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 unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page


Post 140

Monday, June 20, 2005 - 10:09amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
[Mr. Kelly:] "The man's on a mission. He wants to convert us."

Trying to be offensive? I will assume it's not so.

But I will defend myself; see what you said in post #120:

"May I suggest you read Atlas Shrugged?"

Now I, consequently, could say:

"Mr. Kelly's on a mission. He tries to convert me."

I won't say it without quotation marks because, among adults, I see as legitimate to use all the tools of persuasion.

With freedom,

Joel Català
(Edited by Joel Català on 6/20, 10:12am)




Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 141

Monday, June 20, 2005 - 11:22amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Ms. House,

Here I reply to your post #124; you Objectivists give me a lot of homework :-)

[Ms. House:] "I like that you don't accept "silly talk" and "absurd premise" as arguments and I like the points you've raised, but I disagree with almost everything you've said."

Thank you for your benevolent take.


[Ms. House:] "Your apparent ignorance of the religions you've brought up is disconcerting. I assume from your statements that you've read at least the Koran, but you seem to have misunderstood most of it."

That's precisely one of the multiple deceitful arguments most of the Islamicists say when you try to argue with them (the Islamic techniques of deceit are named Taqiyya and Kitman). See in example, in the excellent website jihadwatch: "Three Misunderstanders of Islam Indicted on Terror Charges in the US".

And I am not saying that you are being deceitful here, only misguided.


[Ms. House:] "Your whole bit about jihad completely misses the fact that jihad is supposed to be an internal holy war, fought between oneself and whatever personal demon one is fighting. It is not a call to arms and a thirst for blood as you portray it."

Ms. House, unfortunately for mankind, that's the contrary to the truth. In the (secular) website faithfreedom you will find the following definition based in the "Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam":

"DJIHAD, holy war. The spread of Islam by arms is a religious duty upon Muslims in general. [...]" [Bolds and italics mine.]
 
I am saying that that is the main definition if "jihad", under a canonical, popular and historical point of view. To give you a poignant example: the model of perfect Muslim is Mohamed, who was a warrior. Now compare to the founder of Objectivism, or the founder of Buddhism. Did Ayn Rand use weapons to spread Objectivism, did Buddha use weapons to spread Buddhism? You know the answer.


I strongly suggest you to read it all in the link. I can give you more information in this very important issue, If you want.


[Ms.
House:] "Furthermore, you confuse faith and confidence. They are not, as you are suggesting, synonymous."

I am saying that the word "faith" has some entries that Mr. 
Kelly has not carefully considered. Words often are polysemic (with multiple meanings), and that's in the root of the question I raised.


[Ms House:] "Faith is a belief without evidence."

Not in all its meanings. Please see my
post #115. In point B (describing the first entry at dictionary.com of the word "faith") you will see that "total trustworthiness" does not necessarily involve "belief without evidence", as you defended.


[Ms.
House:] "I'm tempted to go at you on that Buddhism comment, but I can only assume that my efforts would be wasted since you apparently fail to understand whatever doesn't appeal to you prima facie."

Are you trying to say me that Buddhism
has not "an irrational basis" as I said in post #110? please feel free to elaborate.


[Ms. 
House:] "You seem to disagree with these religions, but for all the wrong reasons."

My main reason to disagree with all those religions is their anti-rational and anti-life aspects.

Respectfully,
 

Joel Català

(Edited by Joel Català on 6/20, 12:08pm)




Post 142

Monday, June 20, 2005 - 11:36amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
[Ms. Sarah House:] "My point is, don't blame the system, blame the people."

That's wrong, Ms. House: evil ideas must be denounced, and if you can blame anyone, it's only because they would be defending and evil system (or idea.)

I am convinced that all humans can be good. But not all systems can be good.

You must combat evil ideas, and encourage "the people" to be better individuals. That's my view.

Best wishes,

Joel Català
(Edited by Joel Català on 6/20, 12:11pm)

(Edited by Joel Català on 6/20, 12:13pm)




Post 143

Monday, June 20, 2005 - 11:58amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
[Mr. Davison:] "Jihadists have, for all practical purposes, reversed the meaning of jihad."

That's wrong. Please see my post #141, in where you can find an accurate definition of jihad (from the "Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam.")

The hard, tough truth is: Bin Laden, or Zarqawi, or the Sudanese goverment, are definitely following the teachings of the Koran (and the Hadith, and Sura, etc.) and are following the model defined by the jihadist Muhammad, who, according to Islamic dogma is "the best role model of mankind [sic]." And they don't hide about that. You only need to listen what they say.

We have the fantastic Internet: I encourage you to look for information on the issue.  
Best wishes,

Joel Català




Post 144

Monday, June 20, 2005 - 12:07pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Joel, (What's with the Ms. business, eh? None of this formal stuff while I'm around mister.)

Firstly, I hardly qualify as an Objectivist.

Secondly, what I see in your posts is you painting all Islamists with the same violent brush. Are there Islamists that agree completely with what you're saying? Yes, absolutely. They are considered extremists. However, they do not constitute the whole of Islam. So, I'll see your anti-Islam website and raise you a pro-Islam website: iad.org [disclaimer: the views expressed on this site do not necessarily reflect the views of this poster]

From that site:
Like Christianity, Islam permits fighting in self-defence, in defence of religion, or on the part of those who have been expelled forcibly from their homes. It lays down strict rules of combat which include prohibitions against harming civilians and against destroying crops, trees and livestock. [emphasis added]

And like Christianity's Bible the Koran is assuredly rife with contradictions and so there's likely another section that contradicts this. We could go on all day finding this site or that definition that supports our respective points. That would undoubtedly be a waste of our time. I will be content if you concede that not all Islamists are religious-fanatic killers.

Now, on the matter of faith. As you can see from the 42rd definition of this esoteric 3rd century dictionary...

My point: if you blur the lines between words enough you can make any word mean anything you want. Faith and confidence as I've described them provide sure and practical uses of those words. It is a valid distinction and an important one.

Now, Buddhism. I started a long and arduous discussion on Buddhism here. You don't have to read it, but one point I made was that the philosophy of Buddhism, not the religion which grew out of the philosophy, is based on reason. Lacking in facts perhaps, but utilizing reason nonetheless.

Lastly, I hate buzzwords.

Sarah

(Edited by Sarah House
on 6/20, 12:39pm)




Post 145

Monday, June 20, 2005 - 12:33pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Sarah,

Please reread your last post: you are apologizing for Islam.

That's one of the main features of dhimmitude. What is dhimmitude, an Islamic institution? For the information of all, here you have it:

"The native infidel population had to recognize Islamic ownership on their land, submit to Islamic (i.e., shari’a) law, and accept payment of the poll tax (jizya). In return they were granted the effective protection of Islamic law, which gave them security, limited religious rights, and self-administration in religious and civil law. Some of the more salient features of dhimmitude include: the prohibition of arms for the vanquished non-Muslims (dhimmis), and of church bells; the restrictions concerning the building and restoration of churches and synagogues; the inequality between Muslims and non-Muslims with regard to taxes and penal law; the refusal of dhimmi testimony by Muslim courts; the obligation for Jews and Christians to wear special clothes; and their overall humiliation and abasement." [from "Jihad and Dhimmitude: Victimless Islamic Institutions?", by Bat Ye’or and Andrew G. Bostom, FrontPageMagazine.com, December 3, 2002.]
 
That's the true Islam, in full accordance with Muslim history and Islamic law (Shari'a).
 
Best wishes,
 
Joel Català

(Edited by Joel Català on 6/20, 12:40pm)

(Edited by Joel Català on 6/20, 12:46pm)




Post 146

Monday, June 20, 2005 - 12:37pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Ahem... "We could go on all day finding this site or that definition that supports our respective points. That would undoubtedly be a waste of our time."



Post 147

Monday, June 20, 2005 - 12:40pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
That's the mainstream, overwhelmingly accepted Islam, of today and of all times.

Oh, well if the majority says it's right...



Post 148

Monday, June 20, 2005 - 12:42pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Sarah,

You are in a state of denial. Be brave and face reality.

Joel Català




Post 149

Monday, June 20, 2005 - 12:46pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Joel,

You are in a state of idiocy. Be brave, read my posts.

"I will be content if you concede that not all Islamists are religious-fanatic killers."

Sarah
(Edited by Sarah House
on 6/20, 12:46pm)




Post 150

Monday, June 20, 2005 - 12:51pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
"I will be content if you concede that not all Islamists are religious-fanatic killers."

I can't "concede" what I don't know.

I know that not all Islamists are prepared to fight and die for their ideology. But at the end that's irrelevant from an ideological point of view (it's certainly important from a practical point of view.)

I know that not all Muslim individuals are Islamists.

All the time I am speaking about canonical Islam. I am speaking about ideas.

Joel Català

(Edited by Joel Català on 6/20, 12:53pm)


(Edited by Joel Català on 6/20, 12:56pm)




Post 151

Monday, June 20, 2005 - 12:56pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
I know several Muslims (see definition 1 below) who actively worship.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=muslim 

They are not "religious-fanatic-killers" and in fact are quite tollerant of other religions and philosophical discussions in general. therefore I can say that not all muslims are "religious-fanatic-killers."

I don't know any Islamists though (see definition below)

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=islamist

Ethan




Post 152

Monday, June 20, 2005 - 12:56pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Joel,

You are talking about Islam and I am talking about Islamists. Very well. End of discussion.

Sarah
(Edited by Sarah House
on 6/20, 12:58pm)




Post 153

Monday, June 20, 2005 - 12:59pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Ethan,

In both of those links Islamist and Muslim are synonymous.

Sarah



Post 154

Monday, June 20, 2005 - 1:02pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
I should have specified definition number of of "islamist." Islamists seem to be a more conservative wing, but I could be wrong. In any case, I still know some muslims who don't want to convert or kill everyone. :-)



Post 155

Monday, June 20, 2005 - 1:04pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Well, if we're defining an Islamist as any Muslim who wants to convert or kill everyone then I'll concede defeat by definition.



Post 156

Monday, June 20, 2005 - 1:10pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
I have no context to this discussion here. The few posts I've read seem to be an endless circle of either confusion or evasion of the questions at hand. You asked:

"I will be content if you concede that not all Islamists are religious-fanatic killers."

I answered in the context of what I know. Not being familiar with what you mean and others mean by "islamist" I looked it up on the web and quoted myself in that context. No big deal. I'm not arguing with you. I just want to see Joel's answer.

Ethan




Post 157

Monday, June 20, 2005 - 1:15pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Ethan,

Post 155 wasn't really directed at anyone. I just don't like arguing with a wall.

Sarah



Post 158

Monday, June 20, 2005 - 1:16pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Like I said: I just want to see Joel's answer.


Ethan




Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 159

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 3:20amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Mr. Ethan Dawe,

First, my short answers to your questions.

"Islamists seem to be a more conservative wing, but I could be wrong."

The Islamists are part of the Muslim elite. There is no progressive Islam, only secularized Muslims.


"In any case, I still know some Muslims who don't want to convert or kill everyone."

That's absolutely right, and important from a strategic point of view. But misguiding for the description of the nature of Islam.


Now more detailed answers.

A Muslim is, by definition, an individual who believes in Islam. A Muslim can't accept secularism, because Islam does not accept it. In Islam, authority means both political and Muslim authority.

The main goal of Islam is its propagation to the whole world. That goal is a Muslim duty. According to Islam, any method of accomplishing that ultimate end is justified. The main division of methods is traditionally drawn between jihad and da'wa.

The propaganda methods are included by the term da'wa. Its main meaning is "proselytism". In this proselytism, all methods are allowed too, included the techniques of deceit of taqiyya and kitman, that were very successful in the recent Balkans war (Madeleine Albright fell into the taqiyya trap), and have been developed with a storming success in Europe, now converted into a chaotic "Eurabia", in the last three decades triggered by the different oil crisis (unvaluable information on the ongoing Islamization of Europe in this interview to historian Dr. Bat Ye'Or and in her latest book, Eurabia.) All Muslims must theoretically practice da'wa when you debate with them. Otherwise, they would be, by definition, bad Muslims. Self-critizism is not permissible within Islam. Islam is dogmatically perfect.

The violent methods are included in the term jihad, already described in post #141. From the "Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam":

"DJIHAD, holy war. The spread of Islam by arms is a religious duty upon Muslims in general. [...]" [Bold and italics mine.]
 
That definition includes two aspects:
 
1) The spread of Islam by arms is a Muslim duty. That duty is directly performed by the jihadis.
 
2) That's a religious duty upon Muslims in general. Not all Muslims are required to wage jihad, but they are required to directly or indirectly support it (in example, through Muslim "charities" or by giving shelter to jihadis). The jihadis are, by the definitions of jihad and of Muslim, the Muslim elite. That's why Bin Laden is so revered in the Muslim world.
 

On  the term "Islamist"
 
The question that Sarah posed "not all Islamists are religious-fanatic killers" has this answer:
 
Yes, not all Islamists are themselves religious-fanatic killers but, by the definition of Muslim, all Muslims are compelled by Islam to directly or indirectly support the jihadi religious-fanatic killers.

All jihadis are Islamists. All direct supporters of jihad and da'wa are also Islamists. 

Moreover, taking into account the definitions I have written above, all observant Muslims are indeed Islamists, and only Muslim apostates or secularized Muslims can be defined as real non-Islamists. Again, the example that makes it clear: the perfect model of Muslim, for all followers of Islam, is Mohammed, who was a jihadi. That's much more close to Hitler or Mao than to Ayn Rand or Moses.
 
I repeat: the problem is evil ideas. Alexis de Tocqueville, author of the Democracy in America, once said:
 
"I studied the Kuran a great deal. I came away from that study with the conviction that by and large there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammad. As far as I can see, it is the principal cause of the decadence so visible today in the Muslim world, and, though less absurd than the polytheism of old, its social and political tendencies are in my opinion infinitely more to be feared, and I therefore regard it as a form of decadence rather than a form of progress in relation to paganism itself." [Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859) "Letter to Arthur Gobineau," October 22, 1843] [Bolds mine.]
 
Honestly, I can't agree more with that eminent writter, and think that Islam is possibly the worst of the anti-human systems I have ever known about.
 
Excellent links to keep you informed:
 
1) http://www.jihadwatch.org (a website monitoring all aspects of the ongoing global jihad)
2) http://www.memritv.com (Middle East Media Research Intitute: monitors the Middle East TV stations, it includes revealing videos of sermons, inteviews and haranges).
3) http://www.faithfreedom.org (the brave people who left Islam is helping us to be informed.)


Feel free to forward that message to your Representative and spread the word.
 
Best wishes,
 
Joel Català

(Edited by Joel Català on 6/21, 8:54am)




Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.