The Commercial Heritage and Contribution of Islam

[9thdoctor]

The central point is that any type of pro-racial pride, Jewish or anything else, logically results in precisely the same actions that the people of the group are or were victimized by.

Preferring to associate with your "own kind" does not logically result in pogroms, gas chambers etc. What else could you mean by "precisely the same actions"; I try to read people charitably, please clarify.

EDIT: I just saw your edit, I take it you're backing off from the implication of your original words.

Edited April 21, 2011 by Ninth Doctor

[bmacwilliam]

The central point is that any type of pro-racial pride, Jewish or anything else, logically results in precisely the same actions that the people of the group are or were victimized by.

Preferring to associate with your "own kind" does not logically result in pogroms, gas chambers etc. What else could you mean by "precisely the same actions"; I try to read people charitably, please clarify.

EDIT: I just saw your edit, I take it you're backing off from the implication of your original words.

In the context of Mises and praxeology - human actions and choosing between alternatives, the argument is correct.

For example if your alternatives are to hire someone or not hire them then "precisely the same actions" is accurate. But of course, sadistic hatred introduces other 'alternatives'.

That being said "Preferring to associate with your "own kind" " according to Mises MUST lead to discrimination because the only way preferences can be determined/revealed is through action. So to have the preference you describe, you must discriminate. Otherwise you can "say" you have a preference, but that doesn't count.

Bob

[Richard Wiig]

Stoning is a hudood punishment, a capital punishment for a crime.

Yes, for murder, adultery, aspostasy, all of which are considered to have crossed the line. Objectivism judges one of those to have crossed the line, but not all of them. Objectivism measures things on a rational basis, rather than divine law, which is not in the slightest bit rational. If justice is truly what concerns you, then why not ditch Sharia altogether and adopt a rational standard of justice?

Therefore there is the need to be extra careful due it's obvious seriousness. If it is not mentioned in the Qur'an as a punishment that is supposed to be carried out each and every time then I would be careful about applying it in each and every situation.

As you know, Sharia isn't just derived from the Qur'an, it is also derived from the Hadith. If Muhammad applied stoning only once for adultery, then obvioulsy it's good enough to apply it across the board for adultery. Hanbali, Hanafi, Maliki etc certainly thought so.

If anything the Qur'an only mentions lashings for the punishment of adultery and so far as I can tell, the Prophet pbuh was reluctant to stone anyone for the crime and very rarely allowed it.

As I said just above, that really does not matter. What matters is that it was. That it was is obviously a good enough basis on which to derive Sharia so far as Islam's great scholars were concerned.

Although Allah knows and ye know not.

That is correct. Therefore it's better to err on the side of caution so as not to make something haram for someone when it is not, that is oppression.

In other words, it's essential to be meticulous and thorough. The mark of a great Scholar.

You think they haven't already been classified and translated into Turkish? When the Ottoman Empire ruled the Muslim world for almost 600 years? Oh please...

I'm only going by what the guy working on them said. He played down any idea that they are revising the Hadith.

I think more is going on behind the scenes than they are making people aware of..

Maybe so, but Turkey is not becoming more secular, it is becoming less. Well see what becomes of this Hadith project when it reaches its conclusion.

Oh and I really can't stand AussieMuslims.. It's full of crazy people.

It's full of muslims, many of who take Islam very seriously. It's not what you'd call a radical website, but it certainly has its share of radical sympathizers. A bit disturbing when you think that those people are in downtown Melbourne, Perth, Sydney etc.

[Libertarian Muslim]

Yes, for murder, adultery, aspostasy, all of which are considered to have crossed the line. Objectivism judges one of those to have crossed the line, but not all of them. Objectivism measures things on a rational basis, rather than divine law, which is not in the slightest bit rational. If justice is truly what concerns you, then why not ditch Sharia altogether and adopt a rational standard of justice?

You refer to Shariah law as if it is something set in stone, it is not.

Rational law is using the reason we as human beings have developed and the standards we currently have, not long ago, rational law stated that it was quite okay to keep a slave and rape a female slave. Now we don't think that is right.. Why is that? It's because we develop and our understanding of what is right and wrong develops too as society develops.

It's the same with our interpretation of he Shariah, we are, as humans, imperfect by nature and our interpretation and application of what God intends for us will never be perfect. That is why, I find it important to revisit interpretations made in the past and to see whether they conform to what we now know, with our greater understanding of the revealed sciences etc.

As you know, Sharia isn't just derived from the Qur'an, it is also derived from the Hadith. If Muhammad applied stoning only once for adultery, then obvioulsy it's good enough to apply it across the board for adultery. Hanbali, Hanafi, Maliki etc certainly thought so.

It may be the case that Hanbali, Hanafi, Maliki and Shaafi and the others have believed that this was appropriate, however as I've stated previously, they were, like their predecessors and their successors, only men (and women) and therefore were not perfect. Thus their interpretations weren't. So to follow it simply because they did without re examining it is irresponsible. I believe that is a huge problem within the Muslim community today.

As I said just above, that really does not matter. What matters is that it was. That it was is obviously a good enough basis on which to derive Sharia so far as Islam's great scholars were concerned.

As above.

In other words, it's essential to be meticulous and thorough. The mark of a great Scholar.

Exactly. Hence the need to re evaluate interpretations made in the past with the knowledge that we have today.

I'm only going by what the guy working on them said. He played down any idea that they are revising the Hadith.

I can appreciate that. But as I stated, the Ottomans were the center of the Muslim world for almost 600 years. They have all of these texts.

I might also mention, that generally with classifications also come a classification of how authentic these texts are. I think this will be part of it even if they won't state it.

Maybe so, but Turkey is not becoming more secular, it is becoming less. Well see what becomes of this Hadith project when it reaches its conclusion.

Turkey becoming less secular is a good thing. It needs to become freer like the USA. One extreme leads to another and Turkey has been extremely secular for a long time which has involved serious infringements on the rights of people to practice their religion. If it does not become less secular to respect religious freedoms and expression then one day it will hit the opposite extreme where it is like Saudi Arabia.

It's full of muslims, many of who take Islam very seriously. It's not what you'd call a radical website, but it certainly has its share of radical sympathizers. A bit disturbing when you think that those people are in downtown Melbourne, Perth, Sydney etc.

I used to post on AussieMuslims and I've met some of the people on there, ate with them, listened to sermons with them and prayed with them.

In my more black and white days as a much newer Muslim (pre 2006) I was quite popular with them for just how black and white I was.

However, when I realized the error of my ways and challenged their ideas, they did not like it at all.

That is not to say they are bad people, most of them are wonderful and sincere and would give their only dollar to help you if you needed it. However their sincerity becomes their downfall and in some cases even dangerous for themselves and others when their understanding of Islam is so black and white.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

That is not to say they are bad people, most of them are wonderful and sincere and would give their only dollar to help you if you needed it. However their sincerity becomes their downfall and in some cases even dangerous for themselves and others when their understanding of Islam is so black and white.

LM,

This is true in Objectivism, also. Both about the wonderful and sincere people (believe it or not, including folks who give their only dollar to help you--I've seen it), and about their sincerity turning into an element dangerous to themselves and others from being so black and white. Maybe not so much dangerous since initiating force is explicitly a no-no in Objectivism, but in one sense, even more dangerous since certain Objectivists have preached using nukes and asking questions later. (This variety gives me the creeps, just as I imagine the architects of suicide bombers give you the creeps.)

The mistake is, just because some issues are black and while, people with a dogmatic bent start believing that everything is black and white and context goes right out the window. Here is an example. You hold that Allah is a black and white issue. Objectivists hold that the reality axiomatic concepts refer to is (existence, identity and consciousness are the big three axiomatic concepts).

You say how to interpret Allah is not absolute since men are prone to err. In Objectivism, it is written often that man is not omniscient, so his interpretation of reality (called concept formation) must remain open-ended and open to correction.

I see many parallels when good character becomes a priority. Including the dogma issue. Dogmatic people are a major problem in any culture and system of thought.

Michael

[Richard Wiig]

You refer to Shariah law as if it is something set in stone, it is not.

I refer to it as something that is actual that needs changing. You and Mustafa Akyol are but a handful of people, so it's wrong to talk of Sharia as if it is nothing but a harmless triviality that isn't set in stone. The word of Allah is set in stone, so if the word of Allah is unjust in anyway, by the rational standard of sovereignty of the individual, then it Sharia will forever be unjust, no matter who many times you reinterpret it. Besides,that you can reinterpret it, the fanatics don't murder you for it, doesn't alter the momumental untold misery and injustice that it is causing in the world today. That should never be lost sight of. That injustice is what matters. All the victims, past, present and future. If you care about justice, then a proper standard of justice is what you would be looking for.

Rational law is using the reason we as human beings have developed and the standards we currently have, not long ago, rational law stated that it was quite okay to keep a slave and rape a female slave.

That was not rational law whatsoever, and it was ultimately rejected in the West precisely because it was not rational and just.

Now we don't think that is right.. Why is that? It's because we develop and our understanding of what is right and wrong develops too as society develops.

As philosophers identify, and as it is adopted as the prevailing philosophy, if it is promoted well enough.

It's the same with our interpretation of he Shariah,

It isn't the same. Western law has developed (now regressing) to bring the liberty of the individual as the standard. Sharia cannot be compared to that at all. Sharia is about the word of Allah, and has nothing to do with defending the rights of the individual. What Allah says goes, be it just or unjust by the standard of individual rights. As I said, it doesn't matter how many times you might reinterpret it. If what Allah says is unjust, then that's what Islamic law will always be. In that sense, it most certainly is set in stone.

It may be the case that Hanbali, Hanafi, Maliki and Shaafi and the others have believed that this was appropriate, however as I've stated previously, they were, like their predecessors and their successors, only men (and women) and therefore were not perfect. Thus their interpretations weren't. So to follow it simply because they did without re examining it is irresponsible. I believe that is a huge problem within the Muslim community today.

Well, you and the other minority behind you better get cracking, because people are suffering on a huge scale as we speak.

In other words, it's essential to be meticulous and thorough. The mark of a great Scholar.

Exactly. Hence the need to re evaluate interpretations made in the past with the knowledge that we have today.

Reevaluate all you want, it's the convincing that you must do. As yet there's nothing even remotely convincing to offer. Things are not likely to be changing for the better anytime soon.

I might also mention, that generally with classifications also come a classification of how authentic these texts are. I think this will be part of it even if they won't state it.

They did more than just not state it. They actively denied it.

Turkey becoming less secular is a good thing. It needs to become freer like the USA. One extreme leads to another and Turkey has been extremely secular for a long time which has involved serious infringements on the rights of people to practice their religion. If it does not become less secular to respect religious freedoms and expression then one day it will hit the opposite extreme where it is like Saudi Arabia.

The only trouble is, a pious Islamic Turkey will be less free than a secular Turkey. Islam wasn't banned in Turkey, but it was restricted in certain ways. Now that the restrictions are coming off, you're seeing a Turkey aligning itself more and more with the Islamic world, very notably with Iran. I can't quite see that as a good thing.

That is not to say they are bad people, most of them are wonderful and sincere and would give their only dollar to help you if you needed it. However their sincerity becomes their downfall and in some cases even dangerous for themselves and others when their understanding of Islam is so black and white.

After nearly every jihad attack in the Western world there's been someone on hand to say that the person who did it was such a nice person. I've seen enough commentary there that if a bomb goes off in downtown melbourne one day, and it turns out to be someone who frequented Aussiemuslims, I will not be surprised in the slightest. This black and white thing to me speaks of deflection. It's not about black and white, it's about how seriously you take it. Someone who takes Objectivism seriously, which I hope is all who call themselves an Objectivist, will never go to downtown somewhere and blow people up. Why? Because Objectivism doesn't teach that.

[Richard Wiig]

Maybe not so much dangerous since initiating force is explicitly a no-no in Objectivism, but in one sense, even more dangerous since certain Objectivists have preached using nukes and asking questions later.

Objectivists are people. They can get it wrong. They can get the context wrong and reach wrong conclusions, as can all people, including you, regardless of what code they adopt. There will always be disagreement, but the one thing about Objectivists is that they are open to persuasion. It isn't Objectivism that leads to Ojectivists proposing the use of nukes, but the totalitarian regimes and philosophy that make self-defence a necessity. If it wasn't for the totalitarians, it would never be on the table.

[Libertarian Muslim]

LM,

This is true in Objectivism, also. Both about the wonderful and sincere people (believe it or not, including folks who give their only dollar to help you--I've seen it), and about their sincerity turning into an element dangerous to themselves and others from being so black and white. Maybe not so much dangerous since initiating force is explicitly a no-no in Objectivism, but in one sense, even more dangerous since certain Objectivists have preached using nukes and asking questions later. (This variety gives me the creeps, just as I imagine the architects of suicide bombers give you the creeps.)

The mistake is, just because some issues are black and while, people with a dogmatic bent start believing that everything is black and white and context goes right out the window. Here is an example. You hold that Allah is a black and white issue. Objectivists hold that the reality axiomatic concepts refer to is (existence, identity and consciousness are the big three axiomatic concepts).

You say how to interpret Allah is not absolute since men are prone to err. In Objectivism, it is written often that man is not omniscient, so his interpretation of reality (called concept formation) must remain open-ended and open to correction.

I see many parallels when good character becomes a priority. Including the dogma issue. Dogmatic people are a major problem in any culture and system of thought.

Michael

Hi Michael..

I agree with you 100% on what you've just stated. I suppose we all have our extremists and as long as we don't let them represent us then that is good.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

There will always be disagreement, but the one thing about Objectivists is that they are open to persuasion. It isn't Objectivism that leads to Ojectivists proposing the use of nukes, but the totalitarian regimes and philosophy that make self-defence a necessity.

Richard,

This is not accurate.

I know quite a few Objectivists who are not open to persuasion.

Also, when I was in Brazil, I used to like to read books about true crimes, especially murders. I remember a couple of cases where the killer was a huge fan of Ayn Rand. I thought one day to research this and see how many fanatical Objectivists are involved in violent crime.

Just because it's not publicized doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I think part of the reason it is difficult to find is because following Rand's ideas is not the kind of information that usually comes out in a trial.

Granted, the cases I learned about are few, but your collective description of Objectivists doesn't hold up to scrutiny. (I can't remember the names off the top of my head, but I do recall a description of one--a guy who was a weight-lifter and bar owner somewhere in California who shot and killed his submissive trophy bride in order to get something--I think it was insurance money. She was alone, parking her car, and he came up and shot her in the temple. The point is I know this stuff is out there if some day I decide to start looking in earnest.)

And if you say, well they are not true Objectivists, you do the same thing as a Muslim who says violent Islamists are not true Muslims.

Also, you say Objectivists would not use nukes if we were not attacked. A Muslim could rightly say that they would not attack if their lands were not invaded (and I don't mean Palestine). There are many studies that show that the set of feelings about homeland is a far more powerful trigger for violence than religion.

Michael

[Richard Wiig]

There will always be disagreement, but the one thing about Objectivists is that they are open to persuasion. It isn't Objectivism that leads to Ojectivists proposing the use of nukes, but the totalitarian regimes and philosophy that make self-defence a necessity.

Richard,

This is not accurate.

I know quite a few Objectivists who are not open to persuasion.

Then can you quite honestly call them Objectivists? I don't think.

Also, when I was in Brazil, I used to like to read books about true crimes, especially murders. I remember a couple of cases where the killer was a huge fan of Ayn Rand. I thought one day to research this and see how many fanatical Objectivists are involved in violent crime.

Just because it's not publicized doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I think part of the reason it is difficult to find is because following Rand's ideas is not the kind of information that usually comes out in a trial.

A killer being a fan of Ayn Rand and murdering someone because Ayn Rand's ideas led you to murder are two different things. Which of Rands ideas create murderous killers?

Granted, the cases I learned about are few, but your collective description of Objectivists doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

In that case, murder and a mind not open to reason is a product of and part of Objectivism. That's the only way that my description couldn't hold up.

(I can't remember the names off the top of my head, but I do recall a description of one--a guy who was a weight-lifter and bar owner somewhere in California who shot and killed his submissive trophy bride in order to get something--I think it was insurance money. She was alone, parking her car, and he came up and shot her in the temple. The point is I know this stuff is out there if some day I decide to start looking in earnest.)

You seriously believe that was a manifestation of Objectivism? If Objectivism is that evil, then I'd have to question why you have a site devoted to it.

And if you say, well they are not true Objectivists, you do the same thing as a Muslim who says violent Islamists are not true Muslims.

When a violent Jihadist attacks others as a strategy for achieving the supremacy of Islam, you can actually point directly to the Islamic laws and doctrines that he's acting upon. What can you point to in Objectivism that the California insurance murderer was acting upon?

Also, you say Objectivists would not use nukes if we were not attacked. A Muslim could rightly say that they would not attack if their lands were not invaded

As an individual he or she may well say that, but so far as Islamic law is concerned it's not up to the individual. It's up to Allah.

[9thdoctor]

I remember a couple of cases where the killer was a huge fan of Ayn Rand. I thought one day to research this and see how many fanatical Objectivists are involved in violent crime.

I’ve never heard of a single case. Lonnie Leonard is the worst character I’ve ever heard of. OTOH, the Church of Satan guy (Anton LaVey) said he was influenced by Rand, though I’ve never heard of him inspiring murderers either.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

And if you say, well they are not true Objectivists, you do the same thing as a Muslim who says violent Islamists are not true Muslims.

I think it's funny that Richard's comment (or non-comment, as it were) on this came later in the post, yet he made the following comment at the beginning.

Then can you quite honestly call them Objectivists? I don't think.

I'll just let that speak for itself and see if the double standard ever sinks in.

This is the problem with us-against-them thinking as a premise (i.e., on a metaphysical level). You use one standard for judging "them," but when you do it, well... that's different.

Michael

[9thdoctor]

And if you say, well they are not true Objectivists, you do the same thing as a Muslim who says violent Islamists are not true Muslims.

I think it's funny that Richard's comment (or non-comment, as it were) on this came later in the post, yet he made the following comment at the beginning.

Then can you quite honestly call them Objectivists? I don't think.

I'll just let that speak for itself and see if the double standard ever sinks in.

Well they sure as hell aren't Scotsmen!

[Brant Gaede]

I remember a couple of cases where the killer was a huge fan of Ayn Rand. I thought one day to research this and see how many fanatical Objectivists are involved in violent crime.

I've never heard of a single case. Lonnie Leonard is the worst character I've ever heard of. OTOH, the Church of Satan guy (Anton LaVey) said he was influenced by Rand, though I've never heard of him inspiring murderers either.

"A huge fan of Ayn Rand" doesn't count. Millions of readers; no killers? No murderers, rapists, fraudsters? When a bunch of these bastards get together and form an *Ayn Rand Gang*, let us know.

--Brant

needles in the haystack: even if you can't see them you can imagine they are there

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I remember a couple of cases where the killer was a huge fan of Ayn Rand. I thought one day to research this and see how many fanatical Objectivists are involved in violent crime.

I've never heard of a single case. Lonnie Leonard is the worst character I've ever heard of. OTOH, the Church of Satan guy (Anton LaVey) said he was influenced by Rand, though I've never heard of him inspiring murderers either.

Dennis,

I'm not surprised you have not heard of these cases. They are not publicized within the community where people discuss ideas.

Maybe I should get an enterprising leftie who is good at research all stoked up and on a crusade. That would save me a lot of donkey-work.

Frankly, I am surprised the left hasn't picked up on this.

The reason people don't hear of it, I believe, is context. I was not looking for Rand stuff when I was reading those books on crime. But since I was hungry for anything dealing with Rand back then, my antenna was on autopilot, so when I saw it, even though I was all pumped up in true-crime delights mode, it jumped out at me.

I don't believe many Objectivists--or lefties, for that matter--like that kind of literature. That's pretty mainstream un-philosophical and un-political stuff. Here's a question for you (slightly exaggerated to make the point). How many references to Ayn Rand do you imagine have been made in The National Enquirer over the years? The fact is, you don't know. You don't read it (I presume).

I have mentioned this before on forums and some Objectivists get really, really offended. I don't see why, though. Denying reality will never prove anything.

Anyway, there are many reasons a person commits murder. The only thing the fact that he was into Rand proves is that the NIOF in Objectivism was not a big enough reason--in his mind--to stop him at the time he did it.

Also, parts of the philosophy can be exaggerated in a person's mind to justify anything, just like with any other body of thought. Say... like nuking first and asking questions later. I've always thought, if a murderer is not a "true Objectivist" to an offended party, what about a nuke first person (which includes some folks well thought of in ARI-land)? Isn't he just as guilty of using the philosophy to rationalize something quite vile?

In short, I see no way to rationally remove the individual responsibility element in implementing a body of thought by simply denying a person was into that body of thought or saying he really didn't understand it. That doesn't protect a body of thought. On the contrary, that makes it sound about as irrational as any defensive cult.

I think most of these folks who commit murder--or preach mass murder as a first response--understand the philosophy just fine, but have other priorities within a specific context. Sort of like a racist who is the sweetest person you ever want to know--until he gets in front of his scapegoat. Does he not know what being a sweet person means? Of course he does. He not only knows it, he practices it. He just has other priorities within a certain context.

That kind of thinking is one of the true culprits of evil in my view. Not whether a person is Objectivist or Christian or Muslim or Kantian or anything else.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

"A huge fan of Ayn Rand" doesn't count.

Brant,

Why? It's a fact.

I didn't say "Objectivist" because I don't recall this being discussed within that context and I want to be accurate. Here's how it is usually presented (my paraphrase, since I am going from memory): "Robert had a scuffed up copy of The Fountainhead with him. He often said Ayn Rand was his favorite author."

Then the story would move on to something different.

What else can you conclude from that except the person was into Rand? Now, whether he attended meetings at The Ayn Rand Institute or belonged to some formal Objectivist group, I can't say. And frankly, I don't think it's important as a standard.

Sometimes an author would make a passing comment about Ayn Rand's philosophy of selfishness when discussing the guy's motives, but I remember these references being presented as a small detail within a large discussion of all kinds of motives.

Michael

[Selene]

Folks:

Lest we forget...Loughner's Youtube page...here where We the Living appeared.

It was in Reidy's post #20 here on that thread.

[Richard Wiig]

And if you say, well they are not true Objectivists, you do the same thing as a Muslim who says violent Islamists are not true Muslims.

I think it's funny that Richard's comment (or non-comment, as it were) on this came later in the post, yet he made the following comment at the beginning.

There is no double standard. The point is that Objectivism does not say "thou shalt go out and murder in the cause of Objectivism." Islam does.

Then can you quite honestly call them Objectivists? I don't think.

I'll just let that speak for itself and see if the double standard ever sinks in.

Perhaps I should word it this way so that it cannot be twisted to suit any bias. Can you call their actions Objectivist when it is not Objectivism they are practicing? The difference with Islamic supremacist murderers is that it is Islam they are practicing. You even attack your own chosen philosophy in order to allude that fact.

This is the problem with us-against-them thinking as a premise (i.e., on a metaphysical level). You use one standard for judging "them," but when you do it, well... that's different.

Michael

No, I use exactly the same standards to judge. Crimes commited by any particular muslim may well not be grounded in any Islmamic imperatives whatsoever. Whether they are or not can only be determined on a case by case basis, yet here you are treating one call as if it were all calls. In this context we are talking about actual Islamic supremacists acting on the supremacist imperatives of Islam. Show me where Objectivism calls for or inspires followers to murder, then I'll admit that there is a double standard.