Islam-another view

"No pious muslim worth his

Leonid's picture

"No pious muslim worth his salt is going to accept just any old interpretation by just anyone"

I suppose, Christians also thought so when Martin Luter started his Reformation. From my experience Muslims often read and interpretate Quran and hadith all by themsellves. Pious Muslim may not to accept any interpretation, but his own or that of the scholar he affiliated with. As Christianity before, Islam is going to create many different and often colliding denominations. That would mean death to Islam as we know it.

"You obviously missed the

Leonid's picture

"You obviously missed the article I linked to below that points out that a reformation is exactly what the rising Islamists are doing. They are a reformist movement - taking Islam back to the "straight path".

No, I didn't missed it, and Aslan also makes the same point. Reformation is a process in which all interpretations are equally valid-since it abolishes the central authority. In such a situation you may have a millitant interpretation, like Wahhabism, peacefull interpretation and anything in between. Our job is to make sure that peace and reason will prevail. We have to feed the good wolf even if he still a wolf and not a lamb.

"No. I say it doesn't mean

Leonid's picture

"No. I say it doesn't mean what you say it means. It means don't give Islam any moral support. It means to give it your moral condemnation."-Well, that doesn't mean "Death to Islam".

As for taking interpretation

Richard Wiig's picture

As for taking interpretation out of the hands of scholars and putting it into the hands of your average joe blogs, what twaddle. No pious muslim worth his salt is going to accept just any old interpretation by just anyone. The people who have devoted their lives to scholarly study are going to be the ones who know it best. Take Khomenei, he lived and breathed the Qur'an. That's precisely why so many joe blogs followers looked up to him as a revered source of Qur'anic guidance.

I said to you before that

Richard Wiig's picture

I said to you before that there are other sources of knowledge about Islam except Jihadwatch

I have already told you, I don't form my views on the basis of Jihadwatch. The fact is though, that article shows Reza Aslan clearly for what he is. But there's ample stuff out there where you can see Reza Aslan for what he is.

on the ground that " the schools of Islamic jurisprudence (madhahib) agree on about 75% of all questions (including those uncomfortable bits about jihad, dhimmitude, the death penalty for apostates, stonings, amputations, etc.)," However this is exactly the present situation in Islam which Aslan wants to reform-

No it's not. Sincere reformers don't try and hide or obscure what it is that they want to reform.

to remove the interpretation of Quran and Sharia from the scholars and allow to every Muslim to do so without a clerical middlemen-as Christian Reformation did

You obviously missed the article I linked to below that points out that a reformation is exactly what the rising Islamists are doing. They are a reformist movement - taking Islam back to the "straight path".

Actually you say that you

Richard Wiig's picture

Actually you say that you don't mean it. "Death to Islam"

No. I say it doesn't mean what you say it means. It means don't give Islam any moral support. It means to give it your moral condemnation. It doesn't mean, round them all up and put them in internment camps. You really ought to try and be more objective and misrepresent things a little less.

I said to you before that

Leonid's picture

I said to you before that there are other sources of knowledge about Islam except Jihadwatch. If you were reading Aslan's book, you'd know that he hates Khomeinism. He thinks that Khomeini together with other ayatollahs hijacked Iranian revolution by establishment the rule of fiqh-a scholar or Muslim jurist which is exactly opposite to the idea of reformation which he supports.
It doesn't mean that I agree with everything what Aslan says, but at least I know on what to disagree. Now, based on the few fragments of this interview, exactly with which statement do you disagree?
On the notion of rising Anti-Islamic sentiments in America? I think-this is an established fact-"Death to Islam".
On the notion that Obama was raised as a Muslim? I myself saw on internet his certificate from the school in Indonesia in which was written "Religion-Muslim".
On the notion that Torah orders to kill infidels? I already brought the full quote in this regard and you agreed that this is an open-ended war command.
Or maybe you object to his definition of Nonie Darwish as a Christian leader of an anti-Muslims organisation-but I think, it's self-evident.

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

You'd obviously would object to his statement that "Sharia is understood in thousands of different ways over the 1,500 years in which multiple and competing schools of law have tried to construct some kind of civic penal and family law code that would abide by Islamic values and principles" on the ground that " the schools of Islamic jurisprudence (madhahib) agree on about 75% of all questions (including those uncomfortable bits about jihad, dhimmitude, the death penalty for apostates, stonings, amputations, etc.)," However this is exactly the present situation in Islam which Aslan wants to reform- to remove the interpretation of Quran and Sharia from the scholars and allow to every Muslim to do so without a clerical middlemen-as Christian Reformation did.

In the interview Aslan couldn't really explain his position , so I wouldn't relay on it as a full presentation of his ideas. If you really want to have a serious discussion, you need to read his books. One thing is clear: Nonie Darwish with all due respect as a converted Christian wouldn't be able to make any meaningful contribution to the reformation of Islam, but Reza Aslan could and would.

"Yeah, but in regards to

Leonid's picture

"Yeah, but in regards to Islam you are talking about Nambla as opposed to the actual act. "

Actually you say that you don't mean it. "Death to Islam" for you is just an expletive like "fuck Islam" which doesn't mean you really call to engage in the sexual relations with all Muslims. Well and fine. Yet you say we should regard Islam as we regard murder and rape, that is-criminal act. But it's not enough to say to the murderer " fuck you" or even " death to you". We usually lock them up and occasionally execute them. In regard to NAMBLA your analogy is wrong.You may hate NAMBLA 's members, but as long as they don't actually engage in pedophile relations, they are not criminals and you cannot relate to them as to murderers or rapists.

Yeah, but in regards to Islam

Richard Wiig's picture

Yeah, but in regards to Islam you are talking about Nambla as opposed to the actual act. The proper attitude is "Death to Nambla" just as it is Death to Islam, but you don't go rounding up all Nambla members and supporters and lock them away. You are smart enough to get the context, so stop arguing for arguments sake.

Islamic supremacist Reza

Richard Wiig's picture

Islamic supremacist Reza Aslan spreads deceptions about Sharia

As Oklahoma has now voted to ban Sharia, and an openly pro-Sharia Imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf, is going ahead with plans to build a triumphal mega-mosque at Ground Zero, Sharia is more in the public consciousness than ever -- and so Islamic supremacists such as Reza Aslan are working harder than ever to confuse the American people about what Sharia is, so as to defuse opposition to it....

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010...

Deceptions that Leonid just loves to lap up.

The world belongs to Allah, not Leonid

I understood that he has more

Leonid's picture

I understood that millions of Muslim watch him on TV and visit his facebook. I think he rejects jihad and ugly parts of sharia. I'd agree that ultimately world has to defeat all religions and all mystics.

Good But Not Good Enough

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Leonid writes:

"...millions of Muslims are followers of Amr Khaled which is preaching more or less the same version of moderate Islam [as Irshad Manji]. You, however, put the bar too high by demanding from Irshad to denounce Islam. For the obvious reasons the reformer of Islam has to be a religious Muslim as the reformer of Christianity was a fanatically religious Christian."

It's certainly true that only communists like Gorbachev and Yeltsin could reform the Communist Party of the USSR, and only radical reformers like Irshad Manji and Amr Khaled can reform (and sabotage) Islam from within. But ultimately the world needs to defeat these false and evil philosophies -- not reform them.

At first glance, Amr Khaled doesn't seem very popular or very Muslim. Just a few well-educated, liberalized Muslims like him, seemingly. Bosch Fawstin calls such people "non-Muslim Muslims."

Khaled left his birth place in Eqypt for England, I notice. But I'll check him out.

I'm curious: Does Amr Khaled openly reject jihad (war) and sharia (slavery)?

You're being ridiculous

Leonid's picture

"Of course not. You're being ridiculous."

But you proposed that we should have toward Islam " the same kind of attitude that should be directed at paedophillia, wife bashing, robbery, rape, murder, oppression of liberty per se -"-and we regard these kind of activities as criminal. if I'm being ridiculous, it is only because I used your ridiculous premise. In the form of syllogism:

1. Our attitude toward Islam should be of the same kind as this which is directed at paedophillia, wife bashing, robbery, rape, murder...

2. paedophillia, wife bashing, robbery, rape, murder...are criminal actions.

3. Our attitude toward Islam should be of the same kind as that which directed towards criminals.

4. Conclusion: we should treat Islam as a criminal activity and therefore all Muslims, who take their religion seriously as criminals.

Does it sound to you as a ridiculous contradiction? Check your premises.

Kyrel Zantonavitch

Leonid's picture

"But her methodology -- that of blatantly rewriting history and shamelessly lying -- is unsound. And it's doomed to failure."

I cannot argue about this since I never read her book or watched her movie. I only watched a short interview. I also don't know whether or not "Almost all Muslims and educated Western liberals admit her version of Islam is false."-I don't have this kind of statistics. What I do know is that millions of Muslims are followers of Amr Khaled which is preaching more or less the same version of moderate Islam. You, however, put the bar too high by demanding from Irshad to denounce Islam. For the obvious reasons the reformer of Islam has to be a religious Muslim as the reformer of Christianity was a fanatically religious Christian.

"And you were one of the

Leonid's picture

"And you were one of the naive, deliriously happy at what was going on in the Middle East."

Happy-yes. And who wouldn't be, watching the fall of bloody dictators. Deliriously-not. I always claimed that nobody can know the outcome of these events and who eventually will take over. We still don't know that.

Islam is Almost 100% False and Evil; Say it Out Loud, Irshad!

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Irshad Manji is a relatively clever liar. She's very dedicated and virtuous, of course. But she's still a liar. Almost all Muslims and educated Western liberals admit her version of Islam is false.

She needs to learn that The Forces of Good triumph over The Forces of Evil via truth-telling. Not via lying. She's a noble and heroic person trying hard to do a noble and heroic thing, i.e. to radically improve the disgusting, loathsome, Nazi-like, Muslim philosophy and world. But her methodology -- that of blatantly rewriting history and shamelessly lying -- is unsound. And it's doomed to failure.

Good is almost never effective in defeating Evil in this way. She'd be a better person, and would have better results, if she fearlessly stuck to the truth.

You know that Sharia hasn't

Richard Wiig's picture

You know that Sharia hasn't been formulated on the Qur'an alone, yet you constantly talk as if it has been.

For example there is no reference in Quran to death sentence for apostasy-this privilege belongs to Allah alone.

Considered by whom?

Richard Wiig's picture

By the vast majority of muslims. It is mainstream Islam.

"It isn't wishful thinking.

Richard Wiig's picture

"It isn't wishful thinking. It's an attitude"

Do you propose to treat Islam as we treat robbery rape and murder, that is-to make it a criminal offense and therefore to treat all Muslims as criminals? If you do, you are daydreaming.>

Of course not. You're being ridiculous.

No, Reza Aslan doesn't promote or whitewash anything. Simply put, he's describing the process of Islamic Reformation ,

Yeah, a fantasy. Something that doesn't square with reality at all. The result is that people are put at ease when they shouldn't be put at ease, and that enables the spread of Islams evil.

The lack of understanding of Islam and Muslims societies created this naive anticipations in the West in regard to the "Arab Spring".

And you were one of the naive, deliriously happy at what was going on in the Middle East.

"But it is considered

Leonid's picture

"But it is considered God-given."

Considered by whom? In Islam this very question was discussed for centuries and still is discussing.
The question is whether or not the law is given by God or it is a result of ijtihad-the independent legal judgement. Many laws in Sharia are man-made. For example there is no reference in Quran to death sentence for apostasy-this privilege belongs to Allah alone.

"It isn't wishful thinking.

Leonid's picture

"It isn't wishful thinking. It's an attitude"

Do you propose to treat Islam as we treat robbery rape and murder, that is-to make it a criminal offense and therefore to treat all Muslims as criminals? If you do, you are daydreaming.

"Like Reza Aslan you promote Islam by whitewashing it."

No, Reza Aslan doesn't promote or whitewash anything. Simply put, he's describing the process of Islamic Reformation , the abolishment of the authority of Ulama. Some people use this process in order to create Jihadism and others like Amr Khaled, to create a modern version of Islam which can accommodate Western values. The process of Reformation made the concept of "true Islam" meaningless. As Aslan put it " the rejection of institutional authority means that all interpretations of Islam must be considered equally authoritative...Islamic Reformation created a number of wildly divergent and competing ideologies of Islam"-for example that of Osama bin Laden versus that of Amr Khaled. However, while ideology of bin Laden and al Queda is rejected by the majority of Muslims ( Lebanon-94%, Turkey-74%, Egypt-72% according to the survey by the Pew Research Center in 2010), Amr Khalid who promotes the non-militant modern version of Islam, has been described by the New York Times magazine as ""the world's most famous and influential Muslim television preacher." It is true that Khaled is not a scholar of Islam, but so wasn't Osama bin Laden or Muhammad ibn al Wahhab.

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

That is all. If describing and understanding is a promotion I wish people will do the most of it. Even if you want to kill Islam, to do so first you have to understand it. The lack of understanding of Islam and Muslims societies created this naive anticipations in the West in regard to the "Arab Spring".

No. if Sharia is not a

Richard Wiig's picture

No. if Sharia is not a God-given law, it's not part of the religion.

But it is considered God-given. It is Gods law, and the view that it is not is confined to a few who would be murdered as apostates, in line with Shariah. The world belongs to Allah, not to Leonid and Reza Aslan.

" Death to Islam" is a

Richard Wiig's picture

" Death to Islam" is a fantasy, simply put-wishful thinking.

It isn't wishful thinking. It's an attitude - the same kind of attitude that should be directed at paedophillia, wife bashing, robbery, rape, murder, oppression of liberty per se - an attitude that you don't have, at least not when it comes to Islam. Like Reza Aslan you promote Islam by whitewashing it.

The dangers of wishful thinking in the Middle East

Projecting Western ideas onto the Arab Spring seriously underestimates the danger of Islamism.

Last July Matthew Kaminski opined in the Wall Street Journal that the transition to democracy in the Middle East would be as easy as it was for the democracies that emerged after the fall of the Soviet empire. Alas, this was predictably not so, and has now been proven, as vote after vote has shown the strength of the Islamists, most particularly in Egypt, where they have won some 70 percent of the ballot. With his article on January 3, "Arab Democracy Is the Best Bet for a Muslim Reformation", Kaminski continues in this vein of false optimism, based upon his propensity to project Western conceptions and norms onto the Islamic world, where they are largely irrelevant.

Wishful thinking can be dangerous when it distorts reality. Here is a short list of misconceptions in his latest piece...

http://www.mercatornet.com/art...

Again, he doesn't promote

Leonid's picture

Again, he doesn't promote Islam, "pretended" or otherwise. He explains its diversity, its past and present . He contemplates about its future. He is aware of the fact that Islam is here to stay and reflects how Islam can accommodate Western values. He think that Islam is undergoing the process of reformation, that is-a process in which the right of interpretation of the scriptures is taken away from the religious authority and given to the people. As reformation of Judaism and Christianity it is a turbulent and bloody process. The rise of Wahhabism and Jihadism in his view is part of this process. He hopes that reason will prevail and so I. Does it make him or me a promoter or an appeaser of Islam? I doubt it.

"There's only one rational response to Islam, and that's summed up in Linz's "Death to Islam". There is no room for it in a freedom loving world."

" Death to Islam" is a fantasy, simply put-wishful thinking. In this Linz and you are undistinguished from those who daydream about world dominated by Islam. Besides, how you propose to kill Islam? To convert 1.5 billion Muslims to Christianity or Objectivism? But people who are living in the real world now better. They try to understand Islam without prejudice in order to transform it to the modern religion which will incorporate Western values. If that what you call a promotion of "pretended" Islam, I wish these people will do most of it.They deserve all possible support of the West.

"He's a promoter of Islam then, something that you said he is not? "

No. if Sharia is not a God-given law, it's not part of the religion. If Sharia is men-made it could be changed by men, or even abolished altogether. In fact there is a Islamic movement called Quranism which rejects Sunna, Hadith, Sharia and accept only Quran. They are a modern reincarnation of Hanifism and they claim that such Islam can accommodate Western values.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q...

My opinion has been formed by

Richard Wiig's picture

My opinion has been formed by the views of Reza Aslan, not by jihad watch. Jihadwatch has certainly brought Reza Aslan to my attention, along with many other apologists for Islam, but I do make up my own mind, based on what I have learned about Islam. It isn't decided by Robert Spencer, or Pamela Geller, or Ayan Hirsi Ali, or Geert Wilders, or Fjordman, or Bosch Fawston, or any of the other multitude of Islam aware freedom fighters out there.

"A man who denies the divine origin of Sharia law cannot be a promoter of " pretended Islam" "

He's a promoter of Islam then, something that you said he is not? The fact is, he makes apologies for Islam, just as you do. You do it constantly. So far as I am concerned, that is to promote Islam. There's only one rational response to Islam, and that's summed up in Linz's "Death to Islam". There is no room for it in a freedom loving world.

"I haven't read his book"

Leonid's picture

"I haven't read his book"

I suggest to read the book and to get the first hand experience. You cannot forever rely on "Jihad watch " to form your opinion. A man who denies the divine origin of Sharia law cannot be a promoter of " pretended Islam" What he promotes is an idea that Islam could and should be reformed in accordance to the Rationalist as versus current Traditionalist Islamic teaching. ( And to know the difference you need to read his book.) The notion of "pretended Islam" belongs to the realm of conspiracy-as like as a council of Muslim Elders invented the new version of pretended Islam in order to fool the naive Westerners. Such a notion is an insult to the intelligence of Westerners and Muslims. You ignore the fact that Islam exists 1400 years and it managed to conquer half of the world without such a stupid tricks.

As for your personal comments about me, I already explained many times over, how silly they are. For now I'd just ignore them.

Ummm, he is a promoter of

Richard Wiig's picture

Ummm, he is a promoter of Islam. I haven't read his book, but I've read enough of his commentary and seen critiques of it to know that he promotes Islam, as an apologist promotes Islam. As you yourself do, Leonid.

Islam - Moslems - Muslims

seymourblogger's picture

I hope all of you are discriminating among these labels.

"Reza Aslan, another pretend

Leonid's picture

"Reza Aslan, another pretend Islam promoter"

Did you read his book? If you did, you should know that Reza Aslan is not a promoter of Islam in any form. He doesn't promote but explains Islam.

"When Islam proper comes,"-not when but if. And this is very big "IF" Personally, I think that majority of the Western Muslims eventually will adopt reformed Islam simply as a matter of survival. Sharia laws also not written in stone and would change in accordance to demands of the current political situation, as it happened many times over in the past. Incidentally, I also don't promote Islam in any form, as I don't promote any religion. I simply point out to the fact that many Muslims in the West deviate from the Islamic orthodoxy. To call it takia or pretended Islam is to evade reality.

Reza Aslan, another pretend

Richard Wiig's picture

Reza Aslan, another pretend Islam promoter, in order to make an easier path for actual Islam. Actual Islam is total submission to the Shariah. When Islam proper comes, that's what it's going to demand, and that's what you're going to get. All your promotion of pretend Islam will have come to nought.

" Actual Islam as opposed to

Leonid's picture

" Actual Islam as opposed to pretend Islam."-there is no such a thing.

"Religion... is not faith, religion is the story of faith...After all. religion is, by definition , interpretation: and by definition all (religious) interpretations are valid." ( No God but God by Reza Aslan)

seymourblogger

Leonid's picture

"Yes. Boring thinking."

Wrong words' order. In your case one should read " Yes. Thinking is boring"

Liberated Muslim on why

Richard Wiig's picture

Liberated Muslim on why muslims despise jews. Actual Islam as opposed to pretend Islam.

http://liberatednow.blogspot.c...

leonid

seymourblogger's picture

Yes. Boring thinking.

seymourblogger

Leonid's picture

"What dusty closet did you come out of. An attic maybe? Someone let you out of an old trunk?"

"I can see the POV of the Islamists. That doesn't mean I agree or support it, but I can understand it. Through the filter of their belief system we are evil. Through our filter they are evil. Neither is right and neither is wrong. Both have unfortunate consequences."

I came from the dusty closet in which reason and moral absolutes are ruling supreme. You, who worship the non-absolute, who is living in the world of never-ending flux, who cannot even start to realize what is the meaning of a principle, an idea, a concept or definition won't be able to understand it in thousand years. Your mind is indeed a parachute-a floppy device used to slow the motion. In my attic A is A, a murder is a murder, bad is bad and good is good, regardless time or culture, when the standard of good is man's life. In my attic it is a difference between a murderer and his victim. For you " Neither is right and neither is wrong." In your brave new postmodernist world there is no A. It is a world in which nothing worships nothing for the nothing's sake. Enjoy it if you can, make your life one big break.

leonid gimme a break

seymourblogger's picture

What dusty closet did you come out of. An attic maybe? Someone let you out of an old trunk?

seymourblogger

Leonid's picture

"Are we going to go back and take on Lot for incest, abraham for child killing, infanticide,"

Yes, all these are terrible disgusting crimes and no sacred order can justify them-unless you are an adept of moral relativism which is a cancer of modern ethics.

I agree with you wiig

seymourblogger's picture

It makes no sense to me either. Cast the mote out of thine own eye first. Just because it's in the Bible doesn't mean it isn't worthy of being thought about. The US has perpetrated some actions that have led to unforeseen and terrible consequences. Slavery for example. Without slavery we would never have had the racial progblem we have had. Except for the North american Indians of course.

I can see the POV of the Islamists. That doesn't mean I agree or support it, but I can understand it. Through the filter of their belief system we are evil. Through our filter they are evil. Neither is right and neither is wrong. Both have unfortunate consequences.

Evil is Toohey. The amalgamation of evil and its opposite, whatever that is. All part of a stirred up soup fed to us. simulated Reality is going to give it to us, just you wait Henry Higgins. Virtual Reality has no opposites, no way of ascertaining evil, just like Toohey said. This is Rand fictionalizing Nietzsche without being aware of it since she openly and consciously repudiated Nietzsche after Fountainhead. But he continued to flow with the blood in her veins to us.

Of course I can't compare them leonid

seymourblogger's picture

The sacred and productive orders are different categories. Are we going to go back and take on Lot for incest, abraham for child killing, infanticide, multiple wives, Judith beheading Holofernes.

Iran is going to have to free itself. It is not our concern. First they are not liberated, but they are free. This is an important distinction. and the US needs to learn that people can survive under a dictatorship but not under chaos. When we go in to liberate and leave chaos, they are worse off. It will take Irag decades to recover. Probably even longer. Talik to an Irkaqui over here. Of course they all hated Saddam, but they could function when he ruled. Now they can't with our presence. and a bunch of ragheads with homemade bombs has defeated the greatest military power the world has ever known.

So much for hardware. As Baudrillard points out, the more sophisticated the technology, the more vulnerable it is.

Judo.

wiig reminds me of Solzhenitsyn

seymourblogger's picture

In his gulag there were many there who thought they deserved to be there, that the state had a right to condemn them according to the beliefs of the state. Solzhenitsyn when first captured was breaking rocks in a pile with another engineering student and they were talking about absurdity, the absurdity of their having to do this. and that was only the beginning for him.

Then you have the American Victor Herman who lived through it for 40 fuggin years.

Victor never acknowledged that they had a right to do to him what they did. Neither did solzhenitsyn, but he hated our system just as much when he was in Vermont. He went back to Russia as soon as the wall went down and he could. The day he arrived in Moscow it was cold and rainy and there were only about 500 people to greet him. This was the man who took down the Soviet Union by depriving it of all liberal support with his books. Denosovitch the main character in A Day in the Life of Ivan Denosovitch did not hate the masters for making a slave of him. He did a good day's, a hard day's work, had his soup and extra rations of bread and was content. He was a slave and he was proud of the good brick laying he had done that day. The Jehovah Witnesses survived the best in the camps. They were trustworthy to do a good job for the day, and to supervise justly.

Just because Islam - the political arm - is going to punish you severely, maybe even kill you, torture you, does not mean you object that they do not have the right to do so.

Socrates. His example.

Read Nietzsche leonid

seymourblogger's picture

The Genealogy of Morals. How the sacred came to be regarded as sacred.

Richard Wiig

Leonid's picture

"It's not me that she has to convince... it's those who would slit her throat and behead her in the cause of global Shariah,"

No, those nobody can convince. However her interpretation of Islam ( not a view through a filtered lens) may convince many young Western Muslims without very firm orthodox beliefs. Her outlook is shaped by some Islamic teaching which she chose to adopt, as the outlook of those who behead, rape and blast is shaped by some other interpretation of Islam. This is a confirmation of my premise that religion is a supermarket. Finally, since I'm not Muslim, I don't view Islam at all. However, that doesn't mean I have to evade the fact, that Islam, as many other religions, has different interpretations and practices, some of them evil, and some not.

It's not me that she has to

Richard Wiig's picture

It's not me that she has to convince, Leonid, (and she offers nothing to convince me - it's a soundbite, shallow and superficial) it's those who would slit her throat and behead her in the cause of global Shariah, along with all who support Shariah without perpetrating violence themselves, that she has to convince. I suggest to you that her outlook isn't shaped by Islam, but is rather shaped by Western values. She's viewing Islam through a filtered lens, much as you do.

seymourblogger

Leonid's picture

" Neither is blameless nor good"

Talking about distinctions! That is true that American and Western civiliztion in general have a lot to answer for. However do you really think that you can compare the fundamental values of the modern Western culture with the values of mainstream Islam? If you do, then you evade a huge body of knowledge.

Richard Wiig

Leonid's picture

"It isn't losing its evil features and Irshad Manji hasn't demonstrated it."
Well, listen to her again. You'll find that she invokes rationality, self reliance and co-existence based on her interpretation of Islam.

seymourblogger

Leonid's picture

"Sacred can be analyzed genealogically and that opens it up for you to think about in a rational way."-to analize "sacred" irrational order rationaly would mean an exposure of its irrational essence and thus critizism and rejection. That how |I deal with this.

Three Stages of Jihad

Richard Wiig's picture

Three Stages of Jihad

You cannot point to the

Richard Wiig's picture

You cannot point to the Islamists and label them evil unless you also do the same to the empire they are revolting against.

One of the biggest loads of crap that keeps being regurgitated again and again. Talk about complicating thingsl.

You are missing Rand's definition of evil wiig

seymourblogger's picture

Evil is Toohey. Read Toohey's speech in Fountainhead. The complete blurring of the aesthetic with junk, the equating of intelligence with stupidiy, my verbal quote is going to school to learn how to be dumb.

The erasing of all opposite distinctions between value and trash. Praising the trash as value, as important, as beautiful.

And it happens every time I come here. Hardly anyone here has distinctive aesthetic taste about anything at all: some have with music. art? I don't think so unless they go back to the classical. People here simply can't make fine distinctions about language, words, sentences, statements, thoughts, feelings. Why not?

You cannot point to the Islamists and label them evil unless you also do the same to the empire they are revolting against. Neither is blameless nor good. To confuse the US with capitalism, therefore good, is making a big mistake.

It isn't losing its evil

Richard Wiig's picture

It isn't losing its evil features and Irshad Manji hasn't demonstrated it.

leonid you cannot criticize the sacred within

seymourblogger's picture

the Order of Production. They are two different categories. To take a hard look at sacred, then go to Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals and his refutation of God.

Sacred can be analyzed genealogically and that opens it up for you to think about in a rational way. It is in mortal combat with the Order of Production. Just as religion has always been in mortal combat with science. Science now has religious overtones and the sacred has worldly resonances.

Deal with it.

I am working on a genealogy of captives. Within it I see complicity, a Baudrillardian observation, which the Order of Production calls "Stockholm Syndrome" to make it sound scientific and like a modern phenomenon. It isn't.

The only people thinking like this are a handful of academics. Everyone else is arguing with their heads in the sand. Like here.

Yes wiig they are here to stay just like Xnty and

seymourblogger's picture

orthodox Hebrews. They will also be marginalized, compromised and absorbed. Xnty is the great eclectic religion and just as the Chinese culture absorbs all opposites, so will Xnty and the Muslims will follow suit.

Just separate Islam from muslims and moslems. Islam is a political term, the others are not. Xnty is not so well defined. Onward Xntian Soldiers was a powerful message; it still is and it confuses Xnty with political Xnty. I'm just thinking out loud here.

Richard Wiig

Leonid's picture

"Islam is an horrific death cult that useful idiots like Leonid and Irshad Manji cover for"

If Islam is an horrific death, then one should be only too happy to observe that it's losing its evil features, as Irshad Manji and many others demonstrated.

But with you one cannot win. If Muslim is practicing Islam in accordance to the Islamist fundamentalist interpretation, then he is evil-no argument about that. If he's promoting and practicing modified Islam, without its atrocities, then he's a hypocrite , playing Taqwa ( BTW, it's not what you think-see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...)

If Muslim doesn't do anything, just lives his life, then he's suspicious and has to be profiled.

And if anybody want to distinguish between them, then he/she is an useful idiot.

That will never work. I have news for you: the 1.5 billion Muslims are here to stay. They are not going to disappear in the thin air overnight. They have to learn how to live with us, and we-with them. Please keep in mind that by this statement I don't mean appeasement or any forms of ethical relativism-just an adherence to the basic principles of the Western culture which are incompatible with the blatant discrimination on the basis of religion. From the Irshad Manj's example and from many others I infer that they already started this process. Judging by your post, I'm not so sure about us.

seymourblogger

Leonid's picture

"You are criticizing practices of Islam, etc from the POV of The Order of Production...I agree with what you said. I fear any sacred order..."

If it so why it is an error to criticize this "sacred" order as any other irrational order-like communism, Nazism, cannibalism etc...? Do I have simply to accept them as any "good" ethical relativist does?

"The discrimination against Muslims has its roots in fear, as Ernest Jones has pointed out in his essay on racism. As long as Muslims wear different clothes, they are marked. I believe - not sure - the 9-11 terrorists wore western garb and were inconspicuous, escaping profiling"

That's right. A profiling can lead to the major security breach. And for the fear, I already covered this topic-see the post " The Age of Fear " http://www.solopassion.com/nod...

Not for our time, not for any

Richard Wiig's picture

Not for our time, not for any time.

Islam is an horrific death cult that useful idiots like Leonid and Irshad Manji cover for. Here is the sheer naked evil of Islam. All the sweet talk in the world to westerners will not change it. Be warned that it is extremely graphic. The Gates of Hell

http://tgates-of-hell.blogspot...

The religion of peace for our time

Richard Goode's picture

Not in the West, not yet anyway.

I haven't played with any

Richard Wiig's picture

I haven't played with any definitions. I've simply said that Leonid will be up against the wall.

To Richard and leonid

seymourblogger's picture

I cannot understand why you want to play around with trivial definitions. Rome is burning and you are fiddling.

Richard Islam Nation is not a geographical entity

seymourblogger's picture

It is a sacred entity, just as Christianity was in ancient Rome. When I use the term Islam Nation I use it as Malcolm X used it. It transcends geographical boundaries. Just as science is supposed to transcend geographical boundaries, or art, or music, etc. When Islam gets control of a state, and the same is true of Christianity, then we get religious persecution, as in the early colonies of the New World. Iranian filmmakers are voicing this in their art, and it is not all to be despised. Very scary to westerners who have become cynical and jaded with shopping and sex and and and........

You have an error in your thinking

seymourblogger's picture

You are criticizing practices of Islam, etc from the POV of The Order of Production. Islam is not of that order. Islam is of The Sacred Order of Seduction. You cannot logically switch orders when discussing these two orders. We all must - must - understand this in order to meet the challenge it throws at us - and it does throw a powerful challenge to us, just as Communism did from a Marxist POV rather than a Stalinist POV. We lose ideological battles because we don't understand the genealogy of idealistic words and concepts. We are always fighting on their turf and not our own.

In the Sacred Order, women are Other. They are an enigma. They are dangerous. If a woman can "incite " rape from under the folds of her hooded uniform, imagine that power. What a powerful woman to inspire that under those conditions. She is dangerous. She must die before she infects other women and seduces more men. Why else do they "cut" them. This is to inscribe their bodies with fear of sex, the pain of sex, the mutilation of sex, the avoidance of sex, the sexual marking, the torture, and all this Nietzsche details in his The Genealogy of Morals with his The Inscription of the Body. and Nietzsche is very careful to include the mind along with the inscribing of the body. Foucault will expand on Nietzsche and spend his life extending the method of genealogy, avoiding all theory and polemic argumentation.

The discrimination against Muslims has its roots in fear, as Ernest Jones has pointed out in his essay on racism. As long as Muslims wear different clothes, they are marked. I believe - not sure - the 9-11 terrorists wore western garb and were inconspicuous, escaping profiling. I know about profiling because I get stopped in my car all the time on I-44 going to St. Louis. I have an old car with very good tires. That is a red flag for those who haul drugs along I-44. There are other profiles which I am sure you know.

I agree with what you said. I fear any sacred order. Baudrillard warns us that this sacred order is in opposition to our order, and that we need their opposition for our existence. I know that is difficult to understand, but it forces dialectic thinking, when dialectic thinking is on the trash heap of yesterday.

The excellent Ides of March film has a clip in there of it: The opposing nominee wannabe supposedly has stock in exploitive mines or some such, and the press guy is asked if it is true. He says, "I don't care if it's true or not. If it is, great. If it's not, it doesn't matter. I want him to spend the whole day defending himself and de/or denying it." What he is talking about here is Deterrence. It is not an issue of truth or falsity. It is an issue of credibility. In cyberspace, all is credible. Nothing is true or false, but all of it is credible because it is out there. It is useless to defend against credibiliity by using true and false, it just gets you in a psychological swamp of denial, counter charges, etc etc etc. It is all just "circulating information". It is not knowing, it is information.

Knowledge is not for knowing. Knowledge is made for "CUTTING". - Michel Foucault

Our times are dangerous, and arguing petty politics is not helpful.

Richard Wiig

Leonid's picture

"All it shows is an apostate"

A person who profess to be a deeply religious Muslim is an apostate? According to what standard?
Maybe of that of Salafists and Taliban, but they are not only representatives of Islam. They are others as you can see.

" Islam is political."-Yes, if it allowed to use the political power, that is-the power of state, like in Iran, for example. Not in the West, not yet anyway.

seymourblogger

Leonid's picture

Where did you find a single Muslim nation? There are hundreds of different Muslim nations around the globe. And what is so silly in the recognition of the fact that Islam approves on the indiscriminate war against infidels, on amputation of limbs, on stoning of the raped women and homosexuals, on death for apostasy etc...However you are right-not all Muslims practice these atrocities, most of them not; and discrimination of Muslims as a whole belongs to the same dark side as fundamentalist Islam and Christianity.

I posted this link to show

Richard Wiig's picture

I posted this link to show that slowly but surly Islamism loses support among Western Muslims.

All it shows is an apostate who'll go up against the wall alongside Leonid once she's served her usefulness. BTW, Islam is political.

leonid they are no different with their bombs

seymourblogger's picture

than the Christian Right is with their bombs at the abortion clinics. Both aspects of terrorism are to be condemned.

Muslims or Moslems are religious, spiritual names. Islam nation is a political entity. Some muslims, moslems are Islamists, most are not, but they have been discriminated against as if they all were. and it is easy to discriminate when wearing head scarves and clothing that is distinctive. In jeans and T's you will never know which is which. Same with Christians. Do you think they haven't figured this out?

Your post is just silly. A silly post for a silly reason in a silly place that is silly most of the time.

seymourblogger

Leonid's picture

Islam is political?
That is new for me. I always thought that Islam is a religion. Islamism(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...) is a political movement based on Islam. I'm happy that you have such a view on our Muslim brothers, but some of them unfortunately alleviate our discomfort by means of bombs and rape. Should we be considerate, polite, compassionate with them as well?

I posted this link to show that slowly but surly Islamism loses support among Western Muslims. Unsupported by political power they have to adjust if they want to survive in the West, all their "scarry" cries about Islam domination of the West notwithstanding. That, btw, also applies to the fundamentalist Christians and Jews.

Do not confuse Islam with Moslem etc.....

seymourblogger's picture

Islam is political. A Moslem is a religious person who may or may not be political. Basically Moslems believe that you do not do unto others as you would not have be done unto you. To be careful with others, considerate, polite, compassionate. and if you have ever interacted with any of them, they really are this way in the most insignificant and minute ways. They sense your discomfort and if they can alleviate it, they do. Not obsessively, but considerately.

Would that Bible carrying Christians were like them.

Comment viewing options

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