[an error occurred while processing this directive]
About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Wednesday, June 23, 2010 - 5:19amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Nice letter.  The letters page has its uses and purposes and sometimes local issues are made there.  For something like this (or other national issues such as abortion, gay marriage, the War in Iraq), all you get is the opportunity to make a statement.  Op-Ed pieces allow more space to present facts.  Again, I am not sure how compelling facts are as people tend to make up their minds first and then find reasons to believe. 

Myself, I see the issue of the Jewish State in Palestine as complicated.  For one thing, we do not consider that Europe was finally made "Judenrein" (cleaned of Jews) by shipping them all off to Palestine, rather than giving them Liechtenstein.  A Jewish state in Palestine was Hitler's first solution.  The final solution came later. 

Of course, the Zionists want Phoenicia, Canaan, and Sinai for themselves as a gift from God.  You have to question that.  I mean, who else gets to make irrational claims like that?  In India, Hindus, Moslems, and Sikhs engage in the same arguments with concomitant bloodshed.  It was the motive for the assassination of Indira Gandhi.  Does anyone here want to write a letter to the editor to help formulate a rational opinion on who gets to control which temple site?

That said ...  Here is a list of pro-Arab, anti-Zionist political parties with seats in the Knesset.  Two have women as deputies.  Show me an Arab or Muslim state where an anti-government party has a Jewish woman seated in parliament.
Hadash Party
The party supports evacuation of all Israeli settlements, a complete withdrawal by Israel from all territories occupied as a result of the Six-Day War, and the establishment of a Palestinian state in those territories. It also supports the right of return or compensation for Palestinian refugees.  In addition to issues of peace and security, Hadash is also known for being active on social and environmental issues. -- Wikipedia
Afou Agbaria
Mohammad Barakeh
Dov Khenin
Hanna Swaid

Ra'am Ta'al Party
The party supports the creation of a Palestinian State with East Jerusalem as its capital; and a solution of two states - one Jewish and one Palestinian for the conflict in the region. -- Wikipedia
Talab El-Sana
Masud Ganaim
Ibrahim Sarsur
Ahmad Tibi

National Democratic Assembly
Balad also demands that the state of Israel recognize Palestinian Arabs as a national minority, entitled to all rights that come with that status including autonomy in education, culture and media. The party supports creation of two states based on pre-1967 borders, with the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem to constitute a Palestinian state and the implementation of UN Resolution 194 regarding the right of return to Palestinian refugees. -- Wikipedia
Said Naffaa
Jamal Zahalka
Hanin Zoabi


The Knesset's English-language presentation is here.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 6/23, 5:20am)


Post 1

Thursday, June 24, 2010 - 9:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bravo, Bob.

Ed

Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Thursday, November 29, 2012 - 9:06amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael:

Arafat's uncle Nazi, Al-Husseini, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and head of the Supreme Muslim Council, raised, as part of that Council's original complaint in British Mandate Palestine, that there were 'too many Jews buying land in the 'hood.'

Buying land.

Buying.

In the 'hood.

Now, there's a sentiment from the KKK worth getting all 'complex' over.

The reason for the complaint was, because they were doing so -- buying land -- at prices that not even the sellers could afford. In other words, the same old underbelly of mankind, class warfare, jealousy, envy, hatred at dem whats gots more dem us.

Fuck that. You know why? Because during this very same time, Jews were also fleeing the collectivist tribal nonsense in Europe to America, and doing the exact same thing. Here, those same Jews took their places as business people, doctors, teachers, whatever, and peacefully built their temples alongside of Arab-Americans doing the exact same thing, in peace.

I don't believe for even one second that there was a Magic Jinn standing on those docks in Europe -- a kind of 'Maxwell's Demon' -- that was selectively sending all the reasonable peace loving Jews and Muslims to America, and all the hardasses to BM Palestine. The difference was the tolerance for KKK sensibilities on arrival; in America, that underside of the tribe is suppressed, as in, when a GOP president sent federal troops to Little Rock in the 50's to turn around those Democratic Governor controlled National Guard bayonets, and a Republican MLK gave his speeches in the early 60s.

In BM Palestine, it had ahold of the Muslim High Council.

The Hebron massacre was in '29. The eventual formation of the State of Israel two decades later was a defensive response to a world gone insane, one that tolerated local KKK sensibilities even after The Great War.

The continuation of those KKK sensibilities, tolerated just because the issue is seen as Rich vs. Poor, and class warfare trumps KKK, is not something I will ever acknowledge as legitimate or reasonable or a mere matter of disagreement. It is clinging to an agenda until the fingers bleed, and too often, the rest of mankind.

regards,
Fred

Post 3

Friday, January 31, 2014 - 4:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Behind all force is the Balfour Resolution to create a Zionist state in Palestine. This is what the English intended to do, with force. Obviously, no effort was made to 'reason' with the huge Islamic majority--it obviously would have done no good.

 

Hence, an uprising  in 1930 against England, and the rise of Muftis who sided with Germany. 'Funny thing, unkind things were said of the jews.

 

The next major event was the flood of european jewish refugees, then independence, then displacement, which caused the wars of 48, 56, 68, 74...none to speak of. recently, because the USSR is gone.  Only the option of terrorism exists.

 

It's therefore prima facie absurd to talk of reason when one's land (property) is being taken away. Objectivists should be the first to see this.

 

EM

 



Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Monday, February 3, 2014 - 4:29amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Eva, it is a bit more complicated. Objectivism is not Absolutism.  No absolute right to property exists.  If you damage someone else's, then yours (some or all) will be taken in recompense. Even if you had the technical means, you could not claim a million square miles of prime shipping lanes in the Atlantic Ocean as "unclaimed  property" which you now intend to homestead.  Some Objectivists could argue the case; others would disagree.  So, too, with Palestine and the related problem of the Native Americans is there a body of thought different from what you implicity assume is Objectivist theory of property rights.

 

I disagree with the claim, but it has been argued here (and elsewhere in O-space) that the superior civilization has the moral right to take the lands of the primitives.  We could not allow industrialism to die unborn just to ensure that Native Americans could hunt and gather undisturbed.  So, too, is Palestine a problem of primitive peoples resisting the advances of civilization. 

 

See my post 1 above.  It was always possible - really actually true in practice then and now - for Arabs to live as political equals with Jews in Israel.  The equal and opposite case does not exist: no Islamic state grants equal rights no non-Muslims.  Granted, also, that we do have secular states such as poor Lebanon (a tragedy), Jordan, and Pakistan where modern norms are more visibile.  They are not the best argments, but they do suggest other outcomes.  



Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 5

Monday, February 3, 2014 - 1:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

The Balfour Letter did not spring from the earth out of all context; the Ottoman Empire sided with the Germans in WWI, lost a global conflict, as well as control over their once colonies.  A war weary West carved up the region, failed to recogniz undefeated men on horseback riding around dunes, and half assedly impressed a tired modernity on the unwilling vestiges of the dark ages.

 

But the original complaint in 1925 of the Muslim high council in Jerusalem was not 'they are taking our land!'  The original complaint was "The Jews are buying our land!' -- at prices not even the sellers could afford.   That is some local senitiment to get behind; "Too many Jews buying land in the 'hood."

 

The result was the '29 Hebron massacre, and an escalating local crap fight of violent tit for tat.   The goal of British Mandate Palestine was not the state of Isreal.   The goal was Palestine, where, just as in America at exactly the same time, Jews emigrated from an tribally insane Europe, where collectivist furor had succeeded in unfettering the tribe for its latest bloodletting.  In America, Jews and Arabs built their homes in the same communities-- because the KKK sensibilities of "Too many Jews buying land in the hood' were at least subdued.   In BM Palestine, that fine sentiment was entrenched inside the Muslim High Council.

 

The defensive state of Israel resulted only after WWII, long after Balfour, but directly after the entire world had demonstrated that it barely gave a flying crap about the Jews, and they were on their own in this world, as it is, to defned themselves from KKK sensibilities.    So I repeat the Maxwell's demon analyis above; how is it that European Jews leaving those docks in Europe for America and Palestine managed to send all the land stealing baby killers to Palestine, and all the reasonable peace loving Jews to America, where they live in peace next to Muslims and Arabs and even the odd Welsheman doing the same?  Was there an amazing 'Maxwell's Demon' at those docks, sifting humanity, that made it impossible for Jews to assimilate in Palestine as they have in America, or, once they emigrate, can they do nothing but steal land and so on, on their way to America's 51st state (Boca Raton, maybe?) 

 

So why is it an almost autoresponse that the American left finds iteslf aligned with the interests of the Jew haters in this conflict?   Because in this conflict,  Muslims=poor and Jews= rich, and poor vs. rich dominates any consideration of KKK sensibilities.   

 

It is automatic, a given.   And, the reason that the history of the conflict largely ignores its roots.

 

Ataturk saw the writing on the wall, with regards to modernity, and brought Turkey along out of the ashes of the former Ottoman Empire.   But the former Ottoman colonies, ringing the Med, were left in chaos, and modernity is still having a hard time convincing the dark agers-- the Old Men in Robes rolling their eyes over the dusty ashes of the prophet--  to call it a day.  From Libya to the Balkans, same story.  Former Ottoman colonies, hair on fire over the 'sudden' arrival of modernity.  "What!  Nobody told us!"

 

A war weary west in BM Palestine was saying, "Really?  We need to actually prove the point with you folks?  The war is over.  Seriously?  Modern up already. Get along.  Modernity has a party it wants to throw, these sad echos from the days before domination by the Ottoman Empire, and land claims from 800 years ago, are just bullshit.   Build some schools.  Get busy. Trade with your neighbors, don't murder them.  Buy a damn clue already.  Look at the Pope; he lives in Disneyland, we gave him a nice car.  He wears funny hats and waves.  Everyone is happily getting busy.  He's harmless.  No more Crusades  Do the same with your Old Men in Robes.   Disneyfy them.   Imagine the buses pulling into Animatronic HolyLand full of laughing kids.  Sure beats the living hell out of blowing up those same busses loaded with kids over the dusty bones of the prophet and the One True Religion..."

 

 



Post 6

Monday, February 3, 2014 - 1:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Speaking of the Disneyfication of Old Men in Robes, you haven't lived until you've smacked down on a bag of roasted cinnamon almonds from the lobby of this theater in Lancaster and seen Baby Jesus come to life in a multimillion dollar Broadway spectacle:

 

http://www.sight-sound.com/WebSite/home.do

 

 



Post 7

Monday, February 3, 2014 - 5:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Michael,

 

Yes, issues can indeed be made more complex to the point of obfuscation. that's why 'obfuscation means "muddying the waters".

 

The Objectivist definition of 'property' is correctly based upon usufruct. This corresponds to what one is taught in Anthropology 101. Yet because the devil is always in the details, 'usufruct' means something totally different between the two.

 

Anhropology seeks to define the how's of a particular society's use that's  based somewhat upon first- principle 'cultural relativism". This means, first, define and describe the world of the actors thru their own eyes.

 

For example, in the case of both Native American and Palestinian feyadeen,  'property' takes on an ecological sense of preservation. Non-use is saving for the future.

 

We don't cut down trees because we enoy our own culture that involves hunting. Trees are likewise protected in the Levant for reasons of soil preservation in a thin-soild environmet. Etcetera.

 

In most cultures, land is said to be inalienable. It belongs to the village (feyad/fellah), not for sale by the user.

 

That Rand(ites) may see this as 'primitive' and usufruct-challenged will pass without futher comment. Assuming interest of discussion (surely not mine!), this is precisely what should go into 'Dissent" because it really is a strong disagreement for both normals and fissiles alike.

 

I will, however, offer two tangental comments:

 

* There's a popular assumption that military superiority equals cultural advancement. In this scenario, the more-advanced always win because it's...'Evolutionary!'

 

Then when Attila, Gengis, and Vietnam are tossed into the picture, the assumers cry "Exception!" Or, "It's really unfair to characterize Johnson as semi-literate white trash, and Uncle Ho as urbane,intellectual, and educated. Texans can be civilived, too!"

 

** Germans believed that Jews were culturally and racially inferor, hence justifiably exterminated. Taking the land of others always needs a justification, yes? Gengis and the Mongols strongly believed that hoes harm mother earth, therefore farmers of all ethnos shoud be killed to make room for pasturage. Mongol civ in terms of Mongol values in terms of mongol economics..

 

Eva

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Edited by Matthews on 2/03, 6:16pm)



Post 8

Monday, February 3, 2014 - 6:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Fred,

 

Yes, 'Balfour' was bound in historical context. I saw Lawrence of Arabia, too. I also know that 'Ottoman means more than a small. overstuffed sofa. And...(!)...I've even been to Turkey!

 

Yes, Maxwell...the deamon that really did sort out the immigres to Paleatine from those who went west was the ideology that justified settlement of Palestine to begin with. Many still do not.

 

And no, describing the various tit-for-tats offers no post-hoc justification for Balfour. From the eyes of Palestine, it's just another crusader state, a beachhead.

 

Lastly, I'll ignore your comment that opposition to Israel represents anti-semitism. What's discussable is what the borders and the political composition of Israel should look like.

 

Eva

 

 

 

(Edited by Matthews on 2/03, 6:11pm)



Post 9

Monday, February 3, 2014 - 7:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Eva,

 

"Rand(ites)" or "Randians" are taken by Objectivists as condescending and a kind of name-calling.   Much better to just say "Objectivists" unless your purpose to annoy or denounce.  Just saying.



Post 10

Monday, February 3, 2014 - 8:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Steve,

 

'Had no idea. Followers of Deleuze are called 'Deluzian', etc

 

Sorry,

 

Eva



Post 11

Tuesday, February 4, 2014 - 10:04amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Eva:

 

"In most cultures, land is said to be inalienable. It belongs to the village (feyad/fellah), not for sale by the user."

 

So tribal non-land owners(who do not recognize such a thing) did not see as legitimate Palestinians selling land to Jews.  And the rational response was, accuse the Jews of stealing land?    Rule of the tribal dumbasses, not rule of law.    

 

Well, the basis for conflict is clear then.   Local tribal dumbasses vs. local modern-moderates embracing modernity.   Like much of the world removed from the thin resort crust that jaunty tourists call 'out of the country.'.

 

You've been to Turkey?   Fantastic.    I've done business there, in Israel, Qatar, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bangladesh, and lots of other places in the world, as a defense contractor.   So, can't wait to hear more of your impressions of Turkey.

 

regards,

Fred

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Post 12

Tuesday, February 4, 2014 - 10:10amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Eva:

 

Just one fact of historical confusion that isn't clear to me; if the local tribal dumasses in Palestine were making claims to tribal land, how did that apply for the 800 years or so of domination by the Ottoman Empire?    Were these ancient tribal memories manifesting themself freshly in modern times, sort of, long lived but selectively forgetful local culture?    How, exactly, is 800 years of domination by the OE erased in this paint-with-all-the-colors-of-the-wind analysis of tribal cultures?

 

800 years of OE domination as colonies of the OE--- BM Palestine.    Where was the 15 seconds of empty space in that into which to insert these tribal memories of tribal land?

 

regards,

Fred

 

 

 

 



Post 13

Tuesday, February 4, 2014 - 10:26amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

 

Said Palestinian dumbasses maintained their own culture and language, as did said dumbasses in Egypt, Greece, Macadonia, Bulgaria, and Yugoslavia, not to mention Kurdistan, Azerbajan..etc.

 

Why am I  talking on line to someone who calls an entire group of people 'dumbasses? Sounds pretty much like what others call Americans...

 

BTW, 'tribal' refers to an extended familial group that somewhat lives together. That Palestinians still demonstrate 'tribal' relations is a testament to the strength of their culture. 



Post 14

Sunday, April 26 - 10:58amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

For my first post here at RoR I'll tackle this issue with comprehensive reasoning because it is far more important than it appears on the surface.

I should summarize this importance issue:

It is ultimately about our survival through adaptation and self control for those ends.  Reasonably, the Nomadic tribes that survived harsh natural conditions of the desert had extreme discipline mandating their survival. We see that in their historic laws.

Reasonably, if our species is to survive, our discipline in self control is automatically mandated.

What this says is that we have something to learn from Muslims and understanding of the ancient conflict between Judaism and Islam.

The behaviors of all sides is extreme.  Even those on the periphery are not exempt.  For example; how could Britian presume to authorize the Balfor declaration over the sovereignty of the ancient inhabitants of Palestine?  How could they be given credibility as reasonable for doing such by other nations presuming to be lawful and reasonable?

There is only one answer; attitude.  Attitude is not understanding it is an emotional position assimilated for temporal efficacy.  Or, in order to appear reasonable and make a decision based on something, cognitive distortions are accepted and a decision based in those is rendered.

The particular distortions are primarily "emotional reasoning" and "all or nothing thinking".   Or, Muslims are all crazy violent people that refuse to reason.  All reasonable uses of understanding of psychology dictating that their violence has a reason, historical even, is abandoned because the arguments they've most reasonably produced are spiritual.  They insist that something which is unseen in life or living actual exists.

That argument is rejected despite the fact we all have unconscious events that we submit to which control us.  Dreams, phobias, and attitudes all fall within this realm.  It is rejected and lethal persecution has been imposed upon them for perhaps thousands of years.

I return to our global ability to control our behaviors and effectively limit our impacts upon elements vital to our survival.  Air and water primarily.  It is unreasonable to allow any collective behavior to develop which permanently compromises these elements.  Reasonably, we must adapt our behaviors to cease the mass effect compromising these elements.

Any Muslim would agree, but will a Christian?

My point is made.  Fundamentally human beings are controlled by their unconscious mind and if they are unable to work with that effectively they will not be able to control themselves and effectively adapt with behavioral change as a group and survive. 

Accordingly, can we see the error of our ways comprehensively with respect for our need to adapt and the possibility that the Muslims historical adaptation to the extremely harsh desert environment, is in a way equal to their extremist reactions to the persecution imposed upon them by a world which persecuted them for what it cannot or refuses to see or acknowledge within human existence?  Can we see that we have something to learn from Muslims regarding their ability to adapt, to create self control that enables reasonable sacrifices to enable survival and adaptation?



Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Post 15

Sunday, April 26 - 6:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Oh, brother...



Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Post 16

Sunday, April 26 - 11:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I know Teresa.  Just too much.  I just sanctioned your post since it said what I felt.

  • Muslims persecuted?  Then what has the last 3,000 years been like for the Jews?  A stroll in the garden?
  • We should learn from the Muslims?  The most fundamentalist of them have adopted the blind faith of following an illiterate warlord who they say Allah spoke to and they want to impose Sharia law where disagreement can result in beheadings or being stoned to death?
  • Human beings are controlled by the their unconscious?  If we don't have any conscious control then how are to do this "comprehensive reasoning"?  (That's a rhetorical question, by the way - at least, I don't want to invite any unconscious answers.)
  • Error of our ways?  I missed just what that is.
  • We are supposed to "adapt with behavioral change as a group and survive"?  Environmental Collectivism?  Specifically what behavior changes are we supposed to do?  Some sort of service to Air and water?
  • We are supposed to engage in some sort of unnamed "reasonable sacrifices"?  Just what are those?

Is this a kind of Muslim jihad that is on behalf of air and water?  The Muslim Theocracies don't pollute the air and water that much, not yet anyway, but that's because they work so hard to stay in the tenth century.  I guess that's a kind of "discipline" but I'd point out that we've done more to clean air and water with our system of private property.  

 

The rhetoric in that post, and the statements recently by Obama (Climate change is a greater threat to our national security than Iran or ISIS or Al Queda) should make it clear that environmentalism has turned the corner and is now a religion dressed up in a mock lab coat.

 

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 4/27, 12:10am)



Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 17

Monday, April 27 - 12:16amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Yeah, some pretty strange stuff.  I was going to write a response, but his post was such a hodge podge of disconnected statements, I couldn't detect any kind of a unifying theme.  So, Christopher, could you state in a single sentence, the main point of your post?  That would certainly help.



Post 18

Sunday, April 26 - 8:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Yes sister, these are facts of human existence.  And the cessation of conflict, war, depends on understanding of them.  



Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Post 19

Monday, April 27 - 8:27amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

As Ayaan Hirsi Ali notes, Islam needs a reformation.  She identifies "five precepts central to Islam that have made it resistant to historical change and adaptation. Only when the harmfulness of these ideas are recognized and they are repudiated will a true Muslim Reformation have been achieved."

 

Here are the five areas that require amendment:

 

1. Muhammad’s semi-divine status, along with the literalist reading of the Quran.
Muhammad should not be seen as infallible, let alone as a source of divine writ. He should be seen as a historical figure who united the Arab tribes in a premodern context that cannot be replicated in the 21st century. And although Islam maintains that the Quran is the literal word of Allah, it is, in historical reality, a book that was shaped by human hands. Large parts of the Quran simply reflect the tribal values of the 7th-century Arabian context from which it emerged. The Quran’s eternal spiritual values must be separated from the cultural accidents of the place and time of its birth.

 

2. The supremacy of life after death.
The appeal of martyrdom will fade only when Muslims assign a greater value to the rewards of this life than to those promised in the hereafter.

 

3. Shariah, the vast body of religious legislation.
Muslims should learn to put the dynamic, evolving laws made by human beings above those aspects of Shariah that are violent, intolerant or anachronistic.

 

4. The right of individual Muslims to enforce Islamic law.
There is no room in the modern world for religious police, vigilantes and politically empowered clerics.

 

5. The imperative to wage jihad, or holy war.
Islam must become a true religion of peace, which means rejecting the imposition of religion by the sword.

 

I know that this argument will make many Muslims uncomfortable. Some are bound to be offended by my proposed amendments. Others will contend that I am not qualified to discuss these complex issues of theology and law. I am also afraid—genuinely afraid—that it will make a few Muslims even more eager to silence me.

 

But this is not a work of theology. It is more in the nature of a public intervention in the debate about the future of Islam. The biggest obstacle to change within the Muslim world is precisely its suppression of the sort of critical thinking I am attempting here. If my proposal for reform helps to spark a serious discussion of these issues among Muslims themselves, I will consider it a success.

 

Let me make two things clear. I do not seek to inspire another war on terror or extremism—violence in the name of Islam cannot be ended by military means alone. Nor am I any sort of “Islamophobe.” At various times, I myself have been all three kinds of Muslim: a fundamentalist, a cocooned believer and a dissident. My journey has gone from Mecca to Medina to Manhattan.

 

For me, there seemed no way to reconcile my faith with the freedoms I came to the West to embrace. I left the faith, despite the threat of the death penalty prescribed by Shariah for apostates. Future generations of Muslims deserve better, safer options. Muslims should be able to welcome modernity, not be forced to wall themselves off, or live in a state of cognitive dissonance, or lash out in violent rejection.

 

But it is not only Muslims who would benefit from a reformation of Islam. We in the West have an enormous stake in how the struggle over Islam plays out. We cannot remain on the sidelines, as though the outcome has nothing to do with us. For if the Medina Muslims win and the hope for a Muslim Reformation dies, the rest of the world too will pay an enormous price—not only in blood spilled but also in freedom lost.

 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-reformation-for-islam-1426859626



Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page
[an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive]