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 unread


Post 0

Saturday, February 24, 2007 - 7:59amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I stumbled across this quote while researching the chapter of my book dealing with "The Roots of War" by Ayn Rand.

I can interpret this quote several different ways.  The worst one treats only Muslims as men and thus only such Muslims as "fellow men" with all others warranting mistreatment as non-men.  However, reading more about the man suggests he did in fact live by the idea of non-violence as the core principle of achieving social change.  This does not make pacifism right, but does show that at least one notable Muslim embraced the notion and encouraged others to do the same.


Post 1

Saturday, February 24, 2007 - 8:21amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
reading more about the man suggests he did in fact live by the idea of non-violence as the core principle of achieving social change.  This does not make pacifism right, but
how do ye get pacifism out of non-violence?  they may parallel, but they are NOT the same.....


Post 2

Saturday, February 24, 2007 - 8:48amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
RM asked:

how do ye get pacifism out of non-violence?  they may parallel, but they are NOT the same.....

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khan_Abdul_Ghaffar_Khan we have:

Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan (Pashto/Arabic: ÎÇä ÚÈÏ ÇáÛÝÇÑ ÎÇä) (b. at Hashtnagar in Utmanzai, Peshawar, North-West Frontier Province, India, c. 1890; d. in Peshawar, NWFP, Pakistan, 20 January 1988) was a Pashtun (Afghan) political and spiritual leader known for his non-violent opposition to British Rule during the final years of the Imperial rule in the Indian sub-continent. He was a lifelong pacifist and a devout Muslim. He was known as Badshah Khan (sometimes written as Bacha Khan), the King of Chiefs, and Frontier Gandhi.

Don't shoot the messenger!

Incidentally, how do you  not get pacifism out of non-violence?  Well, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolence we have:

Nonviolence (or non-violence) can be both a political strategy or moral philosophy that rejects the use of violence in efforts to attain social or political change. As an alternative to both passive acquiessance and armed struggle, nonviolence proclaims other means of popular struggle such as civil disobedience, nonviolent resistance or the power of nonco-operation combined with persuasion. While frequently used as a synonym for pacifism, since the mid 20th century the term nonviolence or nonviolent resistance has come to embody a diversity of techniques for waging for social change without the use of violence, as well as the underlying political and philosophical rationale for the use of these techniques.


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Saturday, February 24, 2007 - 8:51amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Life is a Rorschach test.  People who have chosen to be thoughful, introspective, and benevolent see themselves in religion, art, and the lives of ants. 

Muslims and Objectivists? Heck, I see this in numismatists and philetalists.  Some people are bitter and others are happy just to be here now.  Speaking of philetaly: "... when one deals with people as a stamp collector, it is on a cheerful, benevolent basis. People cannot interfere, but they can be very helpful and generous. There is a sense of "brotherhood" among stamp collectors..." -- Ayn Rand.  http://www.ellensplace.net/ar_stamp.html

(Robert jumped me. Edit required.)

Arguments offered by Objectivists against pacifism take the form: suppose someone tried to kill your wife.  Well, OK, I am sitting here in my office writing Objectivism and she is downstairs at the Trading Desk, and suddenly a Taliban guy materializes on the stairs and yells, "Death to Laurel!" and runs downstairs.  So, I jump up, vault over the bannister like the Lone Ranger I am inside, drop tackle him, yank the AK, and bash his skull into a bloody pulp.  Then -- after Laurel runs around in circles for 15 minutes yelling, "Oh my god! Oh my god!" ... and everything is quiet again -- I stop to ponder the apparently causeless action of an inexplicable entity.  As I said in the "radioactive octopus" discussion, being victimized by aggression is seldom unavoidable.

Transdimensional talibani and radioactive octopi aside, what would you do if the NAZIS invaded your country, because that really happened, and we can use that as an example of how to deal with naked aggression by collectivist huns and their hegelian witch doctor apologists.
In 1942, Reinhard Heydrich was the Reichsprotektor of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, which had been occupied by Germany in 1939. On the morning of May 27, 1942, he was being driven from his country villa to his office in Prague. When he reached the Holešovice area of Prague, his car was attacked by two Czechoslovak resistance fighters, Jozef Gabèík and Jan Kubiš. These men, who had been trained in Britain, had parachuted into Czechoslovakia in December, 1941, as part of Operation Anthropoid. On June 4, 1942, Heydrich died in Bulovka hospital in Prague from an infection. Hitler, enraged, ordered Kurt Daluege, Heydrich's replacement, to wade through blood to find Heydrich's killers. The Germans began a massive retaliation campaign against the civilian Czech population.
-- Lidice From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That's where resistance gets you.  The assassins were trained in Britain... parachuted in ...  the slaughter of innocents was not an unintended consequence.  It was a calculated utilitarian (Benthamite) plan to achieve "a greater good for a greater number."   

The Danes passively resisted the German occupation.  They worked less, going home early "to work in the garden because of the food shortages."  They declined incentives to work for German industry in Norway and the mainland. The Danish government never declared war on Germany, despite the occupation.  Censorship was countered with underground newspapers.  In the 1943 election, the ballot had a blank spot, which effectively tallied protest votes. This lack of active fighting prompted Winston Churchill to refer to Denmark as "Hitler's Pet Canary". The king remained -- unlike in the Netherlands and Belgium -- and rode out in public on Sundays without a bodyguard.  There is some debate as to whether -- or why -- king Christian X wore a gold Star of David, likely a myth, but often recounted, even by Leon Uris in Exodus.  In fact, the rescue of 6500 to 7000 of Denmark's 8000 Jews was a victory for the resistence.  What active military resistence there was -- and it was slight -- was hosted from Stockholm, which is to where the Jews were ferried. The neutral Swedes take a lot of flak for their ambivalence, but this is just one example of the benefit to neutrality.  In fact, the Danish military channeled intelligence to the British through Stockholm.  Following the liberation of Denmark, Field Marshal Bernard Law Montgomery described the intelligence gathered in Denmark as "second to none". 
(Danish resistance movement From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Christian X of Denmark From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)


Then there were the Swiss.

"Everywhere, where the order is to hold, it is the duty of conscience of each fighter, even if he depends on himself alone, to fight at his assigned position. The riflemen, if overtaken or surrounded, fight in their position until no more ammunition exists. The cold steel is next.... The machine-gunners, the cannoneers of heavy weapons, the artillerymen, if in the bunker or on the field, do not abandon or destroy their weapons, or allow the enemy to seize them. Then the crews fight further like riflemen. As long as a man has another cartridge or hand weapon to use, he does not yield. " -- General Henri Guisan (1874-1960), order to Swiss troops, 1940
http://www.swissworld.org
The Swiss government had a decentralised structure, so even the Federal President was a relatively powerless official with no authority to surrender the country. Indeed, Swiss citizens had been instructed to regard any surrender broadcast as enemy lies and resist to the end. ... The main strategy, however, was deterrence rather than fighting. Even though tiny Switzerland had an army of only 430,000 men, Germany never risked invasion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Guisan
Switzerland demonstrated military readiness with the general mobilization in 1939 and border occupation by 430,000 troops (20 % of the employed persons).
http://history-switzerland.geschichte-schweiz.ch/switzerland-second-world-war-ii.html
 
It is not that the Swiss were more moral than the Danes.  They were only differently situated, physically, geographically, in brute terms of terrain.  In fact, it has been suggested that General Guisan's tough talk only fronted a plan to retreat to the mountains and fight a guerilla war.  Either way, the outcome was the same: predators take easy prey and Switzerland was not going to be easy.

The Swiss or Danes or the people of India, the objective conditions determine the proper response.  Idealistic talk of resistance at all prices -- liberty or death -- is literally idealism, a philosophic fallacy -- from Plato, Kant, and Hegel, among others -- that denies reality.   Here is a website about "using non-violent action to achieve democracy and human rights." http://www.aforcemorepowerful.org/

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 2/24, 9:56am)


Post 4

Saturday, February 24, 2007 - 8:52amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
False dichotomy - assuming the choice is either violence or pacifism.....

Post 5

Saturday, February 24, 2007 - 2:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
So.... Pacificm is just one form of non-violence?

Post 6

Sunday, February 25, 2007 - 11:45amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I interpret this quote as reflecting a mind dominated by a single, egomaniacal fixation: that to be a Muslim is a foregone conclusion for all men, and that "of course" all men deserve the demented and inescapable "love" that is Islam.

To me, this quote reflects a mind that is so totally inverted as to be cost prohibitive to rehabilitate. The speaker is a honey-tongued propagandist, and his words are designed to be strong, predatory anaesthesia for the semi-attentive, half-functioning mind... which, of course, has always predominated the world's population, hence the sheer numbers of Islam.

(Edited by Mr. Jeremy M. LeRay
on 2/25, 12:05pm)


Post 7

Sunday, February 25, 2007 - 8:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The Inquistion always justified torturing the mere body in attempting to save the eternal soul. This was a benefit follwing their logic. For this reason, reason is prior to ethics, and before I would praise Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, I would demand he define his terms.

Ted Keer

=====

I would recommend Christopher Hitchens' latest The War within Islam from which I quote:

"Within Islam, these lines of division are many times more acute. Ahmadi Muslims are considered impossibly heretical by most other followers of the Prophet, and Ismaili Muslims are looked upon askance in many quarters as well, but the rivalry between Sunnis and Shiites (which also conceals numerous poisonous rifts between different interpretations and leaderships in both camps) has become one of the most toxic phenomena in the world today. On Web sites that offer advice to the devout, Sunnis and Shiites ask their imams and ayatollahs whether it is permitted to take the life of a member of the other sect. On American campuses, Muslim student groups now shun one another on a confessional basis. Throughout the Arab and Persian media, moods of excommunication and denunciation are vocally expressed. Almost every day in Iraq, as has been well-reported, a mosque is blown up or a religious procession shredded by other Muslims. As is less well-reported, the same thing happens in Pakistan almost every week. And it is waiting to happen in other countries, too, as the Alawite sect that runs Syria (Alawism being a splinter of Shiism) gets ready for another confrontation with the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood, and as Sunni minorities in Iran become restive at the increasingly sectarian character of the Shiite dictatorship."

Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.