Geert Wilders: Time to Unmask Muhammad

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Tony,

One of the things I have learned from studying persuasion is that if you want to change a culture, you change the leaders--not just the head honcho, but leaders on the second and third levels.

The media often serves as a surrogate leader on these levels. I believe this happens because the editors and some journalists get the taste of power when they observe the public making changes because of slanted news and they like it.

It's no secret that if the media slants things one way, the crowd follows. If the media reverses, they crowd reverses.

The reason that perception of the people in the "progressive society" in your observation practice "appeasing, justifying, sanctimonious madness" is that they are following. The emotional/mental states leaders manipulate in crowds are "wish to belong plus monkey-see, monkey-do"--or "wish to belong plus follow pressure to conform."

If the leaders did not practice that and/or require it of others, people would not drift that way.

Get the media, the religious leaders, the celebrities, and heads of certain organizations, and similar public figures to change their tune, and the public follows.

There's one snag in this, though. Once the public detects that it is being manipulated, this doesn't work well. The liberal press here in the USA is learning this lesson the hard way with poor audience, and it's getting worse.

This manipulation process works so well in our society, though, I don't know why people don't make organized efforts to reward Muslim leaders (including Muslim media, religious leaders, celebrities, and heads of certain organization) when they adopt freedom values and denounce fanatics. If people did this and nothing appeared as phony, the leaders would let their followers know about the adopted values and the followers would follow. And leaders talk to leaders, so there's that benefit.

Until something like this starts being sold to the Western public, though, you will have people blaming a spiteful nutcase in one country for the murders of innocents in another country by fanatics. This is because the very leaders in the West believe this narrative.

I have another comment I want to make while I am still writing about this stuff. Often, when you caution a hater to be careful not to antagonize fanatics, he treats this as appeasement. But I say it depends. If you intend a "do not antagonize but walk on eggs instead policy" as a permanent rule for a specific culture, then, yes, it is appeasement. But if you are merely doing this temporarily to get the nutcases to keep their guard down while you are doing other stuff behind the scenes (like getting to their leaders), it only makes sense to do it.

Unfortunately, when the USA government has tried to do this (in too many places for comfort), they have often made a mess of it and propped up bloody dictators. But that's nothing new, and the USA government certainly doesn't have a monopoly on it.

It's odd how people have always screwed up the same stuff over and over throughout all of recorded history.

Michael

[anthony]

With so many threads running concurrently on this topic, I don't know where else to put this general observation:

It's obvious that no one people or religion has the monopoly on irrationality ("the impossible, or the insane" AR defines it).

Nobody is claiming that Islam is wonderful and rational, and perhaps it is, comparatively, a few degrees less rational than any other religion.

It certainly is newer and more active (and 'rawer', in my opinion.)

Of the three Abrahamic religions, I allow myself some fondness for Judaism. Not really (or only) for my personal connection to it, but because: a. it doesn't seek converts to it, and b. (as a result of (a.) Jews are so few in number, and c. (because of a.and b.) they are always under threat of elimination, to some extent.

Here's my point, however.

If Jews numbered in the billions, I would be wary, and sometimes quite afraid, of them. Why?

Because there is enough craziness in the Torah, (the Old Testament) to ensure that the proportion (1%? 2%?) of devout and insane Jews would be a danger to others by sheer weight of their numbers.

Does it not make sense, inductively, that the proportion of seriously irrational people (the fully mad, potentially capable of evil actions)- AND, those hungry for power - is the same the world over? Their Holy Books are irrelevant.

Indicating that the proportion of peaceful, respectful, religious people is also the same across all religions.

A sense of proportion, and proportions, that's what one has to keep in mind, I think.

Tony

Hah! Michael, we posted simultaneously. More to think about...

Edited April 2, 2011 by whYNOT

[anthony]

I have another comment I want to make while I am still writing about this stuff. Often, when you caution a hater to be careful not to antagonize fanatics, he treats this as appeasement. But I say it depends. If you intend a "do not antagonize but walk on eggs instead policy" as a permanent rule for a specific culture, then, yes, it is appeasement. But if you are merely doing this temporarily to get the nutcases to keep their guard down while you are doing other stuff behind the scenes (like getting to their leaders), it only makes sense to do it.

Unfortunately, when the USA government has tried to do this (in too many places for comfort), they have often made a mess of it and propped up bloody dictators. But that's nothing new, and the USA government certainly doesn't have a monopoly on it.

It's odd how people have always screwed up the same stuff over and over throughout all of recorded history.

Michael

Michael,

There's stuff here that got me thinking, and I want to write it before it fades.

The quick label I came up with is the Polarizing Effect.

How often do we see it - online, or in life - that we have a very relaxed position on a theory or method ...until it gets attacked.

From something that wasn't fully formed, or merely not too important, that DID NOT MATTER - the act of it being questioned or criticized, puts you on attack, as if your life depends on it.

Silly.

There are "polarizing effects" going on all the time. They are not rational: a pastor burns a Holy Book; a large silent majority of believers in that book, who may normally laugh at the silliness of it, begin to see it as a symbolic act aimed at each, personally;

they take offense, verbally; a small portion of those, demands action; a small portion of these approaches some nasty types; one of whom who orders the final half-dozen perpetrators to commit a terrible murder of innocents.

A senseless act half a world away cannot be the 'cause' of a vicious act, as 60% of English believe. The blame and immorality is the killers', alone. To state otherwise is a form of rationalized appeasement - shifting responsibility.

But, one 'polarizing agent' is the pastor, and the other is the shadowy terrorist who orders the killing, the way I see it.

While never condoning "walking on eggshells" for anybody or anything, I think it is also irrational to go out of one's way to polarize others - forcing them into a corner.

Conversely, if one is pressured towards the same corner, it is irrational and plain wrong to allow it to happen (to one).

This is where Nathaniel, rather than Rand, was right: he said something along the lines of first finding where one's interests and values intersect with an other person.

(They always do, somewhere, don't they?)

After that, the differences don't seem so important.

Tony

[9thdoctor]

My quoting of the sword verse was only to demonstrate that such things can be pulled out of context, and that such a practice is useless, such is the meaning of “isn’t going to convince anyone”.

Of course things can be taken out of context. Is that you're point in raising the sword line? You know it's taken out context, but you can use it to be militant if you want to?

Getting warm.

If so, it doesn't stack up. If you're implying that Jihadists act violently only because they take things out of context, or use things out of context to justify themselves, then show the evidence for that. Many people repeat this over and over, but no one ever shows it to be the case. I have looked at what they use to justify their actions, and I can tell you they don't take anything out of context. But perhaps I am mistaken and you are right. Can you lay the evidence on the table?

Ay-yi-yi. I’m not interested enough in convincing you to take the time to reread the Koran and pull out pacifist verses by way of illustration. Even if I did, we’d then have to tackle the issue of abrogation. Tell you what, here’s Karen Armstrong’s takedown of Robert Spencer, give that a read:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/4a05a4a4-f134-11db-838b-000b5df10621.html#axzz1IIFbSL8e

Don’t assume that I agree with everything she says, I’m an atheist, while she’s (seemingly) never met a religion she didn’t like.

I say we have to compare theocracy to theocracy, so if you’re willing to compare the 1st century of Islam (600-700 AD to use round figures) with the 4th century of Christianity (300-400 AD), I’m game, let’s marshal the facts. Or we can just agree that theocracy sucks, more or less equally among the Abrahamic faiths, that’ll take less work.

[9thdoctor]

Dennis,

What do you think about the way Ayn Rand tied violent militancy to the altruism and self-sacrifice Jesus taught?

She did not use His name much, and she stayed on the fundamental principles--rarely discussing the details of Christianity, but she was very clear about her meaning.

I think she did a good job--both in her fiction and nonfiction. You can find lots of violence that utilized self-sacrifice in both.

Michael

I’d have to go back and reread, I suppose it was in the Faith and Force lecture, and maybe in For the New Intellectual. You might be surprised how little Rand I’ve read in the last, say, 10-15 years. Anyway, I do recall the argument that no aggressive tyrant makes his case for going to war based on principled self-interest.

I don’t recall any Jesus connection though, when did Rand ever talk about him? The “judge not” line is all I can think of, even then it wasn't by name.

[9thdoctor]

A few facts haven’t been aired within this thread, concerning the context/subtext of Geert Wilders’ piece. While I’ve had a couple very nice visits to Amsterdam, I’ll be going out on a limb trying to comment on Dutch politics. Wilders is a Parliamentary leader, his party is the 3rd in terms of seats (there’s 150 total, his party has 24, 16%). He has called for the banning of the Koran, the ending of Muslim immigration, and a ban on the building of Mosques. My source is Wikipedia, by all means check the references and let me know if any of this is inaccurate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geert_Wilders

He’s been brought over here (the US) by the Robert Spencer’s and Pamela Geller’s, and hailed (by them) as a hero. Presumably they’d like American politicians to emulate him. Now, imagine an American congressional leader calling for these things in the US, and publishing a piece like this.

[Richard Wiig]

Tell you what, here’s Karen Armstrong’s takedown of Robert Spencer, give that a read:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/4a05a4a4-f134-11db-838b-000b5df10621.html#axzz1IIFbSL8e

Don’t assume that I agree with everything she says, I’m an atheist, while she’s (seemingly) never met a religion she didn’t like.

I've read it, and in the interests of fairness in general, and to Robert Spencer in particular, I think it would only be fair if you read his response to her:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/04/karen-armstrong-reviews-spencers-the-truth-about-muhammad.html

And further, reading Raymond Ibrahims response is educational.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/220844/islamic-apologetics/raymond-ibrahim?page=1

As a side note, in one of her most recent essays everytime she mentions Muhammad she follows it with a PBUH. Very odd.

Edited April 2, 2011 by Infidel

[Richard Wiig]

Of course things can be taken out of context. Is that you're point in raising the sword line? You know it's taken out context, but you can use it to be militant if you want to?

Getting warm.

If so, it doesn't stack up. If you're implying that Jihadists act violently only because they take things out of context, or use things out of context to justify themselves, then show the evidence for that. Many people repeat this over and over, but no one ever shows it to be the case. I have looked at what they use to justify their actions, and I can tell you they don't take anything out of context. But perhaps I am mistaken and you are right. Can you lay the evidence on the table?

Ay-yi-yi. I’m not interested enough in convincing you to take the time to reread the Koran and pull out pacifist verses by way of illustration.

You don't quite get it. I don't need a demonstration. I know that things can be taken out of context; I see it everytime someone throws the no compulsion in religion quote at me. The point is, are jihadists taking things out of context? The answer is no, they are not. They are actually taking full congnizance of the proper context.

[Richard Wiig]

A few facts haven’t been aired within this thread, concerning the context/subtext of Geert Wilders’ piece. While I’ve had a couple very nice visits to Amsterdam, I’ll be going out on a limb trying to comment on Dutch politics. Wilders is a Parliamentary leader, his party is the 3rd in terms of seats (there’s 150 total, his party has 24, 16%). He has called for the banning of the Koran, the ending of Muslim immigration, and a ban on the building of Mosques. My source is Wikipedia, by all means check the references and let me know if any of this is inaccurate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geert_Wilders

He’s been brought over here (the US) by the Robert Spencer’s and Pamela Geller’s, and hailed (by them) as a hero. Presumably they’d like American politicians to emulate him. Now, imagine an American congressional leader calling for these things in the US, and publishing a piece like this.

He is a hero. He is standing up for liberty and individual rights in the face of a fascist threat. His predecessor was murdered, so it takes guts to put himself in that same precarious position. So far as banning the koran goes, he doesn't want to ban it. It was a one off comment he made in regards to the crime of hate speech that is arising in Europe. He said that if we are to have hate speech, then the koran should be banned (he does of course support freedom of speech, which is party, the Freedom party, supports). People (the left) have picked up on that and tried to paint him as a book burning fascist ever since.

[9thdoctor]

in the interests of fairness in general, and to Robert Spencer in particular, I think it would only be fair if you read his response to her:

I’ve read plenty of Robert Spencer, quite enough in fact. May as well link to David Duke on Jews.

http://www.loonwatch.com/tag/robert-spencer/

As a side note, in one of her most recent essays everytime she mentions Muhammad she follows it with a PBUH. Very odd.

The PBUH thing is meant to communicate respect, it’s a custom that strikes me as superfluous, but if the context were such that omitting it would be taken as disrespectful by the people you’re talking to, well, what are you going to do? I haven’t used it here in communicating with “Libertarian Muslim”, though he always uses it. My attitude is that he’s visiting our turf, and I haven’t perceived that he’s offended by the omission. I’ve seen Lindsay Perigo use it in his insults, switching it to “shit be upon him” and such-like. Such a sweetheart.

The point is, are jihadists taking things out of context? The answer is no, they are not. They are actually taking full congnizance of the proper context.

Says you. Plenty of knowledgeable Muslims say no. The overwhelming majority is my understanding. What level of expertise on Islamic theology and history are you claiming for yourself?

So far as banning the koran goes, he doesn't want to ban it. It was a one off comment he made in regards to the crime of hate speech that is arising in Europe. He said that if we are to have hate speech, then the koran should be banned (he does of course support freedom of speech, which is party, the Freedom party, supports). People (the left) have picked up on that and tried to paint him as a book burning fascist ever since.

As I said, I have to go out on a limb to comment on Dutch politics. Apparently he said that if they’re going to maintain a ban on Mein Kampf, they ought to ban the Koran too. We don’t ban books here, occasional public library disputes notwithstanding. Does he not call for a ban on Muslim immigration, and the building of Mosques? Has Wikipedia been hijacked by multiculturalist smear mongers?

Edited April 2, 2011 by Ninth Doctor

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Richard,

I suspect you are happy innocent people got murdered.

It helps your spread hatred.

Just like with Israel, I don't think you give a damn about any of this unless it can be a prop for your agenda.

Michael

BTW, this is one of the most offensive things that has ever been said to me.

Richard,

Good.

That is my exact perception of you and I know I am not wrong. What's worse, that's not even an evaluation. It's just an identification so far.

Play act and feign being treated unfairly all you want. That's what people with hateful agendas do when called out. But if you keep preaching bigotry around here, it's even going to get worse.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

As an added thought, someday one of these haters might ask themselves why I respond to them differently than I respond to the goading and sarcasm of a person like JR, even and especially when I disagree with him.

There's a fundamental difference between the two and it ain't anarchism.

JR's good people and doesn't try to fool others--not even folks he thinks are foolish. That's just one fundamental difference. There are more.

EDIT: I want to add a perception and evaluation I have. I might be wrong about JR in my perception, but I don't think so. If someday he were ever to pray, I seriously doubt it would be for the destruction of others--not even the destruction of those he despises. I believe it would be for their enlightenment and change of heart when possible. If destruction were necessary, I believe he would not pray about it.

In contrast, the haters would pray for the destruction of those they despise and fervently desire this with all their hearts.

btw - I know the folks here are not religious. I'm using "pray" as an easily understood metaphor to indicate honest communication of fundamental intent. Most religious people don't have the balls to lie to their God. But folks are a lot more courageous about such things on an Internet forum while sitting behind their computers, so using an imaginary "prayer" is a kind of BS filter for easy visualization.

Anyway, this, in my evaluation, is one of the really important fundamental differences.

Michael

[Richard Wiig]

in the interests of fairness in general, and to Robert Spencer in particular, I think it would only be fair if you read his response to her:

I’ve read plenty of Robert Spencer, quite enough in fact. May as well link to David Duke on Jews. http://www.loonwatch.com/tag/robert-spencer/

I might have known better than to expect a discussion in good faith. In the interests of having a reasoned discussion I read the article that you suggested I read by Karen Armstrong. I didn't dismiss her as a loon and say that I won't read it, I actually looked at what she said and then examined peoples responses to it. What she said has huge flaws in it. Does that mean nothing to you?

The PBUH thing is meant to communicate respect, it’s a custom that strikes me as superfluous, but if the context were such that omitting it would be taken as disrespectful by the people you’re talking to, well, what are you going to do?

It strikes me as an odd thing to do if she's not a muslim.

The point is, are jihadists taking things out of context? The answer is no, they are not. They are actually taking full congnizance of the proper context.

Says you. Plenty of knowledgeable Muslims say no. The overwhelming majority is my understanding. What level of expertise on Islamic theology and history are you claiming for yourself?

I'm claiming none for myself. I've looked at the arguments of the Jihadists, at the texts and tenets they refer to, and the arguments of those who say they are wrong, and formed my own conclusions. Those who say they are wrong are losing the debate.

As I said, I have to go out on a limb to comment on Dutch politics. Apparently he said that if they’re going to maintain a ban on Mein Kampf, they ought to ban the Koran too. We don’t ban books here, occasional public library disputes notwithstanding. Does he not call for a ban on Muslim immigration, and the building of Mosques? Has Wikipedia been hijacked by multiculturalist smear mongers?

Well, he doesn't believe in banning books. He does call for a ban on Muslim immigration, and he does propose a ban on building new mosques, but that doesn't come from bigotry. It comes from what he sees as a war on European civilisation coming from Islam. It not surprising that he, and many others in Holland, think that way given the direction that things are headed.

P.S. Please show me just one single instance where Robert Spencer can be compared to David Duke?

Edited April 2, 2011 by Infidel

[Richard Wiig]

[ That's what people with hateful agendas do

Michael

This hateful agenda is to do what? Turn people against muslims so that I, and other "haters", can get some kind of twisted satisfication from persecuting people? Why the hell would such a person have an interest in Ayn Rand and Classical Liberalism, and seek a free society across the board, even for Muslims? It just doesn't make sense.

[9thdoctor]

I might have known better than to expect a discussion in good faith. In the interests of having a reasoned discussion I read the article that you suggested I read by Karen Armstrong. I didn't dismiss her as a loon and say that I won't read it, I actually looked at what she said and then examined peoples responses to it. What she said has huge flaws in it. Does that mean nothing to you?

How much of my free time do you feel you can lay claim to? No doubt whatever Spencer wrote has been answered somewhere else, there’s a site, loonwatch, that specializes in answering him and Pamela Geller and company, hence the link. Division of labor. From my study of Islamic theology I’ve found there’s about as much diversity there as you’ll find in Christianity. I’ve seen enough of these debates to know how it’s going to go (in many directions, and nowhere fast), and as I said before, I’m not interested enough in convincing you to put the time in. Especially since it’s enough for me that there is a debate, that fact alone serves to answer your claim here:

The point is, are jihadists taking things out of context? The answer is no, they are not. They are actually taking full congnizance of the proper context.

[9thdoctor]

P.S. Please show me just one single instance where Robert Spencer can be compared to David Duke?

Hmm, you must have added this. I just googled "Robert Spencer David Duke" and have to assure my fellow OLers that this is a case of literary polygenesis, not plagiarism.

[caroljane]

[ That's what people with hateful agendas do

Michael

This hateful agenda is to do what? Turn people against muslims so that I, and other "haters", can get some kind of twisted satisfication from persecuting people? Why the hell would such a person have an interest in Ayn Rand and Classical Liberalism, and seek a free society across the board, even for Muslims? It just doesn't make sense.

Because

Richard,

You're crazy.

Crazy for thinking so lowly,

Crazy for feeling so drear

You know, that you know the truth wholly,

And somehow,you'll convince somebody here.

Worry - why should you let yourself worry

Knowing - we'll all be hit by the bus?

You're crazy -thinking that your words will save us.

You're crazy for scrying and crazy for plying

And crazy for posting thus.

-apologies to the immortal Patsy Cline

[Richard Wiig]

P.S. Please show me just one single instance where Robert Spencer can be compared to David Duke?

Hmm, you must have added this. I just googled "Robert Spencer David Duke" and have to assure my fellow OLers that this is a case of literary polygenesis, not plagiarism.

Lot's of people say all kinds of things about Ayn Rand. One reviewer of Atlas even said she sees "to a gas chamber they shall go" on every page, but I checked Ayn Rand out for myself, without taking any bias to it, and I can't find anything even close to what the majority of those critics charge. If you can find something that Robert Spencer says and stands for, that's akin to what David Duke stands for, then produce it? Surely that can't be a hard thing to do, seeing as you *know* that he lies in the same bed as David Duke?

[Richard Wiig]

How much of my free time do you feel you can lay claim to?

I don't claim any of your time. You are free to do what you like, but reading it would in actual fact take up very little of your time and it would show that a proper objective analysis does matter to you.

No doubt whatever Spencer wrote has been answered somewhere else, there’s a site, loonwatch, that specializes in answering him and Pamela Geller and company, hence the link. Division of labor.

No doubt, but announcing that does not amount to an objective analysis. You'll go with Karen Armstrong, because the folk at Loonwatch probably answered her critics??? That isn't an objective analysis. It's actually a very odd thing to do, given that you seem to find the subject worth getting involved in to some degree. It's worth getting involved, but not worth getting involved in objectively??? The fact is, her review is full of fallacies, and actually a couple of lies. If you studied it for yourself, as opposed to relying on those at loonwatch to do it for you, you'd find that out.

From my study of Islamic theology I’ve found there’s about as much diversity there as you’ll find in Christianityand thta I’ve seen enough of these debates to know how it’s going to go (in many directions, and nowhere fast), and as I said before, I’m not interested enough in convincing you to put the time in. Especially since it’s enough for me that there is a debate, that fact alone serves to answer your claim here:

So it's all an unknowable mish mash of differences, and even if you say you have it right, I can merely say to you that it's all so diverse that you've just got a part of it. Everyone is right and everyone is wrong. That's nothing but a cop out that identifies absolutely nothing.

[Richard Wiig]

Richard,

You're crazy.

Crazy for thinking so lowly,

Crazy for feeling so drear

You know, that you know the truth wholly,

And somehow,you'll convince somebody here.

Worry - why should you let yourself worry

Knowing - we'll all be hit by the bus?

You're crazy -thinking that your words will save us.

You're crazy for scrying and crazy for plying

And crazy for posting thus.

-apologies to the immortal Patsy Cline

Trouble is, those lyrics don't fit. I don't think I'm going to save anyone, and don't actually want to save you. You're all big enough and ugly enough to look after yourselves. Whether you choose to think and be objective about it or not is in your own hands, not mine. However, the fact is, if I was this hateful wretch, as Michael, and obviously you, have me pegged, then why would I be here. I'd be whipping up hatred over at some neo-nazi or white power site, somewhere where I'd actually get some satisifaction. The reason I'm here is because I have a lot of respect for Ayn Rands philosophy so I was interested in checking out this site. I've seen comments made that this is an Objectivism diminishing site, so I thought I'd take a bit of a dip and see for myself. So far as the subject of Islam goes, I consider it to be an important issue, which is why I raise the subject for discussion. Given where the world is headed with Islam, I think it's essential to bring clarity to the issue. All I've encountered though is a lot of effort to destroy any clarity.

[9thdoctor]

So it's all an unknowable mish mash of differences, and even if you say you have it right, I can merely say to you that it's all so diverse that you've just got a part of it. Everyone is right and everyone is wrong. That's nothing but a cop out that identifies absolutely nothing.

Getting warmer, oops, nope, very cold.

It seems you expect me to produce the definitive explanation of Islamic doctrine, otherwise you’re going to call me dishonest. It’s a fantastical request to make of an atheist, and is coming from someone who does assert something definitive about Islamic theology, namely that the “jihadis”, by which I believe you mean “terrorists”, have the right interpretation. Why don’t you take the time to demonstrate that? Meaning, identify and answer every school of Islamic thought that disagrees with Bin Laden.

I’ve been trying to nip this conversation in the bud since this post. By then I’d already given up on you. If Libertarian Muslim decides to join the fray on this thread I might chime in again, otherwise, I wish you to blissfully carry on in your folly, and I’m confident you’re wishing me likewise.

[Richard Wiig]

Getting warmer, oops, nope, very cold.

It seems you expect me to produce the definitive explanation of Islamic doctrine,

I don't expect any such thing. I expect you to be objective in what you offer me, but clearly you are not. You can't even bring yourself to read a single response to the Karen Armstrong article you linked to. Are you going to use her flawed article again in the future when someone else needs to be set straight? It would seem so. You aren't even able to produce a single instance of Mr Spencer promoting a David Duke like creed, yet I'm certain you'll keep asserting that he does, because the loonwatch people say so. You've really only disqualified yourself from bringing any objectivity to this discussion.