"Most of the land that is the present day Israel, West Bank and Gaza were not owned by small farmers and local living peasants buts rather owned by absentee landlords. These landlords were mostly tax collectors or merchants who lived elsewhere. Often these owners were from foreign countries and held “no connection to the land and who often exploited the local workers or fellahin” [ Alan Dershowitz. The Case for Israel. 2003. p. 25}

"The Ottoman Land Code of 1858 “brought about the appropriation by the influential and rich families of Beirut, Damascus, and to a lesser extent Jerusalem and Jaffa and other sub-district capitals, of vast tracts of land in Syria and Palestine and their registration in the name of these families in the land registers” Many of the fellahin did not understand the importance of the registers and therefore the wealthy families took advantage of this. Jewish buyers who were looking for large tracts of land found it favourable to purchase from the wealthy owners. As well many small farmers became indebt to rich families which lead to the transfer of land to the new owners and then eventually to the Jewish buyers. (^ Y. Porath. The Palestinian Arab Movement: From Riots to Rebellion. 1977. p.81 )

"In the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, many land purchases were made through organizations such as the Palestinian Jewish Colonization Association (PICA), Palestine Land Development Co. and the Jewish National Fund. These organizations often offered to purchase the land from the wealthy owners for more than the actual value of the area. The Jewish land purchasers paid extraordinarily high prices for the uncultivated and marsh land. During a visit to Palestine in 1930, John Hope Simpson , a British politician, noticed: “They [Jews] paid high prices for the land, and in addition they paid to certain of the occupants of those lands a considerable amount of money which they were not legally bound to pay” [9]. It was believed that Jews were paying as much as $1,000 to $1,100 per acre in Palestine for non arable land in 1944. At that same time, one could buy rich arable land in Iowa for a mere $110 per acre.

Huge tracts of land were purchased by Jews in the 1920s but in the next decade large tracts of uncultivated land were simply not available. Therefore in the 1930s most of the land were bought from small landowners. Of the land that the Jews bought, “52.6% of the lands were bought from big non-Palestinian landowners, 24.6% from Palestinian-Arab landowners and only 9.4% from the Fellahin”

Benny Morris , a leading historian on the subject Israel, has stated that only few families were displaced by the land purchases as oppose the critics who state otherwise. Morris claims that “Historians have concluded that only ‘several’ families were displaced following the land sales to Jews between the 1880s and the late 1930s” ^ "The Arabs in Palestine". http://www.jewishvirtuallibrar....
Y. Porath. The Palestinian Arab Movement: From Riots to Rebellion. 1977. p.84

See also

http://www.palestinefacts.org/...

evidence of Haj Amin al-Husseini1 Before the Royal Commission, January 12, 1937
http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~j...

Land Acquisition and Ownership in Palestine

http://smoothstoneblog.com/200...

Quote:
Submitted by William Scott Scherk on Sat, 2010-01-09 00:46.
"And you can't get yourself past that authoritarian ditch yet. You have penned yourself in." (WSS)

Imo Adonis Vlahos is sitting in an ideological cage from which he will only get out if he jettisons his whole belief in islam, not just parts.

AV's eloquence doesn't erase the fundamental thinking disorder which confuses subjective belief with objective reality.
For this is not someone speculating that "a god may exist" or saying "I believe a god exists", no - he is convinced that a god does exist, and that this god wants people to do this or that ("God's will").
Adonis claims that what he believes is true without being able to provide any evidence. Herein lies the error in the premise.

And even within his own fallacious thought system, he falls into traps without realizing it.
For example, he claims that EVERYTHING that happens is God's Will.

Well, if that is the case, crimes are also "God's will".

Xray

Leonid -
Land in Palestine was in possession of Turkish effendis and Palestinians worked the land as serfs. Zionists collected money and BOUGHT this land, piece by piece and paid exuberating price for it. After creation of Israel Zionists were the people who, first time in the history of Palestine, granted to Arabs full rights including property rights to land.

I'm interested in this topic - Can you tell me where to find a good historical record (book or website) of 20th century Israel that includes the type of detail you mention?

Cheers,

Reed.

"The Arabs and Jews that lived there prior to the Zionists coming lived in a highly civilized society, in peace together, there were doctors, markets, hotels, etc. "

"Prior to the Zionist coming"-exactly to which period you refer? Does it includes year 1923, when Arabs of Hebron massacred more then 130 families of defenseless religious Jews? Or 627 when Muhammad exterminated all Jews of Medina? (Sura 59). Or maybe you refer to Abu Bakr’s invasion to Palestine in 634 when the entire region between Gaza and Caesarea was devastated and four thousand Jews were massacred? The massacre of Jews in Grenada in 1066 also apparently took place prior to the Zionist coming as well as massacre in Tetuan, Morocco in 1790, Baghdad in 1828, in Safed (Tzfat-Israel) in 1834, Meshed in Iran-1839, Damascus in 1840 etc…etc…etc... Am I right to conclude that according to your position the massacre of Jewish children in Maalot and many other acts of terrorism in Israel in which thousands of innocent people-Jews and Arabs have been killed also committed by Zionists?

"I'm just against creating a state in that land that belonged to others and stealing the owners land to give it to people who were foreigners to that land."

Zionists couldn't steal land from Palestinian peasants because Palestinians never possessed it. Land in Palestine was in possession of Turkish effendis and Palestinians worked the land as serfs. Zionists collected money and BOUGHT this land, piece by piece and paid exuberating price for it. After creation of Israel Zionists were the people who, first time in the history of Palestine, granted to Arabs full rights including property rights to land.

Adonis Vlahos:
The root issue is your fundamental thinking error, and it is a huge one: presenting an alleged god's will as objective reality.

It is about you claiming the existence of a god, who gave humans divine "laws". That is, you claim an alleged superior creature to be the maker of laws (via inspiriation of a guru). Laws which direct people's lives. The catholic church is not one iota different from Islam here. It has practiced the same for centuries.
But since no shred of evidence of a god exists, any claim of a "gods will" is NULL AND VOID. Case closed.

The Arabs and Jews that lived there prior to the Zionists coming lived in a highly civilized society, in peace together, there were doctors, markets, hotels, etc.

The Legacy of Jihad in Historical Palestine (Part I)

By Andrew G. Bostom
November 19th, 2005
[Published by The American Thinker]

[Part II of this article appears tomorrow]

Violent jihad warfare on infidels is the norm, not the exception, in Islamic history. Once successful, jihad leads to the imposition of humiliating, degrading, violent, and expensive oppression under dhimmitude, the institutionalized imposition of lowly status upon those who refuse to abandon their faith and adopt Islam. Among the worst victims of jihad and dhimmitude have been the Jews and Christians who lived in historic Palestine.

Edward Said?s ridiculous polemic, The Question of Palestine, quotes the following observation by a Dr. A. Carlebach published in Ma?ariv (October 7, 1955).

The danger stems from the [Islamic] totalitarian conception of the world? Occupation by force of arms, in their own eyes, in the eyes of Islam, is not at all associated with injustice. To the contrary, it constitutes a certificate and demonstration of authentic ownership. [1]

http://www.andrewbostom.org/lo...

Part two: http://www.andrewbostom.org/lo...

It's talking about when you are at war. Specifically it was referring to the Pagan Qur'aish that were attacking the Muslims.

And in which the Muslims made a pre-emptive strike in order to steal booty. In exhorting the troops big moe said (one of the many things he made up as he went along) "By God in whose hand is the soul of Muhammad, no man will be slain this day fighting against them with steadfast courage advancing not retreating but God will cause him to enter Paradise." And so to this day you have Mujahideen entering paradise by walking into train stations and mowing unbelievers down with AK47's or flying airplanes into buildings. Here's a muslim in Australia espousing another of the great paedophile's sayings. Australia has a growing problem:

We see that a culture with a bit of get up and go comes in and improves the state of the itinerant 'nationals.'

"In addition to that, just because a place might not be considered developed to you, it gives you no right to take the land by force and make the inhabitants destitute."

This benefits the inhabitants.

Clearly you don't know much then Gregster. Contrary to what others say.. It wasn't a land without a people for a people without a land.

The Arabs and Jews that lived there prior to the Zionists coming lived in a highly civilized society, in peace together, there were doctors, markets, hotels, etc.

In addition to that, just because a place might not be considered developed to you, it gives you no right to take the land by force and make the inhabitants destitute.

As I wrote, Adonis, the flag doesn't show (at least not to me) on your blog. Would you mind posting it? Answer my other two questions should you feel like it...

genocide--that's what everybody's ancestors suffered from. Yours, mine, theirs. Get over it.

--Brant
victimhood is shit so don't let shit happen--arm yourself!

but what did the Palestinians make of this land? As far as I know they were as developed as the native Americans were.

The conflict is caused by their differing imaginary friends.

60 years of low intensity genocide are a good enough explanation. I'm not against Jews being in Palestine, they have every right to be there.

I'm just against creating a state in that land that belonged to others and stealing the owners land to give it to people who were foreigners to that land.

Gee, all those wars launched by--Arabs against the Jews in what is now Israel and then the Israelis. Tell me--what is the history of the Jews in "Palestine" in the 1920s?

Tell me about Naziism, so I can make some feeble sense of your "genocide" remarks.

--Brant

I'm not sure what you're referring to Brant.

I'm against Zionism, not Jews. I join the ranks of people across the world that include Jews, people who recognize that Zionism is no better than Nazism with the ideas of racial supremacy and the methods of genocide and ethnic cleansing to be able to subdue those who they wish to take land and wealth from. Sure, this genocide is slower, but it's still genocide.

The cover comes off. All the lengthy verbal BS and it all comes down to this. Get this Adonis: Americans are the Jews of the world.

--Brant

The campaign against the racism and barbarism that is Zionism and its spawn Israel is going very well, I do believe that the pictures and flags are still on my blog if I'm not mistaken. Can't you see it?

I'm not ashamed of being anti-Zionist, anyone who knows me, knows that is my stance.

Adonis, would you mind telling me how your campaign against the 'Zio-Nazis' is coming along? Is there somewhere that I can keep up with that? And any chance of you putting up the 'Zio-Nazi' flag that you designed? (it's no longer showing on your blog and I'm wondering where you put the Swastika and how that looks against the Stars and Stripes)

And have you more proof to back your claim '...that the US does not work in it's own national security interests but is subservient to those of the Israeli's.' On its own the USS Liberty incident and and that the US abstained from voting on a UN resolution doesn't cut it.

"I knew I'd regret it." - Lindsay Perigo.

Regret for what though, falling into the trap of letting your blatant hate fueled hypocrisy be exposed? Or that fact that you are such a hypocrite?

You could learn a thing or two about expectations Lindsay, if you expect certain things from others you should assume they'd expect the same from you.

That is human interaction. Dignified, respectful and mutually beneficial. It's called learning.

I knew I'd regret it.

Hmm I see.. Thank you Lindsay, I'll do just that.

"Adonis," if you're sincere in your desire to learn about the philosophy, go to the primary source, not to a brain-damaged, spiritual deformity from the gutter.

So by this I understand that I shouldn't assess and judge Objectivism based on my experiences with people who claim to be adherents of that ideology and claim to know about it? I shouldn't judge it based on their actions and words?

So I asked you, what sources should I look at?

To which you replied:

"to answer questions. But bear in mind the disclaimer at the bottom of every page here. My introductory article, "Objectivism" further down this page might be useful for you. First and foremost, though, you should acquire the standard classics: Philosophy Who Needs It?, For the New Intellectual, The Virtue of Selfishness, Peikoff's Objectivism, the Philosophy of Ayn Rand"...

And so I asked you:

"So these books are what you suggest? How long, in your experience does it take someone to learn about Objectivism to be at the level where they can adequately discuss it? Is there any courses on it that I can do?

I only ask because I'm now concerned that the things that I've been led to believe about objectivism might not be correct and would like to make sure. How about people you could refer me to, who I can ask questions of? Any suggestions?"

And to which you replied:

"How long does it take? The economics and politics are easy. It's when you grasp the epistemology, the nature of objectivity vs. intrinsicism (*your* sin, Adonis) on one side and subjectivism on the other, and genuinely get it so you can spot a phony dichotomy that everyone else thinks is real a mile off, that I believe you can say you've really got it. That can take years. Seasoned Objectivists can still be seen falling into the intrinsicist trap in particular. There are those who claim the entire ARI is mired in intrinsicism, but I couldn't possibly comment

It's no use speaking with the immature and inhumane when I could be speaking to those who have wisdom, logic and good gentlemanly conduct.

I only ask because I'm now concerned that the things that I've been led to believe about objectivism might not be correct and would like to make sure. How about people you could refer me to, who I can ask questions of? Any suggestions?

If these are things you've been led to believe about Objectivism by the likes of Michael Kelly I can guarantee they won't be correct.

As I say, feel free to ask questions here. We can have a calm dialogue as long as there's no hidden agenda to reconcile the irreconcilable and no false pretences: my willingness to answer questions doesn't in any way alter my view of Islam

How long does it take? The economics and politics are easy. It's when you grasp the epistemology, the nature of objectivity vs. intrinsicism (*your* sin, Adonis) on one side and subjectivism on the other, and genuinely get it so you can spot a phony dichotomy that everyone else thinks is real a mile off, that I believe you can say you've really got it. That can take years. Seasoned Objectivists can still be seen falling into the intrinsicist trap in particular. There are those who claim the entire ARI is mired in intrinsicism, but I couldn't possibly comment.

Adonis, try Anthem : http://www.gutenberg.org/files...

This is a classic early short story by Ayn Rand (which is apparently out of copyright and available for free on the internet). If the ideas presented make sense to you then you can fast forward to Atlas Shrugged her most important fiction work and a statement of her philosophy. After that there are the essays and philosophical works that are listed above. I would be happy to answer any questions, and I'm guessing others here would be as well.

Lindsay to be honest, I still need to study before I make any assumptions of things being correct or incorrect. I won't claim to know about it because I don't and unfortunately due to my timetable lately I haven't had much chance at all due to work/moving/having visitors etc but I do intend to.

So these books are what you suggest? How long, in your experience does it take someone to learn about Objectivism to be at the level where they can adequately discuss it? Is there any courses on it that I can do?

I only ask because I'm now concerned that the things that I've been led to believe about objectivism might not be correct and would like to make sure. How about people you could refer me to, who I can ask questions of? Any suggestions?

... to answer questions. But bear in mind the disclaimer at the bottom of every page here. My introductory article, "Objectivism" further down this page might be useful for you. First and foremost, though, you should acquire the standard classics: Philosophy Who Needs It?, For the New Intellectual, The Virtue of Selfishness, Peikoff's Objectivism, the Philosophy of Ayn Rand ...

A question I have for you: do you understand in what way Kelly's claims about the closeness of your metaphysics to Objectivism's are utterly wrong? That might be a good place to start.

Well it's perverse humour, or not humour at all, but it shows the level of gullibility of some people such as one "Ruth" who submits pro-Islam propaganda from NZ.

Here's some good news from NZ MSM:

"Muslim teenagers in New Zealand adapt well to life in New Zealand, a Victoria University study has found.

The study, carried out on 180 Muslim teens, by the Centre for Applied Cross-Cultural Research, measured their psychological and social well-being by examining life satisfaction, psychological conditions, school adjustment and behavioural issues, Professor Colleen Ward said.

The study, carried out as part of a 13-country survey of well-being and identity, drew on data from previous studies carried out in New Zealand, on other groups of teens, as comparison.

The findings revealed Muslim youth demonstrated more positive outcomes on all indicators than their Maori and Pakeha peers, Prof Ward said."

"Pakeha is a European/White New Zealander. Whether any of the next generation take on any libertarian ideas remains to be seen - in my opinion there is no such thing as an Islamic Libertarian, just as there is no such thing as a Christian Libertarian - quite a few push that particular barrow as well.

But the research shows Muslims here are certainly not "filthy savages" as some would have you believe."

What is the Center for Applied Cross Cultural Research?

One of the too-many-to-number bodies robbing us blind and churning out shit.

Guys like this prick Joris de Bres, once a community organiser!

"Adonis," if you're sincere in your desire to learn about the philosophy, go to the primary source, not to a brain-damaged, spiritual deformity from the gutter.

Lindsay, what books should I read to be able to understand the ideas of Objectivism properly? How long do you think it would take to properly understand the ideas? Who should I ask if I have questions about it? Will you answer my questions?

Jason quotes:

Adonis: "I am a slave to the Creator, I don't deny it. But God is the only being thing I submit to and I do so as I believe God wishes me to do so."
MSK response: "You might be surprised, but this is very close to the Objectivist view. There are a few differences, but the attitude of wanting to do good, the wish to fit in correctly with a bigger picture, and not questioning the metaphysical are the same."

Ordinarily I'd exclaim, "Unbelievable!" But looking at who uttered this crap, it's entirely believable. One can understand in the face of it why the orthodoxy adopts a priestly attitude to the philosophy. It's one thing for Kelly to be an imbecile, and slimy; it's quite another for him to pretend to be an oracle on Objectivism, which he is affecting to be here. Now, I don't represent the orthodoxy, but I hereby call him on his attempt to mangle Objectivism beyond recognition. I shudder to contemplate anyone's being misled into thinking this really is Objectivism. "Adonis," if you're sincere in your desire to learn about the philosophy, go to the primary source, not to a brain-damaged, spiritual deformity from the gutter.

It's all reminiscent of the days of Objectivism = cheek-turning. To think I harbored this squalid little grotesquery and gave it its start. Yuk!

Callum, there probably isn't much more to it (beyond the link I posted). It is just typical MSK bullshit.

Lindsay- I haven't once threatened to harm you nor would I. All I am saying is that if you really are claiming that I am not real. Then prove it and meet me somewhere in public during the day time or even just call to see that I am real.

Gregster- Oh please, I am not that type of person.

Leonid- Interesting points. Here is a link to Islam's condemnation of slavery, an interesting article I found that you might like. http://www.renaissance.com.pk/...

re: 47:4

It's talking about when you are at war. Specifically it was referring to the Pagan Qur'aish that were attacking the Muslims.

"Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens. That (is the ordinance). And if Allah willed He could have punished them (without you) but (thus it is ordained) that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain."

Also, it was practiced properly during the time of Muhammad pbuh, hardly afterwards. I'm not a Wahhabi and I won't defend them, I think they've polluted Islam with tyranny.

"the wish to fit in correctly with a bigger picture"

Please tell me more. An objectivist said this?

According to MSK we can find common ground with a religious person by swapping the concept of "reality" and the religious idea "Allah". With that he can assert that Islam and Objectivism are really closer then we think. http://www.objectivistliving.c...

For example according to MSK the idea that Muslims have to submit to the will of Allah (as channeled by an Arabian prophet) and that Objectivists understand that reality can't be evaded are really parallel ideas. But this is nonsense and it is the reason why there are no parallels. Submission in the sense that Adonis describes is abdication of one's own mind in favor an imagined authority figure and a set of prescribed cultural guidelines and rituals. The Objectivist approach is completely opposite. It sweeps away this kind of nonsense in favor of complete reliance on one's own judgment.

There is no parallel between these approaches and any attempt to create one is an example of intellectual trickery, which is something that MSK is a master at employing.

Adonis: "I am a slave to the Creator, I don't deny it. But God is the only being thing I submit to and I do so as I believe God wishes me to do so."

MSK response: "You might be surprised, but this is very close to the Objectivist view. There are a few differences, but the attitude of wanting to do good, the wish to fit in correctly with a bigger picture, and not questioning the metaphysical are the same."

By “mainstream Islam" I mean Islam which most of the Muslims practiced during last 15 centuries and still practice today. By your own admission they lost the path. Anyway, when did they practice the unskewed version of Islam? Was it in the times of Ahmad ibn Hanbal (around 855 A.C) who is the spiritual forefather of modern Wahhabis? Or was it during Prophet's times? If it so, during which period-Meccan or Medinan? As you know these two periods are different as day and night. In Medina as Muir observed " Messages from heaven were freely brought down to justify political conduct...Battles were fought, executions ordered, and territories annexed, under cover of the Almighty's sanction...intolerance took the place of freedom; force-of persuasion" (Muir I, pg 503-506). Or may be the mainstream Islam is the one which recognizes and justifies slavery? (Suras 16.77; 30.28)?
Finally, can you answer which sura represents mainstream Islam: 1." There is no compulsion in religion" (2.256) or 2." When you meet the unbelievers, strike off their heads..." (47.4). According to the worldwide historical and contemporary practice I incline to think that the second sura became the basis of mainstream Islam.

"If not I'm sure we'll run into each other very soon and you'll be able to see me for yourself, in person." Lindsay's first Jihadist stalker.

... has indeed supplied me with a phone number. I shan't be dialling it. If "Adonis" wants my attention then he'll have to do better than call me a rabies-infested rottweiler: "mad dog" doesn't begin to capture my loathing for the most rabid, murderous insanity on our planet today, the stinking, stupid, savage superstition that is Islam.

As it happens I'll be in Auckland shortly and might ordinarily have considered his invitation to meet up, on condition that he leave his scimitar behind and share a bottle of wine. I am a great believer in hospitality and conviviality, and might have found a without-prejudice engagement interesting, if indeed "Adonis"'s agenda were to learn about Objectivism/libertarianism rather than to try to match it up with something with which it is utterly incompatible. But the guy thinks I should hang or be stoned in the name of the Prophet, a pile of pig-shit be upon him, for Allah's sake! Why should I grant him a second of my time, let alone an audience?

Sorry everyone, I've had a visitor over from Australia and I've also been moving house and am waiting for my internet connection to come through hopefully it'll do so within the next two weeks.

"Clearly, he doesn't belong to mainstream Islam. So why not to support him in his mission " to educate the Muslim world about Libertarianism"? He can start, for example, by translating Rand's works into Arabic or to spread the idea of separation religion from state." - Leonid

Hi Leon,

I disagree, I think that I do belong to mainstream Islam, I just believe that your understanding of mainstream Islam is skewed but do agree however, that the majority of Muslims have lost the path of what mainstream is and fallen back into the times of ignorance. Especially those in the Middle East and South Asia.

I'll also clarify, I am not fluent in Arabic, it takes decades of study to be at the level of translation like you wish. Not just in Arabic but also the subject too.

"He's not sincere (and, I suspect, not even real)." - Lindsay Perigo

Not sincere? Lindsay, are you claiming to be able to look into the depths of my soul and see what my intentions are? To see whether I am actually sincere or not?

Also, what makes you think that I'm not real? You are in NZ as am I. If you are in Auckland I'd be delighted to meet you in the City in person so you can see for yourself that I am indeed real. In fact, I'll now send you my telephone number on this website to arrange such a meeting or discuss what has been mentioned here. That is, of course providing that you are willing and able to keep my number private for those explicit uses and conduct yourself like a gentleman rather than foaming at the mouth like a rabies infested Rottweiler as you have done so far. Do you think that you can handle that Lindsay? Hmmm?

Otherwise, don't call as I'll just take it as harassment, report it to the police and also change my number which isn't that much of a hassle considering that I've only just arrived in NZ just over a month ago.

So there you go Lindsay, what more do you need? You can prove or disprove my existence with just a telephone call, or a meeting. Or are you too afraid that I am who I say I am and that you'll have to retract your accusations.

If not I'm sure we'll run into each other very soon and you'll be able to see me for yourself, in person.

MSK likes to turn the other cheek?

Who is going to write this magnum o-puss? MSK can certainly spew out a prodigious amount of verbiage but that isn't the same as writing. I can see MSK's first draft running to 250,000 pages...

Well, that means the guy is on spiritual journey. Even 8 years of Islamic studies is enough to clog one's mind completely. Clearly, he dissatisfied with mainstream Islam and now wants to exploit Objectivism. If Ayn Rand cannot persuade him, nothing will. All I say-give him a chance.

'I dare say that had I not become Muslim by my own choice more than 8 years ago now before traveling to the Middle East and living there, that I probably wouldn't have become a Muslim, especially based on my experiences in the Gulf.'
- Adonis

"But I'm willing, anxious even, to be proved wrong."
Let's hope so. As Talmud says: Little bit of light eliminates a lot of darkness.

... unlike the way you missed many of the savage's posts here because you're too lazy to do due diligence.

We'll see what happens after he's "researched" Ayn.

In fact, I already know what will happen. But I'm willing, anxious even, to be proved wrong.

"Far as I can tell he decided on Islam eight years ago, Leonid."

I couldn't find any personal information about him on both sites he's featuring. Lindsay even doesn't believe he's real. So, how do you know that?

"He has evinced no desire whatsoever to explore Objectivism."

You apparently missed my post in which I quoted Adonis' post on OL ""I have to be entirely honest with you and say that I am not familiar with Ayn! I am a little embarrassed by that but do intend on researching Ayn vigorously within the next few days to see what the ideas are about." So your statement is simply incorrect. His rejection of mainstream Islam is actually positive symptom which indicates possible recovery. He's savage, yes, but savage who wants to learn. Should we damn him for that?

He's not sincere (and, I suspect, not even real). If you'd bothered to read all of this thread, you'd know that. If you can't be bothered, then at least show the good form to shut up. The guy insists that the only authentic version of Islam is his, but he won't say what that is. He disses as ignorant anyone who reminds him of Islam's actual contribution to contemporary life. He has evinced no desire whatsoever to explore Objectivism. He has no wish to introduce rights to Islam, since he specifically disavows rights and condones, nay advocates, the stoning and hanging of those who exercise them. The guy is an unrepentant, unreconstructed savage. What the fuck is wrong with *you* Leonid?!

Far as I can tell he decided on Islam eight years ago, Leonid.

Do you both realize that Adonis is the guy who has been reared and educated as pious Muslim? For him stoning is natural thing. But now he's going through major paradigm shift. He wants to explore Objectivism and to introduce values of freedom and rights into Islam. Instead to support him you for some obscure reason disapprove on his aspiration and discourage him. What the fuck is wrong with you? Have you been born Objectivists? Think, you are dealing with 12th century monk who suddenly discovered "Atlas Shrugged" and wants to learn more. Would you reject him on the grounds that he still believes in burning witches?

If ever two things deserved each other, it's those two things.

I trust they'll have Babs on hand to make sure there's the right amount of empathy between stoner and stonee. And Nambla-Campbla could blast Sun Ra from a ghetto-blaster to drown out the screaming—or at least render it indistinguishable from the CD.

Sick fucks.

Meanwhile MSK and Adonis are exchanging ideas about a book with a Muslim hero as the central character. Presumably the hero is a really good guy who believes in the sharia version of libertarianism. In the spirit of compromise it can be expected that MSK and Adonis will allow their man to take part in the number of stonings that is acceptable to both parties.

I think his brain's been addled by too much arguing with Seddon.

But actually, Leonid here doesn't deserve the benevolence of flippancy. He's making excuses for a savage. What does that make him?

Bullshit, Leonid. A decent person doesn't need Rand to tell them that stoning is barbaric.

"The savage who wants education and intend to get it is already not a savage."

A person who advocates stoning is a savage, whether they tell you they are seeking further education or not. What the fuck is wrong with you?

Thank for the quote. Adonis needs a lot of education. On OL site he said "I have to be entirely honest with you and say that I am not familiar with Ayn! I am a little embarrassed by that but do intend on researching Ayn vigorously within the next few days to see what the ideas are about." Maybe it'll help. The savage who wants education and intend to get it is already not a savage.

I'll do your work for you Leonid.

Just for starters:
'Now do I support the idea of the punishment for adultery being that of stoning? Well I think it depends on the situation and would have to see it on a case by case basis. I do however think that there is justification enough in some instances for this punishment, especially when the victim is a woman who has been cheated on.'
- The Savage

"Yeah, Leonid let's support Adonis. After all it's just a small matter to put aside his support for stoning and mutilation, right?"
Wrong!

I didn't find that Adonis explicitly supports stoning and mutilation. He said only that he knows that we don't accept it. Maybe I missed something. Let Adonis to answer this himself. Note that Adonis is not alone in his aspiration. Other people actually move things toward his proclaimed goal to educate Muslim world about Objectivism. See for example Pakistani adaptation for the Fountainhead by Ayn Rand. "Teesra Kinara" which was recorded from cable TV (in England?)about 15 years ago. Note that it was pirated, i.e., the production company in Pakistan.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Yeah, Leonid let's support Adonis. After all it's just a small matter to put aside his support for stoning and mutilation, right?

'The work he needs to do is first within himself,' says WSS.

Exactly. He needs to denounce obvious savagery before he can be any sort of an Islamic poster boy for Libertarianism.

There is NO "link between Islam, Muhammad [a pile of pig-shit be upon him] and Libertarianism." "Adonis" is not a good-faith naif seeking to convert his fellow-savages to the non-initiation-of-force principle; he is a savage who doesn't believe in that principle. On this site he has defended such barbarisms as stoning for consensual activity and apparently on O-Lying has said he would participate in one (too bad for him they confine themselves to lynch-mobs at that place). The creature is beyond the pale.

Adonis IS asking for support. And he doesn't want to sell Sharia to Objectivists. He's not that stupid. He wrote:

"Yes I know you don't like ideas like stoning an adulterer or chopping the hand off of a thief, I know you don't like ideas like our unshakable belief and submission to the Creator of the Universe. I'm not asking you to, I'm not asking you to subscribe to them nor to make them law in the West.. All I am asking for is support in helping to educate the Muslim world about Libertarianism and helping to find the links between Islam, Muhammad and Libertarianism so that we can examine our ideas and perhaps find better ones....

What ever could you lose from that? Or is it that you love conflict so much that you find comfort in this wretched existence?"

Clearly, he doesn't belong to mainstream Islam. So why not to support him in his mission " to educate the Muslim world about Libertarianism"? He can start, for example, by translating Rand's works into Arabic or to spread the idea of separation religion from state.
Islam, like any other religion, without power of state would be harmless.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/t...

Leonid asks:

"Do you think that no religionist could adopt libertarian ideas?"

No, as I thought I made clear with my reference to Christian, Jewish and Muslim liberals . . . certainly a person that believes in Gawd can make accomodation. This usually involves devaluing the parts of scripture that strike him as illiberal.

" Not every religionist supports hanging fags. In fact they who do are tiny minority."

Exactly. They aren't the mainstream of Christianity or Judaism, that's for sure. In the West, certainly, the Muslims who would happily hang the faggots are not front and centre. I gave a link to the Muslims for Progressive Values, to give an example to Adonis of Muslims who do not support laws against gay sexuality. As you no doubt noticed, Adonis is not impressed with any of their libertarian leanings on the subject.

'"So, I don't see why one shouldn't at least try to introduce libertarian ideas into religious societies?"

Sure, it's a much better action plan than to try to sell Shariah to an Objectivist forum . . .

My point being, Leonid, that the work to reform Islam is great. The corollary point being that Adonis is trying to do things backwards -- convince SOLO and OL readers that the type of Islam he supports (with stonings, wall-pushings and hangings for fags) is Libertarian.

"Adonis is clearly asking to support him in his mission to transform Islam!."

Clearly? Not to my eyes. If he was out to transform or reform Islam, he would be able to frankly tell us that he Does Not Support Hanging Faggots. But he does support it. You will have noticed his creepy note on OL where he tells how he would go about participating in a stoning. He is quite happy to have Shariah include such penalties. This doesn't sound like a progressive Muslim. It sounds like an orthodox apologist for barbarism. So, there is dissonance, severe dissonance.

The work he needs to do is first within himself. Just saying.

WSS

Do you think that no religionist could adopt libertarian ideas? After all, all "holy scripts" are contradictive mixture of many different ideas, some of them teach profound truths, some of them simply obscure and one can interpret them as he wish. Not every religionist supports hanging fags. In fact they who do are tiny minority. So, I don't see why one shouldn't at least try to introduce libertarian ideas into religious societies? Why not to use these parts of Qur'an, Talmud or New Testament which compatible with ideas of freedom, individual rights and justice? And why you want to discourage such an attempt? Adonis is clearly asking to support him in his mission to transform Islam!. I believe, his life isn't easy as it is. He doesn't need scourging.

“You can't quite bring yourself to do what Jews and Christians do quite easily with the more demented scriptures of their faiths: they explicitly put aside the eye for and eye and the slaughter of the unclean and the killing of the dirty faggots.”

I wouldn’t give to them any credit for that. They did so only because the fangs of state power had been pulled off from their religion.

No, I'm not suggesting that you're practicing Taqiyya. There is no way of knowing, and it matters not anyway, because you're not fooling anyone here.

Adonis, it is heavy work to address Objectivish/Libertarian contingents on the subject of Libertarian Glories Of Islam. Very heavy work indeed to square the circle.

You needn't explain just where you sit on the Sunni/Shi'a teeter-totter if it might harm your amour propre. If you see yourself as some kind of bridging ray of sunshine between bitterly-opposed forces like Objectivishism and Islamism, a storm of cognitive dissonance must ensue. We tend to avoid any conflict between our reason and our emotion. Most folks thus avoid the discomfort of dissonance by looking away, to the horizon, not to the painful conflict in front of them.

Your conflict is internal, outside your gaze: the heart of Islam, a liberatory paradise of moral living contra a harsh, puritanical patrol. A liberty of action versus the noose of religion.

I found hilariously funny and sad your answer at the Other Place that you would have to look at the evidence and the context of a given charge before you would help stone to death a miscreant. That starkly laid out the conflict embodied in you -- if there is a bone of Libertarianism in your body, it is easily crushed by the sterner Islamic injunctions you hold dear.

There is no way around these conflicts, Adonis. You must confront and defeat one of the forces inside you. Liberty battles authoritarian.

Remember the audience before you here -- in an Objectivist forum all the holy books are given equal derision, all arguments from prophecy, all prophets are found wanting in divinity. The objectivish do not accept edicts on morality inscribed in 'inspired' texts. That way, if you choose to continue forcing Holy Muslim Justice past the filters of atheism, lies madness -- I am surprised and disheartened that you don't see the inanity of convincing atheists to believe in divine justice (delivered by sacred tradition, revelation, learned religious scholars).

Similarly, a libertarian will feasibly opt for non-initiation of force, never to topple a wall on faggotry, nor hang such by its neck, nor kill with stones. The noose for fags is a tough sell to sons of freedom.

Capital crimes are grave offences, not fucking offences, Adonis. What folks do with their sex organs is no business of anyone else, let alone the state. On first principles, as a libertarian you must defend against the snout of the state in your crotch. On first principles, then, you are stymied by your religion's demands to regulate other people's crotches by stones, walls and nooses.

The Islamic snout in the crotch is reviled, and rightly, as is reviled a Christian snout. Rightly do libertarian and objectivish folk reject disproportionate penalties such as you champion. Rightly do libertarians and the objectivish reject all laws that regulate (outside of abuse and disease) the penises and scrotums and assholes and mouths and vaginas of people.

Can it be clearer, Adonis? You cannot let yourself see the contradictions inherent in your project, nor its difficulties. As a sectarian of Islam, you are forced by the zealotry of the convert to defend your faith's edicts against the edicts of your reason. If the live-and-let-live spirit you try to express as a libertarian was compatible with the harsh edicts of Sharia, you would have a chance of not only convincing the Islamists you want to influence, but also yourself.

There is no chance you can square Muslim with Libertarian if you do no work on your Muslim side. Think of that wall being pushed to kill the cursed homosexual, and then try to find one, just one libertarian who will applaud along with you. You simply won't find him, Adonis. He reviles the wall and the tradition that pushes the wall.

Think of this kind of project to see the crazy nature of the quest:

Koranic Libertarianism I: how to balance hanging fags with a libertarian ethics

Christian Libertarianism I: how to balance hanging fags with a libertarian ethics

Jewish Libertarianism I: how to balance hanging fags with a libertarian ethics

The easy way out for both Christians and Jewish people is to denounce the sanctity of the biblical injunctions. No liberal Jew waves around scripture to call for the death of the sexual miscreants, though his holy book is full of injunctions. Same for the Christian. Both dissociate themselves from the injunctions.

You, as a Muslim, are not able to do, at the moment, what is breezily accomplished by liberal Christians, Jews and Muslims (as at the We Kiss Fags On The Mouth progressive US Muslim site).

You can't quite bring yourself to do what Jews and Christians do quite easily with the more demented scriptures of their faiths: they explicitly put aside the eye for and eye and the slaughter of the unclean and the killing of the dirty faggots.

That's the level of liberalism you will have to espouse before any Libertarian would take anything you say seriously on the subject of Sharia. And you can't get yourself past that authoritarian ditch yet. You have penned yourself in.

So, as I said before, you are stuck at the wrong end of the task -- you cannot be a chaplain to the irreligious. The religious are due your attention, not the non-believers. Yours is a primarily spiritual task that does not correspond to what you attempt to do among the objectivish. Your libertarian Hyde is at war with your libertarian Jeckyl.

Put your religion in your back pocket as a private notion when amongst unbelievers, Adonis. Celebrate the Austrians, the devolution of government, the supremacy of reason over superstition, Celebrate universal values. Be the rational, calm, benevolent Dr Jeckyl.

WSS

We've already had the 'people who believe in absurdities become capable of atrocities' Voltaire quotation, which Adonis has proven well. And now another:

'I have never made but one prayer to God, a short one: 'O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous'. And God granted it'.

Voltaire, Reason was Upon Him - one of the good guys.

Well put.

O-Lying is filthier by the week!

Objectivists? Kelly is a fucking imbecile. Who the hell gives the prick any credence? Only fuckwits who continue to contribute.

They are really not all there in my honest opinion.

my comment was to Philip.

I just spent a year and two months in the Middle East doing just that. Now I'm back in the West to study and work in addition to trying to gain support to do more in the Mid East in terms of reforming it.

So don't tell me that I'm not doing anything and only talking.

Richard, are you claiming that I'm engaging in Taqiyya?

Sandi,

Syria has a secular government which is nationalist. They are the Baath Party. They say that they derive their laws from Islamic jurisprudence and may well do so on some laws in terms of multiple wives etc, but as a whole I'm afraid that their laws aren't really based on Islam at all and to promote an Islamic state in Syria would promptly get you put in prison for a very very long time.

Please read the following regarding the National Progressive Front of Syria which currently holds power.

----------------------------
The National Progressive Front (Arabic: الجبهة الوطنية التقدمية‎, al-Jabha al-Wataniyyah at-Taqaddumiyyah, NPF), established in 1972, is a coalition of political parties in Syria that support the socialist and Arab nationalist orientation of the government and accept the leading role in society of the Arab Socialist Ba’th Party.

The Front was established by Syrian president Hafiz al-Asad to provide for a limited degree of participation in government by political parties other than the ruling Ba'th Party. Its constitution provides that the Ba'th Party controls 50% plus one of the votes on its executive committee. A number of seats in the People's Council of Syria are reserved for members of NPF parties other than the Ba'th Party.

From 1972 to date, only parties participating in the National Progressive Front have been legally permitted to operate in Syria. There is currently considerable discussion in Syria regarding a proposed new law which will allow political parties to be formed more generally: it is as yet unclear whether the parties to be licensed under this law would be required to join the NPF. Traditionally, the parties of the NPF are socialist and/or Arab nationalist in orientation, but in 2005 the Syrian Social Nationalist Party was formally legalised and joined the front as the first non-Socialist, non-Arab nationalist party admitted to the NPF. Some have suggested this may allow toleration of broader ideological viewpoints within Syrian politics, but ethnically-based (Kurdish and Assyrian) movements continue to be repressed, and a strict ban on religious and right-wing parties is still enforced.

The NPF is composed of seven political parties:

* Arab Socialist Ba'th Party (Article 8 of the Syrian constitution states that "the Arab Socialist Ba'th Party leads the state and society"),
* Arab Socialist Movement
* Arab Socialist Union
* Communist Party of Syria (Khalid Bakdash faction)
* Communist Party of Syria (Yusuf Faisal faction)
* Social Democratic Unionists
* Socialist Unionists
* Syrian Social Nationalist Party
* Democratic Socialist Unionist Party
* Arabic Democratic Unionist Party
* National Vow Movement

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...

Leonid, no I disqualify him as the Imam of Morocco because he didn't undergo a proper Islamic education that an Islamic scholar would undergo, ie spending at least 10 years undertaking formal studies in the many different sciences involved in Islam.

I might also clarify, being an Imam doesn't mean your a scholar. It either means your a leader, or a leader of prayer.

Next, the Prophet Muhammad pbuh's wives were far from obedient, they caused a whole lot of trouble in fact. Yet he still didn't beat them.

Also, regarding Sheikh Hamza Yusuf, he's an American yes, but so what? He's respected the world over by the majority of Muslims in both the West and Muslim world, the only people that don't like him are the Wahhabis, Salafis and some other groups. Are there more like him in the Middle East? Yes, I met many whilst I was there.

O-Lying, Church of the Brandens, home of Linz Derangement Syndrome, is perfect for "Adonis." Judge nothing and no one, except Linz, SOLO and anger (except their own and Islamic savages'). The perfect confirmation that the "tolerationists" tolerate anything (except dissent from their nihilism).

And how fitting that Nambla-Campbla heads the welcoming committee. When your sense of life is this:

... then this:

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad...

... is not far away.

go over there and say it!

At 'Objectivist Living' Michael Stuart Kelly sympathizes with, and welcomes, an advocate of both stoning and mutilation. Adonis, said Kelly, was justified in claiming that his rights to practice his religion were under attack because of Perigo’s ‘Death to Islam’ article.

“After reading an article entitled "Death to Islam," can anyone blame him? I don't,” wrote Kelly.

What a load of dishonest crock.

“In the name of humanity, Islam must be put to death. Not by nuking, but by shaming. Not by the sword (though if the maggots leave us no alternative we should not hesitate to use it) but by the word,” wrote Perigo.

How can Kelly see an attack on the right to practice Islam in that? I doubt that he does. But the opportunity for an assault- as puny as it is- on Perigo, SOLOists and, um, the users of harsh words seems to have got the better of him.

Normally I’d ignore such puerile nonsense. And rarely do I visit let alone concern myself with what goes on at OL. But the (mostly) warm welcome that Adonis has received from the folk over there is disgusting.

“Welcome to OL!’ says Robert Campbell. ‘Let me offer you a warm welcome to OL.’ says Kelly. Never mind that Adonis believes in stoning adulterers and mutilation; that is pushed easily aside. After all there is no need for raised voices, nasty words or frayed tempers, is there?

Adonis is a fucking savage; his words demonstrate that. Quite why anyone wishes to debate the finer points of Islam with someone like that is beyond me.
It’s putrid. It makes me sick.

And quite why Adonis, if he is serious about his own warped version of peace, thinks his time is spent wisely on sites such as SOLO and OL, rather than on persuading his barbaric Muslim brothers to become civilised is also beyond me.

Perigo, again: “Human beings worthy of the title must rise up and shout in irresistible unison: “Enough of this primordial primitivism! We who are civilised are revolted by it and shall rebuff it at every turn!”

But then shouting isn’t cool. And it's not nice. And being nice seems to be the over-riding concern for some, no matter the sort of savage in front of them.

A timely essay on Taqiyya, well worth the read: http://www.meforum.org/2538/ta...

More than well worth the read. Essential.

"The only problem I had with Syria was the fact that you had no freedom to speak out against the government."

Adonis, you do have the choice to change your religion if you do not agree with it.

In Syria, Islamic jurisprudence is a main source of legislation and the Syrian constitution requires the president to be Muslim.

Shock horror!!!! No freedom to speak out about islam??

Van Gogh did.

Syrian Constitution Reference: Article 3

So, you disqualify Imam of Morocco on the ground that his view of Islam doesn't conjure with yours. However past and present history of Islam demonstrates its extreme intolerance. So I have justified belief that Imam’s views reflect essence of Islam.
"Also, the perfect example to prove his point is the Prophet Muhammad pbuh, he not once hit his wives"
His wives evidently were obedient. In regard to Sheikh Hamza Yusuf's sermon, please note that he's an AMERICAN. How many scholars like him exist and speak freely in the Muslim world?

Well said Jason

Adonis, this argument tries to make a case to "libertarians", and some of those might be interested in this because in many cases their ideology is just as frivolous as yours. (You will find such people among your new friends at Objectivistliving.com). This is an Objectivist website.

It is very simple to completely write off anything you have to say on this subject even if you base it upon the most scholarly understanding of your religion. The reason is that any belief system based upon channeled edict and vague cultural tradition is invalid. Period. End of discussion. Arguing about the meaning or importance of various parts of the Koran, Muhammad's life, or this or that scholarly opinion is the intellectual equivalent sky diving without a parachute.

Besides, it is obvious that even in its most benign forms the agenda of your religion from the very start has been collectivism and obedience (via force and collective peer pressure) to a collection of silly traditions. This is not something that you can mesh with any objective set of ideas about freedom and individualism without intentionally ignoring a whole bunch of contradictions. We are not in the business here of ignoring contradictions. You are free to practice your religion, but any attempts at making objective arguments based upon Islam are not just incorrect, they are completely arbitrary.

I'm not sure which is funnier - the compulsive religious behavior of having to write or say 'peace be upon him' after every time of writing someone's name - or feeling that if you are compelled to do this that just spitting out a guttural 'pbuh' somehow suffices.

Aaron

Richard, why is it that the Banu Qurayza faced that fate? Who decided it? What was the crime?

Also, why were Asma bint Marwan and Abu Afak assassinated?

Answer those questions?

I'm sorry, but just because some Arab monarch claims the title of Imam of the nation to justify his rule it doesn't actually mean he's qualified to do that job. Especially knowing that during that period of time he was receiving huge funds from the Wahhabi's in Saudi Arabia who as a requirement make any recipient preach their ideas.

Also, regarding the Qur'anic verse that you pasted, you seem to have missed a sermon I put online by Sheikh Hamza Yusuf, an American Muslim Scholar who spent decades studying Arabic and Islam titled "Removing the silence from domestic violence"

Here it is again.

Also, the perfect example to prove his point is the Prophet Muhammad pbuh, he not once hit his wives and also said, 'the best of mankind are those who are best to their wives'

You see, definition creates boundaries. To put boundaries on God is contradiction in terms and so is a freedom by decree from God, his prophet or anybody else.

The question you raise regarding the concept of God is never -logically- addressed by the True Believers.

Simply put, "Who, that is not God, speaks for God, defines God, establishes 'Rules for God?'"

What non-God, identical to we merely also naked, sweaty apes, can claim to have spoken for, defined, or established 'rules for God?'

Whose perfect singular vision is it that we are asked to trust, either as contemporaries or dusty names in a dusty book? Trust me, God has sent me a message for you, and this is what it is? A God totally unable to communicate without the intermediary of divine middle men --self proclaimed saints, prophets, apostles, and Uber True Believers, is an absolute necessity for the ageless politics of ... carny hucksterism.

When pondering the source of that contradictory authority, that is when the eyes are usually rolled into the back of the head, and the speaking in tongues commences.

What non-God among us, living or dead, makes 'Rules for God?'

Gods that require carny huckster naked apes to proclaim their very existence --trust them -- are funny Gods indeed.

Let the naked sweaty ape leg lifting continue. Might as well, it clearly can't be stopped. Just ignored.

"I don't disdain Wafa Sultan at all, I just think that she's ignorant and uneducated yet still tries to speak for Islam."

From your posts I concluded that most of Muslims don't understand and cannot properly interpret Islam.

You wrote :"That leaves us with a MAXIMUM of 2,160,000 Muslims in the world today, out of a population of 1,600,000,000 that MIGHT understand Qur'anic Arabic properly. I am really being generous with the 2,160,000 however, I am quite sure that it is far less than that.

Next, to be able to be able to interpret the Qur'an they'd also need to go further and spend 20 years of their lives studying not only the Qur'an, but the life of the Prophet Muhammad and other Islamic sciences like hadith, fiqh etc shrinking the number down even smaller."

I hope, you maintain that King Hasan II of Morocco has sufficient qualification to express reliable opinion on Islamic issues.

"According to the daily paper, Al Alam, King Hassan II of Morocco, who is also the imam of his country, presented the following state of affairs before a human rights commission on May 15, 1990:

"If a Muslim says, 'I have embraced another religion instead of Islam,' he -- before he is called to repentance -- will be brought before a group of medical specialists, so that they can examine him to see if he is still in his right mind.
After he has then been called to repentance, but decides to hold fast to the testimony of another religion not coming from Allah -- that is, not Islam -- he will be judged."

And what would be a judgment, I wonder?

"Those who convert to Christianity do so at great personal danger. the convert has most of his rights denied him...Hundreds of Christians ...have been arrested and detained over the past three years without charge or trial" ( Amnesty International NO 62 July/August 1993, Ibn Warraq " Why I Am Not a Muslim" )

And in regard to women's rights Qur'an says : " Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other...So good women are the obedient...As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart: and scourge (beat) them." (4.34).

Those were the reactions of ignorant people and governments.

The people during the time of the Prophet used to say far worse about him, even while he was the leader of an army yet they faced no reprisal.

Yes, they were ignorant of that, of just how peace loving your prophet was, as were the Banu Qurayza, who met a terrible fate at the hands of your prophet. However, they were certainly not ignorant of the murders of poets Asma Bint Marwan and Abu Afak, murders which set the precedent for Salmon Rushdie, Kurt Westergaard and others having to constantly look over their shoulder for fear of "ignorant" muslim assassins. It doesn't matter that some dispute the isnad, or claim that the account of the Abu Afak murder is doubtful because there is no chain (isnad), it only matters that countless muslims take it seriously enough to bring grisly ends to others, such as Theo Van Gogh, for saying what they think. Once you've convinced everyone here that Islam is a religion of peace, what are you going to do to convince your murderous brothers who you are "at one with" that Islam means Classical Liberal values? Anything? Anything at all?

evading the libertarian issues here Adonis.

Those were the reactions of ignorant people and governments.

The people during the time of the Prophet used to say far worse about him, even while he was the leader of an army yet they faced no reprisal.

Oh please..

Whilst I did see a lot of ignorance in the Gulf.. It wasn't that bad in Syria where I lived for about 8 months where there is huge religious diversity and much more religious freedom than there was 20 years ago.

There are people there of all religions, living side by side with mutual respect and love for each other.. In a place where people are conscious of God and because of that, are conscious of what they do, where you can walk the street at any time at night and no one will mug you or try and murder you.. Yet this place where the people are poor, yet they are content and even in being poor, would never try and rob you or take what you have because you're a westerner. They'd welcome you and help you as much as they could without expecting anything in return.

The only problem I had with Syria was the fact that you had no freedom to speak out against the government.

Blasphemy isn't a crime that you can be punished for on this earth. You're free to voice it and think it.

Eh?! Tell that to Salman Rushdie. Or the cartoonists who drew the Prophet, a pile of pig-shit be upon him.

"Blasphemy in Islam is any irreverent behavior[1] which offends a Muslim. The Quran condemns such behavior, and Sharia provides penalties for blasphemy. Where Sharia pertains, the penalties for blasphemy can include fines, imprisonment, flogging, amputation, crucifixion, hanging, or beheading.[2][3] Muslim clerics may call for the murder of an alleged blasphemer by issuing a fatwa.[4][5]"

Why, even saying the Koran is "boring" is blasphemy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...

It's not another story at all. It's part of the same story - something you don't get. If it were the another (separate) story then Allah wouldn't matter at all to those in the mortal world.... The anticipation of his followers toward the next life is exactly what converts people to Islam and further in some instances to commit atrocities.

Blasphemy isn't a crime that you can be punished for on this earth. You're free to voice it and think it.

Whether or not God will punish for it in the next life is another story

" Also, have whatever opinion you like, there's no such thing in Islam as thought crimes, nor speech crimes.. Your blasphemy is between you and God."

Hahahaha. Self-contradicted in one line. Well done Adonis... There are no thought crimes but your thought crime (blasphemy) is now between you and the heavenly judge... Are you on drugs?

The Qur'an doesn't call for the forced conversion of people at all.

Also, have whatever opinion you like, there's no such thing in Islam as thought crimes, nor speech crimes.. Your blasphemy is between you and God.