Boy did this one backfire!

[BaalChatzaf]

If this wasn't an objectivist website I wouldn't be surprised to find a lack of support for anti-jihadism, but it is an Objectivist website.

An enthymeme with the fallacy of denying the antecedant.

A -> B. -A -> -B (fallacy).

Ba'al Chatzaf

[anthony]

Richard,

I am anti-Jihadist.

If it's a Jihad of ideas, then it will be opposed by the best of ideas.

If it's a Jihad of overtly brute force, then we must fight back and kill whoever conducts it.

But, I'm interested in your answer - what would you do?

Pre-emptively attack...where, and why?

Ban Islam? An entire religion? Impose restrictions on movement of finance and people?- that's been done, and all we have to show for it is increased Statism, with little more security. Ratchet up the level of Islamophobia, until Muslims (the silent majority of good ones) start feeling (justly) persecuted, and lose respect for Western liberty?

If, as you assert, you are not being collectivist, then show how you would separate the 'wheat from the chaff'. I don't recall you ever making that distinction between what the Qur'an says, and what Muslims believe, and what they will do. There is a moral difference.

[Richard Wiig]

Richard,

I am anti-Jihadist.

If it's a Jihad of ideas, then it will be opposed by the best of ideas.

If it's a Jihad of overtly brute force, then we must fight back and kill whoever conducts it.

But, I'm interested in your answer - what would you do?

I've answered this already by providing a list of ideas. In fact William commented on one of them. Without going into that list again, straight out Libertarianism would put an end to many practices that make us vulnerable to the Islamic supremacist agenda - for instance, a ceasing of all aid that props up Islamic regimes and an end to the welfare that supports the likes of Abu Hamza. But anyway, I'm happy to delve into ideas, but first I'd really like you to tell me how you keep arriving at the conclusion that I believe all muslims are out to get us? I've asked you to explain your charge several times now, and each time it's been ignored.

[Richard Wiig]

I am prejudiced and sometimes racist in my mind. I don't express it (save here now, openly).

Richard, this is just to show that I suspect you are a human being with a certain amount of prejudice and racism within you. If you deny this, I will consider you dishonest -- or a perfect being.

I am not bigoted, I am not racist, and I am not perfect.

Dude, you cannot admit to a certain amount of prejudice and racism within yourself. I consider that to be dishonest and sadly self-thwarting.

Well you tell me what I'm prejudiced of, William. You're the one who knows it all. You are an arrogant SOB that's for sure.

[anthony]

but first I'd really like you to tell me how you keep arriving at the conclusion that I believe all muslims are out to get us? I've asked you to explain your charge several times now, and each time it's been ignored.

I withdraw, "all Muslims" [are out to get us].

Please advise how you perceive the proportion:

A majority.

About half.

A minority.

Some.

A few.

If it's the first two, then that's a collectivist and irrational judgement, as I said the first time.

If around the last three, then what's the problem? What is the point of this argument?

In that case, the enemy is not representative of the peaceful majority; they have temporary or limited influence; they can be identified and exposed.

In short, our enemy can be beaten, not so?

Unless your enemy is the entire religion, which would mean we still have a problem.

Tony

[Richard Wiig]

but first I'd really like you to tell me how you keep arriving at the conclusion that I believe all muslims are out to get us? I've asked you to explain your charge several times now, and each time it's been ignored.

I withdraw, "all Muslims" [are out to get us].

Please advise how you perceive the proportion:

A majority.

About half.

A minority.

Some.

A few.

If it's the first two, then that's a collectivist and irrational judgement, as I said the first time.

First, if any one of those is a fact, then to identify it is simply an act of identification of a fact. There is nothing irrational or collectivist in doing so.

If around the last three, then what's the problem? What is the point of this argument?

I don't know where it lies, and it matters little to me. I have seen this figure and that figure, but really they are only guesses. What really matters is to get a proper identification of the problem, and work out to how to deal with it.

In that case, the enemy is not representative of the peaceful majority; they have temporary or limited influence; they can be identified and exposed. In short, our enemy can be beaten, not so?

Do you see peaceful muslims standing up and putting the thumbs down on Islamic supremacists in any meaningful or effective way? If so, then I guess you can rely on the peaceful majority to fend off and beat the Islamic supremacists for you. If not, then how do you propose identifying, exposing and then beating them?

Unless your enemy is the entire religion, which would mean we still have a problem.

Tony

My enemy, our enemy, the enemy of freedom, in the concrete sense, are Muslims who have taken to heart the aspects of Islam that inculcate supremacist and totalitarian ideas, the aspects of Islam that set up an "us and them" mentality. It's true that those aspects are not the entire religion, but it's also true that they are part and parcel of the religion, and so long as individual muslims, in whatever numbers they may be, take them to heart, then there is a problem. In short, Islam is not safe, because any devout muslim at any time could take those supremacist murderous aspects of Islam to heart. There are many examples of it, from collective groupings such as Al Qaeda, to lone individuals such as the Fort Hood murderer, to otherwise peaceful muslims who shift the blame away from the perpetrators.

So, whether there is a minority of supremacists or not is irrelevant. Either way we have a serious problem, and that ultimately is what matters.

[Richard Wiig]

If this wasn't an objectivist website I wouldn't be surprised to find a lack of support for anti-jihadism, but it is an Objectivist website.

An enthymeme with the fallacy of denying the antecedant.

A -> B. -A -> -B (fallacy).

Ba'al Chatzaf

Regardless, I see more enabling here than disabling.

[anthony]

My enemy, our enemy, the enemy of freedom, in the concrete sense, are Muslims who have taken to heart the aspects of Islam that inculcate supremacist and totalitarian ideas, the aspects of Islam that set up an "us and them" mentality. It's true that those aspects are not the entire religion, but it's also true that they are part and parcel of the religion, and so long as individual muslims, in whatever numbers they may be, take them to heart, then there is a problem. In short, Islam is not safe, because any devout muslim at any time could take those supremacist murderous aspects of Islam to heart. There are many examples of it, from collective groupings such as Al Qaeda, to lone individuals such as the Fort Hood murderer, to otherwise peaceful muslims who shift the blame away from the perpetrators.

So, whether there is a minority of supremacists or not is irrelevant. Either way we have a serious problem, and that ultimately is what matters.

I keep insisting that there is a moral distinction between "otherwise peaceful muslims who shift the blame", who "take them [aspects of supremacy] to heart"; and the fundamentalists who do the damage, and conduct the killing.

You are not going to change your mindset, and though you've had some well-made points, there is nothing to change mine.

(But I'd enjoy a discussion about the All Blacks and Sprinboks...)

To conclude -

Islam has a huge majority of talkers, and very few fanatical "doers."

Islam is largely conformist - additionally, Muslims are very sensitive to world opinion. Which is the reason that outside of Islamabad and Baghdad, terror attacks (in the West) have almost died out. Public opinion and shame will further quieten Islamicism, I think.

Shariah law cannot possibly gain traction in countries with any constitutional law - or, with any Christian majority. Change by stealth, from within, is a fantasy.

Priorities: realistically each of us have a larger threat to freedom at home in our own nations. Statism is increasing here alarmingly. (Don't know much about New Zealand.)

Practically: no religion has ever been defeated, or successfully outlawed.

Morally: Objectivists should err on the side of benefit of doubt and respect for life, in my opinion.

Personally: alarmism - particularly when action is impossible or irrational - could become increasingly psychologically harmful, as time passes.

Tony

[caroljane]

"Islam has a large majority of talkers and very few fanatical 'doers' ".

Goodness, Tony! Are you suggesting that Islam is just like the rest of us?

Excellent post.

[BaalChatzaf]

Islam has a huge majority of talkers, and very few fanatical "doers."

How many fanatical "doers" did it take to bring down the WTC and knock a wall out of the Pentagon?

Answer: 19.

And if very few come the next time with portable nukes, what should we do?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[anthony]

Islam has a huge majority of talkers, and very few fanatical "doers."

How many fanatical "doers" did it take to bring down the WTC and knock a wall out of the Pentagon?

Answer: 19.

And if very few come the next time with portable nukes, what should we do?

Ba'al Chatzaf

What guarantees are there?

Who knows where the next risk comes from? There will always be those who believe - in their insanity and evil - that humanity must be 'corrected', and are prepared to kill for it.

Some of those individuals happen to be Muslims - but their ideology (no matter how irrational it is) is only a self-justification or a cover. For us to say that "Islam" made them do it, means buying into their own insane evil. Ideas don't directly kill people, people kill people.

Edited February 21, 2011 by whYNOT

[william.scherk]

My link

My enemy, our enemy, the enemy of freedom, in the concrete sense, are Muslims who have taken to heart the aspects of Islam that inculcate supremacist and totalitarian ideas, the aspects of Islam that set up an "us and them" mentality. It's true that those aspects are not the entire religion, but it's also true that they are part and parcel of the religion, and so long as individual muslims, in whatever numbers they may be, take them to heart, then there is a problem. In short, Islam is not safe, because any devout muslim at any time could take those supremacist murderous aspects of Islam to heart.

I wonder if Tony or Richard or both would comment on the formation of Egypt's first Islamist political party -- that's the Hizb al-Wasat al-Jadid (also known as Al-Wasat).

Richard has self-identified as an Anti-Jihadist; in a perfect world, Richard could give a Jihadi-eye-view of Al-Wasat, analyze the party history, compare it to other Islamic forces in Egypt, contrast it to 'secular' forces, and offer specific things to watch out for, specific names and statements to be chary of, specific benchmarks to measure Al-Wasat against, and so on.

I would like to see Richard give both a pessimistic reading/warning/watching brief on Al-Wasat -- and a reading/warming/watching brief that is less pessimistic. If he would like to compare and contrast this grouping with some of the forces that may be much more 'suspect,' we could get a grip on the specifics of his worries.

If he just wants to repeat generalities, that is fine too.

Edited February 22, 2011 by william.scherk

[Richard Wiig]

I keep insisting that there is a moral distinction between "otherwise peaceful muslims who shift the blame", who "take them [aspects of supremacy] to heart"; and the fundamentalists who do the damage, and conduct the killing.

The distinction is only one of degrees. If you sanction the supremacy, then you are in league and therefore guilty.

You are not going to change your mindset,

It's not about any mindset, it's about identification of facts.

To conclude -

Which is the reason that outside of Islamabad and Baghdad, terror attacks (in the West) have almost died out.

That is just plain false. The fact is that attacks have been increasing the West, and they show every sign of increasing further.

Public opinion and shame will further quieten Islamicism, I think.

It hasn't done for the past 1400 years, so I don't see why it's likely to do so now. I think you have a very naive view. I suggest you watch a stoning video and watch very carefully the people doing the stoning, then see if you'll think they'll be persuaded by public opinion.

Shariah law cannot possibly gain traction in countries with any constitutional law - or, with any Christian majority. Change by stealth, from within, is a fantasy.

It already is gaining traction, the most notable being the push for hate speech laws in regards to criticism of religion, which really means criticism of Islam. Sharia finance has gained traction. Canada has introduced limited Sharia, and so has the UK, and the push for it is not waning, it is increasing.

Priorities: realistically each of us have a larger threat to freedom at home in our own nations. Statism is increasing here alarmingly. (Don't know much about New Zealand.)

Statism is certainly the bane of us all, and Islamism is one variant of it, perhaps the most insidious and deadly variant of them all.

Practically: no religion has ever been defeated, or successfully outlawed.

You don't need to defeat it or outlaw it, because it's the author of its own destruction, but you absolutely must selfishly defend yourself from it, or it will most certainly will defeat you. A selfish defence is in short supply.

Personally: alarmism - particularly when action is impossible or irrational - could become increasingly psychologically harmful, as time passes.

Tony

The facts are the facts.

[Richard Wiig]

Ideas don't directly kill people, people kill people.

Ideas motivate people. That was one major lesson from Ayn Rand.

[william.scherk]

Canada has introduced limited Sharia

[ . . . ]

The facts are the facts.

Give us facts on Sharia in Canada, please.

[Selene]

Canada has introduced limited Sharia

[ . . . ]

The facts are the facts.

Give us facts on Sharia in Canada, please.

Seems like it is only an "almost,"in a 2004 report recommending that Muslim faith-based tribunals be allowed in Ontario, Canada. It seems to have stimulated a lot of controversy. However, the proposals will allow arbitration, based on Sharia law, in family and domestic disputes, governing issues such as inheritance, child custody and so on.

This is done in New York State, where the Family Court Act modifies NY State law because the Indian tribes have a separate treaty relationship with the State/Federal government as this blog post accurately noted:

Canada: Islamic courts in operation - Sharia law blooms in Ontario

I take it you are new to this group. This topic first come up several

months ago and was extensively discussed.

Most U.S. states ALREADY have and have had for a very long time civil dispute resolution procedures (non-government arbitration bodies) that settle private disputes. The arbitrator's decision can be taken to a court of civil law and be confirmed by a judge, making it enforceable in the regular courts. In the U.S. there is already a Muslim abritration body and a similiar body for evangelical Christians.

Dispute resolution bodies (based on Islamic prinicples or otherwise) are simply organized ways for litigants to reach an out-of-court decision, which is quicker and cheaper than going to trial. When the State recognizes an arbitration body, two consenting litagants can freely choose (or not) to refer a dispute to that body and can agree freely (or not) that the arbitrator's decision is binding. If they so agree, the decision can be registered and enforced by civil courts to the extent that and only to the extent that the decision does not contravene

existing laws or public policy or morals. Such arbitration is limited to civil disputes; no criminal matter can be referred to such a body.

Furthermore, in the case of inheritances, division of family property, and the custody of children following marriage breakdown, the options in arbitrations are VERY limited because most of these areas are subject to very detailed civil law rules.

Muslims in the U.S. have had recourse to this kind of arbitration for a long time. In Canada, it is new because up to now arbitration bodies were limited to commercial or business disputes.

Blog Link

Edited February 22, 2011 by Selene

[BaalChatzaf]

Muslims in the U.S. have had recourse to this kind of arbitration for a long time. In Canada, it is new because up to now arbitration bodies were limited to commercial or business disputes.

Blog Link

In the United States Rabbinical Courts can act as arbitrators. They have no compulsory powers and can only function if the disputing parties consent to be governed by the decision of the arbitrators. This in no way put either Halachah (Jewish Law) or Shariah in a position to compel obedience by force. Private arbitration has been around in the U.S. for many moons.

I am surprised that this is a relatively new thing in Canada.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[william.scherk]

Canada has introduced limited Sharia

[ . . . ]

The facts are the facts.

Give us facts on Sharia in Canada, please.

Seems like it is only an "almost,"in a 2004 report recommending that Muslim faith-based tribunals be allowed in Ontario, Canada.

Seems like Richard can answer for himself, and offer some evidence. Your post, Adam, does not refer to the present situation in Canada -- but refers to two old blog posts: one from 2008 in the Guardian, one from (well, we don't know, do we, since your link is missing) a blog post titled "Canada: Islamic courts in operation - Sharia law blooms in Ontario."

Adam, I know you want to shed light, not murk, but your hasty cut-and-paste obscures rather than enlightens.

That criticism aside, please read the last paragraph of the Guardian blog post . . .

If facts are facts, give us facts, not garble.

Edited February 22, 2011 by william.scherk

[william.scherk]

Muslims in the U.S. have had recourse to this kind of arbitration for a long time. In Canada, it is new because up to now arbitration bodies were limited to commercial or business disputes.

Blog Link

I am surprised that this is a relatively new thing in Canada.

It is not a 'new thing' in Canada. Adam's obscure, undated, and unreferenced 'blog link' is meaningless in context: when was it published, what evidence was adduced for any of its statements?

More importantly, what is the present law of the land -- what was the result in law -- of the controversy in 2004/2005?

Edited February 22, 2011 by william.scherk

[caroljane]

Muslims in the U.S. have had recourse to this kind of arbitration for a long time. In Canada, it is new because up to now arbitration bodies were limited to commercial or business disputes.

Blog Link

I am surprised that this is a relatively new thing in Canada.

It is not a 'new thing' in Canada. Adam's obscure, undated, and unreferenced 'blog link' is meaningless in context: when was it published, what evidence was adduced for any of its statements?

More importantly, what is the present law of the land -- what was the result in law -- of the controversy in 2004/2005?

My sources are even more obscure than Adam's, consisting only of vague memories, but I think the idea of incorporating sharia here in Ontario was put forward, thoroughly trounced by public opinion, and rejected.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms ultimately underwrites and overrides every new law, and some of the old ones, to the profit of lawyers coast to coast.

[william.scherk]

Muslims in the U.S. have had recourse to this kind of arbitration for a long time. In Canada, it is new because up to now arbitration bodies were limited to commercial or business disputes.

Blog Link

I am surprised that this is a relatively new thing in Canada.

It is not a 'new thing' in Canada. Adam's obscure, undated, and unreferenced 'blog link' is meaningless in context: when was it published, what evidence was adduced for any of its statements?

More importantly, what is the present law of the land -- what was the result in law -- of the controversy in 2004/2005?

My sources are even more obscure than Adam's, consisting only of vague memories, but I think the idea of incorporating sharia here in Ontario was put forward, thoroughly trounced by public opinion, and rejected.

Even more obscure sources are of course helpful. But I meant to underline the appeal to both Adam and Richard to refer to some fact, not opinion.

As you point out, Carol, this issue was thoroughly debated and decided in law. I suspect that both Richard and Adam would like to see confirmation of your memories -- yet I still hope each of these worthy gentlemen will do their own research and discover the facts.

To summarize, Richard claimed "Canada has introduced limited Sharia," and "The facts are the facts." Adam claimed "In Canada, it is new because up to now arbitration bodies were limited to commercial or business disputes."

Can either of these folks provide us with something solid enough to be called 'fact,' and if so, will they themselves update their earlier confident claims? As I asked, What is the present law of the land -- what was the result in law -- of the controversy in 2004/2005?

Edited February 22, 2011 by william.scherk

[Selene]

William:

I do not know why the blog link did not implant properly.

When a topic peaks my interest, I do a quick search. I was surprised that I did not get any more current hits based on Richard's assertion.

When I am probing, I will cut and paste quickly to provide a path to explore for anyone until I have the time to get back to it.

I thought that it would spark some recollection from the Canadians on OL.

As Carol noted, she does remember the public debate which was opposed to it. When I have more time later, I will search some of my Canadian legal sites which I do not use much. I have only had two or three Canadian clients in the last decade, so my quality resources are not extensive.

I have been quite busy today finalizing the removal of a foreclosure action in Brooklyn, so you will have to be satisfied with those quick probes.

Adam

[william.scherk]

When I am probing, I will cut and paste quickly to provide a path to explore for anyone until I have the time to get back to it.

I thought that it would spark some recollection from the Canadians on OL.

I wrote, Give us facts on Sharia in Canada, please.`

It is not up to the Canadians on OL to provide warrants for your or Richard's claims, Adam. A sloppy, unreferenced, poorly-quoated excerpt from whereverthefuck is just that.

I am not asking for you to cut your leg off. I am not asking you to turn back into a communist.

I do ask you to consider waiting on posting. If waiting until you know the facts is a horrifying crimp on your style, then I suggest at the very least previewing your posts. That way you can see that a link has failed.

Previewing can also show you where mistakes might be made by a reader. As I pointed out to you, your cut-and-paste from the mysterious blog mixes up your own words with the contents of that mysterious blog post; we cannot tell the difference -- it is unclear who wrote what, the unnamed whosit at whateverthefuckblog or you . . .

One more suggestion, repeated:

Read the last line from your Guardian link.

If that fails to get you closer to the elusive FACTS, here is a direct and useful probe.

Edited February 23, 2011 by william.scherk

[Richard Wiig]

Ok, I was wrong about Shariah courts being established in Canada. The facts are the facts, and the fact is, supremacist Islam is still a serious threat despite my slipup. The demand for Sharia is still there and it won't be going away. The whole cartoon rage was orchestrated for the purpose of pushing Sharia into the West, and it succeeded wonderfully. That push hasn't let up one little bit.

[Richard Wiig]

I wonder if Tony or Richard or both would comment on the formation of Egypt's first Islamist political party -- that's the Hizb al-Wasat al-Jadid (also known as Al-Wasat).

I don't know much about it, and haven't had the time to find out. In a general sense, it's a sign that Islam has an audience in Egypt (but we didn't need the formation of Al-Wasat to know that) which can only, in the general sense again, be dangerous. Two million people in Tahrir square chanting "To Jerusalem we are heading, martyrs in the millions" isn't a good sign either.