Geert Wilders, the bravest man in Europe.


Richard Wiig

Recommended Posts

LM,

I see so many indications on vehicles like Palestinian TV and elsewhere--including literature penned by Muslims protesting the Nazi influence among Islamists (like the Tell Children The Truth site I have referenced)--that go contrary to what you say, I have to stick with my own eyes for my guidance. You are entitled to your opinion, of course. (I sourced Muslims who agree with me to dispel the notion of Westerner attacking Islam. If my observations offend you, it is shared by Muslims whose observations must also offend you.)

I do agree that I see the Israel as opposed to Jew distinction in a lot of the stuff I read and view. But that does not annul the bigoted stuff nor the Nazi intellectual influence I have been talking about. It's not exclusively one or the other. They both exist. The Muslim culture is mixed, just like all cultures are.

I also don't see a fundamental philosophical difference between genocide against Jews and only accepting Jews who bow down as inferiors before another race or culture. They are both forms of racial or cultural collectivism (i.e., bigotry) and both contain the "master race" (or "master culture") theme. If that philosophical premise is accepted, genocide is a matter of degree, not kind.

Is it OK to hate Jews who do not bow to anyone?

I hold no people should have to bow to another. Here in the USA, to paraphrase Rand, we fought a Civil War to resolve that issue.

As to terrorism against civilians, I was speaking about a specific kind of overt terrorism like setting off hidden bombs in peaceful public places. Surprise attacks on civilians in broad daylight. This is very Nazi-like. Obviously, secret police picking up dissenters in the middle of the night is also a form of terrorism and many dictators--wherever dictators may be the world over--do that (not just Nazis). And other forms of barbarism.

I also hold, though, that military brutality is the worst of all. You might be interested in the following quote by Ayn Rand in "The Nature of Government," so you might understand where I am coming from (as I agree with this):

All previous systems had regarded man as a sacrificial means to the ends of others, and society as an end in itself. The United States regarded man as an end in himself, and society as a means to the peaceful, orderly, voluntary coexistence of individuals. All previous systems had held that man's life belongs to society, that society can dispose of him in any way it pleases, and that any freedom he enjoys is his only by favor, by the permission of society, which may be revoked at any time. The United States held that man's life is his by right (which means: by moral principle and by his nature), that a right is the property of an individual, that society as such has no rights, and that the only moral purpose of a government is the protection of individual rights.

. . .

Criminals are a small minority in any age or country. And the harm they have done to mankind is infinitesimal when compared to the horrors—the bloodshed, the wars, the persecutions, the confiscations, the famines, the enslavements, the wholesale destructions—perpetrated by mankind's governments. Potentially, a government is the most dangerous threat to man's rights...

Incidentally, I do not believe Objectivist ideas are 100% correct. I believe people have to think for themselves--as individuals--if they wish to use their minds correctly, not give up their critical faculty to adopt some kind of dogma, wherever it may come from. I admit, that is something I do believe 100%.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 108
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I see so many indications on vehicles like Palestinian TV and elsewhere--including literature penned by Muslims protesting the Nazi influence among Islamists (like the Tell Children The Truth site I have referenced)--that go contrary to what you say, I have to stick with my own eyes for my guidance. You are entitled to your opinion, of course. (I sourced Muslims who agree with me to dispel the notion of Westerner attacking Islam. If my observations offend you, it is shared by Muslims whose observations must also offend you.)

I've looked through the website Michael, I disagree with the notion that all of those who fought against Israel being created were supportive of Nazism as an ideology, if anything the website proves that the Muslims did NOT support the Grand Mufti, and that the British installed him into power against the wishes of the people who voted to have someone else to be the Grand Mufti. The only way that the Mufti got any type of support was after the British backed ideology that fermented hate against the Jews and thus gave the British a reason to continue occupying Palestine to 'keep the peace' was spread around as he was their appointed leader, just like they helped create Wahhabism to get the Arabs to fight against the Ottoman Empire.

The examples of Muslims supporting the Nazis in war against the British such as those in Palestine, Iraq and Bosnia can easily be seen as not support for the ideology of Nazism, but a reaching out for assistance to fight those that occupied their lands, following the age old adage, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. In the case of the Bosnians I can say that they had no other option, they were being massacred by the thousands by the Serbs, 150,000 Bosnians were massacred which was 9% of the population and a further 250,000 were expelled from their homes, just so the Cetniks could create their Greater Serbia and Communists could get their Communist Utopia.. The Bosnians didn't hate Jews nor did they want to go and fight against Jews, they stayed in their country and fought the Cetniks and Communists, just as the Finnish did the same in joining with the Nazis. Let's not also forget that the Jewish Lehi AKA the Stern Gang also offered to assist the Nazis to fight the British. So are they Nazis too? Surely they are not, and the same could not be said for the Muslims except maybe a few die hard radicals who such as the Grand Mufti.

I do agree that I see the Israel as opposed to Jew distinction in a lot of the stuff I read and view. But that does not annul the bigoted stuff nor the Nazi intellectual influence I have been talking about. It's not exclusively one or the other. They both exist. The Muslim culture is mixed, just like all cultures are.

What Nazi intellectual influence exactly? The radical Islamists never adopted the ideas of the Mufti, they had people like Syed Qutb.

Whilst many may claim that the fact that Mein Kampf is sold everywhere in the Middle East and therefore the Arabs are somehow supportive of the Nazis, they should take a look at the same shelves and they'll also find books by Darwin on the Evolution of the Species, does that make them evolutionists? No, it doesn't. It just means they have no problem with reading about different ideologies and studying, if you do this in the West it is admired as searching for knowledge, if an Arab does it, it makes them a terrorist or Nazi. .

I also don't see a fundamental philosophical difference between genocide against Jews and only accepting Jews who bow down as inferiors before another race or culture. They are both forms of racial or cultural collectivism (i.e., bigotry) and both contain the "master race" (or "master culture") theme. If that philosophical premise is accepted, genocide is a matter of degree, not kind.

There's a huge difference between the two.. Part of the Nazi ideology was to commit genocide against the Jews, the Islamists don't have that idea and simply want to have an Islamic State where the Jews are a part of it. They don't hate the Jews like the Nazis hated them either. So as I said, they're two separate entities and to say that they're the same, is incorrect and dilutes what Nazism actually was.

Is it OK to hate Jews who do not bow to anyone?

I hold no people should have to bow to another. Here in the USA, to paraphrase Rand, we fought a Civil War to resolve that issue.

Jews shouldn't have to bow to anyone.. They should be in charge of their own destiny, but so should the Arabs and Muslims but I don't often see the world crying for the Arabs and Muslims like I see the world do the same for the Jews.. Instead the Arabs and Muslims are just told to shut up and deal with it. Why should it be any different?

As to terrorism against civilians, I was speaking about a specific kind of overt terrorism like setting off hidden bombs in peaceful public places. Surprise attacks on civilians in broad daylight. This is very Nazi-like. Obviously, secret police picking up dissenters in the middle of the night is also a form of terrorism and many dictators--wherever dictators may be the world over--do that (not just Nazis). And other forms of barbarism.

Hmmm the Nazis were a regime, they used a military and launched conventional attacks on their enemies and then used a secret police to terrorize the populace into submission, nevertheless, I don't believe that this fits in the same definition of terrorism that I was talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've looked through the website Michael, I disagree with the notion that all of those who fought against Israel being created were supportive of Nazism as an ideology...

LM,

Let's please be precise.

You can disagree with that notion and that's perfectly fine. The problem is that nobody has presented that argument anywhere I know of. Especially not on that site.

So what's the point of disagreeing with something nobody said or believes?

The alternative is to imagine you are attributing that view to me. If so, it is wrong.

I claim that major intellectuals within the Islamist culture (etc., etc., etc.) not "ALL OF THOSE who fought against Israel being created."

Also, Eqypt is a strange mixture since Nasser had more direct Nazi influence than Qtub, whom he imprisoned and tortured. I've looked into Qtub's ideas, too. There's a link somewhere around here to Milestones. Also, I listened to this 7-part series on YouTube to get the "other side" perspective: Hero of Islam - Syed Qutb 1. (The other videos in the series appear on the side.)

As an aside, I find this form of teaching very interesting. More comments on that later.

On reading your comments, I get the feeling you don't understand what I am talking about. On a fundamental level, I am discussing philosophical principles, not a form of government and not a specific ideology.

These principles were present in a specific form of government and ideology (Nazi) and were spread to those who were friendly to it. But the government fell. Now, see if the following way of saying it is clearer. Here is the thing I am focusing on: certain parts of the spirit that moved that government live on in many Islamist leaders and intellectuals. That is my point.

I don't find those "spirit parts" in prominence in other places in the Muslim world.

And more, this "spirit" is not purely in the form it had in Nazi Germany (the formal ideology). It is mixed with Islamic ideas in these people's teachings, writings and deeds.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nevertheless, when talking about a master race, that is excluding others who have no ability to change how they were born and what they were born as.. Such as the Jews who were not hated because of their religion, but because their ethnicity and never would the be accepted in Nazi society no matter what they did. Whereas the Islamists would accept Jews becoming Muslims and treat them as brothers and they'd even accept Jews living in an Islamic State as Dhimmis.

The Islamists don't hate Jews or anyone else at all for their religion nor their ethnicity, they hate Israel and call the Israelis the Jews because the Israelis call themselves that, it's very different from the Nazis who hated the Jews because they were Jews..

This too makes them very different from the Nazis.

.

LM,

This is quite insightful.

Why hate Israelis, and not Jews?

I've discovered talking with Israelis that in the main there is no corresponding hatred for Muslims, generally, Palestinians in particular. A watchful wariness, but not hate.

No, the haters themselves are perceived by Israelis as ignorants who have not had the opportunity and freedom to think for themselves.

Any loathing by Israelis is reserved for those manipulative figures behind Hamas, Hezbollah,etc, and their patron states of Iran and Syria. These are the mongrels who would sacrifice countless lives, twist truth, and deny liberty to Jews - and to their own people, other Muslims - for the purpose of some 'Master Plan.'

You state it would be 'acceptable' for Jews to live as dhimmis?

Is this your personal solution and Master Plan, too?

You do know what this is; it is totalitarianism. It removes by force any human choice, or drive to self-sovereignty.

This is utterly opposed to individualism (and may I add, Libertarianism).

The Arab and Mulism world has itself suffered totalitarianism of one form or another, under the early Christians, the Ottomans, British, Nazis, the Russians, the Serbs. All had in common a Master Plan, from fairly benign to malevolent.

Have you not learned something?

The general hatred of Israel, you make clear.

I would suggest the hatred is more psychological than ideological: she succeeded.

Against odds, a state was created out of nothing, a mixture of people - including over a million Muslims who are happy to call it their home - took their fate in their own hands, kicked butt when they were attacked, and would still live in harmony with their neighbours, if they were left to their own devices.

The country flies proudly in the face of totalitarianism, and Islamic fatalism.

Have you anything to convince me otherwise?

I would like to further understand the hatred for 'Zionism'.

Tony

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Why hate Israelis, and not Jews?

Why would they hate Jews? They as a religion or ethnic group are not guilty of anything and shouldn't be treated with any disdain simply because of their religion or ethnicity. They

I've discovered talking with Israelis that in the main there is no corresponding hatred for Muslims, generally, Palestinians in particular. A watchful wariness, but not hate.

No, the haters themselves are perceived by Israelis as ignorants who have not had the opportunity and freedom to think for themselves.

Any loathing by Israelis is reserved for those manipulative figures behind Hamas, Hezbollah,etc, and their patron states of Iran and Syria. These are the mongrels who would sacrifice countless lives, twist truth, and deny liberty to Jews - and to their own people, other Muslims - for the purpose of some 'Master Plan.'

I don't think that all Israelis hate Arabs or Muslims. I've come across many militant Israelis, I've even been physically assaulted on a bus by Israelis simply for having a Palestinian kaffiyeh on whilst I was in Melbourne. There is also a huge issue with settlers that you've failed to mention.

You state it would be 'acceptable' for Jews to live as dhimmis?

I don't think we agree on the definition of what a Dhimmi is to even get into this discussion. My understanding of a Dhimmi is that they are protected and that Muslims are obligated to protect them from harm, even if it costs us our lives, just like we have on many occasions. That they have the full rights of any citizen and can live under their own religious laws and the only thing separating them from the Muslims is that they are not obligated to serve aid in the defense of the state if they are prepared to pay the Jizyah tax. If however, they are prepared to contribute to the defense of the state they are not obligated to pay any Jizyah tax. For Muslims however, it is not optional, we are obligated to fight and there is no ifs or buts about it.

I believe that Israel runs under something similar if I'm not mistaken?

Is this your personal solution and Master Plan, too?

Is what my personal solution? I was talking about the Islamists opinion, not my own.

You do know what this is; it is totalitarianism. It removes by force any human choice, or drive to self-sovereignty.

This is utterly opposed to individualism (and may I add, Libertarianism).

I'm not quite sure what you're referring to here?

The general hatred of Israel, you make clear.

I would suggest the hatred is more psychological than ideological: she succeeded.

I don't hate Israel. I have little use for such an emotion and never do I apply such strong emotions and feelings so generally to cover an entire people or nation. I may hate actions taken out by the state, but never for the state itself.

Against odds, a state was created out of nothing, a mixture of people - including over a million Muslims who are happy to call it their home - took their fate in their own hands, kicked butt when they were attacked, and would still live in harmony with their neighbours, if they were left to their own devices.

The country flies proudly in the face of totalitarianism, and Islamic fatalism.

See, if Israel was a libertarian state that was neither a Jewish state nor an Islamic state I'd be more than happy to support it, simply because it would cater more for all people. However it is not. There are also many issues raised by Arab Israelis who put forward that they are not treated like equals, that the amount of money invested into their communities by the government is not even a tenth of that which is invested into Jewish communities and that they feel like second class citizens. Hence my support for a libertarian state there which is not based on religion, yet allows those within the state to live by their own religious laws.

Have you anything to convince me otherwise?

I would like to further understand the hatred for 'Zionism'.

The reason I don't like Zionism is because it promotes the idea that simply based on ones race or religion it grants those few greater rights to land where people of a different race or religion had been living for generations uninterrupted and that a nation state should be built around this idea. All of this in a place where the it is incredibly important to people of three different faiths.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think we agree on the definition of what a Dhimmi is to even get into this discussion. My understanding of a Dhimmi is that they are protected and that Muslims are obligated to protect them from harm, even if it costs us our lives, just like we have on many occasions. That they have the full rights of any citizen

YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

When you delve into it, historically they haven't been given the "full rights of any citizen", nor are they given full rights today. Even if what you say about the Dhimmi was true, that still leaves the people who not of the people of the book, who clearly are given no rights at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You state it would be 'acceptable' for Jews to live as dhimmis?

I don't think we agree on the definition of what a Dhimmi is to even get into this discussion. My understanding of a Dhimmi is that they are protected and that Muslims are obligated to protect them from harm, even if it costs us our lives, just like we have on many occasions. That they have the full rights of any citizen and can live under their own religious laws and the only thing separating them from the Muslims is that they are not obligated to serve aid in the defense of the state if they are prepared to pay the Jizyah tax. If however, they are prepared to contribute to the defense of the state they are not obligated to pay any Jizyah tax. For Muslims however, it is not optional, we are obligated to fight and there is no ifs or buts about it.

You do make it sound so reasonable.

Could Dhimmi-ism be the final solution to the Israeli - Palestine problem?

The warm embrace of Arab nations extended to their Semitic cousins and neighbor.

One thing I must know before I'm convinced and sign on the dotted line, LM, since I don't know anything about it, is this:

Would you, could you - if your country Australia changed its attitude towards its Muslim citizens, (a policy shift or whatever, reasons unimportant) and declared that they (you) live exactly as dhimmis henceforth in Australia - would you find this to be acceptable? practical? ethical? You would not object, right?

Your honest answer to this imaginary test would help me appreciate the generously benevolent nature of dhimmi-ism, or not.

(No tax, too?)

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

When you delve into it, historically they haven't been given the "full rights of any citizen", nor are they given full rights today. Even if what you say about the Dhimmi was true, that still leaves the people who not of the people of the book, who clearly are given no rights at all.

The verse you've quoted is not so much referring to one being subdued as in not having their rights or being second class citizens, but from my understanding of the verse, it relates to them being subjected to the state, rather than being divided on religious, tribal or cultural lines like they usually were. That was part of the crux of the Constitution of Medina, Jews and Muslims were all considered citizens of the state with full rights regardless of their race or religion.

And in terms of historically, no doubt it on most if not all occasions there has been a degree of second class citizenry at one time or another due to the changes within governments, especially when hardliners come into power. But having said that, this is due to the state failing as a whole to fulfill its obligation which is the fault of the people. There were not enough protections for the non Muslims, this would obviously have to change.

You do make it sound so reasonable.

Could Dhimmi-ism be the final solution to the Israeli - Palestine problem?

The warm embrace of Arab nations extended to their Semitic cousins and neighbor.

If there were adequate protections and checks and balances in place to ensure that the Jews, Christians and Muslims rights were equally respected and protected, that they would have equal political representation and it was with the goal of brotherhood between us all then yes.

One thing I must know before I'm convinced and sign on the dotted line, LM, since I don't know anything about it, is this:

Would you, could you - if your country Australia changed its attitude towards its Muslim citizens, (a policy shift or whatever, reasons unimportant) and declared that they (you) live exactly as dhimmis henceforth in Australia - would you find this to be acceptable? practical? ethical? You would not object, right?

Australia is a bad example. Firstly, I don't live there nor do I intend to live there in the future.

But if it were, say New Zealand where I currently live then sure, why not? If it was done in the way that I had mentioned as above, and all of my religious and individual rights were respected and we were given representation in the political system then of course.

Your honest answer to this imaginary test would help me appreciate the generously benevolent nature of dhimmi-ism, or not.

(No tax, too?)

In terms of the tax, I wouldn't think it would be necessary for us to pay it because I'd ensure that our military contribution would cover it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The verse you've quoted is not so much referring to one being subdued as in not having their rights or being second class citizens, but from my understanding of the verse, it relates to them being subjected to the state, rather than being divided on religious, tribal or cultural lines like they usually were.

Until they "feel themselves subdued" to Allah's law, which it's the states job to implement. Allah's law, by its very nature, violates rights and, imposing it divides people along religious and cultural lines. The Jizya is a divisive religious tax.

That was part of the crux of the Constitution of Medina, Jews and Muslims were all considered citizens of the state with full rights regardless of their race or religion.

The very nature of having a special tax for non-muslims is divisive and relegates non-muslims to an inferior status, but we also know that isn't the start and finish of Shariah treating muslims and non-muslims differently. There are a numerous other laws that relegate non-muslims to second class status.

And in terms of historically, no doubt it on most if not all occasions there has been a degree of second class citizenry at one time or another due to the changes within governments, especially when hardliners come into power.

Historically there's been degrees of zealousness in implementing the laws, but the foundations have always remained the same. When hardliners take over, it is because it is religioiusly sanctioned for them to do so. Their more tolerant co-religionists laxity doesn't alter that.

But having said that, this is due to the state failing as a whole to fulfill its obligation which is the fault of the people. There were not enough protections for the non Muslims, this would obviously have to change.

That will require changes to Sharia, which means reforming Islam, something that isn't in the wind anytime soon. Regardless of whether or not Islam transforms itself, and I hope it does, for the sake of muslims it must, it's really up to non-muslims to to protect themselves. They can't rely on Islam reforming itself. It's simply something they should never ever submit to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now