islam conquered. Also, you say they use Muhammads killing of Jews as justification for their own killing, as if that is some bastardisation. However, Islam considers Muhammad to be the moral exemplar for all of mankind to emulate. They emulate Muhammad because Islam teaches them that they should emulate Muhammad. It is why, when the Aytollah took power, one of the first things he did was legalise marriage and sex with young girls, from as young as 6. He was following the example of the prophet, the model for the perfect man.
((Nick)You are hysterically paranoid, Richard. You give these guys more power than they would normally have. You are the one who is dangerous.
Was I dangerous to the schoolgirls who were beheaded by Jihadists as they walked to school in Indonesia? Was I dangerous to the people going about their daily business in the twin towers as Jihadists destroyed their lives? Was I dangerous to the people in the nightclub in Bali that was blown to smithereens, along with the body parts of the people in it? Am I dangerous to the people who are outraged that the instigators of the Bali bombing were recently partying with the police chief in charge of cracking down on Islamic terrorism? Would you like to tell the outraged family members of the victims of that bombing that they are paranoid and hysterical? Now I'll bite my tongue, as much as that is hard to do.
A voodoo practitioner need only convince his or her targeted victims that he or she has power over them. They will start to feel the ailments the voodoo practitioner says they will feel. If they are ignored, however, they will be powerless.
Kumbaya gobbledy gook.
Osama is sitting back in his cave laughing at you, Richard. He doesn’t have to do anything, yet he has you spooked. Basically, he accomplished his task with 9/11. He got our attention. He knows he is important to us. His life matters. He won.
You know, I really think he has affected you more than he's affected me. I don't give Osama too much thought really. I'm more concerned with the wider Jihad, its nature, what motivates it, and the best way to combat it. You're the one who seems shit scared of the scum. So shit scared that you even fear other people calling them scum or even just saying things that Muslim might find offensive. Don't call them scum, don't say anything "offensive". Jjust pretend they don't exist, or who knows what might they might do.
(Nick)Abrogation actually weakens these texts. If God can change his mind, or if his messenger can be wrong about a prior revelation, then one cannot be certain now about the truth of God’s so-called word.
That's not what the Islamic doctrine of abrogation is. Allah didn't get it wrong, nor did his messenger. Things evolved over time, and that's where abrogation kicks in. When a later verse contradicts an earlier verse, it's the later verse that has authority. Abrogation strengthens the militant texts. It doesn't weaken them. It's your own reasoning here that is weakening them, in your mind and your mind alone, and that's very unIslamic of you.
Not being snide, promise.
I'm really not. If you got your Alice series or any other kind of article published or got a scholarship from some kind of institution that sympathizes with you or at least found value in your work I would be happy for you. I disagree with a lot of your opinions and I think most of your posts on this thread at least exhibit intellectual laziness but I would like it if you found some kind of circle you were welcome in. Loneliness is a curse and I wouldn't wish it upon anyone. It's apparent to me (and looking at the last thread in your alice aeries I'm not the only one whose picked up on this) that you have somewhat of a personality complex and I'm guessing that often isolates you somewhat, even outside of the internet. I would be happy for you if you found a group of people who sympathies with you and your approach to reasoning and debate. I would be happy If NickOtani's Neo Objectivism (please consider abbreviating this) gained a following and you found more people to talk to, who enjoyed your philosophy. I take no delight in your apparent loneliness because quite frankly I'm not a sadist. If my well wishes seem snide (and I pointed out that they weren't because I realize they may sound sarcastic and perhaps venomous in writing) it's because I'm honest and while I would like you to find people who take to your writings and your outlook I'm not going to pretend to be such a person.
As far as your literary challenge is concerned, you're on. Find me some impartial judges and I think I could write a far more enjoyable piece of satire.
Nick
It's a bit presumptuous to walk into someone's house and demand that everyone inside sit up straight and listen, isn't it? And dismiss them as "shallow" when they don't?
You complain that I personally put in a dismissive cameo appearance on your threads occasionally and then leave. I'd only deal to your errors at length if I saw someone else here getting flummoxed by them. Thus far there's been no evidence of that.
Yes, you are being snide
But I don't care. As you say, yourself, your opinion doesn't mean anything really. I do have lots of material which I plan on publishing someday. I am working on it. I have posted the Alice series on boards other than just this one and my own. I have received feedback from people whose opinions I value. I also value my own opinion, as a philosophy and English major.
Believe it or not, not many people are familiar enough with Objectivism to have knowledgable opinions on it, even when Rand's books are all over the philosophy shelves in bookstores, even when teenagers read Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, and Anthem; they don't really know or care that much about the theory of knowledge. They may talk about egoism and capitalism and atheism, but epistemology is a little too philosophical for them. They can't relate to it. If they are well versed on Objectivism, they aren't well versed on Existentialism and some of the other philosophies about which I write and with which I compare and contrast Objectivism. People would rather rant about Muslims and Osama and stuff.
I came here because I wanted to go into the belly of the beast, to face people who disagree with me and debate with them. Good criticism helps shape my views and strengthen them. It is cowardly to avoid contact with those who disagree with me, but it is also cowardly when people avoid contact with me, when people bann me from messageboards or hide behind insults and flames rather than debate me. Objectivists are supposed to value reason and logic, but there is very little of that on Objectivist boards.
I made some points in my Alice series, and I will keep refering to them as I respond to other posts and as I continue to post here. You may not appreciate what I have to offer, but neither does my pet hamster. It doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile. I'd like to see you write something comparable or better than the Alice series.
bis bald,
Nick
Well then...
“It takes talent to write something like this Alice series.”
Having read part one I'm inclined to disagree. However, I'm just one guy, doesn't mean anything really. You seem pretty certain of its value so get it published. Seriously, go ahead. The world isn't run by Objectivists (far from it) so go to some journal or something more sympathetic to your message and get your series published. It's easy to claim it's not getting attention because of philosophical differences when you're just posting it on SOLO and your own message board. I don't think that is the reason but you'll always have that excuse to hide behind. Having the opinion that your own work is clever, and shows talent is great. A sense of self worth if definitely the 1st step and a very important one. But there does come a point where endorsement from someone else is necessary to prove your worth. Self confidence isn't everything. So get it published. I hope you do. I would be happy for you. Honestly, I'm not being snide.
Indifference
First, I don't think I was evasive. I answered the question, even though I was pretty indifferent to it. You guys just didn't see or didn't want to see the answer. And I'm pretty indifferent to that too. If you guys want to accuse me of being evasive, even after I answer your damn questions, I can accuse you of being evasive for not even dealing with mine.
Second,I don't mind indifference. I don't read lots of stuff on other forums on this site. Some people might like paradies of familiar literature, and some don't. However, couched as such, it is easy for some people to read. It takes talent to write something like this Alice series. It is wasted on most people on this forum who wouldn't appreciate it. I doubt most people on this forum even read Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead. They have too many pages.
If people don't like the mixing in of philosophy with a piece of well known literature, they can also respond to expository pieces like my post on why philosophies have to be integrated. That post was not seriously dealt with. I also wrote about perception, logic, language. I also wrote about a theory of value. These were traditional essays which got little or no serious response, perhaps just a few flames.
One person tried debating with me for awhile but then flamed me with a Black Knight parady he didn't even write himself.
Even your leader, Lindsey, comes by once in awhile and says something dismissive and then leaves. Nobody here is really interested in defending Objectivism from someone who knows as much about it as they and has made solid points which have gone unrefuted. They would rather be like the frog in part one of the Alice series, and settle for what they already know.
People here are not interested in knowledge or learning. They just want to play personality games and be witty and such. They are shallow.
bis bald,
Nick
On Alice...
Nick, I started reading but I was so scared that something in there might contradict my beliefs that I peed myself, ran to the corner of my room, curled up in a ball and cried for several hours...
Is that the picture you get when thinking about the lack of responses to your series? Have you ever thought that maybe people aren't afraid; they just can't be bothered with 50 pages of dreary self indulgence? Have you ever considered that maybe a lot of people have read part one and have just been completely uninspired?
You started a topic and have been dodging questions in a debate you initiated, that's evasive. You posted a 50 page 'parody' of a children’s book and people here haven't been reading it or joining this little role playing game you were hoping to start, that's not evasive. Thats indifference.
Okay, I'll "badger you"
(Nick)I also asked Richard some questions in a post lower in this thread, but he's not answering them. Nobody is going to jump in and tell him to stop evading me if I badger him
(Richard)I didn't see those questions, Nick, so feel free to repeat them. I won't evade them.
(Nick)The questions were in response to your statement that Christianity is more reasonable than Islam. You said, “Christianity is open to reason. Islam isn't.” I said, “This is debatable. There are as many different kinds of Christianity as there are Christians, it seems. Is Franklin Graham open to reason? Are you? You tend to think anyone who disagrees with you about Islam is unreasonable, superficial, deceitful, militant, evil, and worthy of killing. Most reasonable people are not that narrow.
Who is reasonable? Ayn Rand?...” My questions went unanswered, yet nobody came onto the forum to accuse you of evading and dodging and being dishonest. They did with me, even after I answered Duncan. What you guys consider true is whatever you insist is true, whether it is true or not.
(Nick)Notice that above, Richard said, “Osama Bin Laden does speak from mainstream Islam” Now, he says, “No one has used Osama as the voice of all Muslims.”
(Richard)And no one has that I'm aware of. When I say he "speaks from mainstream Islam", I'm saying that he speaks from the mainstream texts of Islam, being the Qur'an and Sunnah.
(Nick)All Muslims speak from the mainstream texts of Islam. Osama focuses on the more aggressive passages and gives them his own spin, a spin not shared by all Muslims, perhaps not even average Muslims. You distinguish, yourself, between Osama and average Muslims. I pointed out in my initial post how Osama used Mohammed’s killing of Jews in Medina as justification for anti-Semitism. Other Muslims reject this interpretation. They point out that even after that battle in Medina, Muslims lived in harmony with Jews and Christians. The peaceful passages in the Qur’an were not abrogated.
(Nick)There may be a slight difference in speaking for mainstream Islam and being the voice of all Muslims, but this sounds like a contradiction. If someone speaks for mainstream Islam, then he should be the voice for all Muslims.
(Richard)Only to the degree that they (your use of the term "mainstream Islam") accept him as their voice. There is no central authority in Islam. There is no Pope. The people who piously immerse themselves and preach well are the ones who become Imams and Clerics. the Ayatollah Khomeini was one who rose to the top. He was more learned in Islam than you. He lived and breathed Islam through and through, and knew the Qur'an back to front and inside and out, and he commanded, and still does after his death, a huge following. Osama Bin Laden is just one more among many who are doing what they do because they have devoted themselves to the Qur'an and Sunnah. Islamic history is full of Ayatollahs and Bin Ladens. It is just history repeating itself and it is a product of mainstream Islam.
(Nick)Billy and Franklin Graham piously immerse themselves and preach well about their version of Christianity. They have huge followings. People flock to their sermons like fans of Rock Stars. Yet, more reasonable Christians are not so exclusivist. They refrain from condemning to Hell all those who don’t agree with them. They don’t claim to speak for God. They don’t call Islam an evil religion. They don’t blame their infirmities on sin rather than bad health practices. Osama bin Laden and the Ayatollah Khomeini got lots of publicity. They are interesting. The more typical Muslim, just as the more normal Christian, is not so news worthy.
(Nick)Richard is, in effect, saying mainstream Muslims, for whom Osama speaks, are the extremists like Osama.
(Richard)If Osama speaks from mainstream Islam, then he certainly is speaking for each and every muslim, regardless of how they see him. He's pointing out their religion to them. Here, though, it's probably unhelpful to stay stuck on the picture of "extremists like him". What is an "extremist" like him? Someone who blows people up like him? Who plots to kill infidels? You don't need to be like Osama Bin Laden to be on his team. You can simply be an ordinary everyday muslims who gets up, goes to work, comes home in the evening to his family, as he smiles and waves to Nick, his neighbour across the fence, yet dreams of the day that Sharia comes to his corner of the world and is happy in the modest, oh so much more enlightened than OBL, approach that he takes. In the end he turns out to be more dangerous than OBL, and he has Nick covering his tracks.
(Nick)You are hysterically paranoid, Richard. You give these guys more power than they would normally have. You are the one who is dangerous. A voodoo practitioner need only convince his or her targeted victims that he or she has power over them. They will start to feel the ailments the voodoo practitioner says they will feel. If they are ignored, however, they will be powerless. Osama is sitting back in his cave laughing at you, Richard. He doesn’t have to do anything, yet he has you spooked. Basically, he accomplished his task with 9/11. He got our attention. He knows he is important to us. His life matters. He won.
Now, I don’t advocate that we sit by and be passive, like the Jews in Germany before WWII. It’s okay to be vigilant and prepared. We should also use good judgment. We should have kept our sights on Osama and not gone into Iraq. We should not go off half-cocked and think all Muslims, even the militant ones, are a threat to everything American. We should not drop bombs on crowded mosques, as Biddle recommends. We should oppose all that. We should not let Osama drag us down to his level.
(Nick)This contradicts my initial post, where I pointed out how Osama misinterprets certain passages. Nobody seems to be paying attention to that.
(Richard)You haven't actually pointed out how he misinterprets anything. You've shunned any real analysis of the Qur'an and Hadith. You can't even bring yourself to acknowledge the Islamic doctrine of Abrogation that Tatiana points out in her excellent post. People have certainly paid attention, Nick, have no fear of that.
(Nick)Abrogation actually weakens these texts. If God can change his mind, or if his messenger can be wrong about a prior revelation, then one cannot be certain now about the truth of God’s so-called word. Long after Mohammed was gone, Muslims lived in harmony with Christians and Jews until the Crusades. They focused on the peaceful passages of the Qur’an, the negative golden rule and the prohibition against war except in self-defense. They still had things in the Qur’an I would find objectionable, like husbands being able to beat wives for not having sex with them. They had antiquated passages about homosexuality. But there are things I find objectionable also in the Bible.
BTW, I came here initially to talk about Objectivism. I posted a fifty page series which brought up issues about Objectivism. Objectivists here are not responding to that. In fact, they are being down right evasive. What good will Objectivism be against radical Islam when it can't even deal with NickOtani'sNeo-Objectivism?
bis bald,
Nick
I put forth all that in
I put forth all that in order to be able to respond with incredulity at your remark that OBL is "more reasoning" than your ordinary Muslim.
I was loose with my terminology. I certainly didn't mean that he's more rational.
There's nothing reasonable about it other than that he possesses the capacity to reason, to put forth argument, etc., and to misuse (well, abuse) reason in the attempt to make his arguments look plausible to the marginally skeptical as well as gullible.
Plausible to the marginally skeptical and gullible? He's talking to the faithfull, from the Qur'an and Sunnah. He's not trying to trick anybody, but rather laying it on the line in absolute black and white.
Osama is being more consistent and radical, alright, but it's a radicalism of unreason. The result is his being a profoundly evil man, and saying that this is "reasonable" destroys any reocognizable meaning of reasonableness.
What I was saying is that he takes his religion seriously. He delves deeper than the average follower, and takes the ideas and doctrines seriously.
Now, the ordinary Muslim is probably in the same camp as your ordinary Christian, though perhaps set back several hundred years and mired in a more firmly medieval mindset.
That is an assumption you are making.
For the most part, though, they aren't devoting their energies to (a) rigor in thought or (b) going out and aggressively advancing their ideology as they best understand how to do so. OBL is rigorous in his thought process, just rigorous in erecting a consistently evil worldview, and is most aggressive in advancing it. Your ordinary believer, though, is more or less tacking on their ill-thought-out worldview onto just going about their daily business. That makes them compartmentalized, perhaps even disintegrated (both intellectually and how they tie their worldview to their daily business), but they've got enough conscience and common sense about them that gets in the way of accepting radical ideas.
Again, that is an assumption you are making. You probably would have classed NZ's muslim Mp in the category above, until you saw him being interviewed where he let slip that he supports Sharia and the stoning to death of criminals and homosexuals - he had to, because to say otherwise was against his religion. He did have the common sense to not let it known under normal circumstances - when he's not being pushed into a corner - though.
That's not good in and of itself (because it means aversion to Objectivism) but it does mean that they aren't going to easily accept the idea of going out and killing infidels.
If their heads were being filled with Objectivism, then they wouldn't accept it at all, but their heads are not. They're being filled with Islam, and as you can tell from the lack of outcry over the global Jihad, they do accept it.
And what I am saying, in short, is that Islam is only the symptom. The problem is unreason.
I fully understand that, but it's unreasonable to expect victory over Islam through victory over unreason. Victory over unreason is a long term goal that will never happen in our lifetimes, if it ever happens, but victory over Islam is a short term goal.
The sharia'ers can be marginalized in time, if we were to adopt and effectively communicate the right intellectual means of doing so to the more reasonable of Islamic scholars.
I prefer the idea of isolating it then letting it self-destruct in it's own stinking mess.
Dr.Wafa Sultan
Her TV interview
Wow!
Dr.Wafa Sultan
Leonid
I suggest that everybody on this thread will learn about the nature of Islam from the person who was a Muslim for 30 years.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7SD4UCTb-E&mode=related&search=
Go ahead, "badger me"
I also asked Richard some questions in a post lower in this thread, but he's not answering them. Nobody is going to jump in and tell him to stop evading me if I badger him
I didn't see those questions, Nick, so feel free to repeat them. I won't evade them.
Notice that above, Richard said, “Osama Bin Laden does speak from mainstream Islam” Now, he says, “No one has used Osama as the voice of all Muslims.”
And no one has that I'm aware of. When I say he "speaks from mainstream Islam", I'm saying that he speaks from the mainstream texts of Islam, being the Qur'an and Sunnah.
There may be a slight difference in speaking for mainstream Islam and being the voice of all Muslims, but this sounds like a contradiction. If someone speaks for mainstream Islam, then he should be the voice for all Muslims.
Only to the degree that they (your use of the term "mainstream Islam") accept him as their voice. There is no central authority in Islam. There is no Pope. The people who piously immerse themselves and preach well are the ones who become Imams and Clerics. the Ayatollah Khomeini was one who rose to the top. He was more learned in Islam than you. He lived and breathed Islam through and through, and knew the Qur'an back to front and inside and out, and he commanded, and still does after his death, a huge following. Osama Bin Laden is just one more among many who are doing what they do because they have devoted themselves to the Qur'an and Sunnah. Islamic history is full of Ayatollahs and Bin Ladens. It is just history repeating itself and it is a product of mainstream Islam.
Richard is, in effect, saying mainstream Muslims, for whom Osama speaks, are the extremists like Osama.
If Osama speaks from mainstream Islam, then he certainly is speaking for each and every muslim, regardless of how they see him. He's pointing out their religion to them. Here, though, it's probably unhelpful to stay stuck on the picture of "extremists like him". What is an "extremist" like him? Someone who blows people up like him? Who plots to kill infidels? You don't need to be like Osama Bin Laden to be on his team. You can simply be an ordinary everyday muslims who gets up, goes to work, comes home in the evening to his family, as he smiles and waves to Nick, his neighbour across the fence, yet dreams of the day that Sharia comes to his corner of the world and is happy in the modest, oh so much more enlightened than OBL, approach that he takes. In the end he turns out to be more dangerous than OBL, and he has Nick covering his tracks.
This contradicts my initial post, where I pointed out how Osama misinterprets certain passages. Nobody seems to be paying attention to that.
You haven't actually pointed out how he misinterprets anything. You've shunned any real analysis of the Qur'an and Hadith. You can't even bring yourself to acknowledge the Islamic doctrine of Abrogation that Tatiana points out in her excellent post. People have certainly paid attention, Nick, have no fear of that.
Reason vs. "reason"
Richard, you touch upon a crucial, essential, and fundamental point, and I don't think you see the implications because you're putting forward a point that is definitely not the way Objectivism understands ideas:
No. The doctrine is what it is. It is not a malleable anything-you-want-it-to-be, it is specific and particular and demands specific conditions for its followers. You could actually say that Osama Bin Laden is more reasoning than many of the lazier faithful, and it is because he reasons more, from the false premises he accepts, that he is deadlier to Infidels.
Peikoff back in his Understanding Objectivism (1983) course laid out the rationalist-empiricist-objective trichotomy, with special focus on the rationalism part. Rationalism is all about emphasizing consistency and system, but it, shall we say, removed from common sense. Rationalism further has tendencies toward the intrinsicist corner of the intrisic-subjective-objective trichotomy, with the obvious signals to hardcore religious devotion. And finally, he has been developing his disintegration-integration-misintegration (DIM) idea to further explain a division in the way people approach ideas. OBL is clearly, radically, in the M camp: he has a fully consistent, unfailingly adhered-to ideology, that is just not a rational integration of worldly sense-data. It is integrated but misintegrated.
I put forth all that in order to be able to respond with incredulity at your remark that OBL is "more reasoning" than your ordinary Muslim. Stripped of appropriate intellectual context, the claim just doesn't make sense. In the proper context, it is downright false. You judge an OBL not just on the ideas he promulgates (some of which do qualify as what Peikoff termed inherently dishonest -- that infidels must be killed, for example) and how he advances them (on the basis of revelation), but on how he implements those ideas into action. There's nothing reasonable about it other than that he possesses the capacity to reason, to put forth argument, etc., and to misuse (well, abuse) reason in the attempt to make his arguments look plausible to the marginally skeptical as well as gullible. Osama is being more consistent and radical, alright, but it's a radicalism of unreason. The result is his being a profoundly evil man, and saying that this is "reasonable" destroys any reocognizable meaning of reasonableness.
Now, the ordinary Muslim is probably in the same camp as your ordinary Christian, though perhaps set back several hundred years and mired in a more firmly medieval mindset. For the most part, though, they aren't devoting their energies to (a) rigor in thought or (b) going out and aggressively advancing their ideology as they best understand how to do so. OBL is rigorous in his thought process, just rigorous in erecting a consistently evil worldview, and is most aggressive in advancing it. Your ordinary believer, though, is more or less tacking on their ill-thought-out worldview onto just going about their daily business. That makes them compartmentalized, perhaps even disintegrated (both intellectually and how they tie their worldview to their daily business), but they've got enough conscience and common sense about them that gets in the way of accepting radical ideas. That's not good in and of itself (because it means aversion to Objectivism) but it does mean that they aren't going to easily accept the idea of going out and killing infidels. In that compartmentalzed regard, they are being more reasonable in a rather commonly used sense of the word. They're being, while pragmatic, also practical enough that their ordinary daily business and conscience takes higher priority. And that's why you see so many believers wiggling their way out of interpreting nasty texts in the deadly way. But back then, when the Biblical texts were written -- by non-Muslims, mind you -- they advised putting non-violent sinners to death. So, by your claim, are these ordinary Christians being "reasonable" by rejecting the more obvious interpretations of the texts?
These issues have to be hashed out before there is much more to say on the matter. You say later on:
Chris, you keep saying that "fundamentally the problem is", but you never actually say who's problem. It's their problem, not mine. We all have to live by our own choices and decisions, so ignore reality at your peril. If you are talking about "our problem", the problem of the rational, then most immediately it is Islam, not religous faith. Islam is on the unrelenting march. The reason Sharia arises in those societies, is because of devotion to Islam.
And what I am saying, in short, is that Islam is only the symptom. The problem is unreason. Islam, and sharia that dominates the Islamic world socially, is just the form in which this unreason takes. And it's more deadly than what we find in the west, because that world is mired more fundamentally in unreason. So you are right, empirically and pragmatically speaking, that Islam is the primary deadly enemy that the civilized world is confronting right now, and for the moment we are left having to deal with the threat through force. But that is not going to eradicate the problem long-term, and we are not going to have the wherewithal to deal with the problem long-term without identifying the root of the problem.
To analogize: Islam is just the trunk and branches that are pushing up against and through our windows. You'll find that the roots, however, are spread far and wide enough to be right under the foundation of our own house, and it pushes a cracking force on that foundation. Long-term, there is an enemy within our own culture that we have to confront, in order to confront and lessen this outside threat. The sharia'ers can be marginalized in time, if we were to adopt and effectively communicate the right intellectual means of doing so to the more reasonable of Islamic scholars. The solution doesn't involve telling them how much better Christianity is (the Right's proposal), or by promoting to them some rationalistic, disintegrated bastardization of reason (the academic Left's proposal; witness Columbia U.). It means leading by example and weeding out (uprooting) the unreason within our own culture.
(And no, voting Dem-scum in the next election isn't a fix. Voting isn't a fix, period.
)
Christianity
The simple fact is, Christianity is not out to impose Sharia on you and chop your head off if you refuse. You can shout jesus h fucking christ without having to look over your shoulder to see if you're going to lose your head. So please, don't tell me that Christianity is just as deadly to me. It isn't.
In history, Christianity has been deadly. The Crusades killed Christians as well as non-Christians. The Spanish Inquisition killed anyone it wanted to, and it only offically ended in the early 19th century. There are still flare-ups between the Catholics and Prostatants in Ireland. People were being killed in that conflict while I was living in Germany, 12 years ago.
Today, Christianity in the United States is secular. There is seperation between church and state. Some extremists kill gays and discriminate against women and non-Christians. However, they are not as bad as extremist Muslims. (Notice I said "extremist" Muslims, not reasonable and mainstream Muslims who oppose extremists like Osama.)It's wrong to think good Muslims are the Osama type Muslims.
bis bald,
Nick
Fine, consider the conversation closed
I think, in good faith, I answered your question. You don't. I don't care.
I never said the answer was in my Alice series. My Alice series raises questions about Objectivism with which Objectivists here don't want to deal. At least I tried to deal with your questions. You just aren't satisfied, and you got friends on the board who will jump in and support you, accuse me of being evasive, and threaten to kick me off the board.
I also asked Richard some questions in a post lower in this thread, but he's not answering them. Nobody is going to jump in and tell him to stop evading me if I badger him.
It is not necessary that we agree with each other. I have my views, and you have yours. I am being called evil and dishonest because of my views and threatened to be kicked off the board. I think this just confirms my view that you guys are bigots.
bis bald,
Nick
While reading the Alice
While reading the Alice series I came across this post by Luke:
Guess I should have listened
Anyhow, I've read - or at least skimmed through - all ten Alice posts. And I'll be damned if I can find one that even begins to address my question to you regarding mainstream Islam.
So, how about this: you can either answer me directly on this thread, or not. If not, that's fine, & we can both consider the conversation closed. If so, we can continue discussing the issue which is - as far as I can tell - whether the moderate clerics you cited represent mainstream Islam, or not.
---
Buy and wear InfidelGear - 100% of all InfidelGear profit goes to SOLO!
Chris
My question then here is whether the problem is with the doctrine or with how its adherents arrived at that doctrine.
How they arrived at that doctrine is not our problem, it's theirs. It's not their method, that gets us, it's the end result of their ideology that gets us. You are correct in saying that religious faith is a problem, but it is a broader problem than Islam, and tryinjg to undercut Islam by undercutting religious faith just ain't gonna work. YOu'll be blown up before you even get off the starting block.
It's a question because (a) there are people that are probably not so unreasoning, and they arrive at an interpretation of the dotrine that's not so deadly, and
No. The doctrine is what it is. It is not a malleable anything-you-want-it-to-be, it is specific and particular and demands specific conditions for its followers. You could actually say that Osama Bin Laden is more reasoning than many of the lazier faithful, and it is because he reasons more, from the false premises he accepts, that he is deadlier to Infidels. However, if he was wending his way through tarot cards, something that must be taken on religious faith, and he was taking it as zealously as he now takes Islam, he would not be deadly to any infidel.
(b) there are other doctrines out there, e.g., Christianity, that are also grounded in unreason and somehow aren't producing the killers and evil systems of law like sharia. Is that because Christianity, unlike Islam, is just not so evil?
Yes, it is.
If that's the case, you have a curious disconnect of a new sort: between a methodology of unreason on the one hand, and the substantive doctrine on the other. I submit that Objectivism rejects such a disconnect at the root.
I'm not really sure what you're driving at there.
If there is a disconnect, it lies somewhere else: in the contradictory premises and compartmentalized behavior of those who came to accept whatever doctrine through religious faith. Because of the very high likelihood of contradictions, ambiguties and so forth in the religious texts that define both Christianity and Islam,
But they are not that contradictory and unclear and vague. Sure, there are disagreements, but there is also major consensus on some very fundamental things.
I submit that you can't really come up with phrases like "more consistent practitioners of [Christianity, Islam, etc.] and thereby declare that Osama bin Laden is just "a more consistent practitioner of Islam" than your ordinary peaceful Muslim on the street.
But of course you can, because Islam is specific and particular and pretty much clear cut.
From what limited exposure I've had to the debates amongst the scholars of the Koran about what it "really" says and advises, it looks like more or less a dead end, intellectually and interpretatively. And it's beside the point. The point isn't engaging in likely-fruitless inquiry into what "Islam really says," but in locating the problem in the fact that there are people who more consistently integrate unreason into their beliefs and behaviors than others.
No. Like I said, that's for another time, another context. Islam won't be beaten by beating religous faith. You can't beat religous faith, because people have free-will and you can't force peoples choices. There will always be those who choose to evade reality. The tarot card readers I can live with, even debate with, but the Jihadists, violent and non-violent, who are working to impose Sharia, I cannot tolerate. They are a different deadlier breed than tarot card readers.
So you take your Osama bin Laden and claim that he's just a more faithful, devoted and consistent follower of Islam than other Muslims. The claim really doesn't mean much to me. The claim that is more interesting and true is that he is a more faithful, devoted and consistent practitioner of unreason than other folks who profess the Muslim faith.
He may be less of a devotee to unreason than some guy shuffling down the street, muttering gibberish to himself while occasionally shouting out that everyones going to burn in hell, but who will never ever actually harm a soul. Osama is not more devoted to unreason, he is more devoted to Islam, and that is what makes him more dangerous, because Islam commands him to impose Sharia upon the world as it commands every m uslim to.
So the problem is only superficially "Islam"; in terms of fundamentality the problem is unreason. It's just that the societies run under sharia these days are more consistently devoted to unreason.
Chris, you keep saying that "fundamentally the problem is", but you never actually say who's problem. It's their problem, not mine. We all have to live by our own choices and decisions, so ignore reality at your peril. If you are talking about "our problem", the problem of the rational, then most immediately it is Islam, not religous faith. Islam is on the unrelenting march. The reason Sharia arises in those societies, is because of devotion to Islam.
In terms of this greater fundamentality, Christianity is just as deadly and just as much a threat as Islam, in the sesnse that both are aligned on one central point: that knowledge comes through some form of unreason.
The simple fact is, Christianity is not out to impose Sharia on you and chop your head off if you refuse. You can shout jesus h fucking christ without having to look over your shoulder to see if you're going to lose your head. So please, don't tell me that Christianity is just as deadly to me. It isn't.
Allegory isn't easily searchable
Jesus Christ Nick, stop being so petulant. I meant what I said.
I have in fact had a quick look through the Alice posts for any mention of Islam - and found none. This isn't particularly surprising since they're all allegorical, but it'll take me a while to skim-read them to find out which in particular actually pertains to our discussion.
Huh. "If you don't understand, I can't explain it to you?" That rings a bell ...
---
Buy and wear InfidelGear - 100% of all InfidelGear profit goes to SOLO!
Good faith
Right - I'll go and read the Alice series, & get back to you.
No you won't. You're being sarcastic. Even if you did, I can't answer your questions any more than I already have. There is no reason for you to wade through fifty pages divided into ten seperate posts. Nobody else cares, and I'm not really badgering them. You get to evade if you want. I can't threaten to kick you off the board.
bis bald,
Nick
Right - I'll go and read the
Right - I'll go and read the Alice series, & get back to you.
---
Buy and wear InfidelGear - 100% of all InfidelGear profit goes to SOLO!
Mainstream
I don't think Osama interprets the Qur'an accurately, and he does not have the respect of mainstream Muslims. And, if you don't like my views, who gives a shit.
I've been very honest on this board. You guys are going to accuse me of being dishonest and kick me off the board. There's nothing I can do about it. I think it's probably going to be your way of getting rid of me, and I don't think that's going to be very honest.
Nick
I provided evidence
Given that I never made that claim, Nick, I don't see how you could be upset with me for failing to substantiate it?
If you are not claiming that Osama speaks for mainstream Islam, then you shouldn’t be arguing with me. It is all I’m saying.
My point however still stands: you're claiming that the moderate clerics you cited (or clerics like them) speak for mainstream Islam, without producing any evidence.
I said that the clerics and scholars I cited were more reasonable than the extremists like Osama. They endorse the negative golden rule, part of Islamic text, which is also consistent with respect for natural rights for all humans. This is more than just my personal view. It's even an Objectivist standard. And, according to credible news sources and the sources I cited who visited Iran, most Iranians are not happy with their president and want better relations with the U.S. This is part of the evidence which you say I haven’t produced.
If you've provided that evidence in previous posts, you could link them. If there are studies or polls supporting your assertion, you could link to them, too. But instead, you go on the offensive and calling me names.
I’ve already linked you to sources which have visited Iran. Like some annoying little kid, you keep saying I haven’t answered your question. When I do, you say you aren’t interested in my personal view. You ignore the thing about Muslims wanting better relations with the U.S.
What question of yours must I answer, before you'll answer mine? I ask that seriously, as I'd like to hear your answer, so I'm prepared to work for it.
I want you to read my Alice series and deliberate on the jury. Get your friends to join you. I’m still waiting for a verdict and an explanation. It’s kind’a like waiting on the Spector trial. However, I think I’ve answered you as best I can. I can’t give you more, even if you do work for it.
Bis bald,
Nick
Mainstream
I think when Richard say's mainstream he's talking about the mainstream interpretation of the basic texts of the Qur'an which lend themselves to the war against infidels that Osama perpetrates
When Duncan asks you to prove these clerics represent mainstream Islam I think he's asking you to demonstrate they have popular support among Muslims.
You have not demonstrated popular support, therefore you have not proven these clerics do represent mainstream Muslims, therefore you have not answered Duncan's questions.
Let me break it down this way seeing as you love to compare Muslims to Christians so much: Fred Phelps represents mainstream Christianity in the sense that he's very true to the original texts of the old testament however he does not represent mainstream Christianity because most Christians selectively reject a lot of the writings in the Bible.
Osama represents the mainstream interpretation of the Qur'an as it's meaning is pretty fucking clear but he probably doesn't represent mainstream Muslims as most Muslims evidently reject him as an individual.
The clerics don't represent the mainstream interpretation of the Qur'an as it's meaning is pretty fucking clear. Weather they represent the majority of Muslims has yet to be proven, or even really argued properly, by you.
As far as your Alice series goes, who gives a shit? We only have a right to discuss a thread you started if we discuss every single other thread you’ve started? It’s a 10 part series; it’s supremely arrogant to act as if we’re obligated to read all of that.
Just answer Duncan’s question will you?
You're treading a fine line, Otani.
You're evading and diverting. It's as clear as day.
From the guidelines for posters: "When posting, remember the “Three Gs”—good faith, good will and good humour. If the second two are rendered impossible, the first is still a minimum requirement."
If you keep posting in bad faith, you're going to lose your soap-box.
Now answer the questions.
This is where I posted links
This is where I posted links to Muslim clerics and scholars who condemn Osama and emphasize the peaceful side of Islam. It wasn’t good enough for Duncan. He asked on what grounds I based my assertion these clerics and scholars speak for mainstream Islam. I got impatient with him because he did not demonstrate to me that Osama speaks for mainstream Islam.
Given that I never made that claim, Nick, I don't see how you could be upset with me for failing to substantiate it?
My point however still stands: you're claiming that the moderate clerics you cited (or clerics like them) speak for mainstream Islam, without producing any evidence.
If you've provided that evidence in previous posts, you could link them. If there are studies or polls supporting your assertion, you could link to them, too. But instead, you go on the offensive and calling me names.
What question of yours must I answer, before you'll answer mine? I ask that seriously, as I'd like to hear your answer, so I'm prepared to work for it.
---
Buy and wear InfidelGear - 100% of all InfidelGear profit goes to SOLO!
Duncan said: Okay, back on
Duncan said:
Okay, back on track then: if I understand you correctly, it is your argument that Islam does not contain an unambiguous call to physical war (as opposed to the idea of an 'internal jihad', or personal struggle) for its adherents.
In fact that's simply wrong - as Bin Laden himself explains. Note that this letter from Bin Laden was written in Arabic for Islamic audiences, and so is quite different in both tone and content to those letters he directs to the West:
Fighting in Allah’s path is an act of worship, and it is based on sacrifice of selves. Muslim blood is spilled and poured to protect the religion which only reached us after his (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) cusped tooth was broken, his head cut open and his noble face bloodied and after the blood of best of people like Mus’ab, Zaid and Ja’far (with who Allah was pleased) was poured out. This is the path so follow it. The people have forgotten the path of victory, they think it comes easily or without blood running. Where is the Jihad of the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him?
Perhaps you should ask yourself, Nick - why is Bin Laden sending two different messages? One message to the West (to paraphrase: get out of the Middle East & we'll leave you alone), and another to Muslims (to paraphrase: kill the Infidels like good Muslims should)?
I said, “Bin Laden does not speak for mainstream Islam.’
“Please read the article for which I provided a link a few posts ago. Read also my initial post in this thread and my post on Osama bin Laden.”
Duncan said, “Okay - I'll play along. Which Muslim clerics do speak for mainstream Islam?”
Richard said, “Osama Bin Laden does speak from mainstream Islam - mainstream Islam being the Islamic texts of all the mainstream schools of Islamic Jurisprudence. Each and every one of them teaches that it is the muslims duty to practice offensive Jihad against the Infidel. This is not open for debate. It's a matter of fact. Refer to Andrew G.Bostom's book "The Legacy of Jihad" in which he examines the texts themselves, many of them previously untranslated for Infidel ears.’
“I don't know what Nick means by "mainstream Islam", but it certainly isn't a reference to mainstream Islamic law. Osama Bin Laden knows more about it than Nick.”
I said that these guys were bigots. “I'm sure the more reasonable and intelligent posters on this board will see how over the top it is to use Osama as the voice of all Muslims. I don't believe even you guys are that stupid. You are just trying to get a rise out of me and keep something going. You'd rather do that than say something that matters.”
Richard said, “No one has used Osama as the voice of all muslims. Osama is but one muslim living in accordance with the texts and tenets of mainstream Islam.’
Notice that above, Richard said, “Osama Bin Laden does speak from mainstream Islam” Now, he says, “No one has used Osama as the voice of all Muslims.” There may be a slight difference in speaking for mainstream Islam and being the voice of all Muslims, but this sounds like a contradiction. If someone speaks for mainstream Islam, then he should be the voice for all Muslims. Richard is, in effect, saying mainstream Muslims, for whom Osama speaks, are the extremists like Osama. This contradicts my initial post, where I pointed out how Osama misinterprets certain passages. Nobody seems to be paying attention to that.
Anyway, Duncan also got mad at me for saying he said that Osama is the voice of all Muslims. He said, “Nick, you're putting words in my mouth. Please stop that - or post a link showing I'm wrong, and that that's what I said.’
“Failing that, could you please answer my question: which Muslim clerics do you think speak for mainstream Islam? Not a difficult question to answer, I'd have thought.”
This is where I posted links to Muslim clerics and scholars who condemn Osama and emphasize the peaceful side of Islam. It wasn’t good enough for Duncan. He asked on what grounds I based my assertion these clerics and scholars speak for mainstream Islam. I got impatient with him because he did not demonstrate to me that Osama speaks for mainstream Islam. Still, I explained how the clerics and scholars I cited were more reasonable than the extremists. Duncan and Richard and you said you weren’t interested in my personal view of what was more reasonable but what had more popular support. I referred to mainstream news reports saying even most Muslims in Iran were unhappy with their president and wanted better relations with the United States. However, you guys still accused me of evading your question.
If I don’t think your question needs further attention, I should have a right to think so. You guys have not answered the many issues I raised in my Alice series or responded to my many essays in the dissent forum. Lindsey comes by and says a few things, calls me silly, and then moves on. I should have the right to do the same thing to you guys. I think you all are being silly. Why should I dance for you when you won’t don’t answer any of my questions? I am not your personal slave.
Go bother someone else now.
Bis bald,
Nick
How about discussing the issue at hand?
Nick,
I refuse to let you get a rise out of me by telling me to go screw myself, as I suspect you're trying to turn this discussion into a name-calling exercise so the original points get lost in the flames.
Instead, I'll summarise the discussion so far, so you can see why I'm keen to continue communicating with you (assuming you can quit insulting me):
So, that's where we're at. We're still waiting for your explanation of where you think the clerics you cited fit into the bigger picture - while they're certainly to be praised for their stand, are they representative of majority of Muslims, or are they an anomaly?
I am trying to come to an understanding of your argument, and in particular, your reasons for citing those clerics. I think you are implying that they are representative of mainstream Islam, but I'm not sure. And if you are, I'd be quite keen to hear your reasoning.
---
Buy and wear InfidelGear - 100% of all InfidelGear profit goes to SOLO!
Correct me if I'm wrong
But I believe we were arguing that mainstream Islam condoned violence. You're twisting our words. We have masses of people rioting in the streets and you have a few individual clerics and scholars. You have done nothing to show they represent mainstream Islam. You've just said you find them rational which amounts to nothing. You've given no proof of popular support for these people. We have repeatedly pointed this out to you and you have done nothing but repeat yourself, adding nothing to your original, flawed argument.
Well
I'm not really anxious to communicate with you, but I did link you to clerics and scholars who disagree with Osama and told you why I think they represent mainstream thought in any religion. Of course you won't be satisfied with anything I have to say. So, go screw yourself. You have not convinced me that Osama represnts mainstream Islam. He is the very best example of the extreme, not mainstream. I think its kind'a silly for me to be seriously trying to prove this to you. Even this much response to you is more than you deserve.
Nick
me too...
Emphasis on the why.
I guess you just don't want
I guess you just don't want to communicate with me.
I do - I'm still waiting for you to tell me which Muslim clerics you think represent mainstream Islam, & why ...
---
Buy and wear InfidelGear - 100% of all InfidelGear profit goes to SOLO!
Women in the Bible
Were the followers of Yahweh afraid that Asherah and her consort, Baal, might one day rise again? Did they purposely try to keep women down?
We started out thinking of earth and nature as feminine. We refer to Mother Earth and Mother Nature, those from whom life springs. Women have always been necessary, but men were the protectors and hunters. They were also always necessary.
Why is there not an equality? The Bible identifies God as male, makes Adam first and Eve from Adam, and portrays Eve as tempting Adam, causing him to fall from grace. Women throughout history have been discriminated against because of this story. They have been blamed for being a bad influence on Adam and thus causing all mankind to be cast from paradise.
Women are seen as property in the ten commandments. Wives are not to be coveted, just as oxen and other possessions are not to be coveted. There are also stories of the evil Jezibel and the evil Delilah. The barrenness of a woman is seen as her fault. Extending the line of the male is more important than the dignity of women. There were cleansing rituals required of women after menstration and childbirth.
Certainly Jesus interviened in the stoning of an adulteress. It was one of the few things he did which I respect. However, were unfaithful males also stoned at that time?
Paul said terrible things about women. He said that women should learn in silence with all submissiveness. He permitted no woman to teach or have authority over men.
Witches have been burned. Justification for cruelity toward women has been found in the Bible. It's also used to keep women from being Priests in the Catholic Church. Why do women continue to put up with this?
Yet this is how it was almost throughout recorded history, even before the New Testament. From liturature long ago, like "Antigone" by Sophocles, we see how the male King resents being opposed by a woman. He seals his sister in a cave just for disobeying him. Pericles maintained the importance of men being in the leadership positions. Plato was an exception, he actually didn't mind women as rulers if they met the qualifications, but most others thought this was a nutty part of his views. Aristotle, after Plato, went back to prescribing men as leaders, not women.
Dr. Rosemary Radford Reuther, Georgia Harkness Professor of Applied Theology at Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary and Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, says the following about the image of God in the Judeo-Christian tradition:
The problem of the male image of God cannot be treated as trival or an accidental question of linguistics. It must be understood first of all as an ideological bias that reflects the sociology of patriarchal societies; that is, those societies; dominated by male, property-holding heads of families. Although not all patriarchal societies have male monotheistic religions, in those patriarchal societies which have this view of God, the God-image serves as the central reinforcement of the structure of patriachalrule. The subordinate status of women in the social and legal order is reflected in the subordinate status of women in the cultures. The single male God is seen not only as creator and lawgiver of this secondary status of women. This very structure of sprituality in relation to this God
enforces her secondary status.
Are Women equal to Men or secondary, according to Paul?
In Galations 3:28, Paul sates, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise."
However, in 1 Corinthians, starting at 3 and going on to for awhile, at least to 17, Paul clearly reafirms a patriarchal order:
But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God...For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. (For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.)
Isn't this a little like saying woman is lacking a direct relationship to God except secondarily, through the mediator of male? How do women take that?
bis bald,
Nick
You are really scraping the barrel now
As much as I detest all religion, Christianity does not threaten my life if I draw pictures of Jesus with a towel wrapped around his halo.
And if there was such a thing as radical Christians who decided to put out a death warrant for someone who criticises or draws cartoons of Jesus, methinks the majority of Christians would be screaming excommunication from the highest steeples.
If I ever decided to attend worship in a church, I could sit anywhere I wanted to. I would not be SEGREGATED and made to stay at home to pray to the vacuum cleaner because I was not a man.
Furthermore. If you are a Catholic and decide to change religion, other Catholics might pray for you. If you are a Muslim, then you are an Apostate and other Muslims will kill you. Go read the Qu'ran and find out for yourself how Apostates are treated.
How you can find anything positive to say about Islam is beyond all comprehension. As a woman I find it particularly offensive that you do. Just as I would if I were a gay and you were praising the Catholic church for example. And just as I find Helen Clark the lowest form of life in her of all people celebrating Ramadam at Parliament House.
Geesh, I should bend over now, I feel a Press Release trying to come forth.
Silly me
The rest of your post is just silly.
I'm sorry you think so. I was sincerely trying to connect with you. I guess you just don't want to communicate with me. Oh well.
bis bald,
Nick
I agree that Islam is
I agree that Islam is oppressive to women, perhaps more so than Christianity, but Christianity is also oppressive to women.
bis bald,
Nick
Face The Truth And Stare It Down
Colossal and Premeditated Abuse of Women in America by Muslims
By Cassandra (USA)
Author of Escape! From An Arab Marriage:
Horror Stories of Women Who Fled From Abusive Muslim Husbands
(Cassandra - is an American Woman Who Was Married To an Islamic Man & Lived in the Middle East)
The practices of degradation, exploitation, humiliation, subjugation, and physical abuse of women by Muslim men have been, and still are, time-honored traditions since the 7th century.
Muslims’ abominable treatment of the fairer sex was established by Muhammad and copied by his Beduoin Arab followers. They swept across Arabia and into neighboring countries, butchering the male inhabitants, looting and stealing their belongings, and taking their women and children captive to be raped, sodomized, forced into slavery, and shipped off on in droves to the harems and households of the wealthy men of the day.
Muhammad based his “right” to the above behavior on conveniently timed justifications which he passed off as “revelations” on the subject. Because he was ruthless in eliminating anyone who disagreed with him, his followers let him get away with this practice.
After Muhammad died, the bits of bone and leaf and other materials upon which Othman wrote his utterances (Muhammad was an illiterate trader), were organized by him into what are today called the suras of the Qur’an. They were arranged by length, the longest being first, rather than by chronology.
It is the suras concerning women in this collection of statements, and in the thousands of comments and analyses called the Hadith by Muslim jurists and philosophers based on the words of Muhammad, which began the insti