Interesting Take on Islam and Libertarianism

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Interesting Take on Islam and Libertarianism

There is a very interesting debate going on at Solo Passion right now concerning Islam. I believe people of an Objectivist and libertarian bent would do well to look at it. (Imagine me telling people to go there! )

A Muslim (bearing the name of Adonis Vlahos) showed up over there to rebut Perigo's "Death to Islam" hate speech. But rather than engage in bullying and bigotry, or respond in kind to the bullying and bigotry he is receiving, he is holding his ground with reasoned discussion. And holding it well, I might add.

Frankly, he is making short work out of those who interact with him. So far, all they can do is snarl and call him derogatory and filthy names while he is keeps his cool and grounds all his arguments in his fundamental principles (which come from his denomination of Islam).

I suspect he is Sufi from what I have read so far, but I have only dabbled in Islamic readings—enough to write some things and set up this section, but nothing I consider deep—so I might be wrong. In fact, if he is Sufi, it's almost comical watching him being accused of stuff more appropriate to Wahhabi-based Islamist fundamentalism. On a Christian level, it would be akin to accusing a Unitarian or a Catholic of constantly speaking in tongues and snake-handling.

Here is the thread: Islam and Libertarianism: Response to the comments on Lindsay Perigo's 'Death to Islam' post.

I obviously don't agree with several of Mr. Vlahos's positions, but I heartily agree with the following:

I'm not here to try and convert you at all, I only intend to clarify what Islam says about these issues that have been spoken about and defend my rights to practice my religion.

After reading an article entitled "Death to Islam," can anyone blame him? I don't.

I wonder how I would respond to an alleged philosophy site preaching "Death to Objectivism."

It's easy to get caught up in the inflamed edges, especially when random violence in the world originates from an organized movement like Islamism, and completely miss the fact that people like Adonis Vlahos are not the Islamic minority (albeit the Sufi denomination is smaller than the Sunni and Shi'ite denominations). I have long since held that our subcommunity makes a mistake in identification.

For instance, I am not against standing up to clamors for violence, being characterized as the Great Satan, and other stuff like that. But if you don't identify correctly who is doing it, you will never fix the problem. On the contrary, you will create other problems by making false accusations.

I hope more Muslim people like this gentleman start appearing and speaking up in public in his live-and-let-live tone of voice. That will start giving Objectivists and libertarians more elementary (sensory) conceptual referents of intelligent peaceful Muslims. It is easy (at least for me) to see that he belongs to a tradition of deeply studying the Qur'an and Hadiths much in the same manner that Jewish scholars mull over every word of the Talmud. I sense in these scholars a quest for wisdom, not a justification for bigotry and exclusion.

I admit, I might be wrong, but based on that SOLOP thread, I judge this person to have good character. If he finds peace and purpose in Islam, but lets others find theirs as they see fit, I see no problem at all with that. Nor do I see any problem if he tries to promote his ideas through discussion and presentation. After all, that's what the marketplace of ideas is for.

In fact, that's where all people who truly care about spreading their ideas should be (even—and especially—Objectivists and libertarians).

Mr. Vlahos speaks of the Minaret of Freedom Institute and the American Islamic Forum for Democracy and swaying the overwhelming majority of Muslims in doubt to the ideas underpinning freedom by framing those ideas through an Islamic discourse.

That's not one way of changing the Muslim world for the better. In practical terms at this stage of human history with a billion-and-a-half Mulsims, that's the only way.

And he is being treated like a leper on a discussion forum bearing the name of Ayn Rand.

I will let this speak for itself...

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

Michael; Thanks for the link but I hate going to SOLO for anything. The shower takes so long afterwards.

[BaalChatzaf]

The Sufis are as typical of Islam as the Amish are of Christianity. I think it is safe to say that no Sufi will hijack a commercial airline flight and crash it into a tall building owned by Jews and Kaffirs.

Please see:

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

Ba'al Chatzaf

[9thdoctor]

I want to feel sympathy for the guy, but this is like Daniel and the lions, it would be a miracle if he wasn’t clawed to death. He’s picked his poison, made his bed.

The ‘70’s movie The Message is worth watching as a springboard to understanding Islam, the music is by Maurice Jarre, who also did Jesus of Nazareth around the same time. Muhammad and Ali are never seen or heard, you only see Ali’s sword swinging at one point. It’s campy, but worth a rental. Also Gibbon’s chapters on Islam in Decline and Fall are great. George Walsh wrote a piece discussing the enlightenment phase of Islamic history Adonis seems to be referring to. http://www.objectivistcenter.org/showcontent.aspx?ct=397&h=51

I’ve got to say though, the “Muhammad, may peace be upon him” line he keeps repeating is...off putting and even comical.

Edited January 2, 2010 by Ninth Doctor

[Dragonfly]

I've read that thread, but I must say that I have not much sympathy for that Adonis fellow. Perhaps he personally won't hurt a fly, but he's continually dodging the embarrassing questions and trying to weasel out of the contradictions and the unsavory sayings of Muhammad, and thereby in fact sanctioning all the bad things of islam. He deserves to be slaughtered, of course not literally, but intellectually, with regard to his arguments (so don't quote me out of context...).

[syrakusos]

I also will not go to SOLOP.

First of all, I must underscore the holistic theory of human psychology. Ayn Rand said that William F. Buckley, Jr., was too intelligent to be a Christian. Obviously, she was wrong about that. Intelligence has nothing to do with it. I mentioned the Commanding Heights video. John Maynard Keynes was an absolute genius, accomplished in several fields. So, some people are nice and other people are mean and it has nothing to do with philosophy or religion. It is the person as a whole. That is what it means to be an "individual." You cannot parse away this or that and still have the same person.

The problem with SOLOP has more to do with personality than with philosophy. On Rebirth of Reason, I started a topic on Christian and Conservative Terrorism here. I never said that it was worse than any other, only that it exists. No one demands that conservatives distance themselves from nazis. We get the occasional Christian on these boards and we engage them on metaphysics, rather than demanding that they denounce the Spanish Inquisition. Should we demand that Jews distance themselves from Zionism before we let them participate?

Furthermore, it has long been accepted as protected speech to say that because the capitalist ruling class will never give up power willingly the workers of the world must seize political power by any means necessary. The law punishes actions, not words. So, as far as whatever Islam is or is not, all that matters to me is the actions, not the excuses for them. I believe that violence appeals to violent people and they latch on to the words that tell them be violent. They are like the Volga Boatmen who would forget to pull if they did not chant in unison. They want to commit violence and they drift toward the message they want to hear. It is a principle of cultural anthropology that people are psycho-culturally equal. You can raise them anywhere, no matter who their parents were. If Lindsay Perigo had been adopted as an infant into a Middle Eastern family, he would be who he is, only his language and dress would be different. He would be preaching death, only not to Islam.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

When you take into account that there are a billion-and-a-half Muslims, most of whom do not read libertarian messages, the perspective changes.

Those Muslims, with rare exceptions like Mr. Vlahos, do not read Ayn Rand, much less some hate place like SLOP. I know they don't read my articles and posts. Do they read stuff from anyone posting in O-Land?

So here's the killer question:

Who should talk to those people to sell them on the freedom mindset? Who will they listen to? Objectivist Liar and Hater Lindsay Perigo or Adonis Vlahos, who incidentally wants to and believes in it and peppers his mentions of Mohammed with "may peace be upon him"?

It's a real no-brainer, folks.

I think this point is far more important at this stage of history than being right about metaphysics.

Later, after there is a large number of Muslims who hold the values of freedom in their minds and hearts, we can discuss the other stuff and convince some of them (or them some of us, as the case may be).

What is to be gained by trying to bash the living crap out of a Muslim who wants to sell freedom to Muslims? I don't see anyone else doing it on the intellectual level.

I say we should help him if we can.

I'm not afraid that he'll convert me. He won't.

And I still say we should help him if we can.

... some people are nice and other people are mean and it has nothing to do with philosophy or religion. It is the person as a whole.

. . .

The problem with SOLOP has more to do with personality than with philosophy...

. . .

I believe that violence appeals to violent people and they latch on to the words that tell them be violent. They are like the Volga Boatmen who would forget to pull if they did not chant in unison. They want to commit violence and they drift toward the message they want to hear. It is a principle of cultural anthropology that people are psycho-culturally equal. You can raise them anywhere, no matter who their parents were. If Lindsay Perigo had been adopted as an infant into a Middle Eastern family, he would be who he is, only his language and dress would be different. He would be preaching death, only not to Islam.

Michael,

When you are spot on, it almost hurts.

I endorse these thoughts 100%.

(Maybe not others from you , but these are outstanding.)

Intellectually, I strongly believe we should sell being nice along with freedom, reason and the rest.

The bitch about this is that I have yet to uncover a "nice-oriented" method for getting mean people to stop bullying. If one day I ever find one, I will stop smacking them back harder than they smack others.

Michael

[9thdoctor]

The bitch about this is that I have yet to uncover a "nice-oriented" method for getting mean people to stop bullying.

Have you tried Gangsta Rap?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Couldn't resist

[9thdoctor]

They want to commit violence and they drift toward the message they want to hear. It is a principle of cultural anthropology that people are psycho-culturally equal. You can raise them anywhere, no matter who their parents were. If Lindsay Perigo had been adopted as an infant into a Middle Eastern family, he would be who he is, only his language and dress would be different. He would be preaching death, only not to Islam.

You’re implying that Perigo was genetically determined to become a violent blight on the species, I don’t follow. Nature/Nurture debate? In his case, if he were born in Iran, he could have been hanged for being homosexual, that follows much better. Everyone has a capacity for violence, it's a survival trait. You didn’t really make a case though, so I don’t have an argument to answer.

[syrakusos]

When you take into account that there are a billion-and-a-half Muslims, most of whom do not read libertarian messages, the perspective changes.

Those Muslims, with rare exceptions like Mr. Vlahos, do not read Ayn Rand ... Who should talk to those people to sell them on the freedom mindset? Who will they listen to?

In the first place, anyone who wants to can. I look to Richard Dawkins's theory of the meme. Memes can only replicate when the environment is hospitable. Give then, though, the transmission of memes lets them find those minds.

Ayn Rand's ideas are already global in extent, but only not deeply so. It is easy enough, really. You send out a mating call and see who responds.

Rand' ideas of individualism, selfishness, reason, capitalism, and reality, will not save the Muslim world any more than it swept ignorance from ours. However, it would not hurt to have another few million Objectivists on earth, people who are not afraid to come out of the closet for globalism and materialism. I believe that such people have always existed. My guiding light there is Merchants Make History by Ernst Samhaber.

All you have to do is publish the works in Arabic, advertise them and sell them. It ought to be a paying hobby ....

Edited January 2, 2010 by Michael E. Marotta

[Darrell Hougen]

However, it would not hurt to have another few million Objectivists on earth, people who are not afraid to come out of the closet for globalism and materialism.

Who says that Objectivists are for globalism and materialism? Objectivists are for freedom and prosperity, but I'm not sure those things are exactly the same as globalism and materialism.

Darrell

[Selene]

However, it would not hurt to have another few million Objectivists on earth, people who are not afraid to come out of the closet for globalism and materialism.

Who says that Objectivists are for globalism and materialism? Objectivists are for freedom and prosperity, but I'm not sure those things are exactly the same as globalism and materialism.

Darrell

Darrell:

Sure seemed like a stretch to me and without definitions, I would flatly be against "globalism" - them "isms" can be really deadly.

Adam

making sure all the trip wires on the perimeter are set

[Max Eichelberger]

Great find Michael, though couldn't energy be used to, eh, recruit the fellow for a site that doesn't hate his guts? Maybe, perhaps, a great Objectivist site with the initials OL?

However, it would not hurt to have another few million Objectivists on earth, people who are not afraid to come out of the closet for globalism and materialism.

Who says that Objectivists are for globalism and materialism? Objectivists are for freedom and prosperity, but I'm not sure those things are exactly the same as globalism and materialism.

Darrell

I think the point he was attempting to make was that it would be good to find people who are perfectly fine being the Liberal Boogeymen (e.g. Objectivist).

[Darrell Hougen]

Hi Michael,

I think you're over stating your case. I agree that Perigo's piece is inflammatory and the use of derogatory terms such as "maggot" are unhelpful, but I don't think that Mr. Vlahos is being entirely honest in his characterization of Islam. Many of the claims Vlahos makes in his post --- the one to which you linked --- simply aren't true. He makes Islam look much more benign than it really is or was at the time of Muhammad. I agree that some of the responses to his post were unnecessarily inflammatory. Some were obscene. But, some were quite reasonable, making use of facts and evidence. I didn't read the entire thread.

At any rate, I ran across a piece on PJTV about some of the crimes committed in the name of Islam in this country --- the USA --- in 2009. People might find it interesting.

Darrell

[9thdoctor]

Great find Michael, though couldn't energy be used to, eh, recruit the fellow for a site that doesn't hate his guts?

Sherk put a link on the thread, I’ll be happy to chat with him. Adonis, that is. From what I’ve seen, Sherk’s pretty weird, I don’t know what to make of him.

However, I think Adonis must have been itching for a fight to go to SLOP, it makes me think of Jesus’s reply about dining with tax collectors, you go to where the sinners are. Maybe he didn’t realize what kind of terrain he was parachuting into:

[Greybird]

Great find Michael, though couldn't energy be used to, eh, recruit the fellow for a site that doesn't hate his guts? Maybe, perhaps, a great Objectivist site with the initials OL?

"Sites" hate (or love) no one. No "community" exists there (or here), either, to embody this. Only individuals may, or may not, have that emotion.

Anyway, nothing's stopping you. Go over to SOLO Passion and urge him to transfer his attentions elsewhere. Use private messages, if you'd rather not post in public — as I might do.

What I don't care for is that this is devolving into yet another bash-Perigo-and-his-works thread. Not that Perigo, et al., don't deserve strong criticism, especially for abusing newcomers, but that the thread title has become misleading.

Edit: Adonis has apparently joined while I (and, presumably, he) was reading this thread. Welcome to OL!

Edited January 3, 2010 by Greybird

[Libertarian Muslim]

Hello everyone,

I must say that I am both quite surprised (pleasantly) and flattered at the creation of this thread, to be honest I'd never heard of this forum until I was pointed there by Mr. William Scott Scherk on the SOLO forum.

So

I suspect he is Sufi from what I have read so far, but I have only dabbled in Islamic readings—enough to write some things and set up this section, but nothing I consider deep—so I might be wrong. In fact, if he is Sufi, it's almost comical watching him being accused of stuff more appropriate to Wahhabi-based Islamist fundamentalism. On a Christian level, it would be akin to accusing a Unitarian or a Catholic of constantly speaking in tongues and snake-handling.

------------

I admit, I might be wrong, but based on that SOLOP thread, I judge this person to have good character. If he finds peace and purpose in Islam, but lets others find theirs as they see fit, I see no problem at all with that. Nor do I see any problem if he tries to promote his ideas through discussion and presentation. After all, that's what the marketplace of ideas is for.

Mr Kelly you do me great honor with your kind words. I must clarify though that I don't classify myself as a Sufi. I won't say much more than that about what I do believe though because I wouldn't want people to start assuming that my particular school of thought alone is capable of the type of Libertarian ideas that I've displayed, rather I believe that it is Islam as a whole that does. I also never claim to be anything else other than a Muslim and detest sectarianism.

I’ve got to say though, the “Muhammad, may peace be upon him” line he keeps repeating is...off putting and even comical.

I'm sorry that you find it off putting. But that is the etiquette in my religion and out of the immense love and respect that I have for the Prophet Muhammad yes, peace be upon him. I will indeed say it almost as often as I say his name. Although you may see it shortened to pbuh or the arabic equivalent sawas.

I've read that thread, but I must say that I have not much sympathy for that Adonis fellow. Perhaps he personally won't hurt a fly, but he's continually dodging the embarrassing questions and trying to weasel out of the contradictions and the unsavory sayings of Muhammad, and thereby in fact sanctioning all the bad things of islam. He deserves to be slaughtered, of course not literally, but intellectually, with regard to his arguments (so don't quote me out of context...).

I haven't dodged any questions Dragonfly. I've answered every question to the best of my knowledge using the evidence at my disposal. I'm sorry if you don't find them satisfactory but at the end of the day, if I say something is not from the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him's mouth it is because that there are serious issues that indicate the sanad which is the chain of narration is not reliable or authentic. Then I mean just that. Hadith is a science and not something simple. The whole problem with this type of Wahhabi beliefs started when people, not educated in the science of hadith started thinking that they could interpret them and put value on hadiths that were not authentic just to promote their own perverted ideas.

Hi Michael,

I think you're over stating your case. I agree that Perigo's piece is inflammatory and the use of derogatory terms such as "maggot" are unhelpful, but I don't think that Mr. Vlahos is being entirely honest in his characterization of Islam. Many of the claims Vlahos makes in his post --- the one to which you linked --- simply aren't true. He makes Islam look much more benign than it really is or was at the time of Muhammad. I agree that some of the responses to his post were unnecessarily inflammatory. Some were obscene. But, some were quite reasonable, making use of facts and evidence. I didn't read the entire thread.

At any rate, I ran across a piece on PJTV about some of the crimes committed in the name of Islam in this country --- the USA --- in 2009. People might find it interesting.

Darrell

Mr Hougen, would you care to tell me where I was being dishonest?

BTW. I also tried to watch that pjtv.com video but it doesn't seem to work, I'll try at a net cafe and respond later.

Great find Michael, though couldn't energy be used to, eh, recruit the fellow for a site that doesn't hate his guts?

Sherk put a link on the thread, I’ll be happy to chat with him. Adonis, that is. From what I’ve seen, Sherk’s pretty weird, I don’t know what to make of him.

However, I think Adonis must have been itching for a fight to go to SLOP, it makes me think of Jesus’s reply about dining with tax collectors, you go to where the sinners are. Maybe he didn’t realize what kind of terrain he was parachuting into:

Thank you for your invitation Ninth Doctor.

I have to say I didn't actually go onto the SOLO website looking for a fight at all, you see I'm quite new to New Zealand and as a Libertarian I want to help promote the ideas of freedom so I got in touch with the Libertarianz party here. Then on the site Mark Hubbard pointed me toward the SOLO site. Now to be fair, I didn't just go looking for anti Islam posts on there, in fact I didn't expect there to be any. I just saw one saying 'Death to Islam' and the name Lindsay Perigo sounded familiar so I looked at it.

It was only when I realized that Perigo was one of the founders and a former leader of the Libertarianz that I was so disgusted with his attitude and felt the need to respond to them. I was very disappointed that he was so arrogant and ungentlemanly in his behavior and made it quite clear that it just seemed like he spoke that way to make himself feel superior and important and as a form of ego-masturbation. He didn't actually go and respond to the content of my points and instead was just sarcastic and used profane insults.

Thus far, nothing that the people on the site have brought up is new to me and I do believe that thus far I have addressed their points with clarifications of the Islamic opinion. As I did say however, I am not there to try and convert people, just to clarify the Islamic opinion and ensure my rights aren't being infringed. Had Lindsay not been a founder of the Libertarianz party I wouldn't have wasted my time on it because it's the same old nonsense every time and it gets a bit old.

[Selene]

Welcome to OL Adonis:

Geez that is so gay.

At any rate, you mentioned that you are new to New Zealand, where do you hail from?

As to the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, I agree it is a courtesy which I have no problem with.

Are you familiar with Ayn?

Additionally, what do you do professionally?

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Adonis,

Let me offer you a warm welcome to OL. I believe your words and mine have preceded us, so there is no need to repeat them at this point.

I would like to make things easier for OL readers, especially those who have had no personal contact with devout Muslims. I normally would not go into this, but nothing happens without a context.

So here goes:

1. I personally am a supporter of Israel. I want to make that clear.

I also have a great deal of empathy for the Palestinian people (a descendant in Brazil even taught me the basics of motion picture making and actually hired me as I learned it), but I lean in the Israeli direction with respect to the hostilities. My position is my own position, not that of some other OL posters. At any rate, I support Israel for many good reasons we could later discuss if you are so inclined. But I sincerely hope that your participation here will not prompt a descent into the typical yelling back and forth over this issue that I see constantly. From what I have read from you, I doubt it will between you and me.

2. Just as I am interested in getting the message of liberty to the Muslim world and am willing to learn and understand how to go about that, it would be really helpful if you started in this tiny part of the world (OL) by giving your evaluation of Islamist terrorism, preferably without qualifications of the type that insinuates that if we were not over there, they would not be over here.

I'll start the ball rolling by giving my view. I believe when industry leaders get in cahoots with government officials, a distortion of capitalism ensues and monkey-shines reign supreme. Then this is presented to the world as capitalism and promoted or combated, depending on which side you are on. I consider this a false dichotomy and say that both industry and government are copulating when they get in bed together.

As I used to say in Brazil when people complained that the USA was buying Brazil, "If that is true, then some Brazilians are selling it." I hold this is the case with the meddling in Middle East affairs I read you mentioned on Solo Passion. I am totally against government intervention into the economy regardless of who does it. And I am totally against market people sucking up to government people and asking for favors.

On a government level, I am generally against the USA government interventions in Middle East governments. The only excuse for that would have been to clean up the mess the Nazis made, but after studying this, I discovered that we actually hired Muslim Nazi sympathizers after WWII to combat communism. We screwed up big time.

But I am also against the privileges the Middle East governments granted to foreign companies. The business should have happened between Middle East companies and foreign companies.

What can be done with the situation that has developed? The fact is that the situation is now a complicated mess with plenty of blame to spread around on all sides. But there is one thing that is not complicated.

I unqualifiedly condemn the terrorsim practiced by Islamist fundamentalists. It's disgusting. Actually I unqualifiedly condemn terrorsim from any group whatsoever. I mention Islamist fundamentalists at the moment because of the obvious.

Also, there is a frequent argument put forth by those against Islam that nonviolent Muslims do not speak out against the violent ones, thus they are silent supporters. As I have read you mention your disagreements with the Wahhabi version and your disapproval of terrorism, a good strong statement to this effect right at the start here on OL would probably help to keep some tensions down. And it would be something to point to if false accusations ever start.

3. I don't know if this would be possible, but I am interested in factual identification of some sensitive issues. I am actually interested in your views and experience. I have some ideas about the religious experience in general and I am interested in seeing how they stand up to the Muslim experience. This is not in the ballpark of preconception. It is more about psychology. I am sure you might have some of the same curiousities about Objectivism in areas of your own interest.

So, without speaking for others here on OL (especially since independent thinking is one of the virtues I try to encourage on this forum), my own interactions with you, on my part, will always come from a posture of "identify first, then evaluate." Parallel to this will be a posture of "you have every right to believe as you wish, as do I." And even further, I might disagree with some your views, especially regarding metaphysical fundamentals, etc., but I will not mock them. I hope to receive the same.

There's probably more stuff, but that will do for starters. I am sure you have some thoughts of your own, so fire away.

(Graak... I don't believe I said that. )

Michael

EDIT: I hope you don't mind me calling you Adonis. Please call me Michael.

[Libertarian Muslim]

Welcome to OL Adonis:

Geez that is so gay.

Haha. Actually that's my one of my names and what most people know me by, I'm half Greek and half Turkish you see.

At any rate, you mentioned that you are new to New Zealand, where do you hail from?

I was born and raised in Melbourne, Australia. I came to NZ after a long trip of one year and two months living, working and traveling in the Middle East. I am actually here for university studies, work and politics.

Are you familiar with Ayn?

I have to be entirely honest with you and say that I am not familiar with Ayn! I am a little embarrassed by that but do intend on researching Ayn vigorously within the next few days to see what the ideas are about.

Additionally, what do you do professionally?

For my monetary income I work for an internet service provider doing technical support. I will also start my own business soon importing 100% Natural herbal soaps, creams and perfumes made in Lebanon and selling them here in the weekend markets. In addition to that, I will start University study in March.

I also like to do community work and intend to restart my work in interfaith dialogue and prison chaplaincy here in New Zealand

Adonis,

Let me offer you a warm welcome to OL. I believe your words and mine have preceded us, so there is no need to repeat them at this point.

I would like to make things easier for OL readers, especially those who have had no personal contact with devout Muslims. I normally would not go into this, but nothing happens without a context.

Michael, thank you very much for your kind and warm welcome. I appreciate your candidness and will address your points below.

1. I personally am a supporter of Israel. I want to make that clear.

I also have a great deal of empathy for the Palestinian people (a descendant in Brazil even taught me the basics of motion picture making and actually hired me as I learned it), but I lean in the Israeli direction with respect to the hostilities. My position is my own position, not that of some other OL posters. At any rate, I support Israel for many good reasons we could later discuss if you are so inclined. But I sincerely hope that your participation here will not prompt a descent into the typical yelling back and forth over this issue that I see constantly. From what I have read from you, I doubt it will between you and me.

You can be sure that I have no intention in yelling back and forth, I have much better things to do with my time than be on a forum and argue like this. Perhaps when I was 18-22 I'd have enjoyed it more, but now I just don't have the time nor interest in doing so. I wont insult you for your beliefs and am happy to engage in any dialogue.

I will also state that I am not a supporter of Israel and believe that it has no right to exist in its current form without a peace agreement with the Palestinians. However having said that I am not for killing Jews or any human being for that matter because in the Qur'an God tells us:

"For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty), but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth." Qur'an 5:32

I believe the matter of Zionism and Israel to be about justice and racism. I would be overwhelmed with joy if Israel were to just accept the Arab Peace Initiative which I believe is fair and just as a two state solution.

If however Israel were not willing to accept such a deal and believed that it could continue the current and longstanding 62 years of brutal policies of low-intensity genocide against the Palestinians simply because of its military might. Then however unlikely, if it were ever invaded successfully, it would have no leg to stand on in terms of being a state and I would support its complete dismantling and the expulsion of any Zionist not willing to live side by side as equals with the Arabs from those lands.

But as you said, perhaps this isn't the thread for such a discussion and would be happy to discuss it more in the future.

2. Just as I am interested in getting the message of liberty to the Muslim world and am willing to learn and understand how to go about that, it would be really helpful if you started in this tiny part of the world (OL) by giving your evaluation of Islamist terrorism, preferably without qualifications of the type that insinuates that if we were not over there, they would not be over here.

I can give my evaluation based on my knowledge and experience and would be happy to do so. What questions do oyu have?

I'll start the ball rolling by giving my view. I believe when industry leaders get in cahoots with government officials, a distortion of capitalism ensues and monkey-shines reign supreme. Then this is presented to the world as capitalism and promoted or combated, depending on which side you are on. I consider this a false dichotomy and say that both industry and government are copulating when they get in bed together.

Agreed

As I used to say in Brazil when people complained that the USA was buying Brazil, "If that is true, then some Brazilians are selling it." I hold this is the case with the meddling in Middle East affairs I read you mentioned on Solo Passion. I am totally against government intervention into the economy regardless of who does it. And I am totally against market people sucking up to government people and asking for favors.

Agreed some more.

On a government level, I am generally against the USA government interventions in Middle East governments. The only excuse for that would have been to clean up the mess the Nazis made, but after studying this, I discovered that we actually hired Muslim Nazi sympathizers after WWII to combat communism. We screwed up big time.

I agree also, and do believe that intervention is an absolute necessity.

Although I have never heard of these so called Muslim Nazi sympathizers hired to combat communism. Can you provide me with more information please?

But I am also against the privileges the Middle East governments granted to foreign companies. The business should have happened between Middle East companies and foreign companies.

It's the only way these governments stay in power, as you said the government is in cahoots with the corporations and if their puppets in the Middle East, the tyrants and monarchs that they are don't play ball, they get overthrown and replaced with their cousins or sons.

What can be done with the situation that has developed? The fact is that the situation is now a complicated mess with plenty of blame to spread around on all sides. But there is one thing that is not complicated.

I unqualifiedly condemn the terrorsim practiced by Islamist fundamentalists. It's disgusting. Actually I unqualifiedly condemn terrorsim from any group whatsoever. I mention Islamist fundamentalists at the moment because of the obvious.

Terrorism historically been recognized as a tactic in war, that of using bombings, assassinations of civilian infrastructure and leaders to try and get a desired result. It can be perpetrated by an individual, group or a government. In the past, terrorists used to limit civilian casualties by bomb threats etc. Now however it seems to be a different game where civilians are directly targeted and killed.

I might also state that the US, UK and other Western nations did indeed train their special forces and intelligence services in terrorism during the Cold War so that in the event of it becoming a 'hot' war, they could try and cripple the USSR's ability to fight. This also did include bombings of civilian infrastructure and assassinations and they didn't care what the civilian cost would be in such a situation.

I have no doubt that the same Western nations still do train their intelligence services and special forces in such tactics and also don't doubt their willingness to use them in conflict.

I unqualifiedly condemn any attack on any non combatant. It goes against Islamic and any moral teachings and ultimately is just counterproductive.

Also, there is a frequent argument put forth by those against Islam that nonviolent Muslims do not speak out against the violent ones, thus they are silent supporters. As I have read you mention your disagreements with the Wahhabi version and your disapproval of terrorism, a good strong statement to this effect right at the start here on OL would probably help to keep some tensions down. And it would be something to point to if false accusations ever start.

Actually the majority of Muslims do speak out openly against the extremists. They are despised everywhere throughout the Muslim world and they have to operate in strict secrecy whether they are in the West or in the Middle East. I might also state that Saudi Arabia (which I DO despise) is against terrorism and have to state that no matter how repulsive I find their ideas, the majority of Wahhabis condemn the actions of Al Qaeda and other groups, thinking that they are against Islam.

I have to also clarify something.

I'm not against violence whatsoever. I believe that sometimes, in the pursuit of justice after exercising all other diplomatic means a person may need to resort to violence to attain it. Thus, it may be completely necessary and justified to use violence. I am however, as stated above against violence being used against non-combatants.

I also wholeheartedly support anyone's right to self defence providing they do not transgress and become oppressors themselves.

I believe that violence is not a one sized fits all solution to any problem. Contrary to what many say, Islam abhors violence and Qur'anic teachings and the example of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh definitely show us that peace is better than violence.

3. I don't know if this would be possible, but I am interested in factual identification of some sensitive issues. I am actually interested in your views and experience. I have some ideas about the religious experience in general and I am interested in seeing how they stand up to the Muslim experience. This is not in the ballpark of preconception. It is more about psychology. I am sure you might have some of the same curiousities about Objectivism in areas of your own interest.

I am more than happy to answer any questions that you may have no matter how sensitive they are.

So, without speaking for others here on OL (especially since independent thinking is one of the virtues I try to encourage on this forum), my own interactions with you, on my part, will always come from a posture of "identify first, then evaluate." Parallel to this will be a posture of "you have every right to believe as you wish, as do I." And even further, I might disagree with some your views, especially regarding metaphysical fundamentals, etc., but I will not mock them. I hope to receive the same.

Thank you, you most certainly will receive the same respect and conduct from myself.

EDIT: I hope you don't mind me calling you Adonis. Please call me Michael.

Not at all! Thank you Michael.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I will also state that I am not a supporter of Israel and believe that it has no right to exist in its current form without a peace agreement with the Palestinians.

Adonis,

Oh boy...

How about we meet in the middle right now and just say that the situation as it exists must change and that the change cannot be unilateral and still work?

That, I believe, would establish some common ground we could eventually build something on.

I believe the matter of Zionism and Israel to be about justice and racism.

I believe these are components, but not nearly the whole story.

I dearly wish the people involved in this conflict accepted the fact that it will not be resolved by oversimplification. There are some really complicated things going on here that have accumulated over decades. And they are many, not few.

Although I have never heard of these so called Muslim Nazi sympathizers hired to combat communism. Can you provide me with more information please?

It's been a while since I have looked into this. Here are some things from my own research in 2007. I am certain that much, much more is out there.

Three of my posts in a row: here, here and here.

Below is also a site I came across. I have not gone through it completely. From what I have been able to ascertain, it is maintained by Muslims (at least there are indications that it is), but I don't know anything about them. I imagine that Sheikh Abdul Hadi Palazzi is somehow involved since he is featured (the links to his works and sites are broken, but he has an entry in Wikipedia with many valid links). The site has a very good accumulation of historical documents and information.

Tell The Children The Truth

There are also some essays I posted in this Mideast section of OL. If I remember correctly, Bernard Lewis dealt with the Nazi leftovers in the Muslim world and Western governments funding them for cold war activities. I need to read through all that stuff again to find the exact passages. If you get the time and don't mind reading a bit of acrimony at times, the threads in this Mideast section can be quite informative

I might also state that the US, UK and other Western nations did indeed train their special forces and intelligence services in terrorism during the Cold War so that in the event of it becoming a 'hot' war, they could try and cripple the USSR's ability to fight. This also did include bombings of civilian infrastructure and assassinations and they didn't care what the civilian cost would be in such a situation.

I have no doubt that the same Western nations still do train their intelligence services and special forces in such tactics and also don't doubt their willingness to use them in conflict.

This is preaching to the choir and, incidentally, it is much worse than that. They also trained the secret police of despots around the world so they could terrorize their own citizens. I saw some of this up close. I lived in Brazil for over 30 years and know a bit about Operation Condor.

I don't know the particulars of the Middle East countries, but I have no doubt it was the same. Off the top of my head, the SAVAK of Iran under Shah Pahlavi comes to mind.

I unqualifiedly condemn this, both the brutal activities of the Western nations and the Muslim dictators (and other tin-pot dictators) who terrorized thier own citizens.

I unqualifiedly condemn any attack on any non combatant.

I believe we are on the same page.

Actually the majority of Muslims do speak out openly against the extremists. They are despised everywhere throughout the Muslim world and they have to operate in strict secrecy whether they are in the West or in the Middle East. I might also state that Saudi Arabia (which I DO despise) is against terrorism and have to state that no matter how repulsive I find their ideas, the majority of Wahhabis condemn the actions of Al Qaeda and other groups, thinking that they are against Islam.

This is good news, but I have no access to where this majority speaks out openly. I have only seen sporadic flashes in the public media and certainly nothing resembling a majority. Do they speak openly to each other? Is that what you mean?

Or maybe you could provide me with some places where there are indications of such majority? (I speak in earnest, not with intent to argue.)

I do know that the majority of Muslims I have known are peace-loving individuals who simply want to live their lives in productive serenity. I imagine they condemn Islamist fundamentalist terrorism, but I do not recall much speaking out from them, not even to me on being asked.

I have to also clarify something.

I'm not against violence whatsoever. I believe that sometimes, in the pursuit of justice after exercising all other diplomatic means a person may need to resort to violence to attain it. Thus, it may be completely necessary and justified to use violence. I am however, as stated above against violence being used against non-combatants.

I also wholeheartedly support anyone's right to self defence providing they do not transgress and become oppressors themselves.

I believe that violence is not a one sized fits all solution to any problem.

We are in total agreement here. In Objectivism and in libertarianism, there is the principle of not initiating force against others.

As to the more sensitive intimate questions I have, I will cover them as we go along. Also, please feel free to ask anything you wish. I am curious as to what you will think of Ayn Rand once you read her.

I think we are off to a great start.

May this one day become a large bridge for others to travel over.

Michael

[Dragonfly]

I haven't dodged any questions Dragonfly. I've answered every question to the best of my knowledge using the evidence at my disposal. I'm sorry if you don't find them satisfactory but at the end of the day, if I say something is not from the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him's mouth it is because that there are serious issues that indicate the sanad which is the chain of narration is not reliable or authentic. Then I mean just that. Hadith is a science and not something simple. The whole problem with this type of Wahhabi beliefs started when people, not educated in the science of hadith started thinking that they could interpret them and put value on hadiths that were not authentic just to promote their own perverted ideas.

Two examples:

3. I'm not saying that there is no punishment for adultery in Islam, the punishment for adultery (ie of married Muslims engaging in sexual relations outside of their marriage) is indeed stoning.

The question is however, do you even know when the punishment of stoning could be handed out? It's not something that is easily proven because it has to be witnessed by 4 reliable witnesses of good character who saw it at the same time up close ie seeing the sexual intercourse take place.

This means that the adulterers would have to have been doing it in the view of the public and in that case, imposing their deviation on the rest of society which they have no right to do, what's worse is that they would be publicly humiliating their spouses by doing such things in front of everyone which in my opinion is far worse.

In Islam, unlike some other religions we don't make divorce difficult to obtain for men or women. So why stay married to someone if you're going to cheat on them?

Having said that, if adulterers do it in their own privacy then that is up to them, it can be between them and God and no one will ever know because we are forbidden from spying on each other as per God's instruction in the Qur'an that states:

"O ye who believe! Shun much suspicion; for lo! some suspicion is a crime. And spy not, neither backbite one another. Would one of you love to eat the flesh of his dead brother? Ye abhor that (so abhor the other)! And keep your duty (to Allah). Lo! Allah is Relenting, Merciful." (Qur'an 49:12)

I see. Stoning of adulterers is fine, as they're only stoned when they don't do it in their own privacy and it has to be witnessed by no less than 4 reliable witnesses! In other words, adulterers are only stoned if we are very sure that they were committing adultery. Well, that's a great relief!

Second example:

Actually, There is no specific punishment for Homosexuality in the Qur'an. Homosexuality is no doubt forbidden in Islam, but you won't find a punishment that specifically relates to being homosexual in the Qur'an at all.

Ah, there is no specific punishment for homosexuality in the Qur'an, therefore there is nothing wrong with forbidding it? If something is forbidden, that implies that committing such an offence will be punished, but as there is no specific punishment mentioned in the Qur'an, that is of course fine and dandy.

I rest my case.

[Libertarian Muslim]

Adonis,

Oh boy...

How about we meet in the middle right now and just say that the situation as it exists must change and that the change cannot be unilateral and still work?

That, I believe, would establish some common ground we could eventually build something on.

Agreed.

I believe these are components, but not nearly the whole story.

I dearly wish the people involved in this conflict accepted the fact that it will not be resolved by oversimplification. There are some really complicated things going on here that have accumulated over decades. And they are many, not few.

Whilst I agree that this is not the whole story, I still stand by the fact that the issue appears to be one of racial or religious superiority granting a group of people from Europe more right to live in the land than the people who have lived there for hundreds of years. I don't support it and see it as a form of Anglo/European Neo-Colonialism.

It's been a while since I have looked into this. Here are some things from my own research in 2007. I am certain that much, much more is out there.

Three of my posts in a row: here, here and here.

Below is also a site I came across. I have not gone through it completely. From what I have been able to ascertain, it is maintained by Muslims (at least there are indications that it is), but I don't know anything about them. I imagine that Sheikh Abdul Hadi Palazzi is somehow involved since he is featured (the links to his works and sites are broken, but he has an entry in Wikipedia with many valid links). The site has a very good accumulation of historical documents and information.

Tell The Children The Truth

There are also some essays I posted in this Mideast section of OL. If I remember correctly, Bernard Lewis dealt with the Nazi leftovers in the Muslim world and Western governments funding them for cold war activities. I need to read through all that stuff again to find the exact passages. If you get the time and don't mind reading a bit of acrimony at times, the threads in this Mideast section can be quite informative

I'll try and see what I can find!

This is preaching to the choir and, incidentally, it is much worse than that. They also trained the secret police of despots around the world so they could terrorize their own citizens. I saw some of this up close. I lived in Brazil for over 30 years and know a bit about Operation Condor.

I don't know the particulars of the Middle East countries, but I have no doubt it was the same. Off the top of my head, the SAVAK of Iran under Shah Pahlavi comes to mind.

I unqualifiedly condemn this, both the brutal activities of the Western nations and the Muslim dictators (and other tin-pot dictators) who terrorized thier own citizens.

Yes, I'm quite aware of these also, in addition to things like the School of the Americas which produced some of the most evil people to walk the face of the Earth with their torture, rape and executions.

I believe we are on the same page.

Indeed.

This is good news, but I have no access to where this majority speaks out openly. I have only seen sporadic flashes in the public media and certainly nothing resembling a majority. Do they speak openly to each other? Is that what you mean?

Or maybe you could provide me with some places where there are indications of such majority? (I speak in earnest, not with intent to argue.)

I do know that the majority of Muslims I have known are peace-loving individuals who simply want to live their lives in productive serenity. I imagine they condemn Islamist fundamentalist terrorism, but I do not recall much speaking out from them, not even to me on being asked.

I wonder if you'd ever googled the phrase 'Islam condemns terrorism' or something similar? I don't think you'd find much in the News Media because it simply doesn't create fear which in turn doesn't sell.

Here are just a few links that I found that also link to many religious edicts and condemnations by scholars and organizations.

http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php

http://groups.colgate.edu/aarislam/response.htm

http://www.cair.com/AmericanMuslims/AntiTerrorism.aspx

http://www.khalidzaheer.com/essays/others/islam_condemns_terrorism.html

http://www.religioustolerance.org/islfatwa.htm

The thing is Michael that these things are under reported not only because they don't sell media, but also because there are certain groups of people, the global elite who need Islam to be seen as the enemy of the West so that they can justify their actions towards Muslims.

We are in total agreement here. In Objectivism and in libertarianism, there is the principle of not initiating force against others.

Ditto

As to the more sensitive intimate questions I have, I will cover them as we go along. Also, please feel free to ask anything you wish. I am curious as to what you will think of Ayn Rand once you read her.

Please, feel free to ask any time. I will start reading what I can find on Ayn Rand when I get the chance.

I think we are off to a great start.

May this one day become a large bridge for others to travel over.

Michael

Indeed! I am happy to have found such rational discussion, I am glad that the SOLO site wasn't the only example of objectionists that I've come across because they don't seem like a very friendly group of people and I believe that dialogue can only lead to progress.

I see. Stoning of adulterers is fine, as they're only stoned when they don't do it in their own privacy and it has to be witnessed by no less than 4 reliable witnesses! In other words, adulterers are only stoned if we are very sure that they were committing adultery. Well, that's a great relief!

It's simple dragonfly. If you aren't happy in your marriage. Get divorced. It isn't difficult to get divorced in Islam at all. Why stay in a relationship where you're not happy? What's worse is, why on earth would you humiliate your partner who may very well love you with all of their heart by engaging in acts of sex in the full view of the public? Do it in private and save your partner the humiliation of your public betrayal.

Ah, there is no specific punishment for homosexuality in the Qur'an, therefore there is nothing wrong with forbidding it? If something is forbidden, that implies that committing such an offence will be punished, but as there is no specific punishment mentioned in the Qur'an, that is of course fine and dandy.

There is no punishment in Islam for homosexuality Dragonfly. While it is forbidden in Islam and is a sin, you can't be punished for being gay or lesbian. The only punishments you can get would be for adultery or fornication. That is, if you are married and engage in sexual acts outside of marriage in public view, you'll be an adulterer and if you are unmarried and do the same thing in public, you will be a fornicator.

I rest my case.

What case? You said I was saying things that were not true and also dodging the questions. I have done neither of those.

[9thdoctor]

Welcome, you’ve got guts, and have earned praise. I’m curious what your reaction to the George Walsh piece is: http://www.objectivistcenter.org/showcontent.aspx?ct=397&h=51

We’re giving you a lot of reading assignments, take your time.

I’ve known Muslims, I even worked for one, but I’ve never conversed with a real fervent believer. In the US the only group I’ve seen try to get new followers is the Nation of Islam, which is strictly for blacks, they won’t even talk to whites. They stand and hand out literature at stoplights (though not to me).

I’ve read the Bible and the Koran. For the others who haven’t, I’d say if you read the Koran, follow it immediately with a reread of Deuteronomy, Joshua, and Job. A lot of the “worst” things in the Koran you’ll also find in the Old Testament, you can decide which is worse. For example the Koran calls for death to apostates, while in the Old Testament there’s a command that if someone (another Jew) tempts you to try out one of the pagan religions, it’s your responsibility to kill them immediately. Rare is the Jew or Muslim who puts these commands into practice today, so both traditions have evolved. The Koran forbids charging interest on loans too, I think its safe to say that’s gone out the window by now. There’s something about that in the New Testament, and even our fundamentalists let that one slip.

True the New Testament is not as “bad” on paper, but in practice the Christian’s record can’t be beat. Compare the conquest of Jerusalem by the 1st Crusade to its recapture by Saladin. I mentioned Job because I think it’s closest in flavour to the Islamic mindset: that we’re all subject to the will of God, and Islam stresses submission to that will. Jesus’s “lilies in the field” line is in the same vein. It’s pretty fatalistic, but not in the Calvinist sense, your choices in life count. Islam also strongly stresses its monotheism, by forbidding icons and the like.

Adonis, I’m curious if you disagree with the above characterizations. I’m sure my use of “bad” and “worst” isn’t to your taste, but this is an atheist site. Most of us think of religion as after-life insurance, in other words a scam. And there’s material in all the holy books that shocks the conscience of the modern secularist.

Now how you get from Islam to libertarianism philosophically, that I’d like to hear about. From my reading, the historical Caliphates are characterized as dictatorial welfare states, do you reject them as the proper form of government? Do you have a quick formulation? Say, political freedom is required for free will and freedom of conscience, therefore sincere embrace of Islam is only possible under a minimal state? But what about sharia?

PS I don’t think hanging out here is going to make you any friends among New Zealand libertarians, but looks like that bridge is already getting toasty.

[Dragonfly]

It's simple dragonfly. If you aren't happy in your marriage. Get divorced. It isn't difficult to get divorced in Islam at all. Why stay in a relationship where you're not happy? What's worse is, why on earth would you humiliate your partner who may very well love you with all of their heart by engaging in acts of sex in the full view of the public? Do it in private and save your partner the humiliation of your public betrayal.

That is a typical evasive answer. The fact is that you are justifying the stoning of adulterers with all that prattle about divorcing. Even if nobody else on this forum speaks up against such despicable ideas I'll do it. The wolfpack here is always busy bashing Xray because she has some critical remarks, but when someone with really evil ideas appears, it's all sweet peace and love. I'm disgusted.