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 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page


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

Tuesday, October 31 - 3:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

The vast majority of Muslims in America support the social ideals of jihad (i.e. war) and sharia (i.e. slavery), and the vast majority of Muslims in America engage in the practical act of donating money to jihadi and sharia groups (i.e. funding mass-murder and universal enslavement). So why aren't the vast majority of Muslims in America arrested, jailed, executed, or deported?



Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Tuesday, October 31 - 5:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

As a culture, we no longer know how to defend ourselves.  Political correctness has infected the culture with a kind of survival impotence.  Common sense says that Islam is only part religion and part a tyrannical political movement - one intent on enslaving or killing non-believers.  We don't defend ourselves from common criminals, from threatening nations, or even from corrupt politicians at home.  Altruism was the set-up punch.  Political correctness is finishing the job.



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Tuesday, October 31 - 7:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

We are a nation of laws.  Sadly, not all of our laws are objective, and only a few arise from individual rights even though all of them should - those are big problems.  But an immediate problem is that enemies of liberty, particularly progressivism, use the idea and structure of a nation of laws against us.  They tie us up by stopping actions against criminals and stop actions against Islamists by twisting concepts of civil liberties.  And the battle becomes about what minimalist amount of defensive policy, to be put in place after an attack, is permitted (like taking our shoes off at the airport or putting concrete bollards in front of public places). This is far from the needed offensive actions that are required when under an attack.  In the case of Islamism, it is an ideology that is the enemy - like Nazism was in WWII - like communism was during the cold war.

 

We must remain a nation of laws.  But we have to

   1.) Tune our laws to be consistent with individual laws and to be objective.

   2.) Write law that is the equivalent of a congressional declaration of war, but applies to Islamists.  

 

About item #2 above:  Before WWII we had no reason to seek out and imprison someone who supported Nazism.  We needed the declaration of war against Germany so that we could stay a nation of laws, using government to defend individual rights, and using retaliatory force against an enemy attacking us. 

 

How do we frame laws that permit going after supporters of jihad and forced sharia?  If we don't make such laws, then we can only defend ourselves by become tyrants and destroying the concept of a nation of laws.  If we don't defend ourselves against those attacking us, we are implictly endorsing pacifism as a functional philosophy.



Post 3

Tuesday, October 31 - 10:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Steve -- I think you're exactly right that "Political correctness has infected the culture with a kind of survival impotence." America today isn't properly or effectively defending herself against obvious enemies like China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and various Muslim dictatorships.

The philosophy of Islam -- especially relative to the philosophy of the European Enlightenment -- is deeply false and evil. Muslims who believe in and practice it are similarly low, and constitute an objective threat to every American. But almost no-one today wants to condemn the ideology of  Islam and thus risk being called a "racist" and "Islamophobe" by all. Because of our current irrational, illiberal philosophy, I consider America today to be largely self-hating and self-destroying. 



Post 4

Wednesday, November 1 - 9:31amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

We are a "mixed economy" - part freedom (particuarly at the base and in our history), but with a large overlay of taxes, regulations and laws that restrict economic freedom - taxes, laws and regulations that are more recent - from the last half of our history -  that represent much of the current thinking and current trend, and not our founding ideals.

 

Just as we are a mixed economy, we are a mixed culture due to the mixed ideologies floating about.  Progressivism is an ideology influencing the culture, economics and politics - at its base is a hatred for the free part of America and works energetically to transform us away from the older, freer, more individualistic America.  Islamists are also haters of freedom, individualism, reason, and anyone not an islamist.

 

Those of us who value reason, individualism and liberty have to band together and strengthen our side of the mixture, and to start the trend moving the other way.  The best lever, and the weakest point of the main enemy - progressivism - is the degree to which it is based upon lies.  Liars, once fully discredited, lose their power.  That and uprooting political correctness are the best ways I see to fight progressivism.

 

(p.s., without progressivism and its political correctness, common sense measures would succeed in dealing effectively with Islamists, domestic criminals, and enemy nations.)



Sanction: 1, No Sanction: 0
Post 5

Friday, November 3 - 4:17amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Where is the statistical polling to support Kyrel Zantonavitch's claim that "the vast majority of Muslims in America support the social ideals of jihad (i.e., war) and sharia (i.e., slavery)..."  

 

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 11/03, 4:21am)



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

Friday, November 3 - 7:02amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I am more interested in knowing how many Muslims oppose these historical practices.

 

Where might we hear their voices?

 

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 11/03, 9:33am)



Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Friday, November 3 - 5:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Michael -- Polling to support my claims probably doesn't exist. Or you may need to interpret any such polls a lot. Nevertheless, I stand by my claims. How can anyone be a real Muslim and yet reject core tenets of the religion? Jihad and sharia are central to the philosophy of Islam. Looking at this from a different perspective, I can't recall reading or hearing about a single Muslim who said something like: "I'm a sincere and true-believing Muslim, but I nevertheless reject the concepts of jihad and sharia. Muslims have no right to attack people for non-belief, and I prefer political liberty to the tyranny of sharia law." Such a potential person seems bizarre to me.

I've known many high-quality Muslims in my time. They're genuinely good and sweet people. They quietly but firmly support jihad and sharia based on their human goodness. They wish to bring us all civilization and true happiness. And they wish us all to avoid burning in hell forever. Only Islam can provide this. Hence they all back jihad and sharia. At least, all the ones I've ever known. Has anyone here ever met or heard about an anti-jihad or anti-sharia Muslim? Wouldn't they be subject to quick death if this fact ever got out to their fellow Muslims? 

 

(Edited by Kyrel Zantonavitch on 11/03, 5:02pm)



Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 8

Friday, November 3 - 5:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Steve writes in post #2:

"...it is an ideology that is the enemy - like Nazism was in WWII - like communism was during the cold war."

Exactly. The ideology of Islam itself needs to be attacked, condemned, and refuted. Islam is the root of the problem. And showing Muslims and non-Muslims that this philosophy is immensely false and evil is the only way to truly and lastingly defeat it.

But in the interim, America needs to reverse our current immigration policy of Barbarian Enemy Invasion. Lest we go the way of Rome. No more anti-American, anti-freedom, anti-capitalist, anti-white, criminal, Third World savages as immigrants. Especially no more Muslims. Or at least a radical diminution of them. As even President Trump notes, we need an immigration policy which is merit-based.


I say: Let the good people come in. Keep and kick the bad people out.



Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 9

Friday, November 3 - 7:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I have heard a couple of polls that say a very high number of American Muslims (I'm thinking about 30%) believe that the violence of the Islamists is moral, and that sharia should take precendence over the constitution.  I'm not going to spend time researching the polls, or their validity.  My interest is in the underlying principles and the fact that out of the billions of Muslems, world wide, there are hundreds of thousands who hold those beliefs and the fact that there are Islamic theocracies. 

 

I do know of a few American Muslims that speak out actively against Islamists and call for everyone to condemn them (unlike CAIR whose representatives were invited to the Obama Whitehouse but are never seen showing concern for the radical clerics in American mosques).  But there are far, far too few.



Post 10

Sunday, November 5 - 5:12amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I did a little research on jihad and sharia.  Apparently both concepts are more complicated than many people realize and most Muslims hold them in a form that excludes physical aggression.  In particular, although "jihad" is often translated as "holy war", a better translation would be "struggle".  Kyrel, did you ask those Muslims what they take "jihad" and "sharia" to mean, and how they apply them?



Post 11

Sunday, November 5 - 4:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Doug,

 

I've heard the same thing regarding jihad and sharia.  But the fact is that a very significant number of Muslims believe that using force is a valid form of jihad.  And THAT is the fact that is being ignored.  That hundreds of thousands of people (world wide) want to force infidels to convert or die.  Sure, jihad means "struggle" and "Islam" means "submission" - but that doesn't answer the question of what kind of struggle and submission of who and by what means. 

 

In America, there are a great many muslims who believe that sharia takes precedence over the constitution.  That is the kind of mindset that accepts an Islamic theocracy as a moral form of government.

 

Why would we want to end a discussion of this subject by saying that more than 50% of the Muslim population only believe in a form of jihad that excludes physical force?  After Imperial Japan bombed Oahu, would it have made any sense to say that most Japanese did not want war with the United States?  When we are under an actual attack by some significant faction, it makes no sense to deflect from that by saying, "but there are many who are not attacking us."

 

Violent jihad and forced sharia are evil, are incompatible with liberty, are behind tens of thousands of deaths in recent years, have resulted in the killing Americans, and are supported by hundreds of thousands of people world wide.  I say that is the point we ignore at our peril.

 

I would suggest that most of the moderate muslims, and the politically correct, by not being more active in opposition to Islamism, are enablers.



Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 12

Sunday, November 5 - 4:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Steve,

 

How many Muslims in the United States want to force infidels to convert or die?

 

There are Muslim countries where Muslims have murdered other Muslims for reasons at least partly related to religious disagreements.  How much of that do you see in the United States?

 

Does believing that sharia takes precedence over the constitution mean something that would involve undermining or altering our system of government, or does it refer to how Muslims make choices in their personal lives?  I consider reason and Objectivist principles to be more important that the constitution and the law in making my own choices.  (I also think that undermining our system of government is very dangerous on a broad scale, and that overtly defying government is dangerous to the person doing it.)

 

We had to fight a war against the Japanese Empire, and were right to do so, regardless of how many Japanese supported or opposed their government's policies.  That is not the same thing as saying Japanese culture or the Japanese people were the enemy.  Our government was very wrong to round up and imprison Americans of Japanese origin or ancestry.  We must fight any person or organization that wants to aggress against us in the name of Islam.  That is not the same thing as saying that Islam is the enemy.



Post 13

Sunday, November 5 - 4:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Steve,

 

Perhaps I should make clear that part of the motivation for my posts in this discussion is reaction to statements not made by you, such as "The vast majority of Muslims in America support the social ideals of jihad (i.e. war) and sharia (i.e. slavery)".



Sanction: 1, No Sanction: 0
Post 14

Monday, November 6 - 3:03amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

(1). An article in the current issue of The Colonial Newsletter (which is supported by the American Numismatic Society) details the finding of an Islamic coin from 1693 in Rhode Island. From there, the researcher, James Bailey, went to shipping records, wills, and other documents, as well as reports of other finds of Islamic coins, to show that trade with pirates infused the colonies with Arab gold and silver.  In an article that I wrote for an overseas journal, I cited a Coin World article on the same topic of Islamic/Arab coins circulating in the British colonies.  

 

(2). On my blog, in two articles, I reviewed Making Big Money in 1600 by Nellie Hanna (1998, Cairo: American University Press). It is the story of Ismail abu Taqiyya, a merchant in Cairo. When he and his partner wanted to expand their homes to take the city block, unlike a modern American firm, they never dreamed that the town council had the right to condemn their neighbors' homes. They bought one property at a time in individual sales.  To explain Cairo 1600, Hanna cites court records in which a Bosnian slave woman sued three men who tried to cut her out of a deal she brokered for her master.  When abu Taqiyya passed away, his widow inherited her share and managed her own estate as well as those of her brothers and sons.  Hanna points out that no women in London or Paris of 1600 had such rights or responsibilities or privileges as either of those women in Cairo 1600.

 

My point here is that a culture of trade mitigates a lot of social problems. People who otherwise would not get along, do, at least tolerate each other's existence. Look at New York City, Singapore, or any other cosmopolis.

 

When Mitt Romney ran for the Presidency as a Republican, no one here demanded that he denounce radical Mormons.  When John Kennedy ran for President as a Democrat, radical Protestants in the Republican party warned that he was going to put us under the domination of the Roman Catholic Church. We all sort of let that ranting go by for what it was worth. Today, here and now, millions of Americans who accept the tenets of Fundamentalist Christianity believe that Earth is only about 10,000 years old and that people and dinosaurs lived contemporaneously. That ignorance is the basis for laws here and now today that violate individual rights.

 

In the wake of Charlottesville and Charleston, where were the demands here that the conservatives and Republicans openly denounce white nationalism?

 

What I see in the original post is a special pleading that a small group be marginalized and specially chosen for pre-emptive punishment. I suggest that advocates of reason have different values from that and therefore other interests.

 

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 11/06, 3:10am)



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 15

Monday, November 6 - 4:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Doug writes in Post #10:

"I did a little research on jihad and sharia.  Apparently both concepts are more complicated than many people realize and most Muslims hold them in a form that excludes physical aggression.  In particular, although "jihad" is often translated as "holy war", a better translation would be "struggle".  Kyrel, did you ask those Muslims what they take "jihad" and "sharia" to mean, and how they apply them?"

I've studied the philosophy of Islam, and these two words and concepts, to death. Most Muslims embrace the absolutely foreign ideal of takiya or "principled lying about Islam to non-Islamics". Their great, almost-universal fraud here is that Islam is a hugely complicated ideology which is almost impossible for non-Muslims to understand. But it was invented by an uneducated illiterate in the Dark Age. So how complex a belief-system do you really think it is? Con-artist Muslims even want you to learn Arabic to read the Cur'an in the original language. Then they want you to learn 7th century Arabic. Then to live in a Muslim country. For a lifetime. Then to be massively sympathetic to it as you do. It never ends. 

And it's all a scam. 

Understanding Islam is child's play. So too jihad and sharia. The world had few problems understanding these words and concepts before PC dominated and 9/11 came. Read an old encyclopedia. And ask yourself how the Muslims translate Mein Kampf.   



Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 16

Monday, November 6 - 5:04amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Michael Marotta is exactly right that "a culture of trade mitigates a lot of social problems." Hence, capitalism miraculously solves a myriad of social problems practically without addressing them at all!

That said, Islam is an important, real, almost-childishly-simple, world philosophy that needs to be comprehended if we're going to defeat it and its adherents.

In 1920, while discusing Islam and Communism, Bertrand Russell noted:

"Bolshevism combines the characteristics of the French Revolution with those of the rise of Islam… Those who accept Bolshevism become impervious to scientific evidence, and commit intellectual suicide. Even if all the doctrines of Bolshevism were true, this would still be the case, since no unbiased examination of them is tolerated…Among religions, Bolshevism is to be reckoned with Mohammedanism [Islam] rather than with Christianity and Buddhism. Christianity and Buddhism are primarily personal religions, with mystical doctrines and a love of contemplation. Mohammedanism and Bolshevism are practical, social, unspiritual, concerned to win the empire of this world.”


--Bertrand Russell, The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism, 1920 

In a very real sense, here's all you need to know about Islam: Convert or die! 



Post 17

Monday, November 6 - 8:42amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Doug,

 

When I read your post #12, I come away with the sense that you believe the number of Muslims who support forcing infidels to convert or die (in America) is not high enough to be treated as a problem.  To which I ask, "how many are needed to make a problem?" 

 

And, how many American Muslims are comfortable with the idea that everyone should be compelled to convert, or pay a fine (as the Koran calls for and has happened in other places and times)?  And how many believe that Muslims and non-Muslims alike should be required to observe certain Islamic laws?  How many just think these are things that will happen in a somewhat distant future- they aren't actively going to work towards it?  They are just ordinary people except that inside their minds, they would not oppose this or that Islamic force being used against others.   Like people in a young Nazi Germany who weren't active, didn't join,  didn't wear a brown shirt - but weren't upset that Jews were being castigated.

-----------------

 

I consider reason and Objectivist principles to be more important that the constitution and the law in making my own choices. 

 

Yes, but our freedom manifests itself as constitutional republic.  And it was a reasoned approach (fundamentally consistent with Objectivist principles) that led to our constitution's birth.  There is no conflict between respecting the constitution as a way of establishing a nation intended to protect individual rights as a nation of laws and reason and Objectivist principles.  In a similar fashion, there can be no conflict between reason and Objectivist principles.

 

If, as a society, we don't have enough of an understanding or respect for the authority of the constitution, then our mechanism for protecting our liberty will have been subverted and our liberty will disappear.  You mention puting reason above the constitution.  I hope you can see that they are not in opposition.  Sharia, on the other hand, is in opposition to the constitution - both are attempting to be the most basic law that government uses to tell people what have a right to do or not do.

 

If the constitution were amended so that it forced the violation of individual right, then I would (by reason and Objectivist principles) be opposed to that amendment... but not to the concept of law.  Not to the concept of a constitution.

---------------------

 

We must fight any person or organization that wants to aggress against us in the name of Islam.  That is not the same thing as saying that Islam is the enemy.

 

With the concept of individual rights governing actions taken by our government, we should never 'fight' anyone who hasn't been properly adjucicated as having violated the rights of someone in America or an American citizen.  With police actions that means things like probable cause, arraignment, indictment, and criminal trial judgement.  With foriegn bodies, that might mean a congressional declaration of war.  When we look to identify the enemy, it will always be individuals (or organizations or nations) taking actions, but many times the actions in question flow from a set of political ideas.... like Nazism, communism, or Islamism.  That makes the ideas "the enemy" even if the retaliatory or defensive actions are taken against individual people (sometimes people in organizations or people in nations).



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 18

Monday, November 6 - 9:29amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Marotta wrote:

 

My point here is that a culture of trade mitigates a lot of social problems. People who otherwise would not get along, do, at least tolerate each other's existence. Look at New York City, Singapore, or any other cosmopolis.

 

If, by "culture of trade" he meant the political freedom to trade, he would be right.  But that is just saying respect for individual rights makes possible trade and makes for a society that tolerates differences.  It is important to understand this effect is the result of enforcing respect for individual rights, otherwise you can, and will get tyranny - and the size or location of the cosmopolis won't matter.  Creating the environment where individual rights are the basis of law is the cause and a culture of trade is the effect.  Putting the cart before the horse won't get the goods to market.
--------------------------

 

Marotta writes a little story about some Muslims from 1600 who didn't believe in killing infidels and respected women.  What can that possibly have to do with the fact that Islamists today believe in killing non-believers and believe in things like honor killings?  His fuzzy notion seems to be that "a culture of trade" creates a society of toleration... and that some kind of anarchy/pacifism regarding Islamism would be the proper answer... well, that is dangerously flawed 'thinking'.
--------------------------

 

When Mitt Romney ran for the Presidency as a Republican, no one here demanded that he denounce radical Mormons.

 

And radical Mormons are killing tens of thousands of people?   Is this like some kind of conspiracy theory from the progressives?  Are radical Mormons showing significant signs of working to take over our nation?  (Sarcasm)
-----------------------------

 

Today, here and now, millions of Americans who accept the tenets of Fundamentalist Christianity believe that Earth is only about 10,000 years old and that people and dinosaurs lived contemporaneously. That ignorance is the basis for laws here and now today that violate individual rights.

 

That is partly true.  The religious Right pushes for laws that arise from their religious beliefs and when passed, those laws violate individual rights.  But they also strongly oppose political correctness, the main engine of progressivism, which passes far, far more laws that violate individual rights.  Why join the side of the argument that progressives favor?  Political correctness is being implemented as a wide-ranging political, cultural and psychological form of control over thought and behavior.  
--------------------

 

In the wake of Charlottesville and Charleston, where were the demands here that the conservatives and Republicans openly denounce white nationalism?

 

That is a purely progressive talking point designed to do a Saul Alinsky kind of demonizing of all conservatives and Republicans as if they supported racism.  

---------------------------

 

What I see in the original post is a special pleading that a small group be marginalized and specially chosen for pre-emptive punishment. I suggest that advocates of reason have different values from that and therefore other interests.

 

The very ideas of liberty, individualism and reason are under an open, outright, violent attack by Islamists.  Not just one or two attackers, but tens of thousands.  Not just in the Middle East, but around the world and here in America.  They are killing people.  They do so on the basis of an agreement with Islamist ideas.  These are simple statements of fact.  Why would writing them out constitute a special pleading for "pre-emptive punishment" or be something that advocates of reason wouldn't be interested in?

 

Marotta appears to believe, as most progressives do, that objection to Islamist acts of terror or to the dangers of those ideas here in America means that one is a racist.  Absorbing certain illogical tenents and holding them too strongly and for too long will result in a mental/emotional disorder.  This is the case with Islamism, Marxism and with progressivism.



Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 19

Monday, November 6 - 5:40amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Much of the complexity of Islam arose after Mohammed.  There was a period when the Arab world was a center of learning and culture and had good things to teach to Europe, such as algebra and Hindu-Arabic numerals. 

 

Old dictionaries and encyclopedias have more rational views of some things, but of everything?  Including Islam, which many people wrote off as part of the "inferior" less developed world?  If one goes old enough one can get the medieval Christian notion that Muslims worshiped an unpleasant female deity named Termagant, which was nonsense.

 

Christianity used to be a physically aggressive, very anti-reason religion.  Examples are the crusades, the Inquisition, and witch trials.  Capitalism pushed Christianity and Judaism into more rational, tolerant forms that dominate today in the more capitalist countries.  It does the same for Islam in the more capitalist countries.  Even in the less capitalist countries, practitioners of violence are in the minority, whether you're talking Christianity, Judaism, or Islam.

 

Bertrand Russell was very wrong about some things, as Ayn Rand and her associates have pointed out.  Was he necessarily right about Islam, especially back in 1920, when there was general prejudice against the less developed world?  Also in 1920, fewer Muslims had been directly exposed to the moderating influence of capitalism.



Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.