RoR: Forum

Post 160

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 9:06am

Link

Edit

Joel is doing a fine job. Islam at its core is a warrior religion. Jihad, in its primary meaning, is a martial doctrine although it can be used in a wider meaning just as we use war in a wider meaning when we say “war on poverty.” Now, we can note that not all Muslims practice the religion to its fullest. There is much disinformation and propaganda about Islam. Let me suggest a few references.

The only difference between Joel’s terminology and mine is that I tend to reserve the world Muslim as a nominal demographic label regardless if the person practices the religion or if it is only labels to please his parents (or to escape death that Islam prescribes for all apostates). I use Islam for the religion created by Mohammad and exemplified by his life (given in the Koran and Hadith). In my usage Muslim is a wider term – not all (demographic) Muslims practice the religion. Many are lax or lapsed. That doesn’t change the religion – i.e. the doctrine and example of Mohammad. However, the equivocation is often a distraction. I talk about it here and here.

Mohammad’s example is clear: he was a military leader who slaughtered, plundered, terrorized, conquered and oppressed. He ethnically cleansed Medina of Jews. No central figure of any religion gives quite an example. It’ not clear to me that Islam can ever escape Mo’s example for long.

I don’t understand Sarah’s banal assertion that not all Muslims engage in jihad. So what? Not all Nazis killed Jews or even joined the Nazi party because of anti-Semitism. Does that make anyone feel better about Nazism? A century ago you could point out that not all southern racists lynched. Should racism be seen as benign? Islam is a supremacist ideology. The doctrine’s meaning is understood by its practice if and when it is practiced.

Post 161

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 9:15am

Link

Edit

Hello Mr. Straw Man, would you like to meet Sarah's argument?

I'm not trying to justify Islam, I'm defending the ignorant innoecents within it. A good number of Objectivists came from Christianity. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that there could be just as many potential Objectivists practicing Islam. Those potentials are who I'm trying to keep from being squashed under this ignorant boot of guilt by association that Joel is stomping around in.

Post 162

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 9:40am

Link

Edit

I have no qualms with having a dialog with Muslims and I’d like them to adopt a rational secular philosophy (I even have one in mind). However, that doesn’t mean we should blind ourselves to the nature of the religion.

I used to know many communists but I never said silly things about communism (which killed over 100 million) just because I knew some nice people who were, inexplicable to this writer, communists.

By all means, Sarah, talk and reach out, but I suggest without appropriate criticism change is less likely. And without becoming educated by reading some of the fearless critics (instead of the apologists) one will be at a disadvantage.

Post 163

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 10:25am

Link

Edit

Joel,

I had drawn up a long post to your next-to-last post to me, as I was very pleased by your tone. But my computer ate it on sending it. Now I am glad it did not go out. First the tease:

GOTCHA!!!

I had a feeling you had not read Atlas Shrugged (-40% doesn't count) and had read some of the literature critical of Objectivism. I am especially amused that you found Atlas Shrugged to be repetitive, but have no similar objection to the Talmud (or Old Testament, as you mentioned).

I thought we could have a real discussion instead of exchanging posts on you teaching all of us here about How Simple It All Is. But your ensuing posts went back to your agenda, and it is nowhere near an Objectivist one by far. It smacks of a very Jewish one (in the fanatic sense of the term), and you don't have to be Jewish yourself to hold an agenda like that.

The only critical piece you mentioned that I want to address is Bob Wallace and his idea of scapegoating, which I think is right on the money when it has occurred (not as often as he postulates, but still, truth is truth). My main problem with his writing is that he practices what he accuses - he scapegoats Ayn Rand and Objectivists all over the place in a barrage of snide comments.

Now I see you say you have great fear of prejudice, but all I see you do is focus on Islam so much that I can't help but think - here is a classis scapegoater. If you really want to fight Islam (and that is not a bad idea), then reason, not prejudice, is the way to go. You come off as being prejudiced as all get out.

Also, you have stated that you are very clear about what reason is, being that it is dependant on faith. But you are still defining Theism and Altruism for yourself. Then you imply that they are vastly superior to or above reason.

Hmmmmmm...

Here is Ayn Rand's definition:

"Reason is the faculty which... identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses. Reason integrates man's perceptions by means of forming abstractions or conceptions, thus raising man's knowledge from the perceptual level, which he shares with animals, to the conceptual level, which he alone can reach. The method which reason employs in this process is logic - and logic is the art of non-contradictory identification."
- Ayn Rand "Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the
Modern World," in Philosophy, Who Needs It? p. 62.

I won't argue about this if you want to "teach" me that reason means something different.

Are you aware of the trichotomy, Attila/Witch Doctor/Producer, as the concept of prime movers of history that Ayn Rand identified in For The New Intellectual?

That, for instance, is an idea. An idea like that is what is needed to fight Islam, Judaism, Christianity and all other religions instead of people blowing each other up because they think their brand of the irrational is better.

(btw - Two requests. One is that you call me Michael if you wish. That actually is not a request, but an invitation. The other is that in posts to me, you avoid the "I said-You said" manner of slicing up my own post into small quotes and going down the page making comments on each one as they come into your head. I prefer more focused discourse - and good ideas deserve the mental effort of staying on target.)

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 6/21, 10:28am)

Post 164

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 10:34am

Link

Edit

And I suggest that without accurate criticism one is just making oneself look the fool. It is irrelevant how fearless a critic is if he is criticizing that which he does not understand.

Try a criticism rooted in the irrationality of Judeo-Christian-Islamic theology and I'll be fine with it.

Try a criticism of inane dogmas and I'll be fine with it.

But this appeal to consequences BS? No, I won't sit by for that. That's not why Islam (or Communism or Nazism or Christianity etc) needs to be criticized.

Post 165

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 10:50am

Link

Edit

I have no problem being critical with the irrationality of any religion and the dogma of any religion or philosophy. However, that doesn’t make every case of irrationality equal in degree of irrationality or harmfulness. To loosely paraphrase one dead Russian writer: each irrationality is interesting and unique in its own twisted way. The example of Mohammad is very different than the example of Jesus. This creates unique challenges for Muslims.

The writers, in the link of references in post #160, understand Islam thoroughly. Some are ex-Muslims – all are scholars. I’ve read Islamic apologists (ex. Karen Armstrong, John Esposito, etc) and the difference between genuine scholars and these propagandists is profound.

I am puzzled by your statement, Sarah: “But this appeal to consequences BS? No, I won't sit by for that.” How else can you understand a concept if not by its reference to reality? And concepts of practical judgment (as Aristotle would call ethics and politics) are understood by the practice they refer to or recommend.

Post 166

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 10:52am

Link

Edit

I found Joel's post #159 to be fact filled EDIT(that is, filled with information, whenther or not its facts I do not know), and I'll read further.

My point was in line with Sarah's

"I'm defending the ignorant innoecents within it."

We had a member here last fall, as many may recall, who advocated the wholesale slaughter of muslims. He thought it completely justified, unless they renounced Islam. He felt that every muslim was out to any non muslim. If you commented that you knew muslims who you felt weren't out to kill you, he still expressed the opinion that they secretly wanted your destruction, or at best you couldn't be sure. Of course, someone exibiting that level of paranoia wouldn't beleive any muslim who professed to renounce their faith.

It is that kind of collective judgment that I seek to avoid by being clear, and dealing with individulas as individuals.

Ethan

(Edited by Ethan Dawe on 6/21, 10:55am)

Post 167

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 11:19am

Link

Edit

I am puzzled by your statement, Sarah: “But this appeal to consequences BS? No, I won't sit by for that.” How else can you understand a concept if not by its reference to reality? And concepts of practical judgment (as Aristotle would call ethics and politics) are understood by the practice they refer to or recommend.

Communism (just for example, this applies to any of the above ideas) wasn't a bad political philosophy because it slaughtered countless people, it slaughtered countless people because it was a bad political philosophy. This is not nitpicking. You are confusing cause and effect. Appealing to consequences is not a valid refutation of an idea.

Post 168

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 12:10pm

Link

Edit

Sarah, I, of course, am making the statement: "Islam is a warrior supremacist ideology" by examining the ideology as exhibited in the Koran and Hadith. This is just thinking in essentials. It's the way we examine any philosophy.

I’m not saying that Islam is X because Muslims have done X and I wouldn’t make that statement about Christians either. After all, the actions can be due to other causes besides the religion. I've written about this extensively in the links in post #160. As well as here

How is it that you’ve concluded that the Islamic ideology is anything but pernicious?

Post 169

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 12:44pm

Link

Edit

Jason wrote:

Sarah, I, of course, am making the statement: "Islam is a warrior supremacist ideology" by examining the ideology as exhibited in the Koran and Hadith. This is just thinking in essentials. It's the way we examine any philosophy.

How is it that you’ve concluded that the Islamic ideology is anything but pernicious?

Compared to what, Jason? If we examine the Bible, using your reasoning we can come to the identical conclusion about Judaism and Christianity. Neither Hebrew nor Greek scripture is solely about the love and brotherhood some wish to see there.

People don't always act according to the ideology some see in their sacred books.

The Moorish occupation of western Europe until 1492 was relatively tolerant of both Christians and Jews. Christians, however, gaining the upper hand in that year, forced Muslims to choose between converting or leaving Spain.

To see Islam itself as a threat to civilization is to ignore the important fact that much of Muslim society, even in countries like Iran, is secular, modernist, and pro-Western/pro-democratic.

Nathan Hawking

Post 170

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 12:52pm

Link

Edit

First of all, Nathan, I was very careful to state that there is a difference between the philosophy of Christianity and Islam as written. The very example of the lives of the prophets of these two religions is extremely different, to start. I’ve talked about this in greater detail in this.

Secondly, you’ve been misinformed about Islam’s rule in Spain. I could suggest some books but so far no one even reads the links I provide.

Finally, I’ve been extremely careful to distinguish between Muslims as a demographic group and the ideology of Islam – you’re last paragraph ignores everything I said on this matter in the posts above and the links I provide. I’m not going to repeat myself.

Post 171

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 1:11pm

Link

Edit

How is it that you’ve concluded that the Islamic ideology is anything but pernicious?

How is it that you can be so blind as to think I've said any such thing? As I told Joel, I've been talking about the people, not the ideology.

Now, as you can tell from this link I am clearly in the right. Furthermore, this this and this all support my position. With all these on my side I clearly must be right.

Post 172

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 1:21pm

Link

Edit

So do we agree? Islam, as an ideology is a pernicious doctrine but Muslims, as a demographic group, vary in their practice from devout, lax, or lapsed – the latter two being benign.

Post 173

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 2:13pm

Link

Edit

I'll say that for every pernicious part of Islam there is another not-necessarily-pernicious part that contradicts it, and which parts that are followed is up to the individuals, just like Christianity.

Attacking these religions on this level is fruitless. The density of contradictions within the sacred texts leaves any criticism based on the texts open to defense from another part of the text that contradicts what you're criticizing. Go for the knees, not the fingers.

(Edited by Sarah House
on 6/21, 4:47pm)

Post 174

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 2:21pm

Link

Edit

I'll say that for every pernicious part of Islam there is another not-necessarily pernicious part that contradicts it, and which parts that are followed are up to the individuals, just like Christianity.

Actually, Islam has a doctrine of abrogation which holds that the later Suras (from the violent Medina period) nullify the earlier one’s from the Meccan period. Secondly, I always talk about the salient features of the religions and not isolated one-liners or obscure details like the age of Mohammad’s wives.

If you don’t see the difference between the examples of a powerless migrant preacher who died on the cross and a warrior-prophet who slaughtered, plundered, terrorized, conquered, oppressed and finally, ethnically cleansed Medina of Jews … I have nothing further to say.

(Edited by Jason Pappas
on 6/21, 2:23pm)

Post 175

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 2:42pm

Link

Edit

sigh
Fallacy #1: Straw Man
"Secondly, I always talk about the salient features of the religions and not isolated one-liners or obscure details like the age of Mohammad’s wives."

Who said anything about Mohammed's wives or isolated one-liners?

Fallacies #2 & 3: Misleading Vividness & Ad Hominem
"If you don’t see the difference between the examples of a powerless migrant preacher who died on the cross and a warrior-prophet who slaughtered, plundered, terrorized, conquered, oppressed and ethnically cleansed Medina of Jews..."

Of course, you left out all that stuff about Jesus being an apocalyptic prophet who created a self-sacrificial, other-worldly mentality. But then again, how the hell is that relevant to anything we're discussing?

And don't worry about that whole other half of my post you ignored. It's not like listening to people is actually important.

Post 176

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 2:53pm

Link

Edit

You seem to be confused. I was giving an example of a principle – not implying that example was your position. My expressions of exasperation are not an ad hominem – but an expectation that you can’t come to grips with the phenomenal order of magnitude difference between the examples of the two prophets. Of course, you proved that you can’t come to grips with this difference as you virtually ignored it. As a matter of fact you don’t grapple with what I write. But that’s OK – others read this as well. Oh, yes, I did talk about the contradictions in religions texts and how Islam resolves them.
(Edited by Jason Pappas
on 6/21, 3:00pm)

Post 177

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 3:05pm

Link

Edit

Once again I've been distracted from my point.

People -> I give a damn.

Ideology -> I don't give a damn.

Post 178

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 4:12pm

Link

Edit

Jason:

I wouldn't know where to BEGIN disputing your America-good, Islam-evil thesis. I think you're indulging in selective history at its worst. I will begin and end my response to you with this single quotation from your article:

"Most Americans are shocked at the notion of an evil America. Considering our history, the attack on our country's character is hard to fathom. Over the last two centuries immigrants came in droves, seeking refuge from tyranny and poverty. They found unequalled freedom and opportunity secured by a stable democracy."

To which my response is that anyone who paints the United States of America as the font of goodness in the world is ignoring 4,000,000 slaves, millions of native Americans who were stripped of their lands and forced into concentration camps or subjected to genocide, racial discrimination against minorities until recent decades, and colonial adventurism.

America has been good compared to Stalinist Russia and Communist China. It has been evil with respect to the ideals expressed in its own founding documents.

I think your good-evil thesis is simplistic. History and reality are much more complex than you portray them. If we were awarding points to "civilizations," it would probably be more like: Western Civilization 55, Visitors 45.

I give the edge only because whatever the factors, democracy and relative freedom have developed, however tortuously, in the west, and come more slowly to the rest of the world. Your attempt to credit this to the tenets of Christianity, however, is a dubious assertion. From the book of Luke:

Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:
For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.
The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

Christianity has certainly lived up to that, hasn't it?

I'm not sure what your objective is in placing a big, red EVIL stamp on Islam, but I have to ask if the world would not be better served by the removal of the beam from our own eyes. I can't remember the last time anyone started doing good because they or their culture or their religion was called "evil."

Finally, I’ve been extremely careful to distinguish between Muslims as a demographic group and the ideology of Islam ...

My point is, so what? Even accepting your thesis that Islam is EVIL and Western/Christianity is GOOD, so what?

Many Muslims are eager to embrace peace and modernity, while many Christians have behaved like barbarians.

What do you think the "evil" denunciations will accomplish?

Nathan Hawking

Post 179

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 4:16pm

Link

Edit

Sarah:

I'll say that for every pernicious part of Islam there is another not-necessarily-pernicious part that contradicts it, and which parts that are followed are up to the individuals, just like Christianity.

Attacking these religions on this level is fruitless. The density of contradictions within the sacred texts leaves any criticism based on the texts open to defense from another part of the text that contradicts what you're criticizing. Go for the knees, not the fingers.

Well put.

Nathan

Denis Prager poses a question