Israel's Final Solution for Gaza and Lebanon

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture
Submitted by Kyrel Zantonavitch on Sun, 2010-06-06 20:22

In every serious and important sense, Hamas-controlled Gaza and Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon have declared war on Israel. These two jihadi states are overwhelmingly committed to conquering and enslaving the local Jews -- if not exterminating them. And these Muslim monsters are very open and confident about achieving this new holocaust. Pretty much nothing could be more heartlessly evil. So why doesn't Israel effectively counter these massive threats, and defeat these two obvious Islamo-fascist enemies?


The nations of Gaza and Lebanon profoundly need to be decisively and resoundingly defeated. Their two dictatorships need to be crushed into oblivion for all time. The political, intellectual, religious, and military leaders there should be captured and killed -- or at least publicly humiliated -- and their false and evil philosophy of Islam, jihad, and sharia should be simultaneously refuted, condemned, and ridiculed into non-existence.


And some of the war-mongering, enemy territory of the Gazans and Lebanese needs to be taken away from the Islamic attackers so that they know that they've been defeated, and thus have to pay a real price for their loss (a kind of legitimate "land for peace" deal). These Muslim ignoramuses and lowlives need to be clearly and emphatically informed that their defeat is a direct product of their ideology, and that they desperately need a new one if they wish to acquire liberty, prosperity, and the good life, while avoiding terrible military defeats in future.


The victorious party (Israel), in turn, should impose this new ideology by force. They should use coercion and propaganda (no debates), for as long as necessary, to convert the Muslim barbarians into Western liberals. This means, among other things, no more Islamic t'v', radio, web sites, lectures, sermons, mosques, madrassas, monuments, etc. Only strictly Western liberal ones are allowed.


Israel should follow the practice of occupied Germany and Japan from 1945 to 1955. She should help give her Islamic enemies a new culture by completely rewriting their constitution and laws. And Israel should only end the occupation when the Islamic former-savages are truly civilized. Meanwhile, Israel should fully tax them thruout the occupation so that this re-education process costs the Jews nothing. Better yet, Israel should somewhat overtax these Islamic aggressors and monsters so that the occupation yields a small profit.


This process worked beautifully in Germany and Japan. And even tho' Muslims now are basically low animals (owing to their false and evil Islamic beliefs), they're still human beings. So it will work beautifully in Gaza and Lebanon too.


( categories: )

Richard

Leonid's picture

In Iraq Shies fight Sunnis as they did for the last 1000 years and as Catholics used to fights any other Christian denomination for the same period of time. In India Hindu and Muslims fight each other for many generations. In Nigeria Christians and Muslims are in permanent war. The whole history of humankind is a history of endless religious wars. What all this has to do with Muslim supremacism?

What is twaddle" That, the

Richard Wiig's picture

What is twaddle" That, the one Muslim doesn't responsible for the deeds of another, or collective punishment is immoral?

Who has said that one muslim is responsible for the deeds of another? No one has. Who is talking of collective punishment? No one is.

16000 terrorist acts in the West is utter twaddle.

I didn't say 16,000 in the West. It's 16,000 globally. The point of raising that is to show that it isn't random acts of criminality, it's a global movement that is now touching America. I've said I don't know the exact number of crimes and incidents within the United States. I do know though, that it is sizeable.

This number you maybe can get if you include Muslim gangs' war in Iraq and Pakistan. But that doesn't have anything to do with the topic.

If this is a wilful evasion on your part, then it is surely evil. Evasion, according to Objectivism, is evil. If the topic is Islamic supremacism then it has everything to do with the topic. It helps show the extent of what America, and the rest of us, are up against with Islamic supremacism - the surpemacism that you say isn't Islamic.

Richard

Leonid's picture

"That is complete and utter twaddle."

What is twaddle" That, the one Muslim doesn't responsible for the deeds of another, or collective punishment is immoral?

16000 terrorist acts in the West is utter twaddle. This number you maybe can get if you include Muslim gangs' war in Iraq and Pakistan. But that doesn't have anything to do with the topic.

That is complete and utter

Richard Wiig's picture

That is complete and utter twaddle. I linked you to a site that has kept track of all the Jihad attacks since 9/11 and they are past the 15,000 mark rapidly approaching the 16,000 mark. That only a small percentage of those have been in Western countries means sweet F.A.

Anyway, since 9/11, that is -for the period of 10 years, you could count only few events.

Doug

Leonid's picture

"Islam can not be whitewashed."

I would be the last person to whitewash Islam. My point is that there are many other perpetrators of violence who belong to different groups of population. To fight this kind of violence by fighting population groups (Black, Chinese, fundamentalist Christians etc...) would be pure collectivism. Muslims, like everybody else, aren't their brothers’ keepers and one Muslim cannot be punished or restricted for the sins of another.

Non-Islamic killing sprees

Doug Bandler's picture

You can start with Oklahoma bombing and proceed to the almost annual schools' massacres, to mass suicides committed by different religious groups etc...Yes, America is in war and not only against Islam.

Timothy McVeigh was not particularly religious and the Oklahoma bombings were motivated by more of the militia philosophy (which is borderline anarchist) then it was by Christianity. The school shootings that you referred to are largely the product of the Leftist destruction of education and the inculcating of a mindless emotionalism in America's young. There is also another phenomenon that you did not mention and that is black-rage killings. There is a large and growing phenomenon of black-on-white rape and murder. Just the other day a black man in America who was caught stealing from his company (on video) and was about to be fired went on a killing spree shooting and killing 8 white employees (he shot many of them in the head). He later killed himself but not after calling the cops and blaming his rampage on "white racism." This has happened before in America and it will happen again.

So you are right that there is a phenomenon of non-Muslim mass violence in America coming from anarchists, nihilist teenagers, racist blacks, racist immigrants (a Hmong Chinese immigrant went on a killing rampage at an American immigration building in New York last year), etc.. However, I don't think that negates the fact that there is a world-wide phenomenon of Islamic violence directed against non-Muslims and all motivated by the same ideology. Plus there have been enough examples of 'Sudden Jihad Syndrome' to warrant serious profiling of Muslims. I think that its the height of suicidal idiocy to allow Muslims in the US military (at least not without a tremendous amount of scrutiny).

My point is that, yes, there are other types of violence than Islamic violence but that doesn't change the fact that Islamic violence is the greatest political threat to America and the West (other than the treat from political Leftism). Islam can not be whitewashed.

Richard

Leonid's picture

"I can't really give you a figure. I haven't done a proper count."

Anyway, since 9/11, that is -for the period of 10 years, you could count only few events. Now try to count the number of massacres for the same period committed by non-Muslims for the different religious and non-religious reasons. You can start with Oklahoma bombing and proceed to the almost annual schools' massacres, to mass suicides committed by different religious groups etc...Yes, America is in war and not only against Islam.

"But that will be the outcome of your hamstringing stance."

I don't think so. My position is that force should fight by stronger force and ideas by better ideas. You suggest to fight force and ideas by force. That cannot be done in principle, unless you are ready to forfeit rights and freedom. But if you think that you can fight for freedom by means of its selective denial, you are living in contradictions.

He is single, mentally

Richard Wiig's picture

He is single, mentally unstable man. This is true, that his insanity has religious background. So what?

He's either an Islamic supremacist or he is not. Why are you making excuses for him? It's the kind of thing I expect from all out leftists, but not from you.

How many such crimes committed in America every year?

Well, there's been 9/11, there's been Nidal Hasan, there was the guy who drove his vehicle into a crowd of students, there was the shooting in Seattle at the Jewish center, there's been a few more, and quite a few that have been thwarted due to diligent intelligence, but I can't really give you a figure. I haven't done a proper count.

Terrorism requires wide networks, training camps, communications and a lot of money.

That it does, and it's got them. Have you read the recently released Al Qaeda internet magazine in which they tell you how to make a deadly bomb in your mothers kitchen. It's a very cheap way to spread the word.

Do you know that for sure? Did you try to visit?

No, I haven't tried it. But I suspect it does vary from mosque to mosque depending on how pious it is.

“You are happy to see people more vulnerable to attacks such as 9/11.”

No, I don't.

But that will be the outcome of your hamstringing stance.

And exactly in order to prevent these kinds of attack the war should be aimed against terrorism and not against peaceful law obedient people who happened to be Muslims.

No ones wanting to fight innocent muslims. I think innocent muslims need all the help they can get.

Richard

Leonid's picture

"It didn't take a lot of funding to support the Fort Hood murderer."

He is single, mentally unstable man. This is true, that his insanity has religious background. So what? How many such crimes committed in America every year? Terrorism requires wide networks, training camps, communications and a lot of money.

"Mosques are open to Muslims on a come hither basis, but not to Infidels."

Do you know that for sure? Did you try to visit?

“You are happy to see people more vulnerable to attacks such as 9/11.”

No, I don't. And exactly in order to prevent these kinds of attack the war should be aimed against terrorism and not against peaceful law obedient people who happened to be Muslims.

"Once it's gone past the debating chamber into acts of war, then it's all gloves off. The time for defensive coercion comes in."

And nobody as far as I know, objects to defensive coercion. It's called the war against terror. The paradox is that very often terrorists are treated with kid gloves, and peaceful people who are Muslims or even Muslims look alike are treated with iron fist. I don't support the turn the other cheek, I simply say-get your priorities right. Treat by force those who use force and leave the others alone.

Even that is impossible

Richard Wiig's picture

Even that is impossible without the massive support of the “rough” states. Let alone a war against modern state with modern army or even police.

It didn't take a lot of funding to support the Fort Hood murderer. Jihadists get their funding from many places, even their own pockets. This is not a traditional war, but you mired in thinking only in terms of tradition. I thought objectivists were mean't to be outside box.

"The more committed they are the more of a potential danger they. The least observing they are the better."

Meaning, those who pray 5 times a day are more dangerous than those who pray only 4 times?

Now I know that the full depth of Islam really doesn't interest you. You've read "there is no compulsion in religion" and you've stopped there. Perhaps because it feels good there. I don't know.

I don't support the idea of spying on Muslim community.

I know you don't. You support treating people as if there is a context of peace and not a context of war. You are happy to see people more vulnerable to attacks such as 9/11. Others of us are not. Not much more I can say really.

It is not necessary, as long as Muslim community is not driven to the underground. Mosques are open to everybody,

Mosques are not open to everybody on a come hither basis. Mosques are open to Muslims on a come hither basis, but not to Infidels.

Recently British Imam has been deported for the open, public and explicit instigation for violence. Nobody was spying on him.

The fact is, for every good story like that, there are a score of bad ones. Your Imam being deported, who, if it's the one I'm thinking of, is now continuing his sermons from Lebanon to his British followers, is but a gnats bite.

"If there's nothing to fear, then why all the security?"

The security measures are against terror, not against Islam.

And that's as far as you'll ever know, Leonid.

BTW, except Islamic terrorism there are many other terrorist groups in the world, IRA or ETA for example.

Thanks for that tidbit.

An army? Really? Do they have guns, air force, Navy?

Yes, an army. A small smidgeon of an army. As for do they have guns... a bomb will be going off in the world somewhere soon by one of their brethren. You can keep track of their joyous antics here:

http://www.thereligionofpeace....

They are pathetic rioters, hooligans, which London's police can easily disperse by using clubs and water cannons.

Gail Wynand alert! They are a sign of Islams presence in the UK, a phenomenon that was not noticeable 10 years ago.

Have you seen pictures of anti-globalization demonstrators,

I've lived with one, and been told by one that people like me (who support capitalism) make him feel like taking up arms. They are a danger, absolutely, but not as immediate a danger or great a one, as Islam. The leftists you reel off there have all aligned themselves with Islam.

OK, let me rephrase it: because philosophical vacuum, Islam, Christian fundamentalism, Socialism, environmentalism etc...represent a threat to the Western culture. But this is philosophical threat and it should be defeated by means of philosophy, not coercion.

Once it's gone past the debating chamber into acts of war, then it's all gloves off. The time for defensive coercion comes in. Sorry, but you support the turn the other cheek jesus message, then more fool you.

Richard

Leonid's picture

"Yes, I've seen that argument before, from the dreadful peron, but I simply do not believe it. Any group capable can wage war, whether it is a government entity or not."

A war of gangs, maybe, (like in Iraq) and acts of terror. Even that is impossible without the massive support of the “rough” states. Let alone a war against modern state with modern army or even police.

"The more committed they are the more of a potential danger they. The least observing they are the better."
Meaning, those who pray 5 times a day are more dangerous than those who pray only 4 times?

"Which necessitates spying and monitoring the Muslim community?"

I don't support the idea of spying on Muslim community. It is not necessary, as long as Muslim community is not driven to the underground. Mosques are open to everybody, and, besides, Muslims have their news papers, radio and TV channels, magazines etc...Recently British Imam has been deported for the open, public and explicit instigation for violence. Nobody was spying on him.

"If there's nothing to fear, then why all the security?"

The security measures are against terror, not against Islam. BTW, except Islamic terrorism there are many other terrorist groups in the world, IRA or ETA for example.

"In the traditional sense no, but here's some of the modern day muslim army running through the streets of london:"

An army? Really? Do they have guns, air force, Navy? They are pathetic rioters, hooligans, which London's police can easily disperse by using clubs and water cannons. Have you seen pictures of anti-globalization demonstrators, animal activists, "pro-life", and many many others? What you suggest to do with them?

"Islam doesn't represent any danger to the Western culture, its philosophical vacuum does.
Certainly the west is certainly ailing philosophically, but that doesn't mean Islam is not a threat. It is a threat, and it is real."

OK, let me rephrase it: because philosophical vacuum, Islam, Christian fundamentalism, Socialism, environmentalism etc...represent a threat to the Western culture. But this is philosophical threat and it should be defeated by means of philosophy, not coercion.

One cannot prosecute

Richard Wiig's picture

One cannot prosecute minorities or wage wars as private enterprise. Feeling have nothing to do with the use of force. This is exclusively function of the state.

Yes, I've seen that argument before, from the dreadful peron, but I simply do not believe it. Any group capable can wage war, whether it is a government entity or not.

As far as I know they all good observing Muslims.

The more commited they are the more of a potential danger they. The least observing they are the better.

That's true and this is the way to go. Not they should prove that they oppose Islamic supremacism, but state has to prove that they support it and to act accordingly.

Which necessitates spying and monitoring the muslim community. They're likely to say, and they do, that their rights are being infringed. You'd agree with them, since you support guilty until proven innocent no matter the context. I find it contradictory that you say you'd support spying on the muslim community.

It is irrational fear because it is unwarranted. We are not in the war with Islam.

If there's nothing to fear, then why all the security? If there's nothing to fear, then why all the successful jihad attacks? If there's nothing to fear, then why all the thwarted plots, such as the recent attempt to bomb Times Square? It seems pretty weird to me that you think there is nothing to fear. Everyone may as well pack up and go home huh, if there is nothign to fear.

There are no Islamic armies which invade the West.

In the traditional sense no, but here's some of the modern day muslim army running through the streets of london:

Islam doesn't represent any danger to the Western culture, its philosophical vacuum does.

Certainly the west is certainly ailing philosophically, but that doesn't mean Islam is not a threat. It is a threat, and it is real.

Richard

Leonid's picture

"The government of a country doesn't necessarily reflect the feeling of the country. I'm surprised that you take some actions of the state as a measurement for where things stand"

One cannot prosecute minorities or wage wars as private enterprise. Feeling have nothing to do with the use of force. This is exclusively function of the state.

"If they are not Islamically awake, then there's a nice sized pool there to be awakened."

As far as I know they all good observing Muslims.

"but you can bet Israeli intelligence no everything that goes on in those mosques - quite qa contrast from America. Lindsay hasn't said get rid of all the mosques. He's said they should prove that they oppose Islamic supremacism."

That's true and this is the way to go. Not they should prove that they oppose Islamic supremacism, but state has to prove that they support it and to act accordingly.

"And what exactly is this fear of and why is it irrational, Leonid?"

It is irrational fear because it is unwarranted. We are not in the war with Islam. There are no Islamic armies which invade the West. Islam doesn't represent any danger to the Western culture, its philosophical vacuum does.

Without this, al Qaeda would

Richard Wiig's picture

Without this, al Qaeda would never come into existence.

Well, that's pure speculation on your part. Where there's a will, there's a way. America did not provide the will. The mean perhaps, naively, but not the will. Al Qaeda is a mentality, and that came regardless of America.

Can you be more specific? In

Richard Wiig's picture

Can you be more specific? In which countries it is on the up?

It is on the up in Malaysia, in Turkey, in Pakistan, in Bangladesh, in Thailand, in Egypt....

Is it Egypt which jails and hangs Islamists? Or maybe Syria which banned burka in public places before Europe? Or Pakistan which actually fights Taliban? Or Jordan which maintains diplomatic, economic and cultural relations with Israel?

What the state in Pakistan does is just enough to keep American aid coming in, and no more. The state in Egypt may hang the odd Islamist, but only the ones that pisses it off. A lot goes on in Egypt where the state simply looks the other way, such as the Islamic persecution of the Copts. The government of a country doesn't necessarily reflect the feeling of the country. I'm surprised that you take some actions of the state as a measurement for where things stand. Saudi Arabi also has put so-called Islamist to death, and that somehow means that Saudi Arabia is not Islam friendly???

"Are you living in a cave, Leonid?"

No, currently I'm living in South Africa, the country in which 2 million Muslims are living in peaceful coexistence with Christians, Jews, Hindus and African pagans without the slightest intention to establish the Caliphate.

Perhaps, but that tells us nothing about Islam, or of what their religion requires of them. If they are not Islamically awake, then there's a nice sized pool there to be awakened.

Before I was living in Israel, the country with 10% of Muslim population who are also living in peace with Jews and Christians. Israeli Muslims are seldom involved in any terrorist activities and don't even dream to turn Israel into the Muslim state. Many of them even serve in Israeli Army as volunteers.

None of which tells us anything about Islam.

I reckon, Israel has more mosques than America and nobody calls to ban them, in spite the ongoing war against Islamism.

Whether it has more mosques or not I wouldn't know, but you can bet Israeli intelligence no everything that goes on in those mosques - quite qa contrast from America. Lindsay hasn't said get rid of all the mosques. He's said they should prove that they oppose Islamic supremacism.

No matter, where I live, I'm trying to avoid the living in the sick, unreal world of Islamophobia.

And what exactly is this fear of and why is it irrational, Leonid?

Richard

Leonid's picture

"Do you see large numbers standing up and rejecting that call? I don't. "

And maybe they just don't bother, this way or another?

"That muslim political parties are forming, and there is one in Australia,"
How many MP's it has?

" The fight for the mind is done in the mosques, not through political parties."

Also on TV, news papers, mass culture, internet, twitter, blackberry etc...etc...etc...You are free to paticipate.

Richard

Leonid's picture

"you'd sold a gun to someone in good faith to fight off a common enemy, unaware that he's then going to take it and turn it on you. Al Qaeda, the Taliban etc have their agenda regardless, and they were getting a lot of training from Pakistan."

As you can learn from the link which I provided, training from Pakistan had been facilitated by CIA. America spent 5 billion dollars on this operation, not only on guns, but mainly on the training of 100 000 future terrorists. Without this, al Qaeda would never come into existence.

There are 446,500 Muslims

Richard Wiig's picture

There are 446,500 Muslims currently living in Australia. 2000 is less than 0.5%. That is hardly shows any significant influence.

It also doesn't show where muslim sentiments generally lie, so it hardly shows that there is no influence. Ideas travel easily these days. You don't need to travel to a conference to become aware of them. What the numbers of muslims who are not supremacists represent, is a pool of people waiting to be brought closer to Islam. Do you see large numbers standing up and rejecting that call? I don't. There are a few, but less even than the 2000 odd that attended that conference.

I'm sure that any rugby match could attract bigger numbers.

And once again, so what??? It's irrelevant.

If according to you supremacists are so influential and political power is Islam's goal, why Islamists just don't form political party, and go for election?

They have, in many countries. Aside from the fact that there are many Islamic parties, some of which are doing very nicely thankyou, Islams goal is the Islamisation of the world by all the means of Jihad, not just acts of terror. The fight for the mind is done in the mosques, not through political parties. That muslim political parties are forming, and there is one in Australia, is simply another sign of the increasing presence of Islam in the West.

Richard

Leonid's picture

In EVERY Islamic country today it is on the up."

Can you be more specific? In which countries it is on the up? Is it Egypt which jails and hangs Islamists? Or maybe Syria which banned burka in public places before Europe? Or Pakistan which actually fights Taliban? Or Jordan which maintains diplomatic, economic and cultural relations with Israel?

"Are you living in a cave, Leonid?"

No, currently I'm living in South Africa, the country in which 2 million Muslims are living in peaceful coexistence with Christians, Jews, Hindus and African pagans without the slightest intention to establish the Caliphate. Before I was living in Israel, the country with 10% of Muslim population who are also living in peace with Jews and Christians. Israeli Muslims are seldom involved in any terrorist activities and don't even dream to turn Israel into the Muslim state. Many of them even serve in Israeli Army as volunteers. I reckon, Israel has more mosques than America and nobody calls to ban them, in spite the ongoing war against Islamism.

No matter, where I live, I'm trying to avoid the living in the sick, unreal world of Islamophobia.

That's not the same as

Richard Wiig's picture

That's not the same as creating Al Qaeda. It was naivete, and ignorance of Islam, on the part of Americans, but that's no more creating a bad guy than if you'd sold a gun to someone in good faith to fight off a common enemy, unaware that he's then going to take it and turn it on you. Al Qaeda, the Taliban etc have their agenda regardless, and they were getting a lot of training from Pakistan.

Why?

Richard Wiig's picture

Islam exists already 1500 years. If its goal was political power, then all Muslim countries would be theocracies today

Because Islam is a successful way of conducting affairs??? Totalitarianism never holds together, it always falls apart. Islam has always gone from falling apart to coming together. It waxes and wanes. In EVERY Islamic country today it is on the up. Are you living in a cave, Leonid?

Your comparison of Nazism with Islam is completely out of place.

Only if "Islamism" is not Islam. Unfortunately for you - for all of us, for that matter - it is.

The origins of al-Qaeda

Leonid's picture

Doug " Now I realize that the source of this is Lefty Pomowanking idiocy, but is there any historical truth to the claims that we (the U.S.) were responsible for the creation of Al Queda or some of the other Muslim terror groups?

Richard "American foreign policy did not cause that."

I think it did, although not in the lefty's sense

"The origins of al-Qaeda as a network inspiring terrorism around the world and training operatives can be traced to the Soviet war in Afghanistan[38] (December 1979 – February 1989). The United States viewed the conflict in Afghanistan, with the Afghan Marxists and allied Soviet troops on one side and the native Afghan mujahideen on the other, as a blatant case of Soviet expansionism and aggression. The U.S. channelled funds through Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency to the native Afghan mujahideen fighting the Soviet occupation in a CIA program called Operation Cyclone.[39][40]..."

"On July 3, 1979, U.S. President Carter signed a presidential finding authorizing funding for anticommunist guerrillas in Afghanistan.[3] Following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and installation of a more pro-Soviet president, Babrak Karmal, Carter announced, "The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is the greatest threat to peace since the Second World War".[6]
The program relied heavily on using the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) as an intermediary for funds distribution, passing of weapons, military training and financial support to Afghan resistance groups.[7] Along with funding from similar programs from Britain's MI6 and SAS, Saudi Arabia, and the People's Republic of China,[8] the ISI armed and trained over 100,000 insurgents between 1978 and 1992. They encouraged the volunteers from the Arab states to join the Afghan resistance in its struggle against the Soviet troops based in Afghanistan.[7]...In the late 1980s, Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto, concerned about the growing strength of the Islamist movement, told President George H. W. Bush, "You are creating a Frankenstein."[15]
"
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i...

Richard

Leonid's picture

Your comparison of Nazism with Islam is completely out of place. Nazism was political power, Nazis controlled the state, its army and police forces, they started WWII. Where are the Islamic armies or Islamic states which are going to invade the West and which we suppose to defeat? Islam exists already 1500 years. If its goal was political power, then all Muslim countries would be theocracies today. Evidentially this is not a case. More then that, many regimes in Muslim world actively resist Islamization of politics, they ban Islamists parties, like "Muslim Brothers" in Egypt. In the West there are no Islam political parties at all. No one. Not in France with its 10% of Muslim population, not in UK, not in USA. So how you concluded that "Islam’s goal is political power."?

"A couple of weeks ago in Sydney there was an Islamic supremacist conference about the goal of turning Australia into an Islamic state. 2000 Muslims turned up to it."

There are 446,500 Muslims currently living in Australia. 2000 is less than 0.5%. That is hardly shows any significant influence. I'm sure that any rugby match could attract bigger numbers. If according to you supremacists are so influential and political power is Islam's goal, why Islamists just don't form political party, and go for election?

That can not in any way be

Richard Wiig's picture

That can not in any way be true. Terrorism is as old as the hills, but the issue here is not terrorism per se, but Jihadism and martyrdom in the cause of Allah. Jihadism has been around since Muhammad became militant and been with Islam ever since. American foreign policy did not cause that. In regards to Al Qaeda, one modern day jihad group among many, it grew out of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood was formed immediately after the break up of the Ottoman Empire with sole aim of bringing back the Caliphate. That, was not caused by American foreign policy. The Jihadi mind needs a cause to focus on. Any cause will do. When three Christian Indonesian school girls were walking home from school and some Jihadists leap out and beheaded two of them, that was not caused by American foreign policy. It was caused by zeal for Islam, and the Christian girls were somehow an affront to their Islamic sensibilities.

Leftist/Libertarian "Narrative"

Doug Bandler's picture

The Leftist/Libertarian narrative is that it is not Islam that is the root problem. The Left denies the evil of Islam. They argue that it is America's involvement in the Middle East (largely driven by the lust for oil) that has given Muslims legitimate grievances. Now I realize that the source of this is Lefty Pomowanking idiocy, but is there any historical truth to the claims that we (the U.S.) were responsible for the creation of Al Queda or some of the other Muslim terror groups? The Libertarians will say that if we were not in the Middle East at all we would not be the object of Islamic terrorism. Could that in any way be true?

Richard

Doug Bandler's picture

You have raised many good points and have given me alot to think about.

The simple truth

Brant Gaede's picture

The simple truth is that the United States is destroying itself with stupid foreign and domestic wars while the proximate instigators of its troubles are mostly sitting on the sidelines enjoying the spectacle, never really minding the beloved and needed martyrs.

--Brant

Radical article by UK standards...

Marcus's picture

Our dangerous dalliance with radical Islam

Whitehall's support only puts us at greater risk from the religious revolutionaries, says Andrew Gilligan.

"Over the past 10 days, like a submarine just below the surface, the outline has become visible of a massive Whitehall row, the outcome of which could be almost as important to our country as fixing the deficit.

The argument is about the influence that Islamism should have in the British state. Islamism should never, by the way, be confused with Islam. Islam is a religion, practised by millions of British citizens who have never sought to overthrow anything in their lives. Islamism is a revolutionary political doctrine, supported by a small minority of Muslims, whose aim is to overthrow secular democratic government and replace it with Islamic government."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/jou...

Political Islam's goal is

Richard Wiig's picture

Political Islam's goal is political power,

Islams goal is political power. You treat Islam as if it is the same as Christianity when it is not. Christians can get political, and try to impose Christianity regardless of Christian law, but they are not commanded to by their religion. Islam, on the other hand, seeks total domination of all human life. It demands complete submission from its followers, and subjugation of all non-believers. Renounce your Christian beliefs and you'll be told you'll rot in hell, or have your soul prayed for. Renounce Islam, and the Islamic penalty is death. The point is, there is no separation of politics in Islam. Actually, it might be truer to say, there are no politics in Islam. Politics must mean competing points of view, or ways of being. In Islam, there is just submission to gourds law, and that is it. No politics comes into it.

that is -the usage of machinery of the state in order to establish and sustain Sharia law. Even in the Muslim world the success of Islamists is limited to Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Taliban’s Afghanistan, Gaza strip and, partially, Emirates. That represents less than 5% of Muslim world.

Which is completely irrelevant. When the nazis started out they were only 3% of.... When the Environmentalists started out they were only 2% of... So what??? Not all nazis believed in gassing Jews, Homosexuals, Gypsies et al. So what???

Islamists know that they don't have a chance of snowball in hell in the West.

Could have fooled me, Leonid. They're nearly succeeding in having a mega-mosque built at ground zero. They'll be laughing at you, that's for sure.

By waging a war against West

Leonid, they are waging a war against the unIslamic, which not just the West. It is ALL unbelievers.

they are trying to increase their influence in the East.

They are trying to increase their influence everywhere. A couple of weeks ago in Sydney there was an Islamic supremacist conference about the goal of turning Australia into an Islamic state. 2000 muslims turned up to it. Not a single muslim voice in Australia, that I'm aware of, spoke out against it. Their influence is growing. 10 years ago Islam was hardly on anyones lips. These days everyone is aware of Islam.

And their struggle in the West is mainly ideological struggle: they want to win over souls of Western Muslims, and not only Muslims-also without much success.

I don't know how you draw that conclusion. When countries are now having homegrown jihadists, which is surely a sign of the success of the spread of Islam, of the capturing of minds, it's not possible to say they haven't been having success.

However, repressions, restrictions and limitations of the kind Lindsay suggests to use, may greatly increase their chance. It will prove that Western democracy is not much different from their own political agenda.

It will actually prove that we are not a soft target.

For example, Lindsay said "All mosques should be treated as enemy HQ unless they can prove otherwise, and closed." This means abrogation of the principle of presumption of innocence-the cornerstone of Western judicial system. The main fallacy is a perception that we are at war with Islam, that is-a system of believes, and such a war could be won by means of state coercion. In principle that cannot be done. The war of ideas is won by better ideas. However islamofascists who actually initiate the use of force should be defeated by force.

If this were WWII you'd be supporting the freedom of the nazis to campaign, recruit, and strategise in downtown London, because Nazism is a system of ideas. Ridiculous!

The Ayn Rand of the Muslim world...

Marcus's picture

The doubt that remains for me

Richard Wiig's picture

The doubt that remains for me though is driven by the fact that I have read these arguments before and they are all made by religious and Christian-apologist Conservatives. I have read enough to be suspicious of Conservative historical accuracy.

Isn't that somewhat collectivist of you? I'm sure it's possible to be a Christian conservative and be accurate. Whether it's sloppy or meticulous, biased or not, is surely an individual thing. As far as the arguments I have put forward go, the question is, are they part of Islamic law or not? That's the bottom line. From what I have read, it is certainly part of Islamic law.

Rodney Stark, for instance, published a book on the Crusades where he argues the popular Christian Conservative position that the Crusades was a defensive counter-war against Islamic expansionism. I have seen good, well-informed critiques of this position that argue pretty persuasively that the Crusaders were not fighting for political reasons relating to defending Europe but out of religious motivations to defend Jerusalem; Jerusalem being the Mecca of Christianity.

Defend it from what???

The European effort in the Crusades was largely driven by Christian zealotry (of course the Muslims were driven by their own religious zealotry).

But the muslims had been conquering the Christians for 300 years prior to the Crusades. It was only after a lot of doing relatively little that they finally stood up and fought back. Sure, there were personal agendas at play in the Crusades that had nothing to do with defending against Islam, but it was ultimately a response to Islamic Imperialism.

Islam and islamism

Leonid's picture

Political Islam's goal is political power, that is -the usage of machinery of the state in order to establish and sustain Sharia law. Even in the Muslim world the success of Islamists is limited to Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Taliban’s Afghanistan, Gaza strip and, partially, Emirates. That represents less than 5% of Muslim world. Islamists know that they don't have a chance of snowball in hell in the West. By waging a war against West they are trying to increase their influence in the East. And their struggle in the West is mainly ideological struggle: they want to win over souls of Western Muslims, and not only Muslims-also without much success. However, repressions, restrictions and limitations of the kind Lindsay suggests to use, may greatly increase their chance. It will prove that Western democracy is not much different from their own political agenda. For example, Lindsay said "All mosques should be treated as enemy HQ unless they can prove otherwise, and closed." This means abrogation of the principle of presumption of innocence-the cornerstone of Western judicial system. The main fallacy is a perception that we are at war with Islam, that is-a system of believes, and such a war could be won by means of state coercion. In principle that cannot be done. The war of ideas is won by better ideas. However islamofascists who actually initiate the use of force should be defeated by force.

Richard

Doug Bandler's picture

Christianity sees the relationship with God as a personal thing, Islam does not.

From what I know, I would say this is right. Christianity developed during the height of Roman power. No religion/philosophy that challenged Roman power politically would ever have succeeded. As such, NT Christianity does have an ascetic, self-renunciation aspect to it which I have read (and think is likely) is the result of the depression and despair that the Jewish people felt at being conquered by the Romans. This is captured by Christianity's "turn inwards" philosophy. Islam, on the other hand, developed as an outgrowth of Arab tribalism. Mohamed, if he was real (and there is debate on that), united the Arab tribes and took the blood-lust which they once directed at each other and focused it on the rest of the world.

The rest of your points are good ones as well. The doubt that remains for me though is driven by the fact that I have read these arguments before and they are all made by religious and Christian-apologist Conservatives. I have read enough to be suspicious of Conservative historical accuracy. Rodney Stark, for instance, published a book on the Crusades where he argues the popular Christian Conservative position that the Crusades was a defensive counter-war against Islamic expansionism. I have seen good, well-informed critiques of this position that argue pretty persuasively that the Crusaders were not fighting for political reasons relating to defending Europe but out of religious motivations to defend Jerusalem; Jerusalem being the Mecca of Christianity. The European effort in the Crusades was largely driven by Christian zealotry (of course the Muslims were driven by their own religious zealotry). So I remain suspicious of Conservative accounts of Islam. (Of course it goes without saying that I discount any Leftist accounts of Islam as well.)

Islam is a political ideology

Richard Wiig's picture

Islam is a political ideology with a religious dimension...

...as Christianity was before the Enlightenment.

It needs to be defeated on the political front first, before it will become just a religion

Christianity sees the relationship with God as a personal thing, Islam does not. Each position is supported by their respective texts. That mean't that Christianity was open to separation of Church and State, but Islam is not. Islamic doctrine does not support any separation.

Doug

Richard Wiig's picture

The argument that political Islam is different than Islam runs along the lines that Islam is essentially a manual for daily living for Muslims.

It is an all encompassing set of rules. In Islam there is Halal (Islamic) and there is Haram (UnIslamic) and all answers are found in the Qur'an, or rather, in the words of Allah. There is no room across any spectrum, including the political, for personal whim or standard. There is Gods law, and you either submit to it, or you don't. Islam means submission.

However, what opponents of Islam-as-mandating-war will argue is that the warrior sections of Islam have to do with political conflicts that were located in the historical past and that they do not necessarily apply to the present.

This is easily shown to be false. Muslims weren't commanded to fight the unbelievers until the world was all for Allah only for a short period 1400 years ago. They were commanded to fight the unbelievers until the world was all for Allah, period. Islam divides the world into two houses: the house of peace (where Islam rules) and the house of war (where the unbelievers, or mans law, rules). They are commanded to keep fighting until the entire world comes under the house of Islam, until the world is all for Allah. If man extended his reach to other planets, then they'd have to conquer those too. Until the world is all for Allah, then the war is not over.

The history of Islam bears this out. Islam has never stopped trying to conquer the house of war. There have been periods where Islam, in a weakened state, has coexisted relatively peacefully, but this is only due to the weakened state of Islam. When Islam is strong, it dominates. That's what we are seeing today, a strengthened Islam, aided by such things as petro-dollars, modern day communications, multiculturalism, etc

Now I know what your response will be, that Jihad is central to Islam and it can't be removed from the total package. You have made a good case for that.

Not good enough.

But I have seen some sophisticated counters to that made from well informed sources.

Yes, there are plenty of sophisticated counters, but ultimately the facts decide. The fact is, when you look into Islamic law it's right there in black and white. Every school of Islamic jurisprudence mandates Jihad.

Even Bernard Lewis disagrees with that (and I know that Bernard Lewis is looked down upon in Conservative anti-Islam circles).

I don't know which anti-Islam circles you mean, but from what I've seen he's highly respected as a scholar, although disagreed with on certain things.

But I see that Objectivism as a whole is just waking up to the challenge of Islam.

They've been very slow to wake up, but better late than never.

Islam is a political ideology with a religious dimension...

Olivia's picture

...as Christianity was before the Enlightenment.

It needs to be defeated on the political front first, before it will become just a religion.

Let those who have lived and breathed Islam all their lives teach us....

Richard

Doug Bandler's picture

The argument that political Islam is different than Islam runs along the lines that Islam is essentially a manual for daily living for Muslims. It gives them rules for food, prayer, fasting, charity, marriage, etc.. It also gives them rules for war. However, what opponents of Islam-as-mandating-war will argue is that the warrior sections of Islam have to do with political conflicts that were located in the historical past and that they do not necessarily apply to the present.

Now I know what your response will be, that Jihad is central to Islam and it can't be removed from the total package. You have made a good case for that. But I have seen some sophisticated counters to that made from well informed sources. Even Bernard Lewis disagrees with that (and I know that Bernard Lewis is looked down upon in Conservative anti-Islam circles). The tentative conclusion that I have reached is that until I read more on the subjects of the history of Islam and its core tenets, I really don't know enough to say one way or the other.

I know that Sharia/political Islam is enough of a world-wide phenomenon that at least half of the world's Muslims have some sympathy with it. This does mean that Islam is suspect and must be treated differently than the other religions. However, the total banning of Mosque building or banning the practice of Islam or other serious restrictions raise a number of challenging philosophical issues. I know scrutiny must be placed on Islam. How much scrutiny is something I haven't decided upon.

But I see that Objectivism as a whole is just waking up to the challenge of Islam. What we have seen up till this point is Robert Tracinski's Neo-Con lite and the ARI's focus on war policy. But no one has really focused on such subjects as Mosque building, Islamic immigration, monitoring Muslim "civil rights" groups, Muslim religious schools, etc.. So the "Cordoba House" is a wake-up call for Objectivists, which is a good thing.

Which points are these,

Richard Wiig's picture

Which points are these, specifically, Doug? How does one distinguish between political Islam (which is what? Something other than Islam?) and actual Islam? In Islam their prophet is considered the perfect man, the moral exemplar that all muslims should emulate. What did Muhammad have to say politically, and how can it be that what he said differs from actual Islam? This is what Leonid is trying to argue.

Leonid

I'll say this, you have made some of the better arguments that I have seen for the position that it is not Islam itself but the political version of it that is the problem.

Doug

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I think that Islam is a very different bird than Christianity and Judaism, at least when we compare it to post-Enlightenment Christianity (and Judaism was pacified by the Romans 1900 years ago). I don't know if we can afford it the same 1st Amendment protections that we afford other religions.

The First Amendment is not to be rationed that way. Of course Congress should make no law abridging the free speech of Islamogoblinites. But in a time of war, declared and waged by Islamogoblinites in the name of Islamogoblinism, no more Islamogoblinites should be let in and those already in should be closely monitored. Any incitement to kill should be treated not as speech but as treasonous action. All mosques should be treated as enemy HQ unless they can prove otherwise, and closed. If the savages don't like it they can always move to a country with mosques on every dirt road corner. Most assuredly, an enemy shrine should not be permitted at the site of the enemy's most infamous atrocity.

This debate is funny in a way. Richard routinely, conscientiously treats Goblianity with kid gloves; Leonid likewise Islamogoblinism. The former superstition is currently less virulent than the latter only because secularism, reason and decency have tamed it. In the hands of some it could certainly leer up again, though as you know I never subscribed to the Hsiekovian "imminent theocracy" madness. But in this present debate Richard is certainly correct. Leonid is simply being a useful idiot for Islamogoblinazis.

If a dirty nuke or something similar is dropped, some folk will still be denouncing the hoops it will have to get through as infringements of liberty, and blathering on about the peacefulness of regular Muslims. Retards.

It's the West vs Islam. If the latter wins, it will be because of the appeasing, handwringing procrastination and indecision of the former.

Leonid

Doug Bandler's picture

I'll say this, you have made some of the better arguments that I have seen for the position that it is not Islam itself but the political version of it that is the problem. That said, I am somewhere between you and Richard on this subject. Personally, I have always found it hard to philosophically analyze Islam. I've basically resigned myself to the fact that until I conduct a more thorough examination of Islamic doctrine and its history, I'm limited in the conclusions that I can reach. This is one reason why I find the discussion you and Richard are having very informative.

Doug

Leonid's picture

"I don't know if we can afford it the same 1st Amendment protections that we afford other religions. "

There is no need to invoke 1st Amendment. Prove beyond the reasonable doubt that certain religious activity is an instigation of violence and such an activity becomes criminal under the common law. Nobody can implement Sharia law as a private enterprise; that would collude with the law of the land. Such an activity is unlawful by definition. However one will have a great difficulty to find transgression of the law in the consumption of halal food, reciting prayers 5 times a day, celebration of Ramadan and other religious festivals, or studies of Qur'an and hadit. Under American law there is no such a thing as a thought crime. The restriction of such practices by government would mean abrogation of the principle of separation of religion from the state. Besides, I don't think that "in terms of the political dimensions of Islam, it does seem to have an explicit and perpetual war code built into it; “ Among thousands of Qur'an's verses I could find only few that directly relate to the war. It is true, that whole history of Islam is the history of conquest, but the same applies to the history of Christianity. It is also true that Islamists use Islam in order to achieve their own political goals. They have to be restricted by force. But Islam as a system of believes could be fought only on the battleground of ideas.

Regarding Mosques

Doug Bandler's picture

However building of mosques is not an act of war ...

This I am not so sure about. There is a growing debate in the Objectivist community on exactly how to classify Islam. I have seen one argument that Islam is a perpetual solicitation to commit murder, therefore mosques are not just places of religious worship, they are enemy beech-heads in America which are used to promote enemy propaganda and further the enemy's war aims - which are to promote Sharia. I am not signing on to this viewpoint yet, but I am intrigued by it.

I think that Islam is a very different bird than Christianity and Judaism, at least when we compare it to post-Enlightenment Christianity (and Judaism was pacified by the Romans 1900 years ago). I don't know if we can afford it the same 1st Amendment protections that we afford other religions. (And I say this as someone who is not a Christian Apologist. Epistemologically, all theistic philosophy is at war with reason. But in terms of the political dimensions of Islam, it does seem to have an explicit and perpetual war code built into it; something martyrdom-worshiping Christianity doesn't have.)

Richard

Leonid's picture

."So you'd support the right of those who plan on building the mega-mosque then?"

I support people's rights. Period. One cannot fight for freedom by denial of freedom. Contradictions don't exist. People who don't recognize and trample the rights of others forfeit their own rights.

"In regard to defending against Jihad, that is a consequence of not clearly identifying the enemy."

The government with totalitarian inclinations will use any excuse to limit people's freedom. In any case it's much easier than proper police and intelligence work.

"There can't be any peaceful coexistence when you belong to a movement that is at war with people outside of the group. Heck, just the simple building of mosques is enough to get feelings stirred."

With such people you have to fight. However building of mosques is not an act of war and feelings are not tools of cognition.

"It's about sabotaging and putting pressure on the West."

And the West can do exactly the same by putting pressure on Islamists. In fact the West can do it much better

The proper function of the

Richard Wiig's picture

The proper function of the law enforcement agencies of the government is to prevent violence and infringement of rights by anybody or any group of people regardless of their religious or political affiliation. You cannot shift the responsibility of American government to do just that to the vast majority of the law obedient people by infringement of their rights.

So you'd support the righta of those who plan on building the mega-mosque then?

However, this is exactly what is happening in America today. The rights of the people, and not necessary Muslims, but all Americans are restricted in many different ways.

In regard to defending against Jihad, that is a consequence of not clearly identifying the enemy.

In other words, Americans pay with their rights for the failure of their government. However the infringement of rights cannot be selective. Or their existence is recognized by the state, or it is not. Peaceful coexistence is possible with all people who obey the law of the land and don't initiate violence.

There can't be any peaceful coexistence when you belong to a movement that is at war with people outside of the group. Heck, just the simple building of mosques is enough to get feelings stirred. That isn't peaceful coexistence, and there never will be until the Jihad stops.

"What dialogue would you have with Islamic supremacists? What is it that they want to talk to you about?"

From your posts I understood that they initiate dialogue. They go to the court rooms, news papers and TV, they bring up different claims and demands, they explain why their way of life is much better than that of the west. Your part in dialogue is to answer them. This is the struggle of ideas.

Tying up the courts and working the system in order to create a financial burden, among other things, isn't an initiation of dialogue. It's about sabotaging and putting pressure on the West.

Richard

Leonid's picture

" Yes, and those people are living within the Islamic community. How do you flush them out and capture them without stepping on the rights of and alienating other muslims?"

The proper function of the law enforcement agencies of the government is to prevent violence and infringement of rights by anybody or any group of people regardless of their religious or political affiliation. You cannot shift the responsibility of American government to do just that to the vast majority of the law obedient people by infringement of their rights. However, this is exactly what is happening in America today. The rights of the people, and not necessary Muslims, but all Americans are restricted in many different ways. In other words, Americans pay with their rights for the failure of their government. However the infringement of rights cannot be selective. Or their existence is recognized by the state, or it is not. Peaceful coexistence is possible with all people who obey the law of the land and don't initiate violence.

"What dialogue would you have with Islamic supremacists? What is it that they want to talk to you about?"

From your posts I understood that they initiate dialogue. They go to the court rooms, news papers and TV, they bring up different claims and demands, they explain why their way of life is much better than that of the west. Your part in dialogue is to answer them. This is the struggle of ideas.

"So what kind of dialogue

Richard Wiig's picture

"So what kind of dialogue would you like with Islamic supremacists who are plotting the downfall of the West?"

Plotting how? If they are plotting downfall of the West by use of force, they should be answered by force. But if they hope to win over the West by means of Islamic ideology, then this is a struggle of ideas which West still can win.

They plan on subjugating the west through deception and the sheer weight of numbers. When the fifth column is large enough, then blood will flow. It's as simple as that. But you haven't answered my question. What dialogue would you have with Islamic supremacists? What is it that they want to talk to you about?

"There is no peaceful coexistence, even without the measures you oppose."

That means total war against 1.5 billion Muslims, in other words- total destruction of the modern civilization.

If there were only two possible states of being that's what it would mean, but that's not the case. Peaceful coexistence rules out such things as honor killing, 9/11, inequality before the law, etc. There can be no peaceful coexistence with that, all out war or otherwise.

"How do you sift them out and capture them without alienating and violating the individual rights of their fellow Muslims?"

People who violate rights of others have no rights.

Yes, and those people are living within the Islamic community. How do you flush them out and capture them without stepping on the rights of and alienating other muslims?

As long as this supremacism is not translated to an initiation of force, you can oppose it only on the battlefields of ideas. And such a battle is much more difficult to win than a battle with guns.

They openly proclaim their aim to use force when the numbers are stacked in their favour, and they are already using force even though the numbers are not. Thirteen American soldiers were murdered recently at Fort Hood. Just when exactly does this movement transition into movement that sanctions the initiation of deadly force in your opinion?

Richard

Leonid's picture

"So what kind of dialogue would you like with Islamic supremacists who are plotting the downfall of the West?"

Plotting how? If they are plotting downfall of the West by use of force, they should be answered by force. But if they hope to win over the West by means of Islamic ideology, then this is a struggle of ideas which West still can win.

"There is no peaceful coexistence, even without the measures you oppose."
That means total war against 1.5 billion Muslims, in other words- total destruction of the modern civilization.

"How do you sift them out and capture them without alienating and violating the individual rights of their fellow Muslims?"

People who violate rights of others have no rights.

“A close examination reveals that Islamic supremacism isn't being pursued by a tiny minority at all, but by a majority."

As long as this supremacism is not translated to an initiation of force, you can oppose it only on the battlefields of ideas. And such a battle is much more difficult to win than a battle with guns.

When I say “they should be

Richard Wiig's picture

When I say “they should be left alone", I mean prohibition of the use of force. Force can be used only as retaliation. That doesn't mean that they can grow unchecked and unchallenged. But such a challenge presupposes an existence of a dialogue, intellectual interaction.

So what kind of dialogue would you like with Islamic supremacists who are plotting the downfall of the West?

The unwarranted use of force will eliminate such a possibility, alienate Muslims and prevent any future chance of peaceful coexistence.

There is no peaceful coexistence, even without the measures you oppose.

"Some of them, without any doubt would, and they should be stopped by all means.

How do you sift them out and capture them without alienating and violating the individual rights of their fellow muslims?

But they are tiny minority

So say you, but it is an empty statement.

There you go again saying they are a tiny minority, when you have absolutely no evidence that they are."

This is simple easy observable fact that the vast majority of Muslims don't engage in any form of terrorism.

That appears to be true on a casual observation, but as I've pointed out to you, a point that you haven't acknowledged yet, the issue is not acts of Jihad terror, the issue is Islamic supremacism across all its fronts. A close examination reveals that Islamic supremacism isn't being pursued by a tiny minority at all, but by a majority.

As long as they don't resort to the use of force or plan to do so, you have no right to use force against them and their believes are their own private business.

Their beliefs are not their own private business. Islam is a supremacist ideology at war with us. That makes it our business.

This is the cornerstone on which separation of religion and state is based.

This is not about separation of religion and state. This is about defeating an enemy who is out to defeat us. Doing what is necessary to defeat the enemy in no way puts aside separation of religion and state. That is, afterall, one of the things we are fighting to keep, and that they are trying to remove.

The restriction could be only applied to the terrorist activities and instigation of violence, like in any other case. Instigation of violence doesn't mean, however, reciting certain verses of Qur'an, otherwise you should arrest any Christian who recites psalm about the daughter of Babylon and the need to smash heads of her children.

The context is different. 9/11 and other such atrocities make it different. The bottom line is, Islam is at war with us, Christianity is not.

They will tell you that real freedom is in submission to the Allah's will and Western philosophical vacuum doesn't have anything to offer as a substitute.

Of course! My point was that they are not interested.

I'm not sure about that. The whole historical account of Christian fundamentalism shows exactly the opposite. Maybe you feel more comfortable with the devil you know, but I’m not.

It's got nothing to do with the devil I know, it's got to do with the doctrine I know. Ignorant people are dangerous, regardless of what beliefs they hold. Whether secular or religious, it does not matter, they can be brutal once brutality becomes the norm. The fact is, Christian doctrine gives you more freedom than Islamic doctrine.

Christianity vs. Islam

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Doug writes:

Epistemologically speaking, Christianity has not moved on from its earlier periods. It is still the same. It has been tempered and restrained by Enlightenment reason which it partially adopted. But the better parts of the Enlightenment are in retreat under assault from the skepticism of the post-kantian Left. Christianity could always become feral once more. Yes there are important differences between Islam and Christianity. But they are not fundamental differences. At root, both religions are at war with naturalistic metaphysics, objective epistemology and ethical individualism. Christianity was always a dangerous base to ground a liberty oriented culture on. We are seeing the reality of that.

Post-Enlightenment Christianity has been restrained against its will. But it should never be forgotten what true Christianity really is. In its own way, it is as life hating as Islam.

This totally nails it! Star

Richard

Leonid's picture

"It also means that we cannot tell who is and isn't plotting. What we have, in allowing Muslim populations to grow unchecked, is a greater and they should not be left alone. They should be challenged on their apathy, on their beliefs, on where they stand. They should be restricted on the aspects of their religion that they can practice.

When I say “they should be left alone", I mean prohibition of the use of force. Force can be used only as retaliation. That doesn't mean that they can grow unchecked and unchallenged. But such a challenge presupposes an existence of a dialogue, intellectual interaction. The unwarranted use of force will eliminate such a possibility, alienate Muslims and prevent any future chance of peaceful coexistence.

"Some of them, without any doubt would, and they should be stopped by all means. But they are tiny minority

There you go again saying they are a tiny minority, when you have absolutely no evidence that they are."

This is simple easy observable fact that the vast majority of Muslims don't engage in any form of terrorism. As long as they don't resort to the use of force or plan to do so, you have no right to use force against them and their believes are their own private business. This is the cornerstone on which separation of religion and state is based. The restriction could be only applied to the terrorist activities and instigation of violence, like in any other case. Instigation of violence doesn't mean, however, reciting certain verses of Qur'an, otherwise you should arrest any Christian who recites psalm about the daughter of Babylon and the need to smash heads of her children.

"It has a huge amount to offer. For all of our faults, the freedoms and possibilities in the West are vast compared to what exists in the Islamic world."

They will tell you that real freedom is in submission to the Allah's will and Western philosophical vacuum doesn't have anything to offer as a substitute.

"If they actually become Christian fundamentalists over Muslim fundamentalists, they'd actually become less of a threat to you and your freedom."

I'm not sure about that. The whole historical account of Christian fundamentalism shows exactly the opposite. Maybe you feel more comfortable with the devil you know, but I’m not.

You insist on the premises

Richard Wiig's picture

You insist on the premises that every Muslim is a warmonger just by virtue of being Muslim, and this is simply wrong.

I make a distinction between Islam and Muslim. Islam is at war with us. That tell's us little about any individual muslim. So no, I don't insist that every muslim is a warmonger. I do say they are of little to no value in fighting Islamic supremacism though. They gain value to the degree that they question and consciously reject the worst of their teachings.

Many of them may disagree with the Western ways of life, but it doesn't necessary mean that they are ready to start Jihad to impose on the West Sharia law.

It does mean they are of no value in combatting it. It also means that we cannot tell who is and isn't plotting. What we have, in allowing muslim populations to grow unchecked, is a greater and greater pool of potential Islamic supremacists intent on jihad, by over or covert means. That situation can only be to our detriment.

Some of them, without any doubt would, and they should be stopped by all means. But they are tiny minority

There you go again saying they are a tiny minority, when you have absolutely no evidence that they are.

and that why the West still can win. The rest, who don't resort to violence, should be left alone.

They should not be left alone. They should be challenged on their apathy, on their beliefs, on where they stand. They should be restricted on the aspects of their religion that they can practice.

West can win them over by presenting to them values based on pro-life philosophy.

They will not be won over by passively presenting something that they have an emotional rejection to. There needs to be an active process of integration.

However, sadly, west doesn't have much to offer.

It has a huge amount to offer. For all of our faults, the freedoms and possibilities in the West are vast compared to what exists in the Islamic world. For many in the Islamic world, freedom is next to non-existent and their life is a misery. There is much to offer for any mind that seeks it, but it appears that few do, or perhaps, which is probably often the case, they are not equipped to.

The choice is between Christian fundamentalism and welfare collectivism. No wonder that Muslims prefer Qur'an.

Christian fundamentalism is not dominant in the West, and neither is welfare collectivism. Both will ultimately lead to the misery that the Qur'an leads to, but the fact is, Islamic societies today are vastly worse off than where we have Christian fundamentalism and welfarism. That's why people are flocking to the West. The reason they head into the Qur'an isn't because there are no alternatives, or only those two, but because they are born and raised as muslims, so that is where they find comfort and where they think they will find answers. If they actually become Christian fundamentalists over muslim fundamentalists, they'd actually become less of a threat to you and your freedom.

All taken on board, Doug.

Richard Wiig's picture

All taken on board, Doug.

Richard

Leonid's picture

"That's all very well when people are not being murdered, when it's not yet a context of war, but it would have been crazy to be bombing Nazi Germany while allowing Hitlers Nazis to set up shop and campaign and plan their war strategies in downtown London.”

No, that shouldn't be allowed. As I mentioned before, coercion should be used in order to prevent instigation of violence. However I also mentioned and proved it, that not every Muslim in the World is planning war strategies, many of them open shops in order to conduct legal trade. You insist on the premises that every Muslim is a warmonger just by virtue of being Muslim, and this is simply wrong. Many of them may disagree with the Western ways of life, but it doesn't necessary mean that they are ready to start Jihad to impose on the West Sharia law. Some of them, without any doubt would, and they should be stopped by all means. But they are tiny minority and that why the West still can win. The rest, who don't resort to violence, should be left alone. West can win them over by presenting to them values based on pro-life philosophy. However, sadly, west doesn't have much to offer. The choice is between Christian fundamentalism and welfare collectivism. No wonder that Muslims prefer Qur'an.

analogy fails

Doug Bandler's picture

If a 60 year old used to shoplift in his teens, but as an adult has fully moved on from that, then it is wrong on many levels to still judge him as if he is a shoplifting teen.

This analogy fails though. Epistemologically speaking, Christianity has not moved on from its earlier periods. It is still the same. It has been tempered and restrained by Enlightenment reason which it partially adopted. But the better parts of the Enlightenment are in retreat under assault from the skepticism of the post-kantian Left. Christianity could always become feral once more. Yes there are important differences between Islam and Christianity. But they are not fundamental differences. At root, both religions are at war with naturalistic metaphysics, objective epistemology and ethical individualism. Christianity was always a dangerous base to ground a liberty oriented culture on. We are seeing the reality of that.

Post-Enlightenment Christianity has been restrained against its will. But it should never be forgotten what true Christianity really is. In its own way, it is as life hating as Islam.

The pressure is met with

Richard Wiig's picture

The pressure is met with counter-pressure. In Indonesia, for example, where is large non-Muslim minority, Islamists' intolerance towards Hindus has been prohibited and punished by Muslim government.

The Indonesian government, a corrupt government, is somewhat arbitrary in what it does and doesn't punish when it comes to Islamists. The trend in Indonesia is towards more Islamisation, not less. The Islamic persecution of Christians in Indonesia is on the rise, spreading out of the Acheh province, where thousands and thousands have been murdered, to around the Jakarta area now.

In your example it's not clear, whether you refer to public or private swimming pools. If they are private, then Muslims are within their rights. If, however, Muslims demand government's intervention in religious matters and NZ government does interfere, that would mean the abrogation of the principle of separation religion and state.

You are missing the point. The push for Sharia is everpresent. All that stops its implementation is a lack of numbers. New Zealand has, or did have, a muslim mp in parliament, someone who you'd probably class as a moderate. He let slip one day that he supports the stoning to death of gays, but "only in muslim countries". Why does he support that? Because it is Islamic law, and as a muslim he has no choice about Islamic law. He must submit, as must all unbelievers.

"It is not a struggle of ideas, because Muslims have no ideas. Everything is contained in the Qur'an."

Still it is a struggle of ideas.

Ultimately, sure. It's a struggle for anyone who still thinks for themself. A truly pious muslim, however, doesn't have any ideas. There is only submission to Allah. In fighting that mentality, particularly when it is at the level of murder, as it is, the time for debating is over. It's a time for action.

In the court rooms, in news papers, on TV, people discuss ideas. As long as there is no coercion, you are free to refute false charges of racism and to prove that they are false, you are free to answer propaganda, and you are free to use persuasion and to appeal to mind.

That's all very well when people are not being murdered, when it's not yet a context of war, but it would have been crazy to be bombing Nazi Germany while allowing Hitlers nazis to set up shop and campaign and plan their war strategies in downtown London. That's effectively what the West is doing today, and you seem to support that.

It is enough that Israel wins the battle against terrorism (and West is loosing it).

Once again, it is not about terrorism, it is about Islamic supremacism. Israel certainly is good at thwarting would-be suicide bombers at it's border, but that doesn't mean a hell of a lot. Islamic supremacism is growing right around the West. The forces working against Israel are growing. The US even has a government that doesn't support Israel. I can't help but think of Gail Wynand who thought he was in a strong position when he really wasn't.

That isn't what I said.

Richard Wiig's picture

Do you consider Tomás de Torquemada's burning stakes or The St. Bartholomew's Day massacre as a child play?

That isn't what I said. I said that it's not right to judge someone by what they were thirty years earlier. If a 60 year old used to shoplift in his teens, but as an adult has fully moved on from that, then it is wrong on many levels to still judge him as if he is a shoplifting teen.

Intolerance is a consequence of the very essence of religion.

Intolerance is a consequence of valuing things. As we both know, there is nothing wrong with intolerance, it's all a question of what one does or does not tolerate. There is much to despise in Christianity, such as its intolerance for abortion, for voluntary euthanasia, for its attitude that man shouldn't meddle in Gods domain, leading to such things as banning stem cell research etc. It's all anti-flourishing cesspool bilge. But it's still a different animal from Islam. Islam is absolutely the greater threat to world freedom, stability and peace. Conflating the two does nothing but hinder the fight against that threat.

Richard

Leonid's picture

The pressure is met with counter-pressure. In Indonesia, for example, where is large non-Muslim minority, Islamists' intolerance towards Hindus has been prohibited and punished by Muslim government. In your example it's not clear, whether you refer to public or private swimming pools. If they are private, then Muslims are within their rights. If, however, Muslims demand government's intervention in religious matters and NZ government does interfere, that would mean the abrogation of the principle of separation religion and state. If Muslims' demand is supported by NZ government, then Christians, Jews, Hindu and Maori also can demand religious legislations.

"It is not a struggle of ideas, because Muslims have no ideas. Everything is contained in the Qur'an."
Still it is a struggle of ideas. In the court rooms, in news papers, on TV, people discuss ideas. As long as there is no coercion, you are free to refute false charges of racism and to prove that they are false, you are free to answer propaganda, and you are free to use persuasion and to appeal to mind.

"It limits its actions in the cause of gaining a favourable world opinion"

As far as I know, Israel doesn't give a damn about world opinion. Israel doesn't win propaganda battle because it doesn't take part in it. As Golda Meir once said: “It doesn't matter what Gentiles say, it’s matter what Jews do." It is enough that Israel wins the battle against terrorism (and West is loosing it). If Israel is limiting itself, it's because that Jews never have been mindless butchers and never will be.

Richard

Leonid's picture

"You don't judge adults by what they thought and did as children if you want to do them justice."

Do you consider Tomás de Torquemada's burning stakes or The St. Bartholomew's Day massacre as a child play? Or Galileo's trial as a brat's mischief? Or endless religious wars as youngsters' pastime? Or thousand years of prosecution of European Jews as innocent prank?
No, I don't think that millions of victims of Christian intolerance could be dismissed as result of mere puerility. Intolerance is a consequence of the very essence of religion.

I don't really know, Then it

Richard Wiig's picture

I don't really know,

Then it would be wise perhaps to not treat it as if it were a fact. Find out the facts.

but what I do know that out of all Muslim countries, Sharia law is fully applicable only in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Emirates and half of Nigeria. . Rest of the Muslim world at least partially is secular. In the West Muslims never made any serious attempts to introduce Sharia even in regard to themselves. Sentiment is not a political tool.

The pressure is on in all muslim countries, and everywhere Muslims are in the West, to implement Sharia law. This not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. A very small example of it, off the top of my head, was the call in New Zealand for separate swimming times for Muslim women.

As long as it not violent, the struggle (Jihad) becomes a struggle of ideas. I'd agree that this is the struggle which West has to win, but not by means of coercion.

It is not a struggle of ideas, because muslims have no ideas. Everything is contained in the Qur'an. Actions are allowed or disallowed on the basis of their Islamicness, and no thought it required. The struggle isn't a struggle of ideas to morally persuade, the struggle is to make Islam dominant. and it is done in many ways, from blowing people up, to making spurious court claims, to making false charges of racism, to propaganda and many other things, none of it a debate of ideas.

Israel doesn't appease Muslims. On the contrary, Israel firmly treats any possible Muslim threat. As a result, acts of terrorism which used to be almost daily experience just few years ago, disappeared. As a matter of fact Israel is growing strong.

It limits its actions in the cause of gaining a favourable world opinion, just like the US does, which inevitably means to appease muslims. You say Israel is in a stronger position, but I don't see them winning the propaganda battle. It appears that more and more of the world is against them with each passing year, while all around them countries are becoming more and more islamised, therefore more hostile, with each passing year. Once again you focus on whether things are being blown up as if it is the core issue. It isn't.

He didn't say forget its

Richard Wiig's picture

He didn't say forget its history, he said it might not be present-descriptive. You don't judge adults by what they thought and did as children if you want to do them justice.

Brant

Leonid's picture

I don't complain. Nobody is listening anyway. The point is , however, that intolerance is a logical consequence of any religion ( not only Islam), and the only way to prevent the bloodshed inspired by religion is to remove religionists' fangs by means of separation of religion and state.

historical necessity

Brant Gaede's picture

In that case no one can help it. What's your complaint? That we can but don't? If so that's a contradiction.

--Brant

Brant

Leonid's picture

Isn't it? Somebody wise once observed that whoever forgets lessons of history is doomed to repeat them. Christian intolerance on the grass-root level of Muslims, Jews and atheists is well known fact of present reality.

Leonid

Brant Gaede's picture

Christianity historically is not necessarily present-tense descriptive.

--Brant

Richard

Leonid's picture

"Islam imparts certain obligations upon all these muslims regardless of how they think and feel. I'd also like to know how you know that only a few of these millions of muslims want to see Islam rule? "
I don't really know, but what I do know that out of all Muslim countries, Sharia law is fully applicable only in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Emirates and half of Nigeria. . Rest of the Muslim world at least partially is secular. In the West Muslims never made any serious attempts to introduce Sharia even in regard to themselves. Sentiment is not a political tool.

"The jihad is happening across many fronts, the majority of which are not violent."
As long as it not violent, the struggle (Jihad) becomes a struggle of ideas. I'd agree that this is the struggle which West has to win, but not by means of coercion.

"Israel is not heading into a stronger position by appeasing muslims. Its position is becoming more and more precarious by the year."
Israel doesn't appease Muslims. On the contrary, Israel firmly treats any possible Muslim threat. As a result, acts of terrorism which used to be almost daily experience just few years ago, disappeared. As a matter of fact Israel is growing strong.

"Christianity seems to hold a lot more tolerance for unbelievers than Islam does."
I think that even the brief review of the history of Christianity can easily refute this claim.

For the vast majority of

Richard Wiig's picture

For the vast majority of Muslims, Islam is a cultural guide, which defines their daily life. Only few Muslims use Qur'an and Hadit as a manual to assembly suicide’s belt in three easy steps.

That is completely irrelevant to the situation. Islam imparts certain obligations upon all these muslims regardless of how they think and feel. I'd also like to know how you know that only a few of these millions of muslims want to see Islam rule? I am just nearing the end of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's book, Infidel, and she, a born and bred muslim, raised smack in the middle of muslim culture across several countries, considers the Islamic supremacist sentiment to not be in the minority at all. It might only be a minority that will strap on a suicide vest, but it's not a minority that supports their. Once again I must ask, why do you focus on terrorism, as if terrorism is the issue, when issue isn't terrorism at all. Islamic supremacism is the issue.

In many "impious" Muslim states Islam at least partially separated from the state.

As we know, it only separated to the degree that Islam waned, which means to the degree that Western influence intruded. Islam, which is something separate from its followers feelings and whims, does not accept separation of church and state. The separation that you talk of is not Islam. It is a lack of Islam.

In the West it’s completely separated.

The West was not and has never been Islamic. Christianity was separated from the state, and that is not just a matter of its followers whims and feelings. It is because Christian doctrine allows for it.

Islamists are able to wage the war only because they have support of Islamists states.

Your vision of this war, Leonid, is extremely narrow. Why the tunnel-vision focus on Jihadi terrorism, as if that tactic is the length and breadth of it? The jihad is happening across many fronts, the majority of which are not violent.

Such states should be punished, Muslims' anger notwithstanding. There is simply no other choice. Force should be answered by force.

Which is ultimately a waste of time if Islam is allowed to grow and flourish behind enemy lines.

The only restriction which could and should be properly applied on Islam is the prohibition to incite the violence. This system is working perfectly well in France, the country with 10% of Muslim population

It's hardly working in France whatsoever. If you think that riots across all of France lasting for 3 weeks, with the threat of them rising again everpresent; if you consider no-go zones where muslims deliberately lure police into traps in order to attack them; if you consider muslims taking over whole streets to pray, arrogantly blocking off traffic and daily commuters, and a whole raft of other things that Islam is bringing to France, working, then I guess that, yes, it is working.

and, surprisingly, in Israel which also has about 15% of Muslim population. In spite the fact that Muslim world is waging war against Israel for the last 62 years, Israeli Muslims are not restricted in any way. They are free to profess their religion; they have their mosques, institutes of Islamic learning, schools, radio and TV channels, news papers, literature, theatres, and 4 political parties in Israeli parliament. In spite all these, Israeli Muslims seldom engage in terrorist activities. They know that if they would, they will pay dearly.

Israel is not heading into a stronger position by appeasing muslims. Its position is becoming more and more precarious by the year.

“Unlike Christianity, Islamic texts do not allow it."

Christian texts also don't allow it. They say “Any authority from God". Given half a chance, Christianity will regain its power. In fact that is happening in Russia now. In US there also were few dangerous moves in this direction

Yes, so you and others here keep saying. But when I look at Christianity and I look at Islam I can see clear differences. Islam is extremely clear that separation of church and state is non-negotiable. Christianity seems to hold a lot more tolerance for unbelievers than Islam does. But regardless, the issue is Islams war against us, not our war against Christianity. Call the Christians whatever the hell you like. Say that Christianity is filth (which it is) and that Jesus was a prick, or that he should rot in hell for his sins. Make a model of him and drop it in a vat of urine on public tv. You can do all that and christians will be outraged and damn you to hell... but you will not be looking over your shoulder and fearing that you may not have your head tomorrow.

Richard

Leonid's picture

For the vast majority of Muslims, Islam is a cultural guide, which defines their daily life. Only few Muslims use Qur'an and Hadit as a manual to assembly suicide’s belt in three easy steps. In many "impious" Muslim states Islam at least partially separated from the state. In the West it’s completely separated. Islamists are able to wage the war only because they have support of Islamists states. Such states should be punished, Muslims' anger notwithstanding. There is simply no other choice. Force should be answered by force. However one cannot change dominant philosophy, the mind set by force. The history of communism in Russia is an ample example. Even the occupation of Nazi Germany never completely eradicated Nazi ideology; it simply removed from the Nazis the political tools to implement it. According to many surveys, about 30% of Germans still believe in Nazism. That why Germany has so many strict anti-Nazi laws. The same thing apply to any religion or any system of believes. The only restriction which could and should be properly applied on Islam is the prohibition to incite the violence. This system is working perfectly well in France, the country with 10% of Muslim population and, surprisingly, in Israel which also has about 15% of Muslim population. In spite the fact that Muslim world is waging war against Israel for the last 62 years, Israeli Muslims are not restricted in any way. They are free to profess their religion; they have their mosques, institutes of Islamic learning, schools, radio and TV channels, news papers, literature, theatres, and 4 political parties in Israeli parliament. In spite all these, Israeli Muslims seldom engage in terrorist activities. They know that if they would, they will pay dearly.

“Unlike Christianity, Islamic texts do not allow it."

Christian texts also don't allow it. They say “Any authority from God". Given half a chance, Christianity will regain its power. In fact that is happening in Russia now. In US there also were few dangerous moves in this direction

And what about 1.5 billion

Richard Wiig's picture

And what about 1.5 billion people who identify to some degree with submission to Christian law?

Agreed! But Christianity is not militant. Christianity can take criticism. Christianity leaves your salvation up to you as a personal matter. Christians are not required by their religion to subjugate unbelievers under Christian law, and I could go on and on. It is a different beast.

Christianity also has long record of violence.

Yeah, and so what? It's not at issue, and it's history isn't a problem to us. Islam is the one waging war, yet you and others are stuck on Christianity. You should actually be aligning with Christianity against a common enemy.

Only separation of religion and state put this bloody carnage to the end.

Yeah, yeah, and Christianity has been separated. Good! In fact, fucking good! Now, how to separate Islam? It cannot be done, because, unlike Christianity, Islamic texts do not allow it.

The power of state defines the difference between believes and actions.

The state uses force. Better a secular state than a religious state. From out point of view that goes without saying, but that tells us nothing about the content of any particular religion.

" Islamic law mandates force."

Not according to Qur'an. It says " "Let there be no compulsion in religion".

Yes according to the Qur'an. As I pointed out, that verse is abrogated. It is what all the prominent Islamic scholars throughout the history of Islam have done. Why do you not take that into account?

Islamists, however, use coercive powers of state in order to oppress their own people.

Allah's people, you mean. The jihadists, which what they are properly called (there's no such thing as an Islamist, being a non-existent Western invention) are imposing Islamic law as their religion inspires them to.

It is highly controversial claim that Islam as a system of believes is equivalent to violence. In Qur'an itself is very little said about war and all verses refer to certain political situations.

The Qur'an is not the beginning and end of Islam. There is the Hadith, the Sira and the Sunnah.

That is true that Islamists abrogated verses which don't fit their political goals. Many scholars don't agree with them.

Throughout the history of Islam, those types of scholars have been murdered for being unIslamic, or enemies of Islam. Those scholars who have tried to paint Islam as peaceful are in the minority, and they have never succeeded in their endeavours.

But all this beside the point. It doesn't matter what Muslims believe as long as they don't have political tools to put their believes into the practice. In the West Muslims live peacefully exactly because religion is divorced from state.

But muslims are not living peacefully in the West. If they were, then Islam would not be the issue that it is now, other than in the way it is being argued against in the goblianite thread. It is more than that, though. It is a supremacist ideology that aims to subjugated non-muslims under Islamic law. The riots across France, across Sydney and other places, were a taste of what Islam has to offer. It isn't peaceful.

The proposition to ban Islam is an abrogation of the separation of state and religion, substitution of allegedly militant but powerless religion by the militant and powerful state. What will be the next step?

I don't propose banning Islam. I propse restricting Islam in the West, with demands made for the lifting of those restrictions.

"One good shove, where?"

Every act of terror should be answered by the full military force of the West aimed to the source which supports terrorists. By doing so West will eliminate terrorism and weaken Islamist states which support it.

I agree, military force should not be spared. But that's doing exactly what you say will inspire millions of more muslims to become radical. If you attack Hamas, or Hezbollah, or the lesser known Islamic jihad, or whatever group in Palestine, if you attack Iran even, then millions of muslims will get VERY angry. I guess that's just something we're going to have to live with.

Richard

Leonid's picture

"How can you honestly say that 1.5 billion people who identity to some degree with submission to Islamic law isn't a threat to freedom?”

And what about 1.5 billion people who identify to some degree with submission to Christian law? Christianity also has long record of violence. Only separation of religion and state put this bloody carnage to the end. The power of state defines the difference between believes and actions.

" Islamic law mandates force."
Not according to Qur'an. It says " "Let there be no compulsion in religion". Islamists, however, use coercive powers of state in order to oppress their own people.

It is highly controversial claim that Islam as a system of believes is equivalent to violence. In Qur'an itself is very little said about war and all verses refer to certain political situations. That is true that Islamists abrogated verses which don't fit their political goals. Many scholars don't agree with them. But all this beside the point. It doesn't matter what Muslims believe as long as they don't have political tools to put their believes into the practice. In the West Muslims live peacefully exactly because religion is divorced from state. The proposition to ban Islam is an abrogation of the separation of state and religion, substitution of allegedly militant but powerless religion by the militant and powerful state. What will be the next step?

"One good shove, where?"
Every act of terror should be answered by the full military force of the West aimed to the source which supports terrorists. By doing so West will eliminate terrorism and weaken Islamist states which support it.

There are about 1.5 billion

Richard Wiig's picture

There are about 1.5 billion Muslims in the world. The majority of them are living peacefully, minding their own businesses. They don't represent threat to anybody.

To be a muslim means to submit to Islamic law. Islamic law is a threat to everyone who values a non-Islamic way of life. How can you honestly say that 1.5 billion people who identity to some degree with submission to Islamic law isn't a threat to freedom? I can't believe you would seriously think that. On the whole they might not personally blow you up, but that's a very small consolation. They support the same end goal as the jihadists who will happily blow you up.

Very small minority of Muslims (maybe less than 0.01%) engage in terrorism.

Islamic law is the goal, striking terror is one of the means. Many of those 1.5 billion are pursuing other means. Islamic law only calls for a minority of Jihadis to strike the terror.

They are mislead by their political leaders

Poppycock! They are inspired by love for their religion.

Without any doubt we have to fight Muslim terrorism. But whom should we fight and how?

We need to fight the source: the Qur'an, Hadith and Sunnah itself. The whole ideological shebang.

Can we fight Qur'an and Islam by force?

We can isolate and quaranteen it easy as pie. All it would take is the political will.

Can we occupy the whole Muslim world, burn all copies of Qur'an, ban Mosques and Islamic teaching?

We can restrict Islam within the West, absolutely. And we should.

Even if we could (and this is obviously completely unrealistic scenario), would we achieve our objectives? I doubt it very much.

The only objective should be victory over Islam. Sure we can achieve it. Not so long as multiculturalism and moral relativism holds sway though.

What we would achieve is that the vast majority of Muslims will feel oppressed (and rightly so),

Tough if they feel oppressed. We should restrict Islam until they start combatting the Jihad against us. If we are at war, then we should treat it as such. Not be nice and pretend it isn't happening. Denying reality can only usher in our downfall.

Islam will become prosecuted underground religion and Islamists will get hundreds of millions of new shahids (martyrs). The war will reach such a proportion that 9/11 would look like Sunday's afternoon nap by comparison.

And just stiting back and allowing Islam to grow and flourish helps in what way? I think the war is going to reach huge proportions. The riots across france, and many other places are but forerunners to what's coming.

Besides, such a war cannot be won, since Islam is a system of believes, a mind-set which cannot be changed or eliminated by force. Only by persuasion, that is-by appeal to reason.

The Nazis were defeated and held in check by force.

But we should fight Islamists and completely defeat them by use of force, since the use of force is their own choice.

The use of force is the choice of all muslims by virtue of being a muslim. To be a muslim one must submit to Islamic law. Islamic law mandates force. That any individual muslims might not feel comfortable with that is beside the point.

Islamists know that their position is weak and they are desperate.

I fail to see how their position is weak given that they are having huge success. Heck, they're even on the verge of building a mosque right next to ground zero, for gourds sake. If they can manage that, then they're far from in a position of weakness. It's the West that is weak. Weakened terribly by the likes of Multiculturalism and apathy.

That why they are running amok, killing innocent people in the places like Uganda, which is by no means is Great Satan or Zionist entity. What is needed in order to eliminate them is one good shove.

One good shove, where?

Islam is more than the five

Richard Wiig's picture

Islam is more than the five pillars. Why do you treat it as if it is merely the five pillars and nothing more?

No, that will not work,

Richard Wiig's picture

No, that will not work, because Islamism is not Islam.

But it is Islam. Everything the so-called the so-called "Islamists" do is grounded in mainstream Islamic jurisprudence. They reference it constantly.

Islamism is political movement, its objective is to use the power of the state, that is-coercion, on order to establish Islamic rule by force, the theocracy.

Absolutely! And that IS Islam. There is no separation of state and religion under Islam. That IS the proper Islamic stand.

After Ottoman Empire was defeated during WWI, the Muslim world started the process of rapid secularization. Countries like Turkey, Lebanon, Syria Jordan, Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, and Iran adopted Western ways of life.

They were forced to adopt Western ways, but those Western ways were NOT Islam. Islam is gods law. Any secularization that took place was not secularization of Islam. It was secularization of individuals.

"by the end of World War I, there was scarcely such a thing left as a Muslim state not dominated by the Christian West. How could this happen? Only two answers were possible. Either the claims of Islam were false and the Christian or post-Christian west had finally come up with another system that was superior, or Islam had failed through not being true to itself. Obviously, a redoubling of faith and devotion by Muslims was called for to reverse this tide." (Edward Mortimer in Faith and Power: The Politics of Islam, in Wright, Sacred Rage, Simon and Schuster, (1985), pp.64-66)

The break up of the Ottoman empire gave birth to the Muslim Brotherhood, the forerunner to groups such as Al Qaida. Their aim was to keep the ball on Islam. They've succeeded admirably. It doesn't help that you say it is not Islam. That can only serve to blur things.

With the decolonization of Middle East after WWII, Islamic fundamentalism reappeared in the form of Islamism. There are many different divisions in Islamism (see http://merln.ndu.edu/archive/i...), but only one is actually waging war against impious Muslim regimes, Israel and West-Jihad movement. The word "Jihad" means "struggle." It has many uses, for example inner struggle, intellectual struggle etc...It also means military struggle. Jihad could be defensive and offensive. Qur'an itself mostly refers to defensive Jihad.

All mainstream schools of Islamic jurisprudence devote the majority of its focus to offensive jihad. The so-called inner struggle, is the smallest part of jihad.

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

Is abrogated by later militant verses. I'm surprised, Leonid, that you do not take this into account.

Muslims-final solution?

Leonid's picture

Muslims are people who accept 5 pillars of Islam. Otherwise they are people as everybody else.

Faith or belief in the Oneness of God and the finality of the prophethood of Muhammad;
Establishment of the daily prayers;
Concern for and almsgiving to the needy;
Self-purification through fasting; and
The pilgrimage to Makkah for those who are able.

There are foundations of Muslim faith. As you can see, Jihad doesn't constitute any part of them.

There are about 1.5 billion Muslims in the world. The majority of them are living peacefully, minding their own businesses. They don't represent threat to anybody. Very small minority of Muslims (maybe less than 0.01%) engage in terrorism. They are mislead by their political leaders who are using Islam to achieve political goals, that is-to take over the machinery of state and to use it as a tool of submission. They are simply after power, like any Attila, and to get this power they use Muslim Witch Doctors. So far they succeeded in Saudi Arabia, Iran, partially in Afghanistan, South Lebanon and Gaza. Not such a great achievement, considering the effort and money they spent. In order to assume the position of leadership in the Muslim world they wage terrorist war against Israel and West. Again, without much success. Without any doubt we have to fight Muslim terrorism. But whom should we fight and how?
Can we fight Qur'an and Islam by force? Can we occupy the whole Muslim world, burn all copies of Qur'an, ban Mosques and Islamic teaching? Even if we could (and this is obviously completely unrealistic scenario), would we achieve our objectives? I doubt it very much.
What we would achieve is that the vast majority of Muslims will feel oppressed (and rightly so), Islam will become prosecuted underground religion and Islamists will get hundreds of millions of new shahids (martyrs). The war will reach such a proportion that 9/11 would look like Sunday's afternoon nap by comparison. Besides, such a war cannot be won, since Islam is a system of believes, a mind-set which cannot be changed or eliminated by force. Only by persuasion, that is-by appeal to reason.

But we should fight Islamists and completely defeat them by use of force, since the use of force is their own choice. This is realistic goal. Not only Islamists represent the tiny minority of Muslim population, their influences even in the countries they rule become weaker and weaker. In Iran only few months ago hundred of thousands went to the streets, shouting “We want freedom!". In Gaza, in spite of brutal regime of terror, imposed by Hamas, many people openly express their anger with Hamas' rule. Islamists know that their position is weak and they are desperate. That why they are running amok, killing innocent people in the places like Uganda, which is by no means is Great Satan or Zionist entity. What is needed in order to eliminate them is one good shove.

Islamism

Leonid's picture

Richard "If "serious" scholars say otherwise, then I suggest they tell the so-called "Islamists". All they need do is show them just how unislamic their actions are, and voila, the so-called "suicide-bombings" would stop."

No, that will not work, because Islamism is not Islam. Islamism is political movement, its objective is to use the power of the state, that is-coercion, on order to establish Islamic rule by force, the theocracy. After Ottoman Empire was defeated during WWI, the Muslim world started the process of rapid secularization. Countries like Turkey, Lebanon, Syria Jordan, Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, and Iran adopted Western ways of life.

"by the end of World War I, there was scarcely such a thing left as a Muslim state not dominated by the Christian West. How could this happen? Only two answers were possible. Either the claims of Islam were false and the Christian or post-Christian west had finally come up with another system that was superior, or Islam had failed through not being true to itself. Obviously, a redoubling of faith and devotion by Muslims was called for to reverse this tide." (Edward Mortimer in Faith and Power: The Politics of Islam, in Wright, Sacred Rage, Simon and Schuster, (1985), pp.64-66)

With the decolonization of Middle East after WWII, Islamic fundamentalism reappeared in the form of Islamism. There are many different divisions in Islamism (see http://merln.ndu.edu/archive/i...), but only one is actually waging war against impious Muslim regimes, Israel and West-Jihad movement. The word "Jihad" means "struggle." It has many uses, for example inner struggle, intellectual struggle etc...It also means military struggle. Jihad could be defensive and offensive. Qur'an itself mostly refers to defensive Jihad.

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

Allah is the Protector of those who have faith: from the depths of darkness He will lead them forth into light. Of those who reject faith the patrons are the evil ones: from light they will lead them forth into the depths of darkness. They will be companions of the fire, to dwell therein (For ever)." Qur'an 2:256-257
See also http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/...

However the establishment of Caliphates required the development of offensive Jihad’ concept to justify their aggressions and expansions. Modern Islamists selectively interpret Qur'an and Hadit to their own ends. I think they understand that conquest and Islamization of the West are unrealistic goals. However they use the notion of offensive Jihad first of all in order to politically dominate Muslim world, that is-to establish theocratic regimes in impious Muslim countries, to create unholy alliance of religion and state, to conquest and to completely enslave all Muslims.

That's what Muhamad himself

Richard Wiig's picture

That's what Muhamad himself says, Leonid. It's right there in the Hadith. I don't have time to dig it out right now, but it's there. If "serious" scholars say otherwise, then I suggest they tell the so-called "Islamists". All they need do is show them just how unislamic their actions are, and voila, the so-called "suicide-bombings" would stop.

Richard

Leonid's picture

Richard" Calling it "suicide" is a misnomer. They are not commiting suicide; they are martyring themselves."

That what Islamists say. However their argument completely contradicts Qur'an.

“Do not kill yourselves. Verily, Allah is Merciful to you. And, whoever does that, out of aggression and injustice, We shall burn him in a Fire. And that is easy for Allah." (Qur’an, 4:29-30).

Serious scholars of Islam condemn suicide bombers. Read "" The Hijacked Caravan" .

http://www.ihsanic-i...ked_Car...

Leonid

Richard Wiig's picture

Calling it "suicide" is a misnomer. They are not commiting suicide; they are martyring themselves. That is, they are dying while slaying in the cause of Allah. The Qur'an, backed up by the Hadith, by Muhammads own words, sanctions that and even offers those who do it an esteemed place in paradise. When you think of it as suicide you're placing your own western meaning to it. The same when you think of "innocent". What you mean by 'innocent' and what Islam means are two entirely different things.

"What letter? Qur'an for example explicitly and more than once prohibits suicide for any reason whatsoever. Qur'an also prohibits killing of the innocent, it doesn’t recognize collateral damage. . Nevertheless Islamists suicide bombers in Iraq alone kill in average 50 innocent Muslims a day."

I remember James Valliant

Aaron's picture

I remember James Valliant coming out against subpoena'ing in a past debate. He was rather outnumbered and stuck to his guns. In any case, you're spot on that even if some narrow context can be made for subpoena (and I tend to agree with JV here), it does not translate at all into mandatory jury duty.

Aaron

I tried

Brant Gaede's picture

I tried to listen to the podcast, but as soon as he conflated jury duty with subpoena power for collecting evidence, I had to stop. I don't see why jury duty has to be compulsory.

As to having to go to court and testify in a criminal proceeding that's a toughie. However, if you know something and/or are a witness to something that bears on a criminal trial and you refuse to testify you seem to become complicit in either the crime or a crime.

I realize that I am not offering a detailed or sophisticated analysis, but it's the best I can do without a lot more research and thinking I have no time for. I am interested in what a lawyer might have to say who knows something about Objectivism.

--Brant

Richard

Leonid's picture

"In as much as they follow the qur'an to the letter,"

What letter? Qur'an for example explicitly and more than once prohibits suicide for any reason whatsoever. Qur'an also prohibits killing of the innocent, it doesn’t recognize collateral damage. . Nevertheless Islamists suicide bombers in Iraq alone kill in average 50 innocent Muslims a day.

Islam

Leonid's picture

Islam is a religion, that is- a system of believes which is based on Qur'an and Hadit, oral tradition and various interpretations of these both sources. Pretty much as Judaism, Islam regulates every aspect of person's life. In this sense Islam is more a manual how to live than religion in the Western sense. It tells to believer what to eat and drink how to excrete, what to wear, what should be his/her hair style, how to marry and divorce, when and how to sleep with a wife (wives) etc...It provides guidance in regard to social issues-relations with other people, charity. It also imposes religious obligations known as 5 pillars of Islam which are:
Faith or belief in the Oneness of God and the finality of the prophethood of Muhammad;
Establishment of the daily prayers;
Concern for and almsgiving to the needy;
Self-purification through fasting; and
The pilgrimage to Makkah for those who are able.
http://www.islam101.com/dawah/...

Observe that conquest and conversion of infidels to Islam, holy war against whole non-Islamic world is not included.

In the beginning Islam was prosecuted religion. Some Muslims had to escape from the Arabian Peninsula as far as to Ethiopia. That explains defensive military approach reflected in the Qur'an's early versions. However, with the growth of supporters, Islam became political power and with establishment of Caliphates, around 700 A.C Islam finally became state religion. Throughout human history state always used religion as a tool and justification of expansion and conquest. If Holy books didn't provide enough support for the plunder, the witch doctors and priests always managed to make it up. Interpretation of Scriptures became profitable enterprise. Islam is not exclusion. As Christianity was spreading across Europe by swords of Roman legionnaires, or across Meso and South America by swords of Christian conquistadores, so Islam was spreading across Middle East, Asia, Africa and India. After about 900 years, with the fall of Constantinople, the age of Islamic conquests finally came to the end. Christian European nations continue to fight each other till 1945, but huge Islamic Empire rested in peace. The force which waked up this sleeping giant was Islamism.

"Islamism is a political ideology derived from the conservative religious views of Muslim fundamentalism. It holds Islam is not only a religion, but a political system that also governs the legal, economic and social imperatives of the state."

www.wordiq.com/definition/Isla...

LP's latest podcast argues in

Aaron's picture

LP's latest podcast argues in favor of compulsory jury duty, using arguments that could just as easily be used to rationalize coercive taxation or even a draft. WTF has happened to him?

Aaron

A silly people

mfgreaves's picture

"So long as Objectivists fight clique against clique, so long will they be a little people, a silly people - greedy, barbarous, and cruel, as we are." -- Lawrence of Axiomatica

I need to get a picture of me smiling up there; don't seem to have a decent one about...
That way I wouldn't have to throw a smiley in here. Smiling

I think Olivia is ready to send me to my room without supper, but all I have been suggesting is this: most muslims are muslims because they were born into muslim households and never encouraged to think for themselves. They are muslim by the same route that Chinese are Chinese, or cocker spaniels are cocker spaniels.

When I was about 9, I was told by kids who considered themselves catholics that I WAS a catholic, whether I liked it or not, because my mother had told them that I was. But I had learned, with some help, TO THINK FOR MYSELF, and I had to patiently explain that I simply was not one, and could not accept catholic teachings.

This is to be hoped for the muslims: when one-by-one they learn to think for themselves they will come to doubt Mohammed, and then I expect they will present much less of a problem to us. When they understand that Mohammed simply fabricated his "divine inspiration", as he obviously did, then they will understand that they are submitting to the will of a man, not a god. Then they will realize that submission is just not very clever.

I the meantime, those who choose to act violently will have to be destroyed;
and those that have not yet made the mental break-through contained.
I hold this to be the most rational and productive policy.

When, as a person of British descent, I used to watch Lawrence of Arabia, I used to find myself cheering for the Turks, against the Arabs and even against the British. These days I find myself disgusted by all three.

I think that what modern, democratic Turkey needs is a good, old-fashioned coup d'etat; a return to Kemalist rule. There, that should get solopassion.com tagged as a nutty site. Smiling

Mike

I applaud ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... his being disturbed and very very angry. To allow the construction of a Mosque to proceed is an obscenity; to defend such a thing on the grounds of property rights is beyond obscene.

Dr. Peikoff was very upset

mfgreaves's picture

Lindsay Perigo wrote:
"I am *very* concerned about how fragile he sounds."

He was disturbed and very very angry. He usually doesn't sound like that in his podcasts. I have listened to most of them and heard his replies to hundreds of questions within them, and I have never heard him sound quite so un-nerved. He was fighting for self-control.

I hope that is all it was, anyway. I also agree with him that those are not the kind of questions that we should be sending him. Those fights belong to our generation.

Mike

The offensive commands

Richard Wiig's picture

The offensive commands abrogate the defensive, so the only purpose the defensive verses serve is to mislead unbelievers. The purpose of the war against infidels isn't taxation and humiliation, the purpose is their submission.

Observe the evolution of the military concept in Qur'an: from defense to offence. Observe also that the proclaimed purpose of the war against infidels is not their conversion to Islam but taxation (protection tribute) and humiliation.

"Islam, or rather Islamism"

No need to bring "Islamism" into it. It is Islam.

"is political ideology that without doubt is evil. Islamists are evil. But they represent only a thiny minority of Muslims."

In as much as they follow the qur'an to the letter, they represent anyone who calls himself a muslim. How can you be a muslim and not follow the qur'an? It would be like being an objectivist but not adhering to Objectivism.

Leonid, thank you for the clarification

mfgreaves's picture

I fully agree with your comments here.
If I misread you, then I am clear now.

Mike

Leonid wrote:
"I don't consider Muslims en mass as evil. The whole confusion arrives from the equivocation of Islam with Muslims. Islam, or rather Islamism is political ideology that without doubt is evil. Islamists are evil. But they represent only a thiny minority of Muslims."

Qur'an

Leonid's picture

There are 4 different subjects we discuss on this thread. 1. Qur'an. 2. Islam. 3. Muslims. 4. Islamism.

It would be helpful to make clear distinction between them

1. Qur'an is a book of revelations which Allah allegedly revealed to the illiterate driver of camels, Mohammed. As a matter of fact it is a chaotic collection of different rules in regard to different aspects of life, monotonous repetitions of the claim that Allah is the only god, lengthy arguments with Christians and Jews, long and distorted excerpts from the Old and New Testament, poetry, anecdotes, promises of eternal hell fire to infidels and rewards to believers in the day of judgment, a lot of calls for charity and obedience etc...usual boring religious staff which one can find in any Scripture. However in regard to the military conduct Qur'an says surprisingly very little. Among thousands of verses I could find only few. One also should bear in mind that contrary to OT or NT in which words of god are eternal truths, many verses in Qur'an, especially those which related to the warfare are referring to the certain political or military situation. Here few examples:

“Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but do not begin hostilities. Allah does not love aggressors" (2:190)

“And fight them until there is no more causing mischief in the land, and religion is for Allah. But if they stop, then let there be no hostility except against wrong doers" (2:193)

“Why do you not fight in Allah's ways and in defense of the weak, men, women and children...?” (4:75)

" Kill the idol worshippers wherever you can find them" (9:5)

“Fight against those who have been given the Scripture (Jews and Christians) who do not believe in Allah or the Last Day...until they pay the protection tribute with their own hands in humiliation" (9:29)

“O you who believe! Fight those disbelievers who are near you..." (9:123)

Observe the evolution of the military concept in Qur'an: from defense to offence. Observe also that the proclaimed purpose of the war against infidels is not their conversion to Islam but taxation (protection tribute) and humiliation.

I don't know where you got

Richard Wiig's picture

I don't know where you got that idea from, Aaron, because the Qur'an and Hadith actually make it crystal clear on how to treat the infidels. The bottom line is that Islam must dominate. We cannot let it, is another bottom line. All mosque building should be banned, not just the so-called ground zero mosque.

My understanding concerning Koran (and Hadith) is that there's clarity concerning killing former Muslims, but contradiction concerning killing 'infidels'.

Doug- "If Islam is conceived

Aaron's picture

Doug-
"If Islam is conceived as an ideology dedicated to a permanent solicitation to commit murder of non-believers - an argument that has alot to support it especially the Koran itself -"

My understanding concerning Koran (and Hadith) is that there's clarity concerning killing former Muslims, but contradiction concerning killing 'infidels'. Such proscriptions to irrational violence are also prominent especially in Old Testament - as well as contradiction within it and with the New. The difficult key to sort out would be what exactly an individual subscribes to since they obviously cannot hold the whole contradictory mess. I think it would be valid to consider a Muslim who is 'fundamentalist' about certain verses as a true threat rather than just irritatingly irrational, just as Christians who are fundamentalist about about certain OT verses would be.

I do not doubt such dangerous fundamentalism is more common today in Islam than Christianity, and I agree with: "As much as I hate Christianity, I concede that Christianity is far less vile than Islam. New Testament Christianity was a pacifist creed dedicated to the renunciation of this world." But I don't buy the idea (not saying this is your claim, but others in this debate have made or implied this) that such Islamic fundamentalism is ubiquitous or dominant. Frankly, our current society with 90+% Christians does not collapse only because most of them do not truly take their religion seriously - being compartmentalized, partial 'Sunday Christians' rather than sacrificing all and following Jesus to the cross. And if most Muslims were truly fundamentalist about killing infidels instead of compartmentalized and just living their lives, we'd already have a world war with Malaysia, Bangladesh, Indonesia, etc. I do think that the same type of thing as with Christianity holds to a large (though not as large) degree in Islam, that similarly hypocritical 'Friday Muslims' dominate and hope they will increasingly do so with maturation of the religion.

"This line of thinking on Islam is not crazy. I don't know if I would go that far but I wouldn't summarily dismiss it (or those like the Peikoffs and Ed Cline who are coming close to this type of argument)."

I think I understand what you mean here. I do not agree with their apparent premise concerning most Muslims constituting a direct threat as fundamentalists, as infidel-killers; but if I thought that premise was correct, I certainly wouldn't stop with fiddling with zoning laws concerning one mosque Eye.

Aaron

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.